One huge part that you missed, when you transfert the cost of public transport from fare to local taxes, you also save on all the expensive measure you use to control that people actually pay their fare. No more ticket machine that need maintenance, no more controler ...
What change it from a fair to taxes. Which means the rich would have to pay more than the poor. Which is more fr the the current system where the poor has to pay a higher % to used the same public trasport
this is a common misconception, the cost of fare enforcement is very little, and having a ticketing system gives them a lot of very valuable usage data that they would have to pay to collect otherwise
@@Larwood. Ok, so let's add, we have : the lost fare from people not paying, the cost and maintenance of machines and doors, the salary of controler. I dare to say those will likely add up to a nice amount in the end. As for Data collection : you just get the information of how many people (and eventually the identity of said people for subscriptions) enter at a station, and ... that's all. You don't even know when they exit cause most system are free exit. I SERIOUSLY Doubt this information is of any value considering you could get more in a multitude of other way (by using a simple camera counting people coming in and out). So yeah, considering that cities that made the switch from fare to local tax in france saved money (i mean, they measured the saving, its real) i'll say you're wrong on this one
@@dorianodet8064 since when were most systems free exit? Most systems require you to tap off at the exit and at any transfers you make. Counting people entering train stations is a tiny part of the picture, it doesn't tell you where people go, how long it takes, what route they take, how regularly they make that journey. It also pretends buses and trams don't exist.
My personal experience: Because of the economic fallout of the pandemic, I lost my job. A friend was able to offer me work at a factory. Public transport was vital and free public transport was very helpful throughout that transitional period. Mirco example
Thank you for sharing. My anecdote is when i was homeless and going through legal issues, i still had to make it to my probation appointments. I remember getting up even in the winter early in the morning so that since i couldn't bus that i had to walk 15 kilometers, and be there for my appointment. Being able to afford public transit was a rare treat, usually given to me by a kind stranger or a bus ticket from a shelter.
Good for you. But someone else is paying for that "free" public transport. Transport authorities are not selfish giant, who refuse children an entry in his garden.
Sure it is convenient for broke people. The goal isn’t merely to give poor people a ride. The goal is to reduce car use and pollution. Those primary goals all fail. The poor don’t drive so they don’t affect the goals. The only solution is to make cars so difficult to make public transport more attractive. This would probably reduce standards of living but that’s not the goal of public transport advocates.
My nephew just left for a vacation in Switzerland. They sent him a free pass for public transport while he was there. He thought it was pretty impressive.
Yes, public transportation is expensive for the state. But what about the costs of private transportation? I think you also need to compare it, the streets and the parking spaces are also expensive for the state
Im a BIG advocate for public transport, however vehicles and fuels are fairly heavily taxed, so cars PARTLY pay for themselves. Public transport has to be good, private transport bad and public will be used more
there is consumption tax on fuel, so use of vehicle pays for itself in this regard. Not to mention, that even this tax is again taxed for VAT. We could discuss, just how much this tax should be and whether proceeds from that tax should be strictly allocated to car infrastructure projects, but to say, that street also needs maintenance, which needs to be paid is dumb, cause it is being already paid twice, in nations, where on street parking is allowed only for those, who've paid, three times.
@@hugoslav843Private pays for itself if you're running your government like a company that is. You're looking at profit when you should be looking at cost. Private simply costs more
Me and my mum wanted to go shopping by bus, but because a bus was running very late we went by car instead. So I see that making buses more reliable and frequent would make them more useful to the everyday traveller.
I would hate to do shopping by bus. I certainly don't want to have to carry all those bags on the bus on my way home not to mention the risk of being robbed. In a car I can simply put the bags in the trunk and drive.
@@Jon_Nadeau_ really pitty on poor western people then you live in bad area... lawless jungle area...no rule of law...no law and order ..then Leave your area that's bad to live as said in Hindu Sanskrit that we must leave the village where robbers are there... That's why India is number one country
Well as a Luxembourgish citizen i can talk out of expierence: I always take the bus for a ride to the capital but i certainly would take the car if I needed to pay for the bus because it wouldnt be worth the hassle to take public transit
Luxembourg is the richest country on earth. Why would you care for a few bucks per day when your salary is 6000€ / month? As a person working in a rich country, I can say for sure that saving 30 minutes of my time every day is much more important to me than a few bucks per days. Quality and convenience is more important than price, by a lot!
Now think about what will happen when everyone does the same thing. All of a sudden public is being dismantled to make space and budget for more private infrastructure, and after a few years you're stuck with paying a mandatory tax out of your hard earned wage to big auto and big petro. It'll take generations after that to go back to the correct system. Never let them make that first step. Edit: I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying the blame is on you individually, but that it's a structural and political issue; society as a whole is responsible to stand against it
Making a crappy service free is NOT going to significantly improve its adoption so step one would be to improve the quality of the public transportation first and then worry about making it free. I guarantee a high quality low wait time public transportation would be preferred over driving personal cars by most people.
Free public transport is very successful everywhere its been implemented. Instead of wasting taxes on foolish things, public transport can easily be financed. It provides a social good, increases economic competitiveness and ensures a more developed city or region. Tallinn Estonia went free public transport for citizens and its been a smashing success
*First things first: The notion that it's "free" is a willful exaggeration. In this economic example, there is no such thing as a "free lunch." Expenditures for "public transportation" are financed with TAXES. That is an irrefutable empirical fact.* Second, your statement suffers from a fallacious error ; a hasty generalization, which is an informal fallacy. Your faulty generalization and poor deductive reasoning takes one example and incorrectly extends it to the population as a whole. Here is your faulty reasoning: 1. X is true for A 2. Therefore, X is true for B, C, D, E, F, etc. Furthermore, the elimination of fares for public transport in Tallinn Estonia has NOT been a "smashing success." *In Tallinn, dropping or eliminating fares only accounted for a marginal increase of 1.2% in ridership -- per an article written by "Fast Company" online. And if you care for honesty and intellectual integrity, you can further look into the matter by reviewing numerous articles ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE published by The Atlantic Magazine, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, and others >> See article: "Why the World's Largest Experiment in [Free] Public Transportation Failed" by FastCompany. Cheers.
@@PhuckYourExistence Thank you, Captain Obvious. Free PT actually saves money for society overall because it does away with the costs associated with the fare selling, administration and control.
I find this a ridiculous argument because public roads don’t generate a profit they lose a huge amount of money as well but nobody would dispute roads provide value beyond pure profit for the public so why apply such an absurd standard to public transport? It serves a purpose beyond profit.
Not exactly true. I favor private roads and highways, I don't see any reason why should the govt use my tax money to build a road to nowhere. For example, let's say I live in city (A), and the central planner in the govt somehow think that area (B), which is some distance away from city (A) has great potential. Therefore the govt build a road network to area (B), and not only that, they basically build a new town with a park and town square and also couple residential buildings with our tax money. For me, this is outrageous, especially when after ~12 years, barely anybody moved there. Nobody held responsible nor accountable for this total waste of money. IMO we must curtail government's ability to spend taxpayers' money. The govt should remain as regulator, they should regulate and enforce the law, but should stay away from actually planning and paying for new development, including new roads and/or free public transport. If we have surplus we should instead reduce the tax rather than spend it in such wasteful manner.
@@Biditchoun Why should people who seldom use public transport pay for it? Like why should I pay for you bus fare with my tax money? IMO the govt should not dabble in social engineering (e.g. shaping public behavior to favor public transport with subsidy). Politicians and bureaucrats, as any other citizens, are ofc free to promote whatever they deem as good or necessary, but they should *NOT* use public money/resources to further their own goals/idealism. They are free to talk about it in public, but they should not use taxpayers' money to fund it. IMO the govt should focus only on 2 things: 1. Maintain internal order thru law enforcement and justice system, and 2. Protect the society from external threat thru the military. That's all, no "public services", occupational licensing & permits (that limit the freedom of the citizens), wealth redistribution, social engineering, etc.
