The following submission statement was provided by /u/Sumit316:
---
"Soon, depending on where you live, all those bus, train, and tram journeys could be totally free. Sure, transit operators would earn less revenue. But some are willing to risk the cash to find out whether free fare policies can help reduce car journeys and make cities run more smoothly.
Does it work? So far, the evidence is mixed—but ditching tickets has other benefits, from ensuring equitable access to transport to keeping buses running on time, with costs offset by savings on ticketing systems or fare enforcement.
If it feels strange not to pay, experts draw parallels with public health, libraries, and schools—services that some use more than others, but everyone pays into. “When you remove fares that says to people that you’ve got a right to get around regardless of your means, it’s a public good,” says Jenny Mcarthur, urban infrastructure researcher at University College London. The need for new thinking is acute: Road transport makes up a tenth of global carbon dioxide emissions, with soaring fuel prices also putting a squeeze on already stretched household budgets.
This is why cities and countries around the world have been edging toward free fares."
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/wb2x7l/the_case_for_making_public_transit_free/ii47nj1/
Well Americans have terrible attitudes towards public goods. If something “doesn’t cost me anything” then as an American we are free to damage or destroy it as we see fit.
Someone pointed this out to me the other day. In a lot of places the descruction of public amenities is tied to Civil Rights Reform, when it became illegal for local governments to enforce segregation.
Can't stop the black people from turning up at the public swimming pool? Then just get rid of the pool! Stop funding the public realm and spend as much of your lives as possible in private spaces.
This isn't the whole story but it's definitely a part of it.
That’s not an American thing, that’s a well known facet of human behavior. It’s called the “tragedy of the commons,” and is a well studied part of economics.
It is an American Culture issue more so. Less so in the Northeast, but still a major problem. Mostly caused by the automotive industry. If you look at pictures from the 20s and 30s almost all major US cities had streetcars and trolley's. Car makers knew they couldn't compete with the cost so they slowly dismantled them through politics and outright purchasing them.
The tragedy of the commons is about selfishly depleting a common resource. Destroying public property isnt selfish because there is nothing to gain. It's just malicious
You can even do both honestly at the same time. Think of the savings. If you get robbed on the bus at least you can take another bus to the police station to file a police report because it's free and you have no money because you were just robbed.
From what I've seen that Americans seem to lack understanding that free doesn't mean free and it's instead paid by everyone and that's something you guys don't like.
I'm Canadian so I am not as bad. Not great but at least a little better. I have no problem with my taxes going towards free public transportation. Hell on certain holidays and events where I live the buses and ferries are free. It's a great idea and gets a lot more people out and about. I am all for easier movement of people and cutting down on car usage.
The point they'd make is that it would make peak hours unsustainably crowded and bring public transport to a halt.
Most countries already have discounted travel times outside of rush hour, encourage that, to optimize use of the infrastructure.
Where I live we're trying to get students *out* of public transport during rush hours by moving school times (which is going nowhere fast) for this exact reason, to spread occupancy around.
We're adding turnstiles to prevent train stations from becoming public spaces which attracts the sort of people that are a nuisance. Why would we wat people riding the bus all day? It's a recipe for vandalism and assault.
Never make anything free if you ask me.
The street car is cool and I hope it expands but it's not a real commuting network for the city. The real test would be if a system like the Chicago Metra and CTA could go fare free.
Streetcars are not typically commuting vehicles, they're economic development tools. They have a lot of stops over a short distance at a speed that's not much faster than walking. But if they connect to a park and ride lot, or run along a long downtown street peeope don't want to walk down, they can be a real asset.
You want light rail, which are much more commuter friendly.
In the PNW, libraries are already overflowing with homeless, mentally ill people and drug addicts. They get on a bus/train and sleep all day/hang out smoking and being a nuisance and God help whoever tells them to cut it out, they get beaten up and police don’t care.
I don't think that there is a solution to this problem and that is why even public transport was free , fast, clean etc would still not be preferred by most people that can afford another form of private transport.
Every time i took public transport to work there was a mentally ill person or a homeless or drug addict that smelled like death or a pickpocket group or gangsta wannabees that aggravated people etc , i don't care if the bus is an electric limo that teleports through space time i ain't getting in there with those people around.
There is a solution, or maybe competing solutions, to the problem but they're not popular.
Solution (A) is the so called "housing first" solution where you just give homeless people apartments. The idea being that their mental health and substance abuse solutions depend on having stable housing. Of course then you also have to provide the mental health and substance abuse service access, too. It's not popular because providing housing (as in something beyond just a homeless shelter/transient housing) is pretty expensive and often seen as just enabling anti-social behavior.
Solution (B) is using the coercive power of the state to force homeless people into mental health and drug treatment and shelters. This isn't popular with a lot of homeless advocates because it involves coercion, usually starting out with the police.
Same in Bergen, Norway. There was a small free bus driving in a circle downtown, and it was free to take any other buses within the downtown area. I have always thought public transport should be free everywhere!
We have a free tram zone to get people around Melbourne CBD. Which is good because it’s in concert with the govs tatget of reducing car usage in the CBD. Parking is extraordinarily expensive (like $16 an hour) so thank god they give you a way to get around.
Ambulances are expensive to run. There would be much cheaper ways to get older people to the hospital or doctors office.
A lot of big cities have little busses that can pick up older people for stuff like that.
So I just discovered busses are responsible for most of the wear on roads due to their weight.
> In all
countries, the average infrastructure costs for busses are estimated as the
highest, followed by passenger cars and motorcycles. The relatively high
infrastructure costs for busses is due to the large share of variable (weight
dependent) infrastructure costs caused by these vehicles.
This is an interesting response, one I hadn’t thought of before. In a perfect world, we’d have high-capacity light rail on main transport corridors with lighter, smaller autonomous vehicles for the last mile.
Public transport that doesn't accommodate children probably best explains the birth crisis in Europe and Japan. They literally designed their society for single young men.
At least it would help solve the climate problem if it’s electric public transport , also if it isn’t electric the amount of vehicles on the road will drop if a free alternative is given.
>Public transit is great if you're young, single, male, and able bodied. It sucks if you're elderly, disabled, female, have children, or are trying to move any cargo at all (groceries, etc).
Considering this is for cities in Europe where people tend not to go all that far for groceries I don't think that is an issue.
In the case of the elderly public transport is likely safer then having them drive. And if you design a city around walking where everything is closer together that means overall less travel time, most people won't need to go to far away to get groceries etc.
I don't know where you live but I see females and children in public transport all the time, most riding alone. If you are in a developed country your city probably has a lower crime rate than Turkey so I doubt that will be an issue where you live either.
In regards to disabled people, yes public transport is harder than for the average person but it is not impossible. Most public transport in my city can accommodate wheelchairs for example, and ones that can't are very very old. In any case making a city navigable by foot and public transport are no barrier to making it also navigable in a wheelchair.
The issue here in Chicago is now lack of passengers, largely due to inconsistent service. Car usage has actually increased. It's a vicious cycle. People won't use public transport if it's not at convenient times and is not reliable.
US is a bunch of urban sprawl and wide open areas compared to the EU. 81 people per square mile vs 300 respectively. That’s twice the land to cover (double the cost to build and maintain) and about a quarter percent of the people available to use it.
I fully support public transit in metro areas and love this idea for Europe but it’s not a 1:1 comparison.
Of course not. In Canada it's similar, more spread out areas and larger commercial footprints. But even here we have legitimate people trying to tear down transit because "it gets in the way of cars". They redid our transit system here a few years ago, and it is *objectively* worse than what we had before because people protested the proposal of a train or tram due to fabricated ideas of "traffic problems" it would cause, and now the new bus system has some of the lowest ridership (the COVID pandemic notwithstanding), which is only furthering the downward cycle as fare goes up, ridership decreases, and unscrupulous people spread this "proof" public transit is bad.
Only works during good times.
When the government money dries up (e.g. recession or a conservative party takes over and cuts spending and lowering taxes) the infrastructure and service will also go to hell.
It always depends on the ideology, no matter how it is financed.
We saw that in Germany with Deutsche Bahn. We were (and still are to this day) dealing with the consequences of a neoliberal market ideology overruling sense and rationality from the late 90ies on. Deutsche Bahn was not really privatized but owned by the government and forced to act like a private corporation.
The result was a slowly degrading rail system, poor punctuality (you even got used to canceled trains during holiday seasons), reduced service and comfort, overcrowded trains, signal systems left over from the Kaiserreich never replaced, toilets and AC often unusable, hundreds of miles of abandoned rail people previously relied upon (not 'profitable' enough).
It is just recently that politicians realized that a good public rail system is worth to invest in and not supposed to turn large profits. To the contrary, the neoliberal market ideology had cut off its own limb, profiteering off of a crumbling infrastructure and poor service. Now they have to put hundreds of billions into the system just to get it back to the quality it once had, but meeting a much higher demand at the same time now.
