Paris Metro: Insurance for Fare Dodgers!

It won't be free. Someone has to pay for it. The question is how that cost is allocated.

taxpayers will pay for it just like sidewalks and streets in Paris

I heard about those idiots on the radio the other day. Paris metro is a bargain compared to many city's standards.

Christina - i do not endorse this group's methods but i think the idea that public transports, like sidewalks and streets, etc. should be a free public service

Do you think that everytime you walk down a sidewalk you should be charged a user's fee for maintenance, etc.

And again i do not like this group's tactics simply because right now others will have to pay more as a result but i do endorse their agenda of making public transports free to all - just like streets and sidewalks and street lamps, etc.

I agree, Palenque, public transit should be free (and not just in Paris). Everybody benefits: the people who use it, and the people who don't, by way of less pollution and fewer people/cars on the roads. Yes, taxes would pay for it, but as you point out taxes also pay for highways.

Hey, about making transit free and charging extra to drive a car, using that fee to offset the expense of running public transit?

Hey, about making transit free and charging extra to drive a car, using that fee to offset the expense of running public transit?>

Europe does this with its huge tax on gas at the pump and thus they have sophisticated transport systems like the Paris metro/RER - to me amongst the finest in the world i've experienced in terms of number of stations - frequency of service, etc.

And thus like Christina says the metro is a bargain compared to similar systems - esp those in the U.S.

Again, it wouldn't be "free for all." The cost would just be allocated among the users and non-users.

So if we aren't really making it free, what is the compelling reason to make the change?

As a visitor, changing the funding structure might benefit me (at a cost to the French, if part of their taxes), but I don't think that is fair.

As a visitor, changing the funding structure might benefit me (at a cost to the French, if part of their taxes), but I don't think that is fair>

do you think it fair you pay a VAT of about 20% on nearly every purchase in France? moneys that are used i presume to fund things like metros.

do you think it fair you pay a VAT of about 20% on nearly every purchase in France? moneys that are used i presume to fund things like metros.

As fair as paying a sales tax in the US ......

This is lala land. We are in the middle of an economic crisis with government debt exceeding 60% of GDP in 11 European countries.

France owes 1,489,025,000,000 Euros. They cant afford to give anything away.

Sounds like France oughta raise the VAT to about 100% to pay for it all

Pvoy - i was only using the VAT thing to counteract Bitter's statement:

<As a visitor, changing the funding structure might benefit me (at a cost to the French, if part of their taxes), but I don't think that is fair.>

and to illustrate that as a visitor you do indeed pay taxes in France. And i am not against that either.

"Do you think it fair you pay a VAT of about 20% on nearly every purchase in France? moneys that are used i presume to fund things like metros."

Yes. If there were no tickets, then the VAT (or some other tax) would go up. So, maybe I wouldn't be ahead. Anyway, you can't push one thing down without the other going up.

So what's the compelling reasong for eliminating tickets?

So what's the compelling reasong for eliminating tickets?>

like i said above

many more people would use the metro rather than drive - less money need be spent on roads - more folk riding the RER in means much less smog in a city plagued by smog - i may add a congestion fee like in London for any cars entering inside the Peripherique Ring Road too to discourage cars entering the city center.

all the cost of collecting fares and security gates to prevent fair dodgers would be eliminated - a huge savings in personnel and infrastructre and administrative costs - savings that would go into making the system better.

even at current reasonable fares the poorer elements can find it pricey to ride as well -

and public transport IMO is a public service just like sidewalks and streets and those are free, right?

Pal: Sidewalks aren't free. Just because there isn't a ticket to use them doesn't mean they are free. They are paid for out of some tax somewhere.

To suggest paying for subways would decrease traffic is a bit of a stretch. Those that can afford to drive in Paris, will not be inclined to change their actions. Those that take the metro, are not inclined to drive.....

I think it is an interesting question you pose?

Several lines closed down in my city and hospital workers, teachers, students and white and blue collar workers were out of luck. I know that is a little different scenario than what you are talking about but it made me think.

I know of a woman who no longer owns an operable car and she cant afford public transportation, so she cannot go on interviews with out asking family/friends which becomes quite taxing after awhile.
If she had free public transportation I wonder if she would have that job or at least time away to go to the free zoo, free museums, free concerts ,etc offered in this city so she had some quality of life?

Do you think that everytime you walk down a sidewalk you should be charged a user's fee for maintenance, etc.

Part of my property tax is for sidewalk maintenance, and my building comes to a point on a square, so we are paying for 3 different sidewalks -- therefore 200% more than most buildings.

Perhaps we should indeed charge a toll.