"public roads don’t generate a profit" Are you sure? Have you ever heard of vehicle tax? Have you ever heard of fuel tax? Governments make a lot of money from drivers. Public transport users should pay tickets that are as expensive or as cheap as it takes to maintain the system. Notice I am not even saying to make a profit. Just to operate. Pay what you use.
Because even if you don't drive, you still benefit from the roads. If you don't take public transit, you don't benefit from public transit. A life goal of any sane person is to never take public transit again.
In Denver the light rail used to only be used by rich people because it only went from rich neighborhoods to downtown and back. That backfired because since the cars were mostly empty all the time the homeless started moving in during the pandemic. At least the bus still works.
Live in Beijing: bus costs 1rmb (0.14usd) regardless of distance in city limits. Wait times are so short as to not need a schedule. Motorists need to be charged for their externalities (noise and air pollution, injury and fatality, damage to land use planning, etc) and cities should return on-street parking to residents (like Paris is doing).
he literally said that the way to reduce the problem is aiming quality, not price and thats is actually quite obvious if you stop to think for 2 minutes if you think about opportunity costs: cars in general are ALREADY more expensive than public transport and people keep prefering them than the public transport - maybe because price is not the only issue that comes to peoples mind?
safety should also not be overlooked. in some big cities, public transport can be dangerous (especially for womens where htey face a huge risk of harassment and physical agression/assault). people would be more likely to face public transport if they fellt safe doing it
Exactly, if you make the public transport free, you would just decrease the safety because it would make much easier for harassers and pickpockets to get inside public transports
@@Redlights111 it would be more complex to set up separate women vs men transportation lines (and it would also open another can of worms if one cultural community has a higher crime rates than another, as the "but we did the separation for the sexes, so why not for cummunities as well?" ) on top of that, even tho it is less frequent, there are cases where some women where physically assaulted by other women, so, while decreasing risk for women, it would not magically give adequate safety (especially since after train the passengers will disembarq, so men and women will be mixed back anyway, unless you go torugh the expenditures of making separates exit in train station as well, but then you increase the first problems i cited above ) increasing overall safety of public transport by, for exemple, placing guards regularly (and allowing thoose guards the use of force against individuals who pose a threat for other passengers) would be a much better solution since it would: - be cheaper to put in place (no big infrastructure overhaul required) - increase demand for extra personnal (so, creation of jobs where people don't need an insane diploma levels, and where required qualities are a sense of order, a will to protect the people and sufficient physical might, so, something that is much more aivable to people of lower socio-economic background) -cause real noticeable safety increase for everyone -avoid the whole social issues that would come from segregating groups of people from tohers
@@gamecubekingdevon3 I obviously agree that public transportation should be made safer in general and I responded really for the part where u talked about harassment. There is already women only spaces like in gyms. I don't think it would increase division. I don't think men need their own ones just for women because women are more likely to experience these things solely for being a woman. In japan it works amazing, when there is lets say 5 sections in a train one of them is women only and it is colored and marked so everyone know.
As somebody who was a dirt poor high school student in a city with good public transportation, I would regularly bum rides or pay for gas when I had already sunk the cost for an unlimited bus pass to avoid spending more than 50% longer to get to a destination because of travel time to/from and wait time for a bus, so this video makes a lot of sense to me.
So your City didn't had a good public transportation... A good public transportation doesn't take 50% more time than traveling by car. It's faster in many routes and about the same in most routes.
I find this rather short-sighted. These studies assume the CURRENT state of public transport, which is disappointing at best in most places. Taking the vast majority of people into public transport also means that the entire transport system would require an overhaul to accommodate these people. Furthermore, looking at this purely economically should still show the meta gains. Also, NOT doing this should conclude that within 1-2 lifetimes, society will have collapsed to the point where economy as we know it will be pointless. Some broader views would be appreciated.
Alot of costs are not mentioned on the private vehicle side: - extra road maintenance cost - Increased amount of lanes on main roads - Effects off its noisr pollution on health - increased taxes on private vehicles per person - cost of obesity So overall this video could use multiple parrs
In my town (70k hab) public transport are free. In the city budget it didn't made that much of a difference. The cost for controls and people who's job was to control tickets was almost balancing the cost of transports. It made a huge impact on use. Be it schools, citizens etc... lots of people started using the public transport rather than private bus, cars or others. It may have had a small negative impact on walking and bike but overall I can only see positive impacts (after 30years of use). Teenagers are more autonomous, city center got a lot more attractiv for small businesses, poor workers got a cheap solution to get to work/groceries/etc.
Being able to just hop on a bus sounds like a dream. No need to look for shops selling tickets, figuring out apps, or worrying about ticket inspectors. But the real problem of public transport is its impracticality. I live in a densely populated area, but i still need to walk a lot just to reach the bus stop or train station, waiting times can be long and unpredictable, vehicle changes are often needed to reach many destinations, and onboard comfort is generally low.
Not sure where you live but it’s just poor American underfunded public transit. My city public transit is okay even outside downtown you are within a 5 minute walk from a bus stop. I live close to toronto and downtown u are within 3 minutes or less walk from a bus train station or street car. Street cars come every 5-8 min and same with trains
Convenience is solved by technology - in my city they installed in all busses a ticket machine - you select the ticket type and just tap your credit card. No shops or anything like that.
That previous QLD Premier did not win eventually & on Day 1 Brisbane Central Station was business as usual, though I think $0.5 to take some ferries are so great. After Pandemic, SE QLD has increased population but the usage on public transport actually dropped so 6 months trial period of 50c within Translink was introduced.
The biggest problem I see with this kinda stuff, the cities need to be more easily accessible outside of a car, but also that public transportation needs to be updated and made better and the 1st priority over cars when it comes to how streets are built. Ideally the way streets are priorities should be ; walks, bikes/scooters, low weight slow cars/bikes, then heavy cars and trucks, with a separate road made for things like semis.
Personally I think free public transport would definately significantly reduce car usership.I work as a bus driver in my city and I use the bus all the time because I have free travel on it with my driver’s card. In previous jobs, I always would drive to work.
This reminds me of how when politicians make texting while driving illegal they actually increase the number of accidents caused from texting while driving. This is because people don’t stop texting while driving. They just go from texting while driving with their eyes up by the windscreen to texting while driving by their knees, because they don’t want to get caught.
High travel costs causes unipolar concentration to the largest cities. Economy of rural areas collapse creating many "unsustainable" depopulated towns. Yes, I'm talking about Tokyo...
I think free public transport can be a good measure when combined with other policies like less roads and parking spaces for cars and better bike & walking infrastructure since the combination would on one hand make it more attractive to use the public transport and on the other harder to use a car in cities. Such combinations would allow for better air quality and more greenspaces while keeping congestion outside the city (if done right and there being a transportation system capable of handling the influx and reaching near people’s homes)
Here in Norway the Socialist left (SV), Communist (Rødt), Labour Party (AP) and Center Party (SP) voted for free public transport in Stavanger, which they got. Guess who is funding it, the poorer region such as Fredrikstad and Sarpsborg. The law says richer regions need to share money to the poorer region, and somehow Stavanger got free public transport while at the same time we dont recieve money from their region. They didnt want to answer the question of where they found money for the free public project. The right says it would be better if they had free transport in the poor regions instead of the rich oil&gass region, as their salary is twice as low. But the right said the best solution would be cheaper but not free public transport, as it would make the fund stay longer, and potetionally expand the public transport network
An important long-term benefit you missed is that convenient public transport---low fares, high frequency, dedicated infrastructure, and a large, well-connected network---affects development patterns. Particularly in the way development natural concentrates along transit corridors. This transit-oriented development (TOD) is dense and walkable which also in turn maximizes the positive externalities of transit and decreases car-dependency, ensuring that a low-income person has access to necessary amenities if they cannot afford a car/gas
Free transportation is equilivant to all the free parking and free highways but can move more people. It will also increase business sales in downtowns by 10%. It can also be not as bad as bulldozing 20% of prime properties for free parking lots. And making the streets more hostile to local shopping.
