IT PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BECAUSE THIS INTRODUCES PERVERSE INCENTIVES INTO THE SYSTEM AND RAISES COSTS, HOWEVER LARGE SUBSIDIES FOR DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE ARE A GOOD IDEA AND LIKELY TO ACHIEVE A SIMILAR EFFECT.https://twitter.com/MeetMckayla/status/1232354933879513088 …
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
Is there data on this? Wouldn’t making it free save money on ticketing staff and infrastructure and policing compliance?
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @synapse101
There's quite a bit of research on perverse incentives, I'm most familiar with the ones in health. You'd probably save some money yes, but people tend to devalue free things so I think you'd also have to spend more on cleaning and maintenance
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Hmm, not sure you can extrapolate from health to transport with confidence... are trams in the centre of Melbourne where they are free nite vandalized than the outer ones? Context is probably important my understanding is it has failed in US cities but succeeded in some European.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @GidMK
Lol, the all caps made it look like you were pretty certain...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Lol I was just vibing off the original tweet, I don't think there's much certainty when it comes to the economic impacts of free public services. Even in health, it's hard to know if entirely free (at the point of service) stuff is a good idea, as it often drives costs up
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.