Free Public Transit

[Zkribbler]

A few decades ago, when I was very politically active, I contemplated becoming an advocate for free public transit. This would reduce financial pressure on the working poor, move the middle class from autos into transit thus lessening traffic, pollution, and parking problems.

I abandoned this idea when I realized transit would become free public housing and, as a friend of mine pointed out, free public bathrooms.

This idea is catching on. from Kansas City to Vilnius.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/free-public-transit-kansas-city-estonia_n_5e4f9b49c5b6b82aa651191e

Have you experienced ii? What do you think?

 

[Arakhor]

What sorts of degenerates live near you that would treat public transport as public bathrooms??

 

[Zkribbler]

Erm, public transport goes into skid row, wherein dwell the homeless.

 

[Camikaze]

The key consideration should be supply/demand. Governments should incentivise people to use public transport to its capacity, before using other forms of transport. But if public transport is being used at capacity, further incentives aren't great. You need to expand before making it free.

Concerns about homelessness are a separate issue. The solution to that problem has nothing to do with public transportation pricing.

 

[Ajidica]

move the middle class from autos into transit thus lessening traffic,

Would it though? I pay $6.50 a day for a rush hour express bus ($3.25 each way) which is cheaper than any contract parking lot in downtown Minneapolis apart from the ones way up in the old warehouse district which are paved vacant lots the city hasn't figured out what to do with yet.

 

[mitsho]

Generally, this would be a good idea since it simplifies things and allows everyone the Freedom to travel. It will result in better mixing and maybe some larger horizons for some people. I am assuming of course you are talking of free public transport on the national level. Ah, no? Just the city. Works as well ;-)

Seriously, it‘s a balance off: You want to make sure that the citizens have a skin in the game and you make that by making them pay for the service. There‘s a good argument to making it free for certain sub-groups, but then you have the problem of making that fair. Say you give asylum seekers free transport since they cannot pay anyways, while the working poor have to pay. Will not be good. You can just give free movement to Kids (up to say 20?) and the elderly, but then the rich in there will have it anyways. And there‘s also social security for them to get it.

My argument would rather be to use free public transport as a tool for urban planning: Make certain lines free, preferably overland lines that allow people to live a bit outside in cheaper, greener, more ecological neighbourhoods making both congestion and quality of life better. But of course, there‘s the danger of these becoming ghettos.

But mostly, who benefits from free public transport? They don‘t want to lose their business, so you need to make the argument to them why they would still benefit from such a change.

 

[Hrothbern]

Public transport should be the bones of your urban planning.
Not the other way around where you try to add public transport to a chaotic car based expansion of houses and companies.

Once you do that priority well, free public transport with bike lanes is great.

With existing urban settings it is still good but more expensive.

 

[Samez]

IMHO prizing is by far not the only important factor regarding PT - If there is a free connection only twice a day i probably still would not use it (even every other hour might be too little for acceptance)
In the end PT will never really be for free - it's just different financing models. I am not sure how it is in other countries but in Germany regional PT is not without fare (in my area you have to pay about 17€ for whole area day ticket) but the PT is co-financed by taxes usually with more than 50% of total costs. (i.e. for it to be cost neutral the fare would have to be >30€). No one would use it if you had to pay those fares. If the PT is financed by all/taxes - those living in rural areas, where there is no PT, will have to finance a service they don't profit from. IMHO in the end it would still be worth to have a no fare PT as long as you can offer those people in the rural areas at least some advance like (frequent or on demand) Mini Bus shuttle connection or something like that.

 

[Colon]

The use of free public transit really depends on what exactly the goal is. Study after study shows that car-drivers are far more receptive to improvements in the quality of public transit than they are to lower prices of them. Cases where free public-transit succesfully reduced car-usage were combined with investments in the quality of services. So why not do both? Because removing fees means public transit companies will have less funds to provide services. The government could ofcourse make up for the lost revenues, but then you again run into the matter that better services do more to lure people out of their cars than lower prices, meaning that the (extra) subsidies would be better spent on the former than the latter. At least, when reducing car-usage is the priority.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What sorts of degenerates live near you that would treat public transport as public bathrooms??

The ones that would otherwise be forced to go in the streets. Various cities in California have had hepatitis outbreaks due to the contamination from the homeless.

Edit: @Camikaze is right though, it's a separate issue that shouldn't be conflated with the other.

 

[uppi]

I am not sure public transport should be completely free, because trips consume resources and passengers should be aware that their travel does cost something.

However, I think the primary source of funding should be the state, not fares. Public transport is public infrastructure like public roads and should be funded by the public.

What annoys me is that the pricing structure is geared towards the heavy users and against the occasional users. I use the bike for most trips and only use public transport about 2 times a week, but I almost pay as much as I would if I were using it every day of the week.

 

[Lexicus]

What sorts of degenerates live near you that would treat public transport as public bathrooms??

Pump your brakes. In many American cities there are next to no public restrooms. Calling homeless people "degenerates" for going to the bathroom where they can is not cool.

Public transit absolutely should be free at the point of use. Making it free at the point of use is an essential part of reducing carbon emissions.

 

[Zelig]

It's not that I think public transit ought to be free, it's that I don't think the cost of fare collection is justifiable for its results. (It has real resource costs, without creating any actual wealth or notably useful incentives.)

 

[Yeekim]

Tallinn has had free public transport for residents for 7 years. I'm not sure it has had any noticeable effect for better or worse tbh.

Pump your brakes. In many American cities there are next to no public restrooms. Calling homeless people "degenerates" for going to the bathroom where they can is not cool.

Someone crapping in a city bus is a degenerate, full stop.
If you really can't find a restroom, find a damn bush.

 

[Lexicus]

It's not that I think public transit ought to be free, it's that I don't think the cost of fare collection is justifiable for its results. (It has real resource costs, without creating any actual wealth or notably useful incentives.)

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/11/14/mta-will-spend-249m-on-new-cops-to-save-200m-on-fare-evasion/

MTA Will Spend $249M On New Cops to Save $200M on Fare Evasion

 

[Berzerker]

I grew up using mass transit in San Francisco, it was cheap but not free. I think a quarter got a ride and a free transfer to another bus/trolley. You could just about cross the city on that, I cant remember if it covered a 3rd bus though but I rarely needed one. It was a good system but necessary given how much room vehicles take up and the density/compactness of the city.

 

[Arakhor]

In many American cities there are next to no public restrooms.

Then that's a problem with civic pride, not public transport.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think local PT should cost money, but I'd do it differently. As a taxpayer and resident of the city you get an annual account with say $100 credit. I'm must making up numbers here. Daily all city usage would cost $1.00. If you register to vote you get another $100 credit; if you vote in an election, another $100 credit. Citizens swipe a card when the get on buses, subways or trolleys and their accounts are charged. If you run out of credits, you would get a tax bill from the city at some interval. There would be other ways to build up credit by contributing to the city's welfare.

 

[cardgame]

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/11/14/mta-will-spend-249m-on-new-cops-to-save-200m-on-fare-evasion/

capitalism encourages efficient allocation of resources

 

[Farm Boy]

Small expenditures ignored in the auditing of state mandates winds up with Greek taxes. Rules must be rules or they are a sucker's game.

Top left corner looks better the older I get. But more left and less middle is still dillweed territory.