Unlike free parking, the demand for public transportation is all ways lacking. Induced demand doesn’t work for public transportation. Demand drives supply , supply does not drives demand. Supply drives prices, if you are giving it away you have to much supply. Parking or public transportation.
Honestlly, I don't mind big cities asking you to pay, especially is there are a boatload of tourists there, but as far as rural transport goes...yeah, just make it free. I live in the countryside, and most bus lines make less money than the cost of operating a ticketing machine aboard (yes, most people here still buy printed tickets from a cash register, it's a village). But it is important, because it lets people work in nearby cities for a huge pay increase, and kids can go to better schools. So I would argue rural public transit, such as intercity bus and train ride (excluding high speed lines) should be free.
I think that ticket price should be independent of train speed, as it is wasteful to take a slower train on the same route as a faster train just because it's cheaper. This can be generalised to all common public transport modes. (apart from airplanes, as they are bad for the climate and the economy)
Many places don’t have subsided public transport, in this situation a car can be a cheaper alternative. Uber can be cheaper as well in some cases. And yes if you have it free but only serves some spots in a city or the service is terrible been free won’t change a thing!
11:13 Last question, definitly yes. When for me it's often 30 min car drive or about 1 hour in buses and in waiting time, I don't look at the price. Even more in Europe where petrol is now very expensive as you said it's already economicly more vaiable option, so further cheaping the price would not matter to me. (with 50% student discount public transport is already 3 time cheaper than the car in Warsaw)
When Philippine's EDSA Carousel line was free, there were frequent bus arrivals. However, it caused drivers and conductors to work more since they were paid by the trips. The government who created the budget for the free bus often delay the payments to the private bus companies so drivers resigned and moved to ride-hailing apps such as Grab and delivery services such as Lalamove since they pay better than private bus companies who have bus franchises to the EDSA Carousel line. Public Transport is notoriously difficult to make sustainable much more profitable. If the public transport service is not at least sustainable, it becomes unreliable and problematic. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore have managed to make public transport sustainable and profitable by diversifying income sources, something most urbanist are allergic to since they only see American Style Capitalism. Instead of relying on ticket prices and government subsides, they enter freight and real estate. The freight industry is highly profitable and becomes better with bigger sizes. They buy all land around stations and lease out spaces to retail and business.
People once and for all need to understand that people who use their car mostly do it because other options aren't convenient, but also because it is not a pleasant experience. Cramped public transport with hard seats (if there are available seats at all) and ill-mannered users are the top reasons why car users who could realistically take public transport don't. Car users who could realistically take public transport are willing to spend hundreds if not thousands of euros a year in fuel costs alone for that comfort, because as stressful as we like to paint traffic to be, it is by far a better experience than over-crowded transit. Give drivers a convenient AND pleasant transit option, even a more expensive one than regular transit (as long as it's slightly cheaper than a car), and they'll seriously consider that option. Hell, a pleasant commute is the very reason why many people (often ex-car commuters) who live in cities with good bike infrastructure would rather bike than take a bus.
I think this vídeo is a gross oversimplification and one-sided view of a very complex topic... 1) People dont use public trabsport if: A) Its expensive; B) If its ineficient; C) if it dosent take people where they whant tô go; D) if it Just gets stuck in trafic like everyone else, therefore bieng way less time eficient then cars; 2) Public trabsport needs to have dedicated spaces, needs carefule maneging and planing. If say, for example, your buses arent eficient for the route they take, dont have dedicated lanes (therefore getting stuck in trafic at high demand times) and arent time and quantity eficient/suficient, then people will opt to go by car. They will get to there destination way quicker and with more confort then by Public Trabsport. 3)Cars also generly have lots of parking space, generly free. If those spaces where removed, or charged, less people would take ther cars to work and more money & space would be freed-up for PT. 4) PT takes way more people using less space, fule, and materials then cars (especialy SUV's), só high inflation bieng atributed to money used by PTs is kinda half the story...
Also, it makes a difference how much of the operating costs are currently covered and whether more demand will be created in peak periods which might then result in cutting services in the off peak. Most urban areas do not pay any attention at all to the transit dependent and they will most likely get the services they need cut first.
No, what should be promoted is the building of public service infrastructure to reach the people who decides to use their car. More bus coverage and more bus stops should be built and then people would not even consider time as a problem aka use their car. Also, using Chile as an example for e.g Europe is a terrible comparison.
If you want me to use public transit, it has to be better than driving. It must cost less, be extensive (to everywhere I want to end up), be easily understandable, take a similar amount of time and effort. It must be VERY safe, extremely reliable, operate 24/7, and involve minimal walking. It should also offer a degree of privacy during transport. Other than cost, I get all of those in my car... Can you say the same about public transport? Genuinely asking
@@saralittman573 My family was dead center middle class and I am currently near the top end of poor. I lived in a million dollar house in the late 90's and on the street in the 2k's. In my comment, I'm only referencing my personal feelings, and I should point out that I'm somebody who strictly prefers a suburban or rural lifestyle. I avoid cities at all costs, and this def factors in to my opinion. Also, I'm actually a big fan of expanding public transit service and decreasing it's cost for those in need. I'm only speaking of the factors that effect my personal transportation decision making. Thanks
It's silly to assume that travel time on collective transport must be unproductive. It only takes a phone, a tablet or a book (and perhaps earbuds) to be productive on a bus, train or airplane. Even when offline, we can read and reply to email (synced later) while listening to podcasts. Don't try this while driving however.
In my city, there was recently a votation for making public transport free or not. I was against but my friends were for, and I failed to convince them that free public transport is a bad idea. This video is excellent at doing that, I will definitely share it to my friends. The most important point here is that increasing quality and convenience is more important than decreasing the price
I agree. Quality of public transport is more important than the price. I live in the north of Stockholm, and using public transport is by far the easiest way to get to the center or the south of the city. Going by car would take approximately as long, when there's no traffic. But owning a car is expensive. Most often, I travel by bike. It's quite convenient, and free. And you're allowed to bring your bike on the train, so often the fastest and most convenient way to travel is to take the bike to and from the train.
This is just anecdotal, but my city (Southwest of USA) got rid of public transportation fares during COVID and I (in my 20s) have replaced about half of my driving for trips >1 mile with a combination of walking, cycling, and public transport to go shopping, visit friends/family, and go to various evening activities. If fares were ever reinstated I may continue using the buses and streetcar here, but the public transportation system is nowhere near good enough that I would pay for example $20 a month like the Barcelona example (I would probably only spend marginally more per month on gas if I drove, and I would save a good amount of time). Right now, I justify my longer commutes by the fact that I am not paying any transportation costs and am preventing a minuscule amount of additional environmental destruction. However, with fares reinstated, it would be harder for me to see this decision as the most sound. Either way, my city is very slowly moving toward improving its public transportation, and I am looking forward to some of the routes on main streets not being only every half an hour during work hours on weekdays.
