That wasn't the criticism, the T should be free. Its a criticism of doing a wonkish version of the same thing that actually doesn't resolve the funding gap in any way. (the state still has to come up with the same funding difference that everyone was balking at in the other thread). How would the state/towns pay for buying passes for residents? Thats a new expense just as much as eliminating fares would be.
At that point why would they be spending money enforcing fares they are paying? Why not simply eliminate that redundant spending and make it free directly?
Because of "vagrants" now "hooligans" and "graffiti"? Sounds like the same tough on crime nonsense that has been making cities hostile to poor people and to people of color for decades. And if thats really your concern let's take all the money spent on fare gate enforcement and put it into routine cleanings. You can address the problem (if you grant it as a real problem and not a variation of tired petty crime panic rhetoric we've heard too many times) in other ways.
There is also evidence, such as studies finding a zero price effect, that people might even overvalue things that are free. It does not immediately follow that making something free, and a public good means people don't value it. The idea that making it free inherently means more hooligans etc does show that you do think that poor people who might ride for free but wouldn't (be able to) otherwise are more likely to be hooligans though.
The difference in reaction between this tells me what a lot of people's real issue is with making the T free, that the wrong sort of people will ride it.
Yeah, I mean, to be clear, I'm not onboard with complaining about "vagrants, hooligans, and graffiti". People are people, and we've got to take care of everyone in our cities. So I disagree with fattony's framing but honestly wasn't focusing on that because I think it's largely unrelated to the structural proposal that was being laid out (which was interesting and new). And
@Brattle Loop summarizes very well the distinction between asking "Should the T be free?" and "What are ways we can get there, or at least part of the way there?"; I was engaging with the latter question.
That all being said -- if we ever do come across a winning proposal to (effectively) eliminate fares-at-point-of-entry, that proposal
will need to assuage the concerns of those people who complain about "vagrants, hooligans, and graffiti", unjust and contemptible though those concerns might be. So if we actually want to
win, it's not a bad idea to figure out a way to address those concerns. And, as Brattle Loop laid out, breaking this strategy up by municipality means that the likes of Somerville, Everett, and Chelsea can barrel ahead on this as fast as they want (hell, they could implement this within a matter of weeks if not days), while other places (who'll remain unnamed) can take their time.
(And, not for nothing, something like this could be implemented externally to municipalities as well. A private group could fund transit purchases for all residents of a specific ZIP code, for example.)
As for how municipalities will pay for this, there are many options (which -- again -- is a benefit, not a bug, of this idea). Existing budget can be reallocated. Grants -- whether federal or private -- can be applied for to cover the program on a pilot basis. User fees for things like parking passes can be modestly increased. And then of course there is the dreaded "T" word: taxes. There are a wide variety of mechanisms available for fine-tuning taxes so that they are equitable and encourage the kinds of changes we are all gearing toward.
Again, to be clear, I'm not onboard with complaining about "vagrants, hooligans, and graffiti". And despite all the time I've spent defending it, I'm not super invested in this idea, nor do I necessarily think it's a good one. But I think it's thought-provoking, and worth thinking through (which I'm still doing, even now).