Re: Green and Accessible Public Transport
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2022 7:29 am
Account for externalities and you might have an argument.
Well that’s clarified something for me, thanks.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 1:44 amI find it very difficult to believe that it is inherently so expensive - that somehow there is no economy of scale from taking several bus passengers together or even a train load.
With respect I'm not sure that an awful lot is being said here. I could counter those anecdotes: I've been treated wonderfully by the NHS and terribly by companies I pay money to; conversely I've had difficult relationships with clients that have paid for my services and great ones with clients that haven't. You are just making assumptions that may or may not be borne out in evidence - but even if they are then those attitudes don't have to be set in stone. They might be difficult to shift and it might take a long time (again I'm not accepting they definitely exist anyway) but I don't think there is anything inherent in 'money=respect'.IvanV wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:46 amThe second point about culture has a lot of truth in it. But I also worry that when things are handed out for free, the producer of that free service might take less care to provide it in a manner of suitable care and respect and quality, in particular respect for the user's time. In cases where there are both paying and non-paying customers, there can also be a risk that the latter are not treated with the care and respect of the former.
For example, I find that the NHS has limited respect for the value of my time, in comparison to providers of services I pay directly for. Not all the time, but sometimes. A proportion of the users of free services can also have disrespect for them on their side. Another example is the disrespect occasionally suffered by people trying to travelling on a train with a bicycle, when this service is provided for free, both by train staff and by other passengers on the train.
It might well be expensive for local councils, but that's due to central government policy decisions that can be changed or reversed, and perhaps a need to question the value of a 'material cost' rather than just its price.My experience of bus companies outside London is that concessionary travel can be quite a material proportion of their traffic. 30% isn't unusual. From 9.30-3.30, it can be the great majority of traffic on some routes. The expense in providing it is indeed small in the grand scheme of things. But it isn't so small for local councils required to reimburse the loss of income and additional costs to bus companies legally required to provide this concessionary travel. Especially given how tightly central government has controlled local authority budgeting. And there are a lot of things that are "cheap in the grand scheme of things", but start to become a material cost if you are generous on too many of them.
The point that free goods and services can often result in less respect between customer and supplier in both directions is a well-established and strong principle. I provided anecdotes not to try and demonstrate it, but help readers to understand it. If you want the demonstration, you can find that in the economics literature. I often provide references to the literature to support such claims, but on this occasion I don't have a handy reference I can think of. I apologise that trust me, I'm an expert, isn't very satisfactory, but it's the best I can do today on this one.discovolante wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 8:57 pmWith respect I'm not sure that an awful lot is being said here. I could counter those anecdotes ...IvanV wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:46 amThe second point about culture has a lot of truth in it. But I also worry that when things are handed out for free, the producer of that free service might take less care to provide it in a manner of suitable care and respect and quality, in particular respect for the user's time. In cases where there are both paying and non-paying customers, there can also be a risk that the latter are not treated with the care and respect of the former.
Anecdotes....
Anyway I think I'm getting a bit tired of analyses that just look inwards at the existing constituent components of an issue without thinking about how the issue fits into a larger structure....
I think that might be subtly different as it wasn't so much about provision/use of a free service but about people taking a service for free that wasn't being intentionally provided at all*. So there was a level of guilt which wouldn't exist if they were using a service that was offered as free.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 11:53 pmOTOH the chapter in Freakonomics about fining parents for late kindergarten pickups suggests that providing a service free engenders more respect than a low charge.
A very nice and accurate explanation.bagpuss wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:34 amI think that might be subtly different as it wasn't so much about provision/use of a free service but about people taking a service for free that wasn't being intentionally provided at all*. So there was a level of guilt which wouldn't exist if they were using a service that was offered as free.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 11:53 pmOTOH the chapter in Freakonomics about fining parents for late kindergarten pickups suggests that providing a service free engenders more respect than a low charge.
*For those unfamiliar with the chapter/book, it's about a nursery where they had a problem with parents arriving late to collect their children, so a fine was introduced, something like £x per 5 minutes late or whatever. The problem with lateness actually increased and the conclusion was that parents no longer felt as bad about being late as they saw it that they were now paying for that extra time.