Another thing to consider, when you drive you not only spend on gas but also on car maintenance and repair, insurance, tax, pay occasional speeding or parking ticket, possibility of crash costs (insurance often have deductible) cost of purchasing vehicle in the first place, and the less distance you drive the more percentage these other costs make compared to fuel, but most often it's more than gas itself.
Totally agree that with the conclusion of the quality being more important than the price. This can also been seen in other areas of transportation such as biking. People will often assume that things like weather or topography influences bike use, but when we actually look at the data what really makes the difference is the infrastructure and how convenient it is. So not surprisingly countries like the Netherlands, which has good infrastructure for both, has higher use of both modes of transportation, and in many cases the trips done by cycling or public transport there are quicker than driving.
From the title i was scarred that it will be some sort of "public transit should make money" video but i was pleasantly surprised, you made very good points and sourced them too, and i agree witht he conclusion rhat money is only a part of the problem, the main things are quality of service and intervals intervals intervals. Here most buses run on a 10-15min interval, some trams even at 5-7min and metro on 1.5min in peak hours, i cant even imagine having one bus coming thru every hour with no alternatives
You are correct. I live in India where the public transport is heavily subsidized due to which the adoption of new technology like electric buses and trains becomes difficult, because they need government funding to do it. In the end it reduces the interest of middle class and upper middle class to travel in these vehicle which increases traffic on the road due to private vehicle
Public transport needs to be an adequate replacement for private transport if getting cars off the road is the objective. However, there should be substantial efficiencies gained from completely free transport. It's a bit of a chicken and egg argument - you could start by making transport free and then improving it, or improving it and then making it free. Making it free and leaving it as a poor substitute for private transport seems to be the mistake that is most commonly made.
The problem with free or cheap transport is that too many people want to use them. In Jyväskylä, Finland, local public transport suffered from having too many passengers a decade ago. All the buses were always full. The problem was solved when the buses raised the price of tickets, in which case the number of public transport passengers decreased without having to increase the number of shifts, and the bus company now makes more profit with fewer passengers than than it did before when the buses were overloaded and crowded. Now there is more space in the buses and it is more comfortable to travel when there are far fewer passengers.
Income based assistance for free public transport in combination with tolls and congestion pricing would steer "traffic" towards more public use in general. And yes you have to improve the services as well from cleanliness, comfort like A/C heat, and convenience with timely arrivals/departures and maybe more trains/buses. And don't forget safety because there's a stigma of being robbed etc
This logic is flawed. Of course people will still use the car instead of walking if the city isn't walkable. If walking is an active danger and everything is 20 km away, no one will walk. If there isn't also a train or bus service where you know it will arrive on time, you won't use it so you don't get late. Making it free won't fix the fact that the bus always arrives 40 minutes late. Investing in more and better buses and more trams and railways, and painting a bus lane will. Making walkable cities with all of your shops and essential stuff in a 10 minute radius and with sidewalks will make less people drive.
Public transport for free is a GREAT IDEA, not a bad idea. Of course that in extremely expensive countries with an already congested network, like in Switzerland, it is not a good idea because there is no more room to add more people, but in other countries, like Netherlands and Luxembourg it is a great idea. Even Portugal created it for senior citizens and its a success so far. You see, in Switzerland people already use public transport heavily therefore there is no incentive to use it even more, since the system is at breaking point as-is. But in other countries it can incentivate its usage.
The socalist (sv), the communust (rødt), Labour Party (AP) and Centrist Party (SP) voted (and passed) for free public transport in the region of Stavanger, Norway. a oil and gas rich region, with twice the average salary of Sarpsborg and Fredrikstad. We also have a law that says rich regions need to give some money to poorer region such as sarpsborg and fredrikstad, which Stavanger havent done. The right are currently trying to force them to answer ous where they found enough money to fund this, but they wont tell, because they know they stole it by ignore the law of fair share between the poorer regions.
Public transportation mostly helps with not needing a parking, and in some cases it's faster than car traffic. But with it one can't choose when and where to go on demand.
Where I live (a small city in the uk) we have low quality, infrequent and expensive public trasport. The only ones who use it are those who don't have a choice. In my city it is a tax on the poor already.
I'm from Chile, and when I was working I was using the public transport in Santiago which is very modern with buses and metro integrated, very frequent, electric buses with AC, etc so I was using it for my commute and it took me like 30min door to door so it was not bad, I have to say that the public transport in Santiago is highly subsidized. Now leaving in England, I was using the bus to commute to my job, but the frequency was every 20min and sometimes they were not doing some services due to shortage of drivers. In short, it was a bad experience in winter. So I bought a car and now I'm happy driving my car without waiting for the bus. I feel sorry when I see the people waiting at my bus stop when I pass by though. The key is the waiting times, but also most of us don't like walking, standing, or being squeezed every day. The car is much more comfortable and fast.
I live in Warsaw and we have ticket for all kind of public tranport in entire city for 50PLN for students and 100PLN for adults. It can be cheaoer if you buy 3 month ticket or longer. I ve never needed driving license. From my peers, those who have driving license are usually those who grew up in different, smaller cities.
In my city, Vienna, with roughly 1.9 million inhabitants, more than 1.2 million people use public transport as their main mode of transportation. Compared to that, only about 730.000 people own a car. There is multiple reasons for this, and of course the fact that public transport will take you anywhere in the city at any hour of the day with mostly short waiting times is one od the main factors, but i would also argue that the incredibly low cost of only 1€/day for unlimited use inside Vienna plays a major role. This price did not change for over a decade at this point and has proven resistant to inflation. I am very happy to live in a city where public transport is as amazing as it is while also being very cheap.
I think what the issue with this debate is that it usually only ever focuses on the supply side of travel but not the demand. If your town is zoned so that there is residential, commercial and industrial zones, there will be much larger demand to drive/take public transport than a town where all of your needs are a 15-minute walk away. Pushing work-from-home and hiring local would slash demand. Furthermore, as I believe your video shows, it’s hard to reduce car usage indirectly as it’s simply very convenient for most people. To reduce usage it must be dealt with directly through taxes or subsidies. Considering most cars lie idle 22 hours a day and most cars have empty seats when operational, the space cars take up is mostly waste. Community cars that use ride-share organisation would probably be the most direct way to tackle congestion both in traffic and in parking.
In Staten Island the railway is free up until St. George and Tompkinsville stations. I wish that free transit was more well provided for because I feel like so many more people would use the train if the service was more frequent. Trains on average can come anywhere between 10-30 mins and combining that with a 30 min ferry which is already bad as it is, but much worse when you combine the two. Free transit needs more funding anf better service if agencies want the transit to actually be used as opposed to driving, and that’s true even if you want fares.
I understand the argument that the free trips are trips that would not happen if they were not free very well. I live in a village near a big town. If the public transit was free I would go there on weekends more often (off peak times). I would not go there during the weekdays peak times, because I am working elsewhere.
Look at the elizabeth line in the uk. TfL figures suggest that the Elizabeth line has attracted around 140,000 additional journeys in London each weekday than otherwise would have been the case. Just build more.
Metro in Montreal is 4,75$ Ticket for jumping the fence is 230$ Got 2 of those… not planing on paying them, not if I don’t get a big raise! Good luck collecting money I don’t have!
if you made public transport free, all the infrastructure dedicated to pay for the tickets could be removed. A lot of public agents are now focused on checking that people don't commit fraud => it would save a lot of money, thus removing the "cost of surveillance and checking" to replace it with trust. I would appreciate it if you had looked into this issue
Put a chip in the bus pass that is fingerprint activated. Low income and disabled people get free bus rides, stolen bus passes without the fingerprint stop working. In canada on disability who has been told she can't drive, i buy a $46 bus pass for the month. As it stands now, if my bus pass is stolen, i have to pay another $46. Now that's a small number, but another small number is my budget for rent, food, bills, everything. My monthly disability income is currently $1,131 and that is the only income i have. I receive only $1,131/month, pay $850 rent for a room in a basement. Then there are bills and groceries, and even with the help of a food bank i still run out of money on things i need and have to forage and lean on others for half of each month that extra $46 I'm having to spend at least once a month could help me afford to survive in a society that is trying to choke homeless out.
