[PUBLISHED: #1479] Fares Fair?

[Minskiev]

Ah. Nice vocabulary.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Can't help but note that options 4 and 5 have nothing to do with the presented issue. What have luxury carriages and vacuum tubes got to do with fare dodging?

2 and 3 are fine, but don't seem comprehensive enough. You've basically got:

2) Just make it free
3) More enforcement.

1, meanwhile, addresses lower profits, but doesn't address the dodging.

I'd instead suggest reshuffling the order, and adding more options that address the dodging. That is, something like:

1) More enforcement
2) Stricter penalties as a deterrent
3) Forget turnstiles, just use facial recognition cameras linked to registered accounts, and catch unregistered would-be passengers.
4) Just make it free

[Paffnia]

The issue is supposed to be about fare policy, not just fare-dodging. I do think Options 1 and 4 are squarely fare policy options (higher fares and fare classes, respectively), though, yeah, Option 5 is somewhat of a stretch. If the options are only responses to fare-dodging alone, the enforcement options all seem too similar/have already limited the scope of the leader's response.

Do you have any ideas of how to reframe the issue introduction to make the current options each respond better? Past drafts have started with a focus on disrepair/declining transit budgets first, but then making the connection to fare-dodging feels strained.

[Daarwyrth]

The issue is supposed to be about fare policy, not just fare-dodging. I do think Options 1 and 4 are squarely fare policy options (higher fares and fare classes, respectively), though, yeah, Option 5 is somewhat of a stretch. If the options are only responses to fare-dodging alone, the enforcement options all seem too similar/have already limited the scope of the leader's response.

Do you have any ideas of how to reframe the issue introduction to make the current options each respond better? Past drafts have started with a focus on disrepair/declining transit budgets first, but then making the connection to fare-dodging feels strained.

Perhaps you could consider altering the options more, to fit the current introduction/description of the issue? While a really nice idea, option 5 isn't really necessary and 5 options in total seems quite a bit. I agree with Candlewhisper as to the proposed option order and content, as that would align better with the issue you're describing.

I believe option 5 could be material for its own issue draft. I bet there is interesting subject matter to be inserted into such an issue

[Paffnia]

New draft:

Fares Fair?
Validity: have public transit

The Issue
A recent audit of transit systems across @@NAME@@ revealed more cobwebs than coins in ticket vending machines, even though trains and buses are as crowded as ever. Worried about falling ticket revenues and rising numbers of fare evaders, your Minister of Transit suggests you rethink transit fare policy, starting by going down into the subway and seeing the problem for yourself.

The Debate
1. "The trains are barely running!" laments a subway driver, leaning out the window as the train releases a worrisome hiss. "I got stuck in the tunnel for an hour yesterday because of a faulty electrical line, but my manager says there's not enough money from fares to fix it. To get transit budgets back on track, we need to raise ticket prices, high enough to cover the full cost of keeping systems in operation. Sure, some people still won't pay, but with the extra money from riders who do, I can finally give this ol' train a tune-up."
Effect: poor transit riders are thrown under the bus.

2. "Forget raising fares: transit should be free!" yells a teenager who was just arrested by a police officer for jumping over a fare gate. "Everyone has right to get where they need to go—rich people, poor people, people like me who, uh...left their transit pass at home. You have some tax money lying around to cover free fares, right?"
Effect: station agents beg for money on subway platforms.

3. "If you can't pay the fare, don't ride the train," declares Officer @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@ as @@HE@@ handcuffs the teen. "What we really need is more cops on the system to make sure everyone pays—I'm the only officer on the transit beat! And to stop scofflaws like this one, we've also gotta get security cameras, impregnable fare gates, heftier fines for fare-evading, and—hey, get back here!"
Effect: commuters pass through barbed-wire gates to get on the subway.

4. "It's not about quantity of tickets but quality," sneers Mr. Ron Opoly, a tycoon who owns all four railroads in a nearby coastal resort city. "It is only proper that the upper crust should travel in manner befitting our wealth and status. We must add luxury train cars to subways, first-class reclining seats to buses, and private cabins to ferries! Those of us who like to travel in style will gladly pay more for a more refined transit experience, and our premium tickets will boost transit budgets, to boot. The rest of the teeming masses can pack into steerage like they always have."
Effect: there are only enough lifeboats for the first-class passengers on public ferries.

