Is tragedy of the commons a solved problem? Genuinely wondering, because it seems to be the most obvious reason why free public transit shouldn’t be done.
The maximum amount of resources (public transport) one can take is limited.
Not everyone wants to take the resource.
It is possible to provide more than sufficient resources for everyone.
I don’t think this is a tragedy of the common problem
Tragedy of the Commons is why the roads keep overfilling with commuter cars carrying one person at a time. Public busses and trains would be a more efficient use of funds then building even more roads on the limited ground.
It was coined by an ecologist (Garrett Hardin), and (answering myself here after finding out) famously rebutted by the economist Elinor Ostrom, who won the Nobel Prize for her work. So tragedy of the commons, while a real phenomenon and can happen, is not inevitable by current understanding.
Like in a lot of things, the devil is in the details.
Did they really?
I thought one solution to the tragedy of the commons is regulation from above. E.g. limits on resource use.
How would privatization help here?
People start making perfectly walkable or bikable trips by bus
People start making trips they didn’t need to make at all
Public transit becomes dependent on public funding, which may fluctuate with economic downturns – whereas a private company would be more free to compensate
As a practical example, Tallinn, Estonia introduced free public transit some years back. Oddly enough, it had almost no effect to car usage although public transit use increased.
Is tragedy of the commons a solved problem? Genuinely wondering, because it seems to be the most obvious reason why free public transit shouldn’t be done.
The maximum amount of resources (public transport) one can take is limited. Not everyone wants to take the resource. It is possible to provide more than sufficient resources for everyone.
I don’t think this is a tragedy of the common problem
Tragedy of the Commons is why the roads keep overfilling with commuter cars carrying one person at a time. Public busses and trains would be a more efficient use of funds then building even more roads on the limited ground.
I know you thought you sounded really smart when you wrote this, but it’s just completely nonsensical to normal people.
“Those damn [xenophobic slur] need to work harder to afford [basic necessity]” - you probably
Was it ever actually a problem, or some BS made up by “economists” to justify privatization of public resources.
It was coined by an ecologist (Garrett Hardin), and (answering myself here after finding out) famously rebutted by the economist Elinor Ostrom, who won the Nobel Prize for her work. So tragedy of the commons, while a real phenomenon and can happen, is not inevitable by current understanding.
Like in a lot of things, the devil is in the details.
Did they really? I thought one solution to the tragedy of the commons is regulation from above. E.g. limits on resource use. How would privatization help here?
If free public transit means people use it, that’s a good thing.
I think it extremely unlikely people will abuse it to the point of ruining the service.
I can imagine a few ways it can go sideways:
People start making perfectly walkable or bikable trips by bus
People start making trips they didn’t need to make at all
Public transit becomes dependent on public funding, which may fluctuate with economic downturns – whereas a private company would be more free to compensate
As a practical example, Tallinn, Estonia introduced free public transit some years back. Oddly enough, it had almost no effect to car usage although public transit use increased.