196
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 month ago

Very likely, when you cap the price of something you have to pay the difference, since the public transport is run by private company. Even if it's government owned company, they still have to pay people that run the company so it will still cost the government if the fare is lower than the cost of running the bus service.

[-] SuluBeddu@feddit.it -1 points 1 month ago

If it was were public I'd understand that.

But if it's private, you're basically increasing demand on the service by artificially lowering the price, without addressing potential overcharges... I guess it's still OK because you reduce traffic and end up saving elsewhere, and you can bargain the price collectively. Still I would prefer that bargaining to happen before the measure is put in place and you start giving away public money to a private company

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago

That's very much the point. There's more to the cost/benefit ratio than just ticket price and the provider's profit margins. There's also the cost to the public of people not using buses: road congestion, which adds to everyone's commute times; the productivity impact of those longer commutes; the need for parking spaces when cars are used; the cost of that parking; the opportunity cost of those parking lots not being used for something else more socially valuable such as housing; the externalities such as additional noise, pollution and fatal accidents; the reduced disposable income that results from more costly (at point of use) options.

[-] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Most bus routes are already subsidised, as demand is often low in a rural area. Maybe there’s enough demand for a couple of services per day, but that’s inconvenient. Subsidies mandate minumum service levels, but don’t cover the full operating costs, so fares are necessary.

£2 per journey is not usually enough to cover costs, so the remainder is paid as another subsidy.

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

There's also a vicious cycle where, especially on rural routes, buses are infrequent, which creates a deterrent to using them at all, which in turn depresses ridership. You're not likely to make a bus trip into town to do some shopping if you can't get back home for eight hours, and you're not going to commute to work by bus if the only bus arrives at the needed destination three hours before you start work.

[-] SuluBeddu@feddit.it 1 points 1 month ago

Hopefully the increase in popularity will reduce per-person costs and at that point the government can do collective bargaining.

Thanks for the replies

this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
196 points (99.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

16516 readers
1027 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS