Perhaps one of the most baffling arguments I've encountered in the "free public transport" debate is "no, it shouldn't be free, instead it should be higher-quality / more frequent"
Like, what do you mean "instead"? Who told you that it can only be either of the two, and not both? The same people who have been cutting lines and hollowing out transit on shaky reasons? How are their claims in any way credible? Why would you take this for truth?
(This is not aimed at anyone in particular, it's a rhetoric I keep seeing in transit debates all over the world)
@joepie91 and anyway it's not free. It's at no-cost-per-use, but still paid, and paid in a (hopefully) less regressive manner.
Since it's being paid for in a sustainable way, it can get much better!
Since it's being paid for in a sustainable way, it can get much better!
@joepie91 My favourite take is that making public transportation free is a bad idea because it causes crowded trains.
Typically from the same people who want bigger highways but not toll roads.