I can see where you're coming from, but I think we're having a fundamentally different view of what a tag is doing.

You continue to use words like 'destroy' - it is clear that you feel tags somehow reduce the function of public transport, which I don't think they do.

In the case of graffiti, whether tags or not, my argument is they have as much of a right to be there as advertisements. I don't see them as an eyesore, but even if they were they are equally valid as the ads on the wall, posts, and backs of seats.

As you mentioned, without going in to specific examples of public transport the argument as to whether the profit goes to improving the service is valid, but I can only say from experience (working in state government) that the profits from ours go nowhere but the pockets of the corporate owners. The state pays for everything, and it's a well known rort.

Clearly were at loggerheads. I believe tags are valid, good and cause no harm to the train, and are certainly more valid than the ads and have a place there. I also like how tags look. You don't like how they look, and therefore believe they should be gone. There is really nothing I can say to convince you, and that's ok. This probs shouldn't be the biggest cause for division on the website.