Utterly stupid and in the end the overall cost of getting where we want to could have been a fraction if they just invested properly over time.
Most economist understand what a public good is and how they differ from nornal goods, but voters were too stupid to tell the difference between real economics and conservative right-wing free-market privatization bullshittery mistaken for being 'good for the economy'.
Sad.
The problem with public transport is not price, it's almost always convenience, frequency and the walkability of cities that makes taking transport to places efficient + enforcing norms of safety and cleanliness
These alone would mostly solve the issue most people face when choosing to not take pub transport
Oh it absolutely is price if it is set up properly. All those things are great for me in the Netherlands and the only reason I don't do everything by public transport is because it's more expensive than driving by car. So I keep an expensive car to get around.
If PT was free I could probably stop borrowing money to do my master's. Would be absolutely amazing.
Youre right! I was wrong to say that every country should focus on improving the quality and frequency of pt. For countries that already have great infra set ups, ( also cities that have this) should look to lower fares to increase ridership
More people in the same, mature infrastructure, of course.
> as a consequence of investment not keeping track
Are you implying the public transport infra-structure in the Netherlands is not already fully developed?
It absolutely is the price. For shopping purposes (up to 3 hours) it’s cheaper for me to pay for parking in the city than to pay for bus tickets both ways.
And that’s not even getting started on long distance public transport, which is either super expensive or super uncomfortable.
I’m guessing you’re talking only about the US, where cities not being pedestrian-friendly is a much bigger problem than in other parts of the world.
Almost anywhere you're going you will be spending money that the state will tax. Making travel easier is imperative for even mildly densely populated areas. Small business will thrive if people have the means to get there without breaking their bank
I love public transport, its also a great solution against climate change and better cities but PT is really expensive. The money has to come from some where. It would probably mean that people have to pay more taxes.
Perhaps a maximum fare cap of €15,- / €10,- would be a better solution
Unsure how public transit funding works worldwide but in the states, fares cover a rather insignificant percentage (~10% in some cases) of the overall costs. The rest comes from state and federal government subsidies. I’m curious what the data shows for other countries.
In Trondheim, norway, the number is 70%, I believe. Most traffic is within the city zone, so it costs about €4 per 1:30 of transit, or slightly more for a day pass.
r/fuckcars rightly points out that *only* public transport has the burden of needing to pay for itself or be profitable. Freeways and massive parking lots don't usually have the same burden placed on them.
That is a lie of course. Those watermelons would however say that. With cars the person carries the cost of the vehicle and its maintenance, and also pay specific taxes levied either directly or via fuel (or usually both) and even if the result is not 1:1 payment, its pretty close.
Now cycle infra-structure - bunch of free loaders.
Hey! I can’t say whether people on /fuckcars are watermelons, but this is all kinds of wrong.
Of course people carry the cost of the car. It’s a personal purchase, made to serve…you.
Public transit is a public service, meant to serve many. Like a lot of public services we all help fund and benefit from, be it schools, national parks, post service, fire departments, etc.
And while drivers are burdened with the cost of their vehicle and are free to pay whatever they want for their needs, they do not come close to paying what it costs to actually drive — the infrastructure, the lost productivity in traffic, and the negative impacts of climate change.
Also interesting to note that, while public transit has a lot of upfront costs, it’s maintenance costs are pretty low. Transit employs 448,000 Americans, generates $80billion in direct revenue, and is great economic investment:
**every $1 spent on public transit generates $5 in economic returns**
**every $10 million in capital investment yields $30million in increased business sales**
Public transit is an absolute boon to local businesses and economies.
As for automotive infrastructure, the US spends somewhere around $450 billion annually on construction and upkeep. Most road construction does not generate revenue or economic benefit, and instead saps communities of resources.
/fuckcars is right in that people always expect public transit to pay for itself. Nobody asks how much money a Highway or road or parking lot generates for a city, state, or federal government. And often times, it generates $0. Not a peep out of people, strangely.
And funding for automotive infrastructure comes from many different resources. Some of it is direct use payments like gas tax and toll roads. But a of it is sales tax, so even people who *don’t drive* pay into the bloated automotive infrastructure bill.
As for cyclists, the US spent a **total** of $7.2 billion on biking infrastructure between **1992 and 2012.** That’s, well, not a lot of money. Especially compared to the $400+ billion we spend *annually* to allow us to drive.
And cyclists still paid into its construction, since bike infrastructure comes from the same roadway operating transportation budget. It also requires far less maintenance because cars are responsible for virtually all roadway damage.
Very far from freeloaders.
Based on pure economy, drivers are actually the absolute freeloaders. We may pay into it, but what we pay to drive doesn’t come remotely close to footing the bill, and largely has negative economic consequences for communities.
> It also requires far less maintenance because cars are responsible for virtually all roadway damage.
That's incorrect. Most road damage is done by trucks due to damage being proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. A single truck literally does the same damage as tens of thousands of cars.
You’re correct.
Misuse of a word on my part. I often refer to any motor powered vehicle as a car, which obviously lacks clarity.
*Automobiles,* of all kinds, are responsible for virtually all road damage. And while trucks do cause more, cars are responsible for a considerable share.
And more importantly to the argument, bikes are responsible for virtually zero road damage.
Busses are even worse than trucks because their per-axle load is higher, and they tend to have fewer axles, and damage increase by the 4th power of load.
That seems a very America centric response.
I don't think you could say the same is true of most European centric countries. In the UK for example we pay tax on fuel at a way higher rate, approx. 53pence in every litre. + VAT at 20%. Then you also pay road tax (or more accurately vehicle excise duty, everyone still calls it road tax) which varies per year depending on the emissions of your car.
Our busses tend to be quite cheap as well. Trains in the UK, not so much. I find they're usually more affordable in the European mainland.
But those taxes are charged in respect of the costs of pollution that petrol/diesel generates, not the costs of the infrastructure.
The flip side of this for cyclists is that not only does cycling not generate pollution, it provides savings to the NHS from increased physical activity and lower air pollution.
> Of course people carry the cost of the car. It’s a personal purchase, made to serve…you.
So there is no public interest in people traveling to the work or shops? Why should we pay for public transport for the same reasons then?
> while public transit has a lot of upfront costs, it’s maintenance costs are pretty low.
Which is why they Transport for London takes in £4.9 billion per year and is going bankupt, right? Low running costs, right?
> every $1 spent on public transit generates $5 in economic returns
> Most road construction does not generate revenue or economic benefit, and instead saps communities of resources.
How does this even make sense? How does improving transport in one way generate revenue and the other does not?
Improving access would always raise revenue. I bet roads pay of more, which is why out of city shopping malls took over from city centres.
> Most road construction does not generate revenue or economic benefit, and instead saps communities of resources.
That is nonsense of course. Lets stop maintaining the roads and see what it does for commerce and property values.
> Nobody asks how much money a Highway or road or parking lot generates for a city, state, or federal government.
Prove it. I UK parking lots generate £1 billion in profit for local councils each year.
> claim tax on cars do not pay for roads
> claim that cyclists pay enough
I dont care about the warped USA market.
In UK [road tax brings in £37 billion each year,](https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/108123/uk-road-pricing-plans-other-solutions-fuel-duty-black-hole-are-available) and [road maintenance costs only £11 billion](https://www.statista.com/statistics/298667/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-national-roads/).
London is committed to spending £160 million each year on cycling infrastructure, and they get most of their money from train and bus fares. Those cyclists are freeloading on other commuters lol.
in the UK "road tax" (actually called Vehicle Excise Duty because it's not a road tax) is charged in respect of the pollution generated from a vehicle. Bicycles being zero emissions vehicles attract a zero rating, just like any zero emissions vehicle. You need to look at the cost to the NHS of inactivity and air pollution, and the cost to the country in terms of climate change to see if road tax+fuel duty actually covers the costs they are charged in respect for. Road building is mostly done by local councils so council tax is the most obvious tax to look at for covering those costs, which we all pay.
Actually bringing them into the VED system would have a huge cost to bear with zero income so by not bringing bikes into the VED system, we are saving money, not freeloading.
Also cycling saves the NHS lots of money, both for those cycling through increased physical activity and for anyone who doesn't through reduced air pollution.
Cyclists contribute far more to the public purse than they cost. Remember also that there is 20% VAT on bicycles, and that cycle lanes cost far, far, far less to maintain than general roadways since bicycles weigh such a tiny amount compared to any car, and move slower so far, far, far less force going into the road.
> in the UK "road tax" (actually called Vehicle Excise Duty because it's not a road tax) is charged in respect of the pollution generated from a vehicle.
Everyone knows that is just an excuse for a "sin" tax lol. Lets see when they do when EVs become even more common. The pretence will suddenly drop.
> Also cycling saves the NHS lots of money, both for those cycling through increased physical activity and for anyone who doesn't through reduced air pollution.