@@saralittman573 Putting chips in things and fingerprint recognition costs money and only the multi-million criminal parasites who push these products make money. I really am surprised that you are so sloppy with your cards and passes. I have had credit cards and bank cards and a driving licence for more than 50 years and I have NEVER lost ANY of these and I have never been held at gun point and my property stolen but ... well .... I live in Britain. The most efficient answer is to make buses free. This gets rid of the administrative costs and the driver can drive the bus and not waste time selling tickets or checking stupid passes. I am a habitual car driver but I did an experiment several years ago. I made several bus journeys. One of them took 63 minutes. The bus was stationary at bus stops for 33 of those minutes, at one stop waiting for "Mrs Figgins" who was hyper-ventilating because she couldn't find her 12 rides for the price of 10 ticket. We were also stationary for 4 minutes whilst the driver fiddled with his ticket machine and recorded the imformation on a report sheet. Some bean counter in the bus company office wanted to know how many tickets had been sold by various points of the drivers shift ... MY CHRIST ! and we all sat there like lemons whilst he did it. Of course, the engine was left running spewing filth into the atmosphere. Buses spew out the same amount of filth when stationary as they do when being driven at a steady 15 mph. Some time is taken for passengers to board and alight but I suggest that the journey could have been completed in 40 minutes enabling the driver to cover 60% more ground per shift, allow the passengers to get where they are going more quickly and burn far less fuel per mile. If the money was put into buses instead of bloody stupid, inconvenient and grossly expensive rapid transit and stupid trams people would have a far better service. Idiots say that rapid transit is faster. You tell that to the person who lives three-quarters of a mile from the nearest station when it is raining .... "I won't be long, Love. I'm just DRIVING down to the metro station to pick up Gladys .... alright ?" We could have bus stops every 220 yards (8 per mile). That doesn't mean 8 vehicle stops per mile. There wouldn't be anyone at most of them but it would mean that at least those living along the route would never be far from a stop. We must also have a network and frequent services throughout the day from early morning to late at night to limit waiting at bus changes and a less frequent service throughout the night so that it is possible to travel from anywhere to anywhere conveniently at any time. For you in America, that is not practical for country areas but would be possible in all major urban areas ..... where most Americans live. I have solutions to solve the peak crushes by FORCING employers to make it possible for employees to work fewer longer working days. Obviously, you don't care anymore, but the time taken to travel to and from work in congestion is a nightmare. Many people would love to travel half an hour earlier, work half an hour longer each day and have 14 days more holiday, or work an hour longer each day and have 26 days more holiday. 232 days at 7.5 hours "desk time" per day is 1,740 hours per year, 218 days at 8 hours "desk time" per day is 1744 hours per year, 206 days at 8.5 hours "desk time" is 1742.5 hours per year. No lunch breaks and travelling time on the days off (lunch breaks and travelling time IS work time. If you are not going to work, you wouldn't be wasting time travelling, would you ?) and possibly a faster journey on the work days. Given the chance, I know that the majority of employees would welcome the chance to work FEWER longer days.
I am living in Switzerland now and for the first time in my life I have to consider transport when budgeting, and it is awesome! Back in Argentina I never gave it a second thought, transport is so cheap it might as well be free if you have an ok job. But it sucks badly. Here in Switzerland I do have to consider the cost, although of you aren't traveling more than 30 minutes it is not that bad, and even when it is the quality is so spectacular I am happy to pay the price
Not all spending leads to inflation! It depends on what is bought. If the good bought has a lot of positive externalities like for example vaccines (or public transport) it can decrease inflation. This happens whenever a good provides/frees up more resources than it consumes/locks down.
Public transit is a public good. It reduces traffic and emissions. There’s no good reason NOT to make it free at point of use and fund it through taxes. Doing so would also eliminate slow boarding due to time spent collecting fares
Whilst travel/waiting time and the ease of use of public transport do play their roles in whether or not people make use of it, so does the cost of it. It doesn't necessarily have to be a matter of or/or, it can also be a matter of and/and. And optimise public transport, and make it free or at the very least very affordable.
Where i am public transport sucks. wait times are long sometimes longer than what it would take to walk from place to place. A voucher for an e-bike with cargo capacity would be a better solution where i am.
I feel these analysis is more applicable for developed countries and not poor countries. Developing good public transportation in poor countries will have huge impact.
No, the video is new, but is just a bunch of crap, so it is normal that you think you watched it already, because there are plenty of videos with just crap.
I think a root cause analysis is needed: My suspicion is that all such issues are caused by subsidies for constructing transportation infrastructure coupled with not charging market prices for usage.
What about free transport and Fees so expensive to drive a car into the inner city, fees that make those current city core parking costs seem cheap. Delivery drivers and other required vehicles exempted.
If you do that you give no incentive to improve public transport. It can be a terrible service, but it will have the clients locked up, because there will be no competition.
you were doing well until you said that making transit free could cause inflation. Most of the USA and UK outside of a few metro areas are in deflation with people in debt and little pocket money. Putting more money in pockets will stimulate local businesses.
Ive alway s like busses and always will when school get on cards are not pay as age but the thing nearly everything is payed for these days so if it was the only transport would you walk miles but would you get on bus get on to one for 1stop 😢
People use cars for trips when it's cheaper or to go to a spot that public transport (PT) didn't go to. So if you just make PT free and don't solve the issue of poor routing, of course you're experiment won't show any increase in PT usage.
I don't know if it's fair to say that free public transport is intrinsically regressive when we're really talking about overlaying on a reality in which the wealthy are the ones with the best access to it. Not only do I think it would be relatively simple to tie a program like free public transit to income or wealth levels, but an emphasis on expanding access to transit to areas that are underserved in concert with such programs would very much be the kind of targeted efforts that would have the sort of impact that would be assumed in implemented free public transit.
The German 9 EUR ticket Experiment from last year got similar conclusions. People were going more often with all kinds of public transportation, but in addition to cars or instead of walking or using a bicycle. So no positive environmental impact.
That is false! Traffic decreased by over 20% and air quality improved as well. The problem was the supply was the same so it couldn't keep up with the demand. For whom already used public transport on their day to day it became less of a solution that it was previously.
The smartest thing that should be on everyone's mind right now should be to invest in different streams of income that are not dependent on the government. Especially with the current economic crisis around the world. This is still a good time to invest in gold, silver, and digital currencies (BTC ETH...).
It isn't that there would be more money in the economy, unless printing machines go burrrr to fund it, but that money would be prioritized to other things. Yes prices of certain items may go up from increased demand but overall spending power would be increased for those people who would forgo car ownership. Of course, the main thing is that unless you are in certain areas public transportation sucks and the joke is that everyone thinks people should use public transportation....just not themselves.
The people who live closest to stations in London are, in the main, more wealthy because the cost of property around stations is more expensive. Why? Because people save time travelling to the station if they can afford to live close to one. Public transport density seems pretty important. In and round London, and certainly where I live, the frequency of services is very high. Both buses and trains going to whatever destination every 10-12 minutes. 5 or 6 services per hour. The only times its worth using a car for me is either: going out of London (because the cost of a train ticket to the south coast is more than the cost of fuel and public transport is less flexible outside London); going to a super market where the effort of carrying the weekly shopping home by bus is not work the time.