I think the greatest impact would be on shorter distance use. If no ticket was required, people would use it for shorter jaunts.

If the metro was free it would become even more crowded, and there would be no money for improvements. Any "free" service gets abused because people no longer see it as having any monetary value.

Nothing will ever be truly free while people have to be paid wages.

>a group of Parisians who have started an insurance scheme to pay the fines of Paris Metro fare dodgers<

Isn't capitalism wonderful.

BTW. pal, "there is no such thing as a free lunch".

Would only Parisians pay the extra taxes for unlimited, unticketed use of the metro? Seems as if the rest of the country might not be too happy to pay for a "free" system they cannot use. Perhaps all busses and trains throughout the country should be free too

<If the metro was free it would become even more crowded, and there would be no money for improvements. Any "free" service gets abused because people no longer see it as having any monetary value.>

So all major highways should be toll roads as if they are 'free' their use gets abused because people no longer see it as having any monetary value

I do fail to see much difference between major highways and major transit systems - one lets people drive their vehicles on it without charge and the tab is picked up by the government - why should not the metro be the same?

A double standard - or is it because the wealthier folk use the road and the poorer have to use public transportation?

I have read that a hge number of folks living inside the Peripherique in Paris do not have their own vehicle so cannot even take advantage of the free roads (granted autoroutes in France are largely too - but major thoroughfares are not) even though their tax moneys help pay for them.

Why should only the French (or any other country/city)pay for everyone else to ride on their metro system? Yes, it might seem that is the case for using sidewalks, but the various taxes are what help pay for the upkeep. There is no free lunch and this is an idea that just doesn't work or make sense.

If I visit a country or someone visits Florida (where I live) there are numerous taxes that are paid that help to share the costs. Gasoline taxes, hotel taxes, restaurant taxes, tolls, the list goes on and on. As a Floridian I have no problem with hotels having a $5 per night room tax, after all it is mostly paid by tourists. That helps to pay for the upkeep on the free public areas, such as parks and the beach. Not many real Floridians are crazy enough to go to the beach in the middle of summer or in the winter for that matter, unless they live near Miami. So the majority of the people there are tourists. With the tourists we have to provide the beach patrol, life guards, clean-up people and so on.

Public transportation is an offset to vehicular traffic, but it doesn't eliminate it. It is a heck of a lot cheaper and more convenient to ride a bus or subway in New York/Rome/London/Paris than it is to drive a car, find a car park and get to your destination.

So, to the original post, to fail to pay to ride "public transit" is just putting a larger burden on others. It isn't cool- it is selfish, stupid and unethical.

dave

Wow, that's interesting! I'm not used to ANY metro being free, or any form of transportation, for that matter - and I don't think it SHOULD be!

"I have read that a hge number of folks living inside the Peripherique in Paris do not have their own vehicle so cannot even take advantage of the free roads (granted autoroutes in France are largely too - but major thoroughfares are not) even though their tax moneys help pay for them."

And .......?
When your children have grown your tax money helps pay for schools even though you "don"t take advantage" of them. When you're in good health you don't "take advantages" of hospitals but pay for them through your taxes. Same with public swimming pools if you don't like to get wet, stadiums if you don't like sports or subsidized housing if you live in a privately owned house.
Many people who can afford a car in Paris don't want to own one and find it cheaper to rent one when they want to go somewhere else. Or take a train.

"So all major highways should be toll roads as if they are 'free' their use gets abused because people no longer see it as having any monetary value"

Yes. Thats the way it is in France. There are these roads called Autoroutes where people pay to drive.

"I have read that a hge number of folks living inside the Peripherique in Paris do not have their own vehicle so cannot even take advantage of the free roads (granted autoroutes in France are largely too - but major thoroughfares are not) even though their tax moneys help pay for them"

But, even if they do not own their own car, they are still using the services of the roads - how else does their food and clothing and puppy chow get to them? It isn't as if you have to actually drive on the road to have the advantages of it.

Wizardofaus, half of the autoroutes in France are "free".

Isn't there one major city on the west coast of the US with free public transport in the city center? Portland, OR?

If you to to Basel and have a hotel reservation all public transport is free, mainly trams. Being Swiss it is also very reliable.

Kerouc, to drive down south or even a short distance north of Paris, the best roads are toll roads. You will find that often to get from a to b in the quickest time, you need to take a toll road. I do not mind paying for the roads and I certainly do not mind paying for my metro pass. The servcie is pretty good and it is not expensive.

Having to buy tickets ensures all the tourists in Paris also contribute to the cost of the excellent public transport service, so no, I do not think the Paris metro should be free.

Compare the Paris price to the London price and the metro will at least feel free