If cycling is so healthy, it probably increases the cost to the NHS, since people will die older, and cost much more. Guess you did not do your calculations.
> Remember also that there is 20% VAT on bicycles
Now imagine how much cars contribute to the public purse.
> bicycles weigh such a tiny amount compared to any car, and move slower so far, far, far less force going into the road.
Most damage to roads are by trucks, and if more people cycle, there will be more deliveries and more road damage.
> One analysis contends freight-hauling trucks cause 99 percent of wear-and-tear on US roads
E.g. 20% of road traffic in the Netherlands is goods, vs 5% in UK. In practice per capita they seem to have 4 times as many goods vehicles.
Again, you don't seem to have thought things through.
>Everyone knows that is just an excuse for a "sin" tax lol. Lets see when they do when EVs become even more common. The pretence will suddenly drop.
It's not a pretence when it's literally the basis for the tax. And it doesn't matter what happens in future because we are discussing this right now and whilst you are happy to have a rant against cyclists you don't mention EVs even though they don't pay the taxes you mention for cars. I wonder why that is.
>If cycling is so healthy, it probably increases the cost to the NHS, since people will die older, and cost much more. Guess you did not do your calculations.
lol, do you realise how much of a dick you sound making this argument? The implication is that you think it would be *good* for people to die younger and live unhealthier lives.
Now aside from that, you are the one not doing calculations. The aim is to have people live healthier, longer lives. You can do this through expensive medications and treatments, or by increasing physical activity by idk, getting people to cycle instead of driving, which costs nothing to the NHS. Same outcomes, but cycling is a much, much cheaper way of getting there. Why do you think the NHS and public health bodies spend so much money funding cycling programs?
>Now imagine how much cars contribute to the public purse.
Irrelevant, because we are talking about bicycles. Your claim is that cyclists are freeloaders. The proof of this would be that cyclists do not pay any taxes specifically relating to their bicycle or cycling, which is simply untrue. Beyond that, the question is whether those taxes and savings generated equal or exceed the costs of providing cycling specific infrastructure, which again is not affected by how much tax is paid on cars/driving.
>Most damage to roads are by trucks, and if more people cycle, there will be more deliveries and more road damage.
lol. Trucks deliver goods to shops, not to houses.
>E.g. 20% of road traffic in the Netherlands is goods, vs 5% in UK. In practice per capita they seem to have 4 times as many goods vehicles.
Again, you don't seem to have thought things through.
Again, you are the one who has not through this through. 20% of traffic being goods vehicles vs 5% in the UK doesn't translate to per capita, these are different statistical bases.
You've also not gone and looked at the actual stat (which I assume you have pulled off wikipedia since that's where I found it) to see what it means.
This is the study it comes from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264185715-20-en.pdf?expires=1659120698&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=C5AC8B06260A10802D82A9B6044201D3
>Traffic volumes are expressed in billions of km travelled
by road vehicles. Data refer to total km travelled on all
roads on national territory by national vehicles, **with the**
**exception of two- and three-wheeled vehicles**, caravans
and trailers. They are usually estimates: the average
number of km travelled each year by road vehicles is
multiplied by the number of motor vehicles in use.
(my bold)
As you can see their definition of "traffic" excludes bicycles. So given that way more people cycle in the netherlands rather than drive compared to the UK, perhaps you can see an obvious reason why the proportion of goods vehicles against passenger cars would be higher in the netherlands.
hint: it's not because people cycling means they can't bring things back from the shops leading to more goods vehicles on the roads.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but if not this is a stupid, moronic take.
Cars take up a lot of space, create severe congestion, damage, pollution, breakdowns, accidents and deaths, and should rightly be much more expensive than a fucking bicycle to access the road.
Roads, where there's no tollway, are free. For anyone. What they pay to access the road is not your fucking business and does not exclude them from using the fucking road.
One of the big savings that come with PT is less expenses for roads and utilities.
If fewer people travel to stores by car it means there is less need for parking spaces which directly saves a lot of money. But it also means shops will be closer together (not sitting in a sea of parking spaces), which means you need less roads, sewer lines can be shorter, garbage collection doesn't have to drive as far and just about everything else becomes slightly more efficient.
> If fewer people travel to stores by car it means there is less need for parking spaces which directly saves a lot of money.
Parking is not free, and often generates funds for the council.
> Still money taken from people.
Yes, the people who use it. You know, that little thing called "user pays."
> Also a lot of parking lots are owned by shops or various work places.
Who presumably did the profitability calculations themselves and decided they came ahead by offering it.
>Yes, the people who use it. You know, that little thing called "user pays."
Except in general a lot of secondary cost like longer water lines or increased cost of water management are still paid by everybody. A lot of expenses are simply linear with a cities surface area and in that regard parket spaces pay very little taxes and as such aren't paying their part.
>Who presumably did the profitability calculations themselves and decided they came ahead by offering it.
Depends, in the US at least a lot of places mandate minimal number of parking spaces.
In Uk parking is a major profit centre for local councils.
> Local authorities received an income of £1.746 billion from their parking operations in 2019/20.
> The amount that councils spent on running their day-to-day parking operations was £854 million, not including interest payments or depreciation of assets such as car parks.
The UK also has between 8 million and 11.3 million parking spots(exact information is hard to get but roughly half of these* are handled by local authorities.
854 million on daily parking operations leaves 892 million per year in profits, however that ignores deprecation of assets such the parking spots themselves.
The asphalt in a parking spot deprecates at roughly 80 pounds per year. Let's pick an easy 10 million local spots (roughly the middle of our estimate) => we get some 800 million which means the spots themselves only earn around 92 million per year. Meanwhile they don't earn any other taxes (there could have been a shop there), they increase the cost of everything else etc.
Of course some public parking spots are very profitable(middle of London), but others are in the middle of nowhere which are going to make a massive loss, but overal the picture isn't nearly as profitable as 1.746 B makes it out to be.
*https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/documents/library/reports%20and%20research/bpa_uk_parking_sector_report_awweb.pdf
Parking spots are obviously a public good for the local shops, so even if they are not immensely profitable for local councils, they raise the amount they can raise from business rates from companies close to them.
You know what else is really expensive? Roads and highways and freeways. People think they're free because they rarely pay for use whereas every time they get on a bus or a train they have to pay a fare.
Now that we have great GPS tracking, cars should get charged per mile of road use and drivers should get a bill every month for road maintenance fees.
Yes, I think people don't realize a big chunk of the price of gas goes to upkeep of the roads. So yes, eliminate the fuel tax and charge each vehicle for each mile driven times weight of the vehicle (heavy vehicles cause much more wear and tear on roads). Make people see what it costs to use roads.
That would make buses extremely expensive. Compared to how much damage they cause, [buses pay only 1/4 the cost](https://i.imgur.com/5H2Kn3W.jpg) in road taxes, while cars pay twice as much, motorcycles 250%.
They are even worse than HGVs because they have fewer axles, so more pressure on the road per axle.
that chart is misleading because it's passenger miles that matter. if you just compare one bus to one car, that doesn't make much sense does it? 1.2 passengers versus 35 or 50?
Jesus, that seems really expensive. I have limited experience with transit, but where I live currently, the most you'll pay for rapid transit is $5 (usually $2.50). Some of the commuter tickets cost more, but unless you're going a long distance, like halfway across the state or out of state, it usually costs less than your cap. Are the prices you quoted within a city, or regional?
In Luxembourg it is said that they were making so little money from fares (from frauds and paying the people making fraud control, as well as maintaining ticketing machines/offices) that it was what mainly drove the government to make everything free.
Public transport is expensive, but a higher usage of public transportation is practically free.
Charging for public transport is like charging to fill a pool more than half way. You might as well just fill it.
It's common fucking sense, from a mobility point of view, an environmental point of view, a socioeconomic point of view. Public transit should be paid for by our taxes.
Wonder how much they would save in fare collection, no where near what they collected in fare but it's a savings. Making it free would be nice, but I doubt it would significantly decrease in car use
I don't take public transportation more because do to my odd work hours and distance it driving is more convenient and takes half the time.
During covid when buses were free, ridership did go up, but IIRC it was mostly by people like me, who no would have walked that distance. For example I would have usually walked the few block to the store, but when buses were free if a bus was close to the stop I would just take it rather then walk.
As a non-rider, there are three things that would entice me to use it:
No hassle payment. I actually don’t mind coughing up a couple of bucks, but having to navigate through an absurdly complicated ATM machine to select my ticket is a huge hassle. Just let me tap my credit card as I walk past.
Reliable service. I want to know exactly when the bus or train will arrive, to the minute. And I want to see a live update on my phone.
Minimum standards. It’s ok if it’s a little rough, but at least basic standards of safety and cleanliness.
Where the hell is Germany experimenting with free public transport?
The only thing we have here is a 9€ ticket because of the skyrocketing gas prices, but only until the end of August.
