[kelnos]

> If there were no fountain, then many people would get water bottles and that's too big of a hassle.

Right, and if there was no public transit, then many more people would need to buy and drive cars, and that's not great for the public's interest either.

[BasedGroyper99]

But a fountain is something that naturally occurs. It is used in that way because it gives more water than anyone can use, but enough water for everyone in reasonable amounts. It's not just some kind of lesser evil. Trains and railroads must first be built and maintained, they are on the same level as roads and busses.

I think there is a difference between providing the opportunity and giving things out for free.

[Hasnep]

You're saying public transport is on the same level as roads. Most roads are free to use because they're maintained with tax money, just like free public transport would be, because they're both in the public's interest.

[BasedGroyper99]

I'm saying the tracks are on the same level as roads. Not riding the trains.

[iggldiggl]

Roads are explicitly set up to be directly operated upon by members of the general public – railways on the other hand, not so much. [1] So a railway without a corresponding service isn't of much use to me as an end-user.

[1] Both because there are higher safety expectations for railways than for roads and because one of the inherent working principles of railways is to bundle individual demand into larger units (a.k.a. trains) that can be moved across the network en bloc. If everybody tried to operate their own individual little train across the network the way you do with driving your car, things wouldn't work out.