If you have enough money to do free transport you have enough money to make every single bus on the network be 10-15 mins or better for 24 hours instead!
As for my personal point of view, it is never a good idea to make something totally free, there will always be some kind of abuse : About 15 years ago the government in Belgium decided to make the use of buses free for retired people. As a consequence several seniors took the bus just to have a ride during the day and because of this the buses were crowded in the peak hours. Now there are reduced tariffs for the retired people which is a wiser thing to do. However, making public transport cheap(er) (e.g. during rush hour) is a good idea but it needs to be done by making the use of cars less attractive. As mentioned, the ease of use is very important : if you need to take your car to go to the nearest public transport stop, it will be very tempting to do the whole trip by car. It is also important that the frequency of use and the punctuality of the timetables can be met. A last remark : the use of trains is subsidized by the governments, but so is the price of petrol and the use of cars (at least in Belgium).
The regional city I live, has Free Buses but I hardly took 1 time in a decade. Other than a waste of time, going to somewhere else without or less public transport or higher fares, the quality of people are better.
I found that retirement to be great solution to my transport issues. I can rise at 9.30 every day and just stay at home watching RUclips videos. Problem solved.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
One huge part that you missed, when you transfert the cost of public transport from fare to local taxes, you also save on all the expensive measure you use to control that people actually pay their fare. No more ticket machine that need maintenance, no more controler ...
What change it from a fair to taxes. Which means the rich would have to pay more than the poor. Which is more fr the the current system where the poor has to pay a higher % to used the same public trasport
this is a common misconception, the cost of fare enforcement is very little, and having a ticketing system gives them a lot of very valuable usage data that they would have to pay to collect otherwise
@@Larwood. Ok, so let's add, we have : the lost fare from people not paying, the cost and maintenance of machines and doors, the salary of controler. I dare to say those will likely add up to a nice amount in the end. As for Data collection : you just get the information of how many people (and eventually the identity of said people for subscriptions) enter at a station, and ... that's all. You don't even know when they exit cause most system are free exit. I SERIOUSLY Doubt this information is of any value considering you could get more in a multitude of other way (by using a simple camera counting people coming in and out).
So yeah, considering that cities that made the switch from fare to local tax in france saved money (i mean, they measured the saving, its real) i'll say you're wrong on this one
Homeless people living on buses and trains.
@@dorianodet8064 since when were most systems free exit? Most systems require you to tap off at the exit and at any transfers you make. Counting people entering train stations is a tiny part of the picture, it doesn't tell you where people go, how long it takes, what route they take, how regularly they make that journey. It also pretends buses and trams don't exist.
My personal experience: Because of the economic fallout of the pandemic, I lost my job. A friend was able to offer me work at a factory. Public transport was vital and free public transport was very helpful throughout that transitional period. Mirco example
Thank you for sharing. My anecdote is when i was homeless and going through legal issues, i still had to make it to my probation appointments. I remember getting up even in the winter early in the morning so that since i couldn't bus that i had to walk 15 kilometers, and be there for my appointment. Being able to afford public transit was a rare treat, usually given to me by a kind stranger or a bus ticket from a shelter.
Exactly
Good for you. But someone else is paying for that "free" public transport. Transport authorities are not selfish giant, who refuse children an entry in his garden.
Sure it is convenient for broke people. The goal isn’t merely to give poor people a ride. The goal is to reduce car use and pollution. Those primary goals all fail.
The poor don’t drive so they don’t affect the goals.
The only solution is to make cars so difficult to make public transport more attractive. This would probably reduce standards of living but that’s not the goal of public transport advocates.
@@saralittman573 cant u have applied for reduced fair
I like trains
I don't
I like busses
I like boat
I like flying cars 🚗
I like blimps
@@darkhawk6398 9/11
I do agree that the quality of public transportation is more important than the cost.
How bad are your public busses? 😨😨
What they said 👆seriously, maintaining a bus as a collective would probably be easier than an individual maintaining a car
My nephew just left for a vacation in Switzerland. They sent him a free pass for public transport while he was there. He thought it was pretty impressive.
How do you go from leaving the airport to having a free trave pass?
@@MuzzaHukka Over there, they have a train to the airport.
Yes, public transportation is expensive for the state. But what about the costs of private transportation? I think you also need to compare it, the streets and the parking spaces are also expensive for the state
Im a BIG advocate for public transport, however vehicles and fuels are fairly heavily taxed, so cars PARTLY pay for themselves.
Public transport has to be good, private transport bad and public will be used more
there is consumption tax on fuel, so use of vehicle pays for itself in this regard. Not to mention, that even this tax is again taxed for VAT. We could discuss, just how much this tax should be and whether proceeds from that tax should be strictly allocated to car infrastructure projects, but to say, that street also needs maintenance, which needs to be paid is dumb, cause it is being already paid twice, in nations, where on street parking is allowed only for those, who've paid, three times.
@@hugoslav843Private pays for itself if you're running your government like a company that is. You're looking at profit when you should be looking at cost. Private simply costs more
Me and my mum wanted to go shopping by bus, but because a bus was running very late we went by car instead.
So I see that making buses more reliable and frequent would make them more useful to the everyday traveller.
I would hate to do shopping by bus. I certainly don't want to have to carry all those bags on the bus on my way home not to mention the risk of being robbed. In a car I can simply put the bags in the trunk and drive.
@@Jon_Nadeau_ really pitty on poor western people
then you live in bad area... lawless jungle area...no rule of law...no law and order ..then Leave your area that's bad to live as said in Hindu Sanskrit that we must leave the village where robbers are there... That's why India is number one country
@@Jon_Nadeau_Just buy what you need for the night or a few days.
@@Jon_Nadeau_
Exactly right. Shop until you drop. O hang on, a car can fit a lot.
Well as a Luxembourgish citizen i can talk out of expierence:
I always take the bus for a ride to the capital but i certainly would take the car if I needed to pay for the bus because it wouldnt be worth the hassle to take public transit
Not needing to think about bus tickets is so nice.
Luxembourg is the richest country on earth. Why would you care for a few bucks per day when your salary is 6000€ / month?
As a person working in a rich country, I can say for sure that saving 30 minutes of my time every day is much more important to me than a few bucks per days.
Quality and convenience is more important than price, by a lot!
@@JCdu7426 you are certainly right for some part of society but even if luxembourg is a rich country, not everybody is rich and thinks that way
Now think about what will happen when everyone does the same thing. All of a sudden public is being dismantled to make space and budget for more private infrastructure, and after a few years you're stuck with paying a mandatory tax out of your hard earned wage to big auto and big petro. It'll take generations after that to go back to the correct system. Never let them make that first step.
Edit: I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying the blame is on you individually, but that it's a structural and political issue; society as a whole is responsible to stand against it
Making a crappy service free is NOT going to significantly improve its adoption so step one would be to improve the quality of the public transportation first and then worry about making it free. I guarantee a high quality low wait time public transportation would be preferred over driving personal cars by most people.
Free public transport is very successful everywhere its been implemented. Instead of wasting taxes on foolish things, public transport can easily be financed. It provides a social good, increases economic competitiveness and ensures a more developed city or region. Tallinn Estonia went free public transport for citizens and its been a smashing success
Can you share the data that confirms this?
*First things first: The notion that it's "free" is a willful exaggeration. In this economic example, there is no such thing as a "free lunch." Expenditures for "public transportation" are financed with TAXES. That is an irrefutable empirical fact.* Second, your statement suffers from a fallacious error ; a hasty generalization, which is an informal fallacy. Your faulty generalization and poor deductive reasoning takes one example and incorrectly extends it to the population as a whole.