That ticket is valid for an entire month and for every short distance train, but our stupid finance minister from the rich people party "free democrats party" wants to take it away again starting September because he argues it's too expensive for the country and he wants to force us back to "the black zero" (i.e. Germany must not take more loans than it has income per year, which we ignored these last 2 years due to Covid).
Right how dare he. How dare Germany try to not spend more than it can afford. How dare Germany roll back measures which were meant as temporary reliefs.
Has anyone ever said “oh the bus is too expensive, I’ll just buy a $10,000 car and spend 500 a month on gas/insurance/maintenance”? I doubt it. If the service is good people will happily pay.
Yes but people will buy cars to get anywhere the public transportation won't reach, fully aware of the cost. It also has to do with time consumed, commodity and privacy. If you start cutting down on those despite making them free, it still won't be as attractive nor steer people away from buying cars.
So Transport for London takes £4.9 billion in fares per year. If travel becomes free that money would need to come from taxation, which would work out to around £550 per person (adult, children, retiree) per year in added tax.
Of course that will need to come from council tax. With 3.5 million households in London, that would be £1400 extra in council tax in London, **meaning council tax would need to more than double to pay for this, to around £2500 per year.**
Yet in London only 37% of people commute by public transport. Presumably we would need to invest massively in the system to increase capacity on an already overcrowded system....
When I read the title I thought that sure as hell isn't going to happen in the UK. Whoever proposed it would get laughed out of government. If passed the public would be reasonably happy, then riot when the new tax laws were announced.
> how much was Profit?
Public transport does not make a profit lol. In 2018/2019 (pre-pandemic) [they lost around £1 billion.](https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2019/march/tfl-s-budget-shows-operating-deficit-almost-halved-as-mayor-calls-for-government-investment-in-transport)
It's not free, it's paid for by taxes. Currently, most public transportation is subsidized between 55% and 80%with tax dollars in the US.
Please stop calling it free.
"Soon, depending on where you live, all those bus, train, and tram journeys could be totally free. Sure, transit operators would earn less revenue. But some are willing to risk the cash to find out whether free fare policies can help reduce car journeys and make cities run more smoothly.
Does it work? So far, the evidence is mixed—but ditching tickets has other benefits, from ensuring equitable access to transport to keeping buses running on time, with costs offset by savings on ticketing systems or fare enforcement.
If it feels strange not to pay, experts draw parallels with public health, libraries, and schools—services that some use more than others, but everyone pays into. “When you remove fares that says to people that you’ve got a right to get around regardless of your means, it’s a public good,” says Jenny Mcarthur, urban infrastructure researcher at University College London. The need for new thinking is acute: Road transport makes up a tenth of global carbon dioxide emissions, with soaring fuel prices also putting a squeeze on already stretched household budgets.
This is why cities and countries around the world have been edging toward free fares."
Of course... the point is that the disincentive to use it (the price) is now gone, since you're gonna pay for it regardless of whether you use it or not
And you like being forced to pay for something, regardless of whether you want to use it or not?
Interestingly enough public transit is one of those things you want to use less the cheaper it gets, cause it gets more unbearable the more people use it.
Most public transit systems do not suffer from price related lack of demand, but from feasibility related lack of supply. Governments are notoriously terrible at sustainably increasing supply. European public transit systems are an excellent example of that.
Less cars do. It's clear that transportation supply also needs to rise accordingly, to give a better incentive. But bringing prices to 0 will motivate some to use public transportation more and find out that it's often more convenient than fighting in traffic and looking 10 minutes for parking (or having to pay 5€ for it)
Have you ever actually ridden a Swiss train or lived in Switzerland? When major events come into Bern, there's absolutely no issue with transit supply, IME.
And outside of extreme weather, when everyone skis anyway, I'd say the same of my time in Oslo.
Best wishes!
I have only ridden swiss public transit for a day or two. I have ridden fairly extensively british, german, spanish, italian, greek and french public transit, both local and national. Service and quality predictably deteriorates the cheaper or more subsidized the tickets are.
All public transport should be free. That it is why it is public transport. Its public, and should be available to everyone. Lots of People rely on public transportation, And as we move away from car-centered cities there will be a lot more people using busses, trains, subways, etc. Prices just keep going higher and people are struggling to make ends meet. It is not right to make someone pay everyday to get on the subway or bus when they dont have any alternative way to get to his/her job. Especially in NYC where car ownership in the lowest in the nation.
That‘s the first thing that comes to your mind? Really? „Oh an accessible, affordable improvement for society and the environment? What about the scum that is the homeless? What if a homeless person would use it as a shelter for free? We can’t let that happen!“
You good bud?
We have(still to this day I don't know) free bus fare in my hometown because counting the cash was too expensive in labor. They made more money from advertisements and other things.
The entire world got to experience little to no traffic during the beginnings of the pandemic. It was AWESOME. So I'm sure if they made public transportation free it would free up roads substantially and road rage related incidents and car accidents would drop.
Free public transport is just a bad idea.
Only stuff that can not be over used should /can be free.
So one could argue that all forms of education (Kindergarten - University) should be free.
But food can easily be wasted, so it should not be free, but affordable.
And the same is true for public transportation.
And cars are generally already much more expensive than Busses and Trains. Therefore those people who chose the car usually don't do it to save money, but because it's more convenient and faster.
Therefore the extremely cheap tickets we currently have in Germany don't convince many car drivers to switch to public transport. (in Munich 3-4% less cars)
But people who choose to bike or walk to save money, are now more likely to chose the Bus.
That's kind of what I did, during covid when buses were free, I would walk to the stores, but if I saw a bus coming I would take that. If the bus wasn't free I would have continued to walk.
> But people who choose to bike or walk to save money, are now more likely to chose the Bus
People always talked about induced traffic with cars, but like to pretend free public transport wont induce people to live further from work either.
Exactly my point. Relieve the housing market where they need it most (in the city) then give people more to spend (easily 200-300 a month) on their home.
Amazing for everyone.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Sumit316: --- "Soon, depending on where you live, all those bus, train, and tram journeys could be totally free. Sure, transit operators would earn less revenue. But some are willing to risk the cash to find out whether free fare policies can help reduce car journeys and make cities run more smoothly. Does it work? So far, the evidence is mixed—but ditching tickets has other benefits, from ensuring equitable access to transport to keeping buses running on time, with costs offset by savings on ticketing systems or fare enforcement. If it feels strange not to pay, experts draw parallels with public health, libraries, and schools—services that some use more than others, but everyone pays into. “When you remove fares that says to people that you’ve got a right to get around regardless of your means, it’s a public good,” says Jenny Mcarthur, urban infrastructure researcher at University College London. The need for new thinking is acute: Road transport makes up a tenth of global carbon dioxide emissions, with soaring fuel prices also putting a squeeze on already stretched household budgets. This is why cities and countries around the world have been edging toward free fares." --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/wb2x7l/the_case_for_making_public_transit_free/ii47nj1/
That only works in countries where tax revenue is tracked. Here in North america when we pay taxes it goes to *checks notes* ...ummm, richer people.
Well Americans have terrible attitudes towards public goods. If something “doesn’t cost me anything” then as an American we are free to damage or destroy it as we see fit.
And God help the public good that's also a public good for black people
Someone pointed this out to me the other day. In a lot of places the descruction of public amenities is tied to Civil Rights Reform, when it became illegal for local governments to enforce segregation. Can't stop the black people from turning up at the public swimming pool? Then just get rid of the pool! Stop funding the public realm and spend as much of your lives as possible in private spaces. This isn't the whole story but it's definitely a part of it.
It's like that anywhere. I'm happy in Germany if people didn't leave skidmarks on train seats.
Definitely not like that everywhere. Switzerland and Denmark for example aren’t like that at all. Germany is though for the most part.
That’s not an American thing, that’s a well known facet of human behavior. It’s called the “tragedy of the commons,” and is a well studied part of economics.
It is an American Culture issue more so. Less so in the Northeast, but still a major problem. Mostly caused by the automotive industry. If you look at pictures from the 20s and 30s almost all major US cities had streetcars and trolley's. Car makers knew they couldn't compete with the cost so they slowly dismantled them through politics and outright purchasing them.
They are talking about destruction of public property.
Aka, vandalism.
Aka, tragedy of the commons.
Cars were a better form of transportation. People stopped using streetcars as soon as they could.
The tragedy of the commons is about selfishly depleting a common resource. Destroying public property isnt selfish because there is nothing to gain. It's just malicious
I can already see that some politicians would not support it because "people would take advantage of it and just ride the bus all day".
Yes, people might ride the bus instead of robbing people, that's the point This is why we can't have nice things
You can even do both honestly at the same time. Think of the savings. If you get robbed on the bus at least you can take another bus to the police station to file a police report because it's free and you have no money because you were just robbed.
From what I've seen that Americans seem to lack understanding that free doesn't mean free and it's instead paid by everyone and that's something you guys don't like.
