I wonder how the costs of "working at taking your fare" measure up to just eliminate that work, and accept that people ride public transport for free and is paid from public funds, as they have decided in Luxembourg (where there is ample tax revenue) and Belgrade (where people have historically refused to pay, then the city made it official policy).
Do not discount the many benefits, which might be difficult to quantify!
> ...and Belgrade (where people have historically refused to pay, then the city made it official policy).
That sounds like a great story.
> Do not discount the many benefits, which might be difficult to quantify!
Yep! Anyone who thinks that a public transit company should make a monetary profit from rider fares is completely wrong. Public transit and public roads exist to facilitate happy lives as well as economic activity. If those things aren't included in your "are we making a profit?" analysis, then your analysis is just fucking wrong.
Every now and again, folks talk about making San Francisco's city transit system (MUNI) free of charge. The most frequent argument against that that I've heard is "but then the homeless will use the vehicles as mobile homeless shelters!"... which, like, there are ways to fix that, if you think it's a thing that needs fixing. As far as I know, MUNI has always required subsidies to operate, which -IMO- is how public transit should be run.
Do not discount the many benefits, which might be difficult to quantify!