It probably never have been financially viable, and that's alright, it's a public service
I'd argue it absolutely is financially viable to society, and moreso than the status quo. It's just less financially profitable for certain commercial interests than the status quo.
The trouble is with government, when you spend money somewhere you generally save it somewhere else, or earn it back elsehwere, and it becomes difficult to associate the spending with the cost savings or profits, such that the spending gets cut. In this case, allowing residents to use public transport for free encourages more people and more business to move to the area, which increases income through taxation. However, after a point someone will look at it and say "Why are we spending so much?" and try to cut it, without acknowledging the subsequent decline after the incentive is removed.
Spend more on trains, spend less on road maintenance, have less traffic then spend less on cops patrolling it.
You hit the nail on the head. The savings would be too distributed between different parts of the government to arrive at a specific number.
I think you're conflating 'financially viable' with 'profitable.'
Something that isn't 'financially viable' doesn't have the funding to stay in business.
Investing in public transportation has a 4:1 ROI in economic impact.
It is, and again I'm speaking from a UK-centric viewpoint, where the public services are privatised to the point where financial viability does have an impact on it, which is unfortunate as it waters the service down for everybody.
The article doesn't make it clear if the transport operation is state owned or privately operated, hopefully it's the former because I agree with the notion that it should be seen as a service with a net benefit rather than a cost on the accounting books.
It probably never have been financially viable, and that's alright, it's a public service
I'd argue it absolutely is financially viable to society, and moreso than the status quo. It's just less financially profitable for certain commercial interests than the status quo.
The trouble is with government, when you spend money somewhere you generally save it somewhere else, or earn it back elsehwere, and it becomes difficult to associate the spending with the cost savings or profits, such that the spending gets cut. In this case, allowing residents to use public transport for free encourages more people and more business to move to the area, which increases income through taxation. However, after a point someone will look at it and say "Why are we spending so much?" and try to cut it, without acknowledging the subsequent decline after the incentive is removed.
Spend more on trains, spend less on road maintenance, have less traffic then spend less on cops patrolling it.
You hit the nail on the head. The savings would be too distributed between different parts of the government to arrive at a specific number.
I think you're conflating 'financially viable' with 'profitable.'
Something that isn't 'financially viable' doesn't have the funding to stay in business.
Investing in public transportation has a 4:1 ROI in economic impact.
It is, and again I'm speaking from a UK-centric viewpoint, where the public services are privatised to the point where financial viability does have an impact on it, which is unfortunate as it waters the service down for everybody.
The article doesn't make it clear if the transport operation is state owned or privately operated, hopefully it's the former because I agree with the notion that it should be seen as a service with a net benefit rather than a cost on the accounting books.