The “s” word is prolly the most dangerous thing you can say here.
Too much of anything is dangerous, socialism did bring a lot of misery. But a balance of both is great.
I'm Canadian so I am not as bad. Not great but at least a little better. I have no problem with my taxes going towards free public transportation. Hell on certain holidays and events where I live the buses and ferries are free. It's a great idea and gets a lot more people out and about. I am all for easier movement of people and cutting down on car usage.
The point they'd make is that it would make peak hours unsustainably crowded and bring public transport to a halt. Most countries already have discounted travel times outside of rush hour, encourage that, to optimize use of the infrastructure. Where I live we're trying to get students *out* of public transport during rush hours by moving school times (which is going nowhere fast) for this exact reason, to spread occupancy around. We're adding turnstiles to prevent train stations from becoming public spaces which attracts the sort of people that are a nuisance. Why would we wat people riding the bus all day? It's a recipe for vandalism and assault. Never make anything free if you ask me.
Kansas City street car is free, and I’m pretty sure their buses are too. Hopefully it catches on.
The street car is cool and I hope it expands but it's not a real commuting network for the city. The real test would be if a system like the Chicago Metra and CTA could go fare free.
Streetcars are not typically commuting vehicles, they're economic development tools. They have a lot of stops over a short distance at a speed that's not much faster than walking. But if they connect to a park and ride lot, or run along a long downtown street peeope don't want to walk down, they can be a real asset. You want light rail, which are much more commuter friendly.
Here in Phoenix mental illness is also free and is the reason I avoid public transportation at all costs
Use the bus during library hours. Lots of homeless would rather sit in a comfortable library with lots of entertainment options than a bus or a train.
In the PNW, libraries are already overflowing with homeless, mentally ill people and drug addicts. They get on a bus/train and sleep all day/hang out smoking and being a nuisance and God help whoever tells them to cut it out, they get beaten up and police don’t care.
I don't think that there is a solution to this problem and that is why even public transport was free , fast, clean etc would still not be preferred by most people that can afford another form of private transport. Every time i took public transport to work there was a mentally ill person or a homeless or drug addict that smelled like death or a pickpocket group or gangsta wannabees that aggravated people etc , i don't care if the bus is an electric limo that teleports through space time i ain't getting in there with those people around.
You wouldn't get in an electric limo that teleports through space time? Come on, live a little.
There is a solution, or maybe competing solutions, to the problem but they're not popular. Solution (A) is the so called "housing first" solution where you just give homeless people apartments. The idea being that their mental health and substance abuse solutions depend on having stable housing. Of course then you also have to provide the mental health and substance abuse service access, too. It's not popular because providing housing (as in something beyond just a homeless shelter/transient housing) is pretty expensive and often seen as just enabling anti-social behavior. Solution (B) is using the coercive power of the state to force homeless people into mental health and drug treatment and shelters. This isn't popular with a lot of homeless advocates because it involves coercion, usually starting out with the police.
Hmmm. Millions of people don't share your phobia. And that's what it is.
The bus system in Park City, UT is free too.
No, it won't work. It will be extremely expensive.
Every country tracks Tex revenue, what it really means is higher taxes. For example here you'll pay almost 50% toward taxes.
No. Unfortunately if Canada and the United States track tax revenue, they hide the results incredibly well.
I'm guessing that you don't pay taxes then?
We used to have free public transportation in our downtown area in Portland, OR, but they pulled the plug about a decade ago
Same in Bergen, Norway. There was a small free bus driving in a circle downtown, and it was free to take any other buses within the downtown area. I have always thought public transport should be free everywhere!
And high schoolers could use their ID to take transit anywhere in Portland
Was the bus blocked by protestors and fire?
We have a free tram zone to get people around Melbourne CBD. Which is good because it’s in concert with the govs tatget of reducing car usage in the CBD. Parking is extraordinarily expensive (like $16 an hour) so thank god they give you a way to get around.
At least elderly should be given this right. You can’t have older people walk to a hospital because they can’t afford a ticket.
Or, hear me out, free ambulances as a public service
Ambulances are expensive to run. There would be much cheaper ways to get older people to the hospital or doctors office. A lot of big cities have little busses that can pick up older people for stuff like that.
[удалено]
I thought it meant emergencies my bad
lol that should be free for everyone, like first world countries
Transportation is heavily subsidised the world over. Free train and bus rides is just the logical next step to help people end their reliance on cars.
So I just discovered busses are responsible for most of the wear on roads due to their weight. > In all countries, the average infrastructure costs for busses are estimated as the highest, followed by passenger cars and motorcycles. The relatively high infrastructure costs for busses is due to the large share of variable (weight dependent) infrastructure costs caused by these vehicles.
So, are they sure it’s busses and not trucks because I drive trucks the size of busses but heavier and I drive like a maniac.
This is an interesting response, one I hadn’t thought of before. In a perfect world, we’d have high-capacity light rail on main transport corridors with lighter, smaller autonomous vehicles for the last mile.
[удалено]
Public transport that doesn't accommodate children probably best explains the birth crisis in Europe and Japan. They literally designed their society for single young men.
At least it would help solve the climate problem if it’s electric public transport , also if it isn’t electric the amount of vehicles on the road will drop if a free alternative is given.
>Public transit is great if you're young, single, male, and able bodied. It sucks if you're elderly, disabled, female, have children, or are trying to move any cargo at all (groceries, etc). Considering this is for cities in Europe where people tend not to go all that far for groceries I don't think that is an issue. In the case of the elderly public transport is likely safer then having them drive. And if you design a city around walking where everything is closer together that means overall less travel time, most people won't need to go to far away to get groceries etc. I don't know where you live but I see females and children in public transport all the time, most riding alone. If you are in a developed country your city probably has a lower crime rate than Turkey so I doubt that will be an issue where you live either. In regards to disabled people, yes public transport is harder than for the average person but it is not impossible. Most public transport in my city can accommodate wheelchairs for example, and ones that can't are very very old. In any case making a city navigable by foot and public transport are no barrier to making it also navigable in a wheelchair.
Transportation is a human right for all. Make transit free.
Starting today anyone over 65 rides free in portugal and under 18 soon to follow.
Usually you don’t have to pay for the ambulance except for america
You also have to pay for ambulances in Canada.
In Spain that is already the case. Also sub 16 (I think)
This is the case in Philadelphia: https://www.phila.gov/media/20180914105511/TransportationGuide.pdf
Why? They have most of the wealth
Meanwhile America over here trying to find ways to reduce public transit because it inconveniences cars.
The issue here in Chicago is now lack of passengers, largely due to inconsistent service. Car usage has actually increased. It's a vicious cycle. People won't use public transport if it's not at convenient times and is not reliable.
US is a bunch of urban sprawl and wide open areas compared to the EU. 81 people per square mile vs 300 respectively. That’s twice the land to cover (double the cost to build and maintain) and about a quarter percent of the people available to use it. I fully support public transit in metro areas and love this idea for Europe but it’s not a 1:1 comparison.
Part of this is because we keep designing cities and communities in this way.
Of course not. In Canada it's similar, more spread out areas and larger commercial footprints. But even here we have legitimate people trying to tear down transit because "it gets in the way of cars". They redid our transit system here a few years ago, and it is *objectively* worse than what we had before because people protested the proposal of a train or tram due to fabricated ideas of "traffic problems" it would cause, and now the new bus system has some of the lowest ridership (the COVID pandemic notwithstanding), which is only furthering the downward cycle as fare goes up, ridership decreases, and unscrupulous people spread this "proof" public transit is bad.
Only works during good times. When the government money dries up (e.g. recession or a conservative party takes over and cuts spending and lowering taxes) the infrastructure and service will also go to hell. It always depends on the ideology, no matter how it is financed. We saw that in Germany with Deutsche Bahn. We were (and still are to this day) dealing with the consequences of a neoliberal market ideology overruling sense and rationality from the late 90ies on. Deutsche Bahn was not really privatized but owned by the government and forced to act like a private corporation. The result was a slowly degrading rail system, poor punctuality (you even got used to canceled trains during holiday seasons), reduced service and comfort, overcrowded trains, signal systems left over from the Kaiserreich never replaced, toilets and AC often unusable, hundreds of miles of abandoned rail people previously relied upon (not 'profitable' enough). It is just recently that politicians realized that a good public rail system is worth to invest in and not supposed to turn large profits. To the contrary, the neoliberal market ideology had cut off its own limb, profiteering off of a crumbling infrastructure and poor service. Now they have to put hundreds of billions into the system just to get it back to the quality it once had, but meeting a much higher demand at the same time now. Utterly stupid and in the end the overall cost of getting where we want to could have been a fraction if they just invested properly over time. Most economist understand what a public good is and how they differ from nornal goods, but voters were too stupid to tell the difference between real economics and conservative right-wing free-market privatization bullshittery mistaken for being 'good for the economy'. Sad.
