<http://alternet.org/environment/57802/>
[...]
The costs of collecting fares
A prime reason to quit charging people to take the bus is that collecting bus fares costs a lot of money. It takes both machines and people to sell, make and distribute tickets and collect, count and deposit cash.
[WS:] An interesting piece indeed, but it labors under a mistaken assumption that the main objective of the transit authorities in the US is to increase transit ridership. I do not think it is the case - I think the main objective is to provide the minimum necessary transportation services to that segment of the population that do not and will not own cars. Increasing transit ridership may lead to the increase of that segment, and that is what people who call themselves government try to avoid.
The reason why people who call themselves government want everyone who can afford it to buy a car is very simple - profits for the vast array of industries - from auto manufacturers to all kinds of services (insurance, dealerships, repair garages, parking facilities, parts, gadgets, etc.) - that sty in business by fleecing people who own automobiles. Since automobile is the most expensive means of transportation, i.e. it generates a lot of profits to a lot of people, it has the most privileged position in the US economy and policy makers.
In that respect, the US economy is like Windows-based computers - its "hardware" may be getting more purchasing/computing power, but most of that power is consumed by the ballooning operating system. For that reason, I sincerely doubt that "Fare-Free Public Transit Could Be Headed to a City Near You." I think the opposite will happen - a creeping increase in fares and user fees, as it already happening in Amtrak.
A related question - if collecting fares is so expensive, as the article claims, why does virtually every transit system in the world (even in x-socialist countries) collect fares and makes at least some efforts to enforce them? Could not they figure that out, or what?
Wojtek