Ernst S Blofeld wrote:
In message
Bush wrote:
In the early 70s, one of the London rail studies came to the conclusion you
could actually save money on the UndergrounD by abolishing fares, as the
money collected was less than the cost of collecting and handling it.

This is entirely in keeping with a long held British tradition of
building follies or otherwise using (public) money to pay people to
perform tasks which are not economically viable. The most recent example
of this is the Child Support Agency which cost 70 pence for every pound
collected. There are many publicly funded activities which would not
survive a cost-benefit analysis but which are perpetuated because they
redistribute wealth and keep people employed.

Surely it's a bit more complicated than that. In the Underground
example, the collection of fares plays a significant role in keeping
vagrants out of the system and in suppressing demand for trivial use -
I imagine children and teenagers would find the Underground a great
place to 'play' without price controls in place.

Steve Adams