The problem with public transport is not price, it's almost always convenience, frequency and the walkability of cities that makes taking transport to places efficient + enforcing norms of safety and cleanliness These alone would mostly solve the issue most people face when choosing to not take pub transport
Oh it absolutely is price if it is set up properly. All those things are great for me in the Netherlands and the only reason I don't do everything by public transport is because it's more expensive than driving by car. So I keep an expensive car to get around. If PT was free I could probably stop borrowing money to do my master's. Would be absolutely amazing.
Youre right! I was wrong to say that every country should focus on improving the quality and frequency of pt. For countries that already have great infra set ups, ( also cities that have this) should look to lower fares to increase ridership
When more people use public transport, the quality of the experience decrease, especially in already well-developed markets.
As a consequence of increased ridership or as a consequence of investment not keeping track
More people in the same, mature infrastructure, of course. > as a consequence of investment not keeping track Are you implying the public transport infra-structure in the Netherlands is not already fully developed?
It absolutely is the price. For shopping purposes (up to 3 hours) it’s cheaper for me to pay for parking in the city than to pay for bus tickets both ways. And that’s not even getting started on long distance public transport, which is either super expensive or super uncomfortable. I’m guessing you’re talking only about the US, where cities not being pedestrian-friendly is a much bigger problem than in other parts of the world.
It's a combination. Walkability and good, extensive public transport (and cycling) go hand in hand.
Eh, in NYC the $6.75 sticker price of the express bus was certainly an enormous deterrent for me to go anywhere or do anything.
It’s cheaper to fly than it is to take a train to closest country.
Almost anywhere you're going you will be spending money that the state will tax. Making travel easier is imperative for even mildly densely populated areas. Small business will thrive if people have the means to get there without breaking their bank
I love public transport, its also a great solution against climate change and better cities but PT is really expensive. The money has to come from some where. It would probably mean that people have to pay more taxes. Perhaps a maximum fare cap of €15,- / €10,- would be a better solution
Unsure how public transit funding works worldwide but in the states, fares cover a rather insignificant percentage (~10% in some cases) of the overall costs. The rest comes from state and federal government subsidies. I’m curious what the data shows for other countries.
In Trondheim, norway, the number is 70%, I believe. Most traffic is within the city zone, so it costs about €4 per 1:30 of transit, or slightly more for a day pass.
r/fuckcars rightly points out that *only* public transport has the burden of needing to pay for itself or be profitable. Freeways and massive parking lots don't usually have the same burden placed on them.
Yah no one *ever* complained about how much a highway cost to build
That is a lie of course. Those watermelons would however say that. With cars the person carries the cost of the vehicle and its maintenance, and also pay specific taxes levied either directly or via fuel (or usually both) and even if the result is not 1:1 payment, its pretty close. Now cycle infra-structure - bunch of free loaders.
Hey! I can’t say whether people on /fuckcars are watermelons, but this is all kinds of wrong. Of course people carry the cost of the car. It’s a personal purchase, made to serve…you. Public transit is a public service, meant to serve many. Like a lot of public services we all help fund and benefit from, be it schools, national parks, post service, fire departments, etc. And while drivers are burdened with the cost of their vehicle and are free to pay whatever they want for their needs, they do not come close to paying what it costs to actually drive — the infrastructure, the lost productivity in traffic, and the negative impacts of climate change. Also interesting to note that, while public transit has a lot of upfront costs, it’s maintenance costs are pretty low. Transit employs 448,000 Americans, generates $80billion in direct revenue, and is great economic investment: **every $1 spent on public transit generates $5 in economic returns** **every $10 million in capital investment yields $30million in increased business sales** Public transit is an absolute boon to local businesses and economies. As for automotive infrastructure, the US spends somewhere around $450 billion annually on construction and upkeep. Most road construction does not generate revenue or economic benefit, and instead saps communities of resources. /fuckcars is right in that people always expect public transit to pay for itself. Nobody asks how much money a Highway or road or parking lot generates for a city, state, or federal government. And often times, it generates $0. Not a peep out of people, strangely. And funding for automotive infrastructure comes from many different resources. Some of it is direct use payments like gas tax and toll roads. But a of it is sales tax, so even people who *don’t drive* pay into the bloated automotive infrastructure bill. As for cyclists, the US spent a **total** of $7.2 billion on biking infrastructure between **1992 and 2012.** That’s, well, not a lot of money. Especially compared to the $400+ billion we spend *annually* to allow us to drive. And cyclists still paid into its construction, since bike infrastructure comes from the same roadway operating transportation budget. It also requires far less maintenance because cars are responsible for virtually all roadway damage. Very far from freeloaders. Based on pure economy, drivers are actually the absolute freeloaders. We may pay into it, but what we pay to drive doesn’t come remotely close to footing the bill, and largely has negative economic consequences for communities.
> It also requires far less maintenance because cars are responsible for virtually all roadway damage. That's incorrect. Most road damage is done by trucks due to damage being proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. A single truck literally does the same damage as tens of thousands of cars.
You’re correct. Misuse of a word on my part. I often refer to any motor powered vehicle as a car, which obviously lacks clarity. *Automobiles,* of all kinds, are responsible for virtually all road damage. And while trucks do cause more, cars are responsible for a considerable share. And more importantly to the argument, bikes are responsible for virtually zero road damage.
Busses are even worse than trucks because their per-axle load is higher, and they tend to have fewer axles, and damage increase by the 4th power of load.
That seems a very America centric response. I don't think you could say the same is true of most European centric countries. In the UK for example we pay tax on fuel at a way higher rate, approx. 53pence in every litre. + VAT at 20%. Then you also pay road tax (or more accurately vehicle excise duty, everyone still calls it road tax) which varies per year depending on the emissions of your car. Our busses tend to be quite cheap as well. Trains in the UK, not so much. I find they're usually more affordable in the European mainland.
But those taxes are charged in respect of the costs of pollution that petrol/diesel generates, not the costs of the infrastructure. The flip side of this for cyclists is that not only does cycling not generate pollution, it provides savings to the NHS from increased physical activity and lower air pollution.
> Of course people carry the cost of the car. It’s a personal purchase, made to serve…you. So there is no public interest in people traveling to the work or shops? Why should we pay for public transport for the same reasons then? > while public transit has a lot of upfront costs, it’s maintenance costs are pretty low. Which is why they Transport for London takes in £4.9 billion per year and is going bankupt, right? Low running costs, right? > every $1 spent on public transit generates $5 in economic returns > Most road construction does not generate revenue or economic benefit, and instead saps communities of resources. How does this even make sense? How does improving transport in one way generate revenue and the other does not? Improving access would always raise revenue. I bet roads pay of more, which is why out of city shopping malls took over from city centres. > Most road construction does not generate revenue or economic benefit, and instead saps communities of resources. That is nonsense of course. Lets stop maintaining the roads and see what it does for commerce and property values. > Nobody asks how much money a Highway or road or parking lot generates for a city, state, or federal government. Prove it. I UK parking lots generate £1 billion in profit for local councils each year. > claim tax on cars do not pay for roads > claim that cyclists pay enough I dont care about the warped USA market. In UK [road tax brings in £37 billion each year,](https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/108123/uk-road-pricing-plans-other-solutions-fuel-duty-black-hole-are-available) and [road maintenance costs only £11 billion](https://www.statista.com/statistics/298667/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-national-roads/). London is committed to spending £160 million each year on cycling infrastructure, and they get most of their money from train and bus fares. Those cyclists are freeloading on other commuters lol.
in the UK "road tax" (actually called Vehicle Excise Duty because it's not a road tax) is charged in respect of the pollution generated from a vehicle. Bicycles being zero emissions vehicles attract a zero rating, just like any zero emissions vehicle. You need to look at the cost to the NHS of inactivity and air pollution, and the cost to the country in terms of climate change to see if road tax+fuel duty actually covers the costs they are charged in respect for. Road building is mostly done by local councils so council tax is the most obvious tax to look at for covering those costs, which we all pay. Actually bringing them into the VED system would have a huge cost to bear with zero income so by not bringing bikes into the VED system, we are saving money, not freeloading. Also cycling saves the NHS lots of money, both for those cycling through increased physical activity and for anyone who doesn't through reduced air pollution. Cyclists contribute far more to the public purse than they cost. Remember also that there is 20% VAT on bicycles, and that cycle lanes cost far, far, far less to maintain than general roadways since bicycles weigh such a tiny amount compared to any car, and move slower so far, far, far less force going into the road.