Here is your faulty reasoning:
1. X is true for A
2. Therefore, X is true for B, C, D, E, F, etc.
Furthermore, the elimination of fares for public transport in Tallinn Estonia has NOT been a "smashing success." *In Tallinn, dropping or eliminating fares only accounted for a marginal increase of 1.2% in ridership -- per an article written by "Fast Company" online. And if you care for honesty and intellectual integrity, you can further look into the matter by reviewing numerous articles ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE published by The Atlantic Magazine, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, and others >> See article: "Why the World's Largest Experiment in [Free] Public Transportation Failed" by FastCompany. Cheers.
@@PhuckYourExistence Thank you, Captain Obvious. Free PT actually saves money for society overall because it does away with the costs associated with the fare selling, administration and control.
I find this a ridiculous argument because public roads don’t generate a profit they lose a huge amount of money as well but nobody would dispute roads provide value beyond pure profit for the public so why apply such an absurd standard to public transport? It serves a purpose beyond profit.
Not exactly true. I favor private roads and highways, I don't see any reason why should the govt use my tax money to build a road to nowhere.
For example, let's say I live in city (A), and the central planner in the govt somehow think that area (B), which is some distance away from city (A) has great potential.
Therefore the govt build a road network to area (B), and not only that, they basically build a new town with a park and town square and also couple residential buildings with our tax money.
For me, this is outrageous, especially when after ~12 years, barely anybody moved there. Nobody held responsible nor accountable for this total waste of money.
IMO we must curtail government's ability to spend taxpayers' money. The govt should remain as regulator, they should regulate and enforce the law, but should stay away from actually planning and paying for new development, including new roads and/or free public transport.
If we have surplus we should instead reduce the tax rather than spend it in such wasteful manner.
Indeed, public transport shouldn't try to bring in a profit, it's public service ffs
@@Biditchoun Why should people who seldom use public transport pay for it?
Like why should I pay for you bus fare with my tax money?
IMO the govt should not dabble in social engineering (e.g. shaping public behavior to favor public transport with subsidy).
Politicians and bureaucrats, as any other citizens, are ofc free to promote whatever they deem as good or necessary, but they should *NOT* use public money/resources to further their own goals/idealism.
They are free to talk about it in public, but they should not use taxpayers' money to fund it.
IMO the govt should focus only on 2 things:
1. Maintain internal order thru law enforcement and justice system, and
2. Protect the society from external threat thru the military.
That's all, no "public services", occupational licensing & permits (that limit the freedom of the citizens), wealth redistribution, social engineering, etc.
"public roads don’t generate a profit"
Are you sure? Have you ever heard of vehicle tax? Have you ever heard of fuel tax? Governments make a lot of money from drivers.
Public transport users should pay tickets that are as expensive or as cheap as it takes to maintain the system. Notice I am not even saying to make a profit. Just to operate. Pay what you use.
Because even if you don't drive, you still benefit from the roads.
If you don't take public transit, you don't benefit from public transit.
A life goal of any sane person is to never take public transit again.
In Denver the light rail used to only be used by rich people because it only went from rich neighborhoods to downtown and back. That backfired because since the cars were mostly empty all the time the homeless started moving in during the pandemic. At least the bus still works.
Live in Beijing: bus costs 1rmb (0.14usd) regardless of distance in city limits. Wait times are so short as to not need a schedule. Motorists need to be charged for their externalities (noise and air pollution, injury and fatality, damage to land use planning, etc) and cities should return on-street parking to residents (like Paris is doing).
The classic "fixing one issue of an overall problem doesn't fix everything so we should fix NOTHING." Very cool.
he literally said that the way to reduce the problem is aiming quality, not price
and thats is actually quite obvious if you stop to think for 2 minutes if you think about opportunity costs: cars in general are ALREADY more expensive than public transport and people keep prefering them than the public transport - maybe because price is not the only issue that comes to peoples mind?
safety should also not be overlooked. in some big cities, public transport can be dangerous (especially for womens where htey face a huge risk of harassment and physical agression/assault). people would be more likely to face public transport if they fellt safe doing it
Exactly, if you make the public transport free, you would just decrease the safety because it would make much easier for harassers and pickpockets to get inside public transports
@@JCdu7426 Those people use public transport for free anyways
In japan there is women only places in public transport.
@@Redlights111 it would be more complex to set up separate women vs men transportation lines (and it would also open another can of worms if one cultural community has a higher crime rates than another, as the "but we did the separation for the sexes, so why not for cummunities as well?" ) on top of that, even tho it is less frequent, there are cases where some women where physically assaulted by other women, so, while decreasing risk for women, it would not magically give adequate safety (especially since after train the passengers will disembarq, so men and women will be mixed back anyway, unless you go torugh the expenditures of making separates exit in train station as well, but then you increase the first problems i cited above )
increasing overall safety of public transport by, for exemple, placing guards regularly (and allowing thoose guards the use of force against individuals who pose a threat for other passengers) would be a much better solution since it would:
- be cheaper to put in place (no big infrastructure overhaul required)
- increase demand for extra personnal (so, creation of jobs where people don't need an insane diploma levels, and where required qualities are a sense of order, a will to protect the people and sufficient physical might, so, something that is much more aivable to people of lower socio-economic background)
-cause real noticeable safety increase for everyone
-avoid the whole social issues that would come from segregating groups of people from tohers
@@gamecubekingdevon3 I obviously agree that public transportation should be made safer in general and I responded really for the part where u talked about harassment. There is already women only spaces like in gyms. I don't think it would increase division. I don't think men need their own ones just for women because women are more likely to experience these things solely for being a woman. In japan it works amazing, when there is lets say 5 sections in a train one of them is women only and it is colored and marked so everyone know.
As somebody who was a dirt poor high school student in a city with good public transportation, I would regularly bum rides or pay for gas when I had already sunk the cost for an unlimited bus pass to avoid spending more than 50% longer to get to a destination because of travel time to/from and wait time for a bus, so this video makes a lot of sense to me.
So your City didn't had a good public transportation...
A good public transportation doesn't take 50% more time than traveling by car. It's faster in many routes and about the same in most routes.
I find this rather short-sighted. These studies assume the CURRENT state of public transport, which is disappointing at best in most places.
Taking the vast majority of people into public transport also means that the entire transport system would require an overhaul to accommodate these people.
Furthermore, looking at this purely economically should still show the meta gains. Also, NOT doing this should conclude that within 1-2 lifetimes, society will have collapsed to the point where economy as we know it will be pointless. Some broader views would be appreciated.
This video is💩
Alot of costs are not mentioned on the private vehicle side:
- extra road maintenance cost
- Increased amount of lanes on main roads
- Effects off its noisr pollution on health
- increased taxes on private vehicles per person
- cost of obesity
So overall this video could use multiple parrs
In my town (70k hab) public transport are free.
In the city budget it didn't made that much of a difference. The cost for controls and people who's job was to control tickets was almost balancing the cost of transports.
It made a huge impact on use.
Be it schools, citizens etc... lots of people started using the public transport rather than private bus, cars or others.
It may have had a small negative impact on walking and bike but overall I can only see positive impacts (after 30years of use).
Teenagers are more autonomous, city center got a lot more attractiv for small businesses, poor workers got a cheap solution to get to work/groceries/etc.
does it run like 5 am to 12 pm 7 days a week
@@idk-ol2it why would it need to?
Being able to just hop on a bus sounds like a dream. No need to look for shops selling tickets, figuring out apps, or worrying about ticket inspectors.
But the real problem of public transport is its impracticality.