5. Pushing through the growing crowd of delayed commuters, tech entrepreneur Allen Musket waves a set of blueprints at you. "The best way to set transit fares is through competition on the private market! My new vacuum tube Hyperpool will out-compete these antiquated trains! It's passed all its safety tests...almost. Once I get the permits to demolish a few buildings and build my system, people will pay for whichever mode they like best."
Effect: vacuum tube transit sucks up money.
Validity: allow private industry

I've changed the intro again to make low fare revenues the primary issue, and fare evasion secondary (but related). That way, Options 1 and 4 now more explicitly respond to the dilemma: they are ways of increasing fare revenues, though not through addressing fare evasion directly. Option 5 is still somewhat tangential (though arguably now responsive); I like it but could cut it if it's too much.

[Daarwyrth]

Minister of Transit

I'd change this to "Minister of Transportation", as not only does it sound more logical that way, it also avoids the use of "transit" twice in the sentence

I can finally give this ol' train a tune-up.

I am a bit uncertain about this line. Why would the train driver be giving the tune-up? Shouldn't that be the job of the transportation business owning the train? If you'd change it to "this ol' train could finally get a tune-up" to avoid the question I mentioned.

As to option four, it still feels a little bit out there with the solution it proposes. Like sure, I understand that if rich people have to pay more, this will improve revenues for the train company, but I wonder whether that would be enough to be a viable solution. Because rich people have different means of transportation they could use and likely wouldn't want to rely on public transit. Public transportation still will be primarily used by the middle and lower class, so the increase of luxury - which would arguably cost a lot - wouldn't be earned back with increased revenues by the rich people. It's why I'd urge you to consider changing this option still, as while fun and nicely written, the increase in luxury in public transports isn't a viable solution to the problem this issue premise describes. It could be turned into its own issue draft with the right premise, but I feel it doesn't fit in this one.

The same applies for option 5, it doesn't offer a solution to the issue at hand, as just like you say in the effect line, it only seems to soak up money, not provide an increase in revenue. If such a train system would be set up, then it would require huge investments in order to be built. That means expenses instead of incomes for the train company. And even if the vacuum transit system is set up, how does it solve the issue of train fare evaders? Those would still be present and carry on as they did with the normal trains.

[Paffnia]

New draft:

Fares Fair?
Validity: have public transit

The Issue
A recent audit of transit systems across @@NAME@@ revealed more cobwebs than coins in ticket vending machines, even though trains and buses are as crowded as ever. Worried about falling ticket revenues and rising numbers of fare evaders, your Minister of Transportation suggests you rethink transit fare policy, starting by going down into the subway and seeing the problem for yourself.

The Debate
1. "The trains are barely running!" laments a subway driver, leaning out the window as the train releases a worrisome hiss. "I got stuck in the tunnel for an hour yesterday because of a faulty electrical line, but my manager says there's not enough money from fares to fix it. To get transit budgets back on track, we need to raise ticket prices, high enough to cover the full cost of keeping systems in operation. Sure, some people still won't pay, but with the extra money from riders who do, this ol' train could finally get a tune-up."
Effect: poor transit riders are thrown under the bus.

2. "Forget raising fares: transit should be free!" yells a teenager who was just arrested by a police officer for jumping over a fare gate. "Everyone has right to get where they need to go—rich people, poor people, people like me who, uh...left their transit pass at home. You have some tax money lying around to cover free fares, right?"
Effect: station agents beg for money on subway platforms.

3. "If you can't pay the fare, don't ride the train," declares Officer @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@ as @@HE@@ handcuffs the teen. "What we really need is more cops on the system to make sure everyone pays—I'm the only officer on the transit beat! And to stop scofflaws like this one, we've also gotta get security cameras, impregnable fare gates, heftier fines for fare-evading, and—hey, get back here!"
Effect: commuters pass through barbed-wire gates to get on the subway.

4. "It's not about quantity of tickets but quality," sneers Mr. Ron Opoly, a tycoon who owns all four railroads in a nearby coastal resort city. "It is only proper that the upper crust should travel in manner befitting our wealth and status. My peers and I could be convinced to leave our limos if you added luxury train cars to subways, first-class reclining seats to buses, and private cabins to ferries. Those of us who like to travel in style will gladly pay more for a more refined transit experience, and our premium tickets will boost transit budgets, to boot. The rest of the teeming masses can pack into steerage like they always have."
Effect: there are only enough lifeboats for the first-class passengers on public ferries.