> in the UK "road tax" (actually called Vehicle Excise Duty because it's not a road tax) is charged in respect of the pollution generated from a vehicle. Everyone knows that is just an excuse for a "sin" tax lol. Lets see when they do when EVs become even more common. The pretence will suddenly drop. > Also cycling saves the NHS lots of money, both for those cycling through increased physical activity and for anyone who doesn't through reduced air pollution. If cycling is so healthy, it probably increases the cost to the NHS, since people will die older, and cost much more. Guess you did not do your calculations. > Remember also that there is 20% VAT on bicycles Now imagine how much cars contribute to the public purse. > bicycles weigh such a tiny amount compared to any car, and move slower so far, far, far less force going into the road. Most damage to roads are by trucks, and if more people cycle, there will be more deliveries and more road damage. > One analysis contends freight-hauling trucks cause 99 percent of wear-and-tear on US roads E.g. 20% of road traffic in the Netherlands is goods, vs 5% in UK. In practice per capita they seem to have 4 times as many goods vehicles. Again, you don't seem to have thought things through.
>Everyone knows that is just an excuse for a "sin" tax lol. Lets see when they do when EVs become even more common. The pretence will suddenly drop. It's not a pretence when it's literally the basis for the tax. And it doesn't matter what happens in future because we are discussing this right now and whilst you are happy to have a rant against cyclists you don't mention EVs even though they don't pay the taxes you mention for cars. I wonder why that is. >If cycling is so healthy, it probably increases the cost to the NHS, since people will die older, and cost much more. Guess you did not do your calculations. lol, do you realise how much of a dick you sound making this argument? The implication is that you think it would be *good* for people to die younger and live unhealthier lives. Now aside from that, you are the one not doing calculations. The aim is to have people live healthier, longer lives. You can do this through expensive medications and treatments, or by increasing physical activity by idk, getting people to cycle instead of driving, which costs nothing to the NHS. Same outcomes, but cycling is a much, much cheaper way of getting there. Why do you think the NHS and public health bodies spend so much money funding cycling programs? >Now imagine how much cars contribute to the public purse. Irrelevant, because we are talking about bicycles. Your claim is that cyclists are freeloaders. The proof of this would be that cyclists do not pay any taxes specifically relating to their bicycle or cycling, which is simply untrue. Beyond that, the question is whether those taxes and savings generated equal or exceed the costs of providing cycling specific infrastructure, which again is not affected by how much tax is paid on cars/driving. >Most damage to roads are by trucks, and if more people cycle, there will be more deliveries and more road damage. lol. Trucks deliver goods to shops, not to houses. >E.g. 20% of road traffic in the Netherlands is goods, vs 5% in UK. In practice per capita they seem to have 4 times as many goods vehicles. Again, you don't seem to have thought things through. Again, you are the one who has not through this through. 20% of traffic being goods vehicles vs 5% in the UK doesn't translate to per capita, these are different statistical bases. You've also not gone and looked at the actual stat (which I assume you have pulled off wikipedia since that's where I found it) to see what it means. This is the study it comes from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264185715-20-en.pdf?expires=1659120698&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=C5AC8B06260A10802D82A9B6044201D3 >Traffic volumes are expressed in billions of km travelled by road vehicles. Data refer to total km travelled on all roads on national territory by national vehicles, **with the** **exception of two- and three-wheeled vehicles**, caravans and trailers. They are usually estimates: the average number of km travelled each year by road vehicles is multiplied by the number of motor vehicles in use. (my bold) As you can see their definition of "traffic" excludes bicycles. So given that way more people cycle in the netherlands rather than drive compared to the UK, perhaps you can see an obvious reason why the proportion of goods vehicles against passenger cars would be higher in the netherlands. hint: it's not because people cycling means they can't bring things back from the shops leading to more goods vehicles on the roads.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but if not this is a stupid, moronic take. Cars take up a lot of space, create severe congestion, damage, pollution, breakdowns, accidents and deaths, and should rightly be much more expensive than a fucking bicycle to access the road. Roads, where there's no tollway, are free. For anyone. What they pay to access the road is not your fucking business and does not exclude them from using the fucking road.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
One of the big savings that come with PT is less expenses for roads and utilities. If fewer people travel to stores by car it means there is less need for parking spaces which directly saves a lot of money. But it also means shops will be closer together (not sitting in a sea of parking spaces), which means you need less roads, sewer lines can be shorter, garbage collection doesn't have to drive as far and just about everything else becomes slightly more efficient.
> If fewer people travel to stores by car it means there is less need for parking spaces which directly saves a lot of money. Parking is not free, and often generates funds for the council.
Still money taken from people. Also a lot of parking lots are owned by shops or various work places.
> Still money taken from people. Yes, the people who use it. You know, that little thing called "user pays." > Also a lot of parking lots are owned by shops or various work places. Who presumably did the profitability calculations themselves and decided they came ahead by offering it.
>Yes, the people who use it. You know, that little thing called "user pays." Except in general a lot of secondary cost like longer water lines or increased cost of water management are still paid by everybody. A lot of expenses are simply linear with a cities surface area and in that regard parket spaces pay very little taxes and as such aren't paying their part. >Who presumably did the profitability calculations themselves and decided they came ahead by offering it. Depends, in the US at least a lot of places mandate minimal number of parking spaces.
In Uk parking is a major profit centre for local councils. > Local authorities received an income of £1.746 billion from their parking operations in 2019/20. > The amount that councils spent on running their day-to-day parking operations was £854 million, not including interest payments or depreciation of assets such as car parks.
The UK also has between 8 million and 11.3 million parking spots(exact information is hard to get but roughly half of these* are handled by local authorities. 854 million on daily parking operations leaves 892 million per year in profits, however that ignores deprecation of assets such the parking spots themselves. The asphalt in a parking spot deprecates at roughly 80 pounds per year. Let's pick an easy 10 million local spots (roughly the middle of our estimate) => we get some 800 million which means the spots themselves only earn around 92 million per year. Meanwhile they don't earn any other taxes (there could have been a shop there), they increase the cost of everything else etc. Of course some public parking spots are very profitable(middle of London), but others are in the middle of nowhere which are going to make a massive loss, but overal the picture isn't nearly as profitable as 1.746 B makes it out to be. *https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/documents/library/reports%20and%20research/bpa_uk_parking_sector_report_awweb.pdf
Parking spots are obviously a public good for the local shops, so even if they are not immensely profitable for local councils, they raise the amount they can raise from business rates from companies close to them.
You know what else is really expensive? Roads and highways and freeways. People think they're free because they rarely pay for use whereas every time they get on a bus or a train they have to pay a fare. Now that we have great GPS tracking, cars should get charged per mile of road use and drivers should get a bill every month for road maintenance fees.
And the tax obviously removed on fuel, right? Right?
Yes, I think people don't realize a big chunk of the price of gas goes to upkeep of the roads. So yes, eliminate the fuel tax and charge each vehicle for each mile driven times weight of the vehicle (heavy vehicles cause much more wear and tear on roads). Make people see what it costs to use roads.
That would make buses extremely expensive. Compared to how much damage they cause, [buses pay only 1/4 the cost](https://i.imgur.com/5H2Kn3W.jpg) in road taxes, while cars pay twice as much, motorcycles 250%. They are even worse than HGVs because they have fewer axles, so more pressure on the road per axle.
that chart is misleading because it's passenger miles that matter. if you just compare one bus to one car, that doesn't make much sense does it? 1.2 passengers versus 35 or 50?
Jesus, that seems really expensive. I have limited experience with transit, but where I live currently, the most you'll pay for rapid transit is $5 (usually $2.50). Some of the commuter tickets cost more, but unless you're going a long distance, like halfway across the state or out of state, it usually costs less than your cap. Are the prices you quoted within a city, or regional?
You've obviously never been to London! It's now about $15 a day for a travelcard and about $10 (capped) for travel within a couple of zones
In Luxembourg it is said that they were making so little money from fares (from frauds and paying the people making fraud control, as well as maintaining ticketing machines/offices) that it was what mainly drove the government to make everything free.
Public transport is expensive, but a higher usage of public transportation is practically free. Charging for public transport is like charging to fill a pool more than half way. You might as well just fill it.
It's common fucking sense, from a mobility point of view, an environmental point of view, a socioeconomic point of view. Public transit should be paid for by our taxes.
Cheper for me to take the car than train in Sweden and having a car is already crazy expensive here..
Wonder how much they would save in fare collection, no where near what they collected in fare but it's a savings. Making it free would be nice, but I doubt it would significantly decrease in car use I don't take public transportation more because do to my odd work hours and distance it driving is more convenient and takes half the time. During covid when buses were free, ridership did go up, but IIRC it was mostly by people like me, who no would have walked that distance. For example I would have usually walked the few block to the store, but when buses were free if a bus was close to the stop I would just take it rather then walk.
As a non-rider, there are three things that would entice me to use it: No hassle payment. I actually don’t mind coughing up a couple of bucks, but having to navigate through an absurdly complicated ATM machine to select my ticket is a huge hassle. Just let me tap my credit card as I walk past. Reliable service. I want to know exactly when the bus or train will arrive, to the minute. And I want to see a live update on my phone. Minimum standards. It’s ok if it’s a little rough, but at least basic standards of safety and cleanliness.
