9626 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Olympia now has 'free' transit fare.

 

But get this, only 2% of their revenue comes from fares, and the county opted to charge a higher sales tax to pay for transit. Which means each time you buy something, you're paying transit fare.

 

Nothing is ever free.

 

https://www.king5.co...c0-6eb799b3c667

[Ismo07]

Olympia now has 'free' transit fare.

 

But get this, only 2% of their revenue comes from fares, and the county opted to charge a higher sales tax to pay for transit. Which means each time you buy something, you're paying transit fare.

 

Nothing is ever free.

 

https://www.king5.co...c0-6eb799b3c667

 

Of course nothing is free when we are talking about a service.  Someone is paying for it but to the end user, when he/she is not paying for it as a whole it's termed 'free'..  Just easier to call it free rather than subsidized to "Paid for by other people".  If the user isn't paying for it it's free to them at that moment even if they were in part paying for it at some other time..  Let's get off this "it's not actually free' stuff, we know that 

 

So if you show up to Olympia you will ride the bus for 'free'. 

[Nparker]

...Just easier to call it free rather than subsidized...Let's get off this "it's not actually free" stuff, we know that...

When not described as subsidized, "free" public services are often mistaken as having no cost associated with them by many people, and that's simply not true. IMO it's a form of false advertising.

[Bernard]

I remember there was some research done on the impact of free transit.  I seem to remember people did not value it and there was increased vandalism and no increase in passengers.   I read this about 15 years ago but can not find it online 

[Ismo07]

When not described as subsidized, "free" public services are often mistaken as having no cost associated with them by many people, and that's simply not true. IMO it's a form of false advertising.

 

What public service is free with no costs associated?  Even free parking has a cost that has a cost that isn't associated.  Like the saying goes nothing is free.  The free refers to the user getting it, not the cost.

Edited by Ismo07, 03 January 2020 - 02:06 PM.

[Nparker]

...The free refers to the user getting it, not the cost.

And that's how it should be described - as having a cost.

[Ismo07]

And that's how it should be described - as having a cost.

 

How does the headline read "Transit has a cost but not to the users?"

[Greg]

Publicly funded goods and services. 

[Ismo07]

Publicly funded goods and services. 

 

LOL, if it's free to the users then you can call it free.  That's the point.  It's obvious there is a cost but none to the end user, so from that perspective it's free.

[Midnightly]

LOL, if it's free to the users then you can call it free.  That's the point.  It's obvious there is a cost but none to the end user, so from that perspective it's free.

the trouble with that is when you say "free" people forget that there is indeed a cost there.. and someone has to pay it, the money has to come from somewhere and that often gets forgotten.. it's like when the city brought in the bus passes people were up in arms that it was only "free" for victoria students because other students in the crd were not getting the passes... even though the city of victoria was paying for them

[vortoozo]

the trouble with that is when you say "free" people forget that there is indeed a cost there.. and someone has to pay it, the money has to come from somewhere and that often gets forgotten.. it's like when the city brought in the bus passes people were up in arms that it was only "free" for victoria students because other students in the crd were not getting the passes... even though the city of victoria was paying for them

 

What would you call the "first hour free" parking in the parkades, then?

[Victoria Watcher]

What would you call the "first hour free" parking in the parkades, then?

 

"first hour free - generously provided by victoria taxpayers - to lure you into town"

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 03 January 2020 - 04:19 PM.

[Nparker]

What would you call the "first hour free" parking in the parkades, then?

No charge for the first hour.

[Ismo07]

the trouble with that is when you say "free" people forget that there is indeed a cost there.. and someone has to pay it, the money has to come from somewhere and that often gets forgotten.. it's like when the city brought in the bus passes people were up in arms that it was only "free" for victoria students because other students in the crd were not getting the passes... even though the city of victoria was paying for them

 

Yeah they wanted free passes too, but they didn't get them.  They weren't up in arms cause all of a sudden they realized they were paid for by the City but that they didn't get the 'free' pass.   The 2,100 kids that got them got them for free.  To them they are free, so that's why we use that word.

 

The argument about the use of the word is moot.  To those kids (and their parents) they are free.  Public school is free to the student (for the most part), medical for lower incomes is free, the extra drink the bartender gives me is free, Transit rides for under 5 year old kids is free, the lights the DVBA put in Centennial square is there to be free for the public and parking after 6pm is free at night.  All of these things cost $$$ in some form to help provide the service but they are free to the users who are not paying.  To them it's free.  Yes it's subsidized but really to the base it's free.  Should remove that particular use of the word from the language cause there is an underlying cost?  Seems like an odd way to argue that one doesn't like providing something for free to someone else.  I get it, many don't believe transit should be provided at no cost to others under the guise that those people might not understand that the service is actually being paid for.  It's still free to that person.  Free...

[Nparker]

...The argument about the use of the word is moot....

That's the thing; from the PoV of the taxpayer, the point is not moot. What would be the harm in referring to the CoV's youth bus passes as "subsidized"? Is there a concern there would be less uptake then? 

[Mike K.]

Great lesson for kids, who already bemoan having to pick up their free passes. Society isn’t doing them any favours.

[Jackerbie]

That's the thing; from the PoV of the taxpayer, the point is not moot. What would be the harm in referring to the CoV's youth bus passes as "subsidized"? Is there a concern there would be less uptake then? 

 

It's entirely semantics and the "most appropriate" word changes based on the context. Yes, the passes are subsidized. But every single bus pass and bus fare is subsidized, because BC Transit only gets a portion of their operating budget from the fare box. "Subsidized" doesn't work as a distinct category.

 

What you're searching for is a marketable word or phrase that simultaneously means "no charge" and "not without cost."

[Jackerbie]

As others have said, the City has operated "free" parking for years, but somehow the phrase "free parking" is unobjectionable despite its cost to the taxpayer

[Mike K.]

That term can easily be “sponsored by City of Victoria taxpayers.” Teach the kids a lesson here that nothing is free, and for gosh sake the kid complaining about how tough it is to get to City Hall needs to toughen up. It’s a quick bus ride away. Any Friday would work, they get off at 2PM for gosh sake.

[Nparker]

It's entirely semantics...

Of course it is, which is why subsidized is every bit as accurate as free.