Minister of Transit

I'd change this to "Minister of Transportation", as not only does it sound more logical that way, it also avoids the use of "transit" twice in the sentence

Done.

I can finally give this ol' train a tune-up.

I am a bit uncertain about this line. Why would the train driver be giving the tune-up? Shouldn't that be the job of the transportation business owning the train? If you'd change it to "this ol' train could finally get a tune-up" to avoid the question I mentioned.

Done.

As to option four, it still feels a little bit out there with the solution it proposes. Like sure, I understand that if rich people have to pay more, this will improve revenues for the train company, but I wonder whether that would be enough to be a viable solution. Because rich people have different means of transportation they could use and likely wouldn't want to rely on public transit. Public transportation still will be primarily used by the middle and lower class, so the increase of luxury - which would arguably cost a lot - wouldn't be earned back with increased revenues by the rich people. It's why I'd urge you to consider changing this option still, as while fun and nicely written, the increase in luxury in public transports isn't a viable solution to the problem this issue premise describes. It could be turned into its own issue draft with the right premise, but I feel it doesn't fit in this one.

I think fare classes are an important fare policy option, and plus the issue needs a somewhat ridiculous option. I'd like to keep it, but I have added explicit reference to rich people leaving their limos if the option was adopted. I don't think this could be an issue on it's own anyways.

The same applies for option 5, it doesn't offer a solution to the issue at hand, as just like you say in the effect line, it only seems to soak up money, not provide an increase in revenue. If such a train system would be set up, then it would require huge investments in order to be built. That means expenses instead of incomes for the train company. And even if the vacuum transit system is set up, how does it solve the issue of train fare evaders? Those would still be present and carry on as they did with the normal trains.

I've cut this option, as much as I love another Musk parody name.

[Paffnia]

Bumping for more suggestions; I hope to submit soon.

[Westinor]

your Minister of Transportation suggests you rethink transit fare policy

I think the tense is incorrect here, it might work better as "your Minister of Transportation has suggested that you rethink transit fare policy, starting..."

"Forget raising fares: transit should be free!" yells a teenager who was just arrested by a police officer for jumping over a fare gate.

I think "for attempting to jump the fare gate" sounds a bit better here, but definitely a style choice

we've also gotta get security cameras, impregnable fare gates, heftier fines for fare-evading, and—hey, get back here!"

Consider adding "new security cameras". Not sure if it's safe to assume that there are already security cameras in place for that, though. It just adds a bit of shine.
As for the fare gates, "impregnable" is just giving up where you could give a colorful description. C'mon, you could add laser-forcefield barrier gates here! (or any other description)

"It's not about quantity of tickets but quality,"

Consider removing "tickets" altogether, since this already gets the point across.

and our premium tickets will boost transit budgets, to boot.

Probably remove the comma, though I'm not entirely sure.

Well-written issue overall, the language is great!

[Paffnia]

Well-written issue overall, the language is great!

Thanks so much!

your Minister of Transportation suggests you rethink transit fare policy

I think the tense is incorrect here, it might work better as "your Minister of Transportation has suggested that you rethink transit fare policy, starting..."

Done.

"Forget raising fares: transit should be free!" yells a teenager who was just arrested by a police officer for jumping over a fare gate.

I think "for attempting to jump the fare gate" sounds a bit better here, but definitely a style choice

Changed.

we've also gotta get security cameras, impregnable fare gates, heftier fines for fare-evading, and—hey, get back here!"

Consider adding "new security cameras". Not sure if it's safe to assume that there are already security cameras in place for that, though. It just adds a bit of shine.

Added.

As for the fare gates, "impregnable" is just giving up where you could give a colorful description. C'mon, you could add laser-forcefield barrier gates here! (or any other description)

Hmm, I'll leave that for the issue effect. Want it to be somewhat of a surprise/unintended consequence.

[Westinor]

Hmm, I'll leave that for the issue effect. Want it to be somewhat of a surprise/unintended consequence.

In that case, I'd suggest making it a bit more ambiguous. "Upgraded" might work better than "impregnable".