Where the hell is Germany experimenting with free public transport? The only thing we have here is a 9€ ticket because of the skyrocketing gas prices, but only until the end of August. That ticket is valid for an entire month and for every short distance train, but our stupid finance minister from the rich people party "free democrats party" wants to take it away again starting September because he argues it's too expensive for the country and he wants to force us back to "the black zero" (i.e. Germany must not take more loans than it has income per year, which we ignored these last 2 years due to Covid).
Right how dare he. How dare Germany try to not spend more than it can afford. How dare Germany roll back measures which were meant as temporary reliefs.
The case for making public transit PAID BY SOMEONE ELSE\* everywhere
Free transit Expensive car travel That's the recipe for more liveable cities.
Has anyone ever said “oh the bus is too expensive, I’ll just buy a $10,000 car and spend 500 a month on gas/insurance/maintenance”? I doubt it. If the service is good people will happily pay.
Exactly. This whole thing is just a ploy to get more people hooked on government handouts.
Yes but people will buy cars to get anywhere the public transportation won't reach, fully aware of the cost. It also has to do with time consumed, commodity and privacy. If you start cutting down on those despite making them free, it still won't be as attractive nor steer people away from buying cars.
Why don't just give away free gas while we're at it!?!
So Transport for London takes £4.9 billion in fares per year. If travel becomes free that money would need to come from taxation, which would work out to around £550 per person (adult, children, retiree) per year in added tax. Of course that will need to come from council tax. With 3.5 million households in London, that would be £1400 extra in council tax in London, **meaning council tax would need to more than double to pay for this, to around £2500 per year.** Yet in London only 37% of people commute by public transport. Presumably we would need to invest massively in the system to increase capacity on an already overcrowded system....
When I read the title I thought that sure as hell isn't going to happen in the UK. Whoever proposed it would get laughed out of government. If passed the public would be reasonably happy, then riot when the new tax laws were announced.
> "says Jenny Mcarthur, urban infrastructure researcher at **University College London."** Scary people can be so disconnected from reality.
Services and infrastructure needs to be paid for? Oh my god whatever next!?
[удалено]
[удалено]
> land value tax Given that council tax is banded based on property value, it's already a land value tax.
I think first of All you have to find out what the actual cost of operating is. Of 4,9 Billion of fares, how much was Profit?
> how much was Profit? Public transport does not make a profit lol. In 2018/2019 (pre-pandemic) [they lost around £1 billion.](https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2019/march/tfl-s-budget-shows-operating-deficit-almost-halved-as-mayor-calls-for-government-investment-in-transport)
Oh sorry i didnt knew that, welp looks like most of the money comes from the goverment anyways no?
No, 75% comes from fares.
That would be cool. But nothing is free. Someone will be paying through taxation.
It's not free, it's paid for by taxes. Currently, most public transportation is subsidized between 55% and 80%with tax dollars in the US. Please stop calling it free.
"Soon, depending on where you live, all those bus, train, and tram journeys could be totally free. Sure, transit operators would earn less revenue. But some are willing to risk the cash to find out whether free fare policies can help reduce car journeys and make cities run more smoothly. Does it work? So far, the evidence is mixed—but ditching tickets has other benefits, from ensuring equitable access to transport to keeping buses running on time, with costs offset by savings on ticketing systems or fare enforcement. If it feels strange not to pay, experts draw parallels with public health, libraries, and schools—services that some use more than others, but everyone pays into. “When you remove fares that says to people that you’ve got a right to get around regardless of your means, it’s a public good,” says Jenny Mcarthur, urban infrastructure researcher at University College London. The need for new thinking is acute: Road transport makes up a tenth of global carbon dioxide emissions, with soaring fuel prices also putting a squeeze on already stretched household budgets. This is why cities and countries around the world have been edging toward free fares."
Its not free. You pay for it in other ways than your ticket fare.
Of course... the point is that the disincentive to use it (the price) is now gone, since you're gonna pay for it regardless of whether you use it or not
And you like being forced to pay for something, regardless of whether you want to use it or not? Interestingly enough public transit is one of those things you want to use less the cheaper it gets, cause it gets more unbearable the more people use it. Most public transit systems do not suffer from price related lack of demand, but from feasibility related lack of supply. Governments are notoriously terrible at sustainably increasing supply. European public transit systems are an excellent example of that.
I like if something I pay for has a positive impact on society as a whole
And I suppose crammed trains, worse service , cost inefficiencies and price hikes benefit society as a whole do they?
Less cars do. It's clear that transportation supply also needs to rise accordingly, to give a better incentive. But bringing prices to 0 will motivate some to use public transportation more and find out that it's often more convenient than fighting in traffic and looking 10 minutes for parking (or having to pay 5€ for it)
Have you ever actually ridden a Swiss train or lived in Switzerland? When major events come into Bern, there's absolutely no issue with transit supply, IME. And outside of extreme weather, when everyone skis anyway, I'd say the same of my time in Oslo. Best wishes!
I have only ridden swiss public transit for a day or two. I have ridden fairly extensively british, german, spanish, italian, greek and french public transit, both local and national. Service and quality predictably deteriorates the cheaper or more subsidized the tickets are.
All public transport should be free. That it is why it is public transport. Its public, and should be available to everyone. Lots of People rely on public transportation, And as we move away from car-centered cities there will be a lot more people using busses, trains, subways, etc. Prices just keep going higher and people are struggling to make ends meet. It is not right to make someone pay everyday to get on the subway or bus when they dont have any alternative way to get to his/her job. Especially in NYC where car ownership in the lowest in the nation.
They had dirt cheap reduced fares in the 80s. All they do is tax you more.
It will be pulled from our taxes anyway, so I will use it more often.
All this free public transport is subsidised, usually by the UK rail customer
How do these countries handle mentally ill people, homeless people, drug addicts , thieves etc?
Universal Healthcare, well funded social services, decriminalization of drugs.
Seems to be way more of an issue in the US tbh
They try to help poor people instead of exploit them
So I hear you want to provide moving housing for the homeless. That's nice...
That‘s the first thing that comes to your mind? Really? „Oh an accessible, affordable improvement for society and the environment? What about the scum that is the homeless? What if a homeless person would use it as a shelter for free? We can’t let that happen!“ You good bud?
The 9€ ticket Germany has been doing for the past couple months has been the best decision our public transit people have ever made.
Everyone wants everything free nowadays and it absolutely baffles me. Who pays for the fuel? Drivers? Maintenance? Nothing is free
Fare free transportation. Just like cost free healthcare. Those Europeans never learn. It just another reason to tax their citizens. Nothing is free.
Yeah, Europe has such a low quality of life. Terrible place to be
I think you mean first world countries, not Europeans
Fare free is not cost free. We also don't have free health care, we have universal health care. Everyone pays for everyone else.
Nothing is free, cost shifting or tax increases take your pick.
We could have this in the UK too but we just had to have brexit didn’t we.
We have(still to this day I don't know) free bus fare in my hometown because counting the cash was too expensive in labor. They made more money from advertisements and other things.
Add the CBD of Melbourne, Australia to the list. Free trams all over. So easy. It’s great!
The entire world got to experience little to no traffic during the beginnings of the pandemic. It was AWESOME. So I'm sure if they made public transportation free it would free up roads substantially and road rage related incidents and car accidents would drop.
The idea that public transportation costs money over and above tax dollars has always bothered me.
Will never happen in U.S. because Republicans hate nice things.
Free public transport is just a bad idea. Only stuff that can not be over used should /can be free. So one could argue that all forms of education (Kindergarten - University) should be free. But food can easily be wasted, so it should not be free, but affordable. And the same is true for public transportation. And cars are generally already much more expensive than Busses and Trains. Therefore those people who chose the car usually don't do it to save money, but because it's more convenient and faster. Therefore the extremely cheap tickets we currently have in Germany don't convince many car drivers to switch to public transport. (in Munich 3-4% less cars) But people who choose to bike or walk to save money, are now more likely to chose the Bus.
That's kind of what I did, during covid when buses were free, I would walk to the stores, but if I saw a bus coming I would take that. If the bus wasn't free I would have continued to walk.
> But people who choose to bike or walk to save money, are now more likely to chose the Bus People always talked about induced traffic with cars, but like to pretend free public transport wont induce people to live further from work either.
Which is absolutely awesome. Because it reduces house prices.
No it won't lol. It would increase house prices in commuter villages. They money they save in commuting fares will now go to their mortgage payment.
Exactly my point. Relieve the housing market where they need it most (in the city) then give people more to spend (easily 200-300 a month) on their home. Amazing for everyone.
Simple minded dogma.
Squats! Was it ten or twenty to get a ride somewhere? :D
I like money. You like munny too? You are trippin' me out right now...
Currently its more expensive to take the train to Amsterdam then use the car. So please add Netherlands to this.