I live in a densely populated area, but i still need to walk a lot just to reach the bus stop or train station, waiting times can be long and unpredictable, vehicle changes are often needed to reach many destinations, and onboard comfort is generally low.
public trasport is practical. have3 you heard of a bus.
Not sure where you live but it’s just poor American underfunded public transit. My city public transit is okay even outside downtown you are within a 5 minute walk from a bus stop. I live close to toronto and downtown u are within 3 minutes or less walk from a bus train station or street car. Street cars come every 5-8 min and same with trains
To also note my city has a population density of 465 people per square mile
Convenience is solved by technology - in my city they installed in all busses a ticket machine - you select the ticket type and just tap your credit card. No shops or anything like that.
Queensland Australia has just announced extremely cheap public transport. This seems a very good predictor of what will happen.
That previous QLD Premier did not win eventually & on Day 1 Brisbane Central Station was business as usual, though I think $0.5 to take some ferries are so great.
After Pandemic, SE QLD has increased population but the usage on public transport actually dropped so 6 months trial period of 50c within Translink was introduced.
The biggest problem I see with this kinda stuff, the cities need to be more easily accessible outside of a car, but also that public transportation needs to be updated and made better and the 1st priority over cars when it comes to how streets are built. Ideally the way streets are priorities should be ; walks, bikes/scooters, low weight slow cars/bikes, then heavy cars and trucks, with a separate road made for things like semis.
Personally I think free public transport would definately significantly reduce car usership.I work as a bus driver in my city and I use the bus all the time because I have free travel on it with my driver’s card. In previous jobs, I always would drive to work.
This reminds me of how when politicians make texting while driving illegal they actually increase the number of accidents caused from texting while driving.
This is because people don’t stop texting while driving. They just go from texting while driving with their eyes up by the windscreen to texting while driving by their knees, because they don’t want to get caught.
Encourages natural selection.
Then watch this channel on train, bus or tram. Completely safe.
High travel costs causes unipolar concentration to the largest cities. Economy of rural areas collapse creating many "unsustainable" depopulated towns.
Yes, I'm talking about Tokyo...
I think free public transport can be a good measure when combined with other policies like less roads and parking spaces for cars and better bike & walking infrastructure since the combination would on one hand make it more attractive to use the public transport and on the other harder to use a car in cities. Such combinations would allow for better air quality and more greenspaces while keeping congestion outside the city (if done right and there being a transportation system capable of handling the influx and reaching near people’s homes)
Road taxes combined with better quality public transport. And make Electric bikes more affordable, combined with better safety, for bike riders.
Here in Norway the Socialist left (SV), Communist (Rødt), Labour Party (AP) and Center Party (SP) voted for free public transport in Stavanger, which they got. Guess who is funding it, the poorer region such as Fredrikstad and Sarpsborg. The law says richer regions need to share money to the poorer region, and somehow Stavanger got free public transport while at the same time we dont recieve money from their region. They didnt want to answer the question of where they found money for the free public project. The right says it would be better if they had free transport in the poor regions instead of the rich oil&gass region, as their salary is twice as low. But the right said the best solution would be cheaper but not free public transport, as it would make the fund stay longer, and potetionally expand the public transport network
An important long-term benefit you missed is that convenient public transport---low fares, high frequency, dedicated infrastructure, and a large, well-connected network---affects development patterns. Particularly in the way development natural concentrates along transit corridors. This transit-oriented development (TOD) is dense and walkable which also in turn maximizes the positive externalities of transit and decreases car-dependency, ensuring that a low-income person has access to necessary amenities if they cannot afford a car/gas
People don’t take care about public property
Free transportation is equilivant to all the free parking and free highways but can move more people. It will also increase business sales in downtowns by 10%. It can also be not as bad as bulldozing 20% of prime properties for free parking lots. And making the streets more hostile to local shopping.
Unlike free parking, the demand for public transportation is all ways lacking. Induced demand doesn’t work for public transportation. Demand drives supply , supply does not drives demand. Supply drives prices, if you are giving it away you have to much supply. Parking or public transportation.
@@stanhry you have to design cities sanely like in europe
Honestlly, I don't mind big cities asking you to pay, especially is there are a boatload of tourists there, but as far as rural transport goes...yeah, just make it free. I live in the countryside, and most bus lines make less money than the cost of operating a ticketing machine aboard (yes, most people here still buy printed tickets from a cash register, it's a village). But it is important, because it lets people work in nearby cities for a huge pay increase, and kids can go to better schools. So I would argue rural public transit, such as intercity bus and train ride (excluding high speed lines) should be free.
I think that ticket price should be independent of train speed, as it is wasteful to take a slower train on the same route as a faster train just because it's cheaper. This can be generalised to all common public transport modes. (apart from airplanes, as they are bad for the climate and the economy)
Also, I'm assuming that there is a ticket to begin with, I don't even have to discuss this in the case free public transport.
Many places don’t have subsided public transport, in this situation a car can be a cheaper alternative. Uber can be cheaper as well in some cases.
And yes if you have it free but only serves some spots in a city or the service is terrible been free won’t change a thing!
11:13 Last question, definitly yes. When for me it's often 30 min car drive or about 1 hour in buses and in waiting time, I don't look at the price. Even more in Europe where petrol is now very expensive as you said it's already economicly more vaiable option, so further cheaping the price would not matter to me. (with 50% student discount public transport is already 3 time cheaper than the car in Warsaw)
Utah considered making public transit free for the state has a ton of excess funds, but it was determined that homeless would ruin it.
When Philippine's EDSA Carousel line was free, there were frequent bus arrivals. However, it caused drivers and conductors to work more since they were paid by the trips. The government who created the budget for the free bus often delay the payments to the private bus companies so drivers resigned and moved to ride-hailing apps such as Grab and delivery services such as Lalamove since they pay better than private bus companies who have bus franchises to the EDSA Carousel line.
Public Transport is notoriously difficult to make sustainable much more profitable. If the public transport service is not at least sustainable, it becomes unreliable and problematic.
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore have managed to make public transport sustainable and profitable by diversifying income sources, something most urbanist are allergic to since they only see American Style Capitalism. Instead of relying on ticket prices and government subsides, they enter freight and real estate. The freight industry is highly profitable and becomes better with bigger sizes. They buy all land around stations and lease out spaces to retail and business.
People once and for all need to understand that people who use their car mostly do it because other options aren't convenient, but also because it is not a pleasant experience. Cramped public transport with hard seats (if there are available seats at all) and ill-mannered users are the top reasons why car users who could realistically take public transport don't. Car users who could realistically take public transport are willing to spend hundreds if not thousands of euros a year in fuel costs alone for that comfort, because as stressful as we like to paint traffic to be, it is by far a better experience than over-crowded transit.
Give drivers a convenient AND pleasant transit option, even a more expensive one than regular transit (as long as it's slightly cheaper than a car), and they'll seriously consider that option. Hell, a pleasant commute is the very reason why many people (often ex-car commuters) who live in cities with good bike infrastructure would rather bike than take a bus.
I think this vídeo is a gross oversimplification and one-sided view of a very complex topic...
1) People dont use public trabsport if: A) Its expensive; B) If its ineficient; C) if it dosent take people where they whant tô go; D) if it Just gets stuck in trafic like everyone else, therefore bieng way less time eficient then cars;
2) Public trabsport needs to have dedicated spaces, needs carefule maneging and planing. If say, for example, your buses arent eficient for the route they take, dont have dedicated lanes (therefore getting stuck in trafic at high demand times) and arent time and quantity eficient/suficient, then people will opt to go by car. They will get to there destination way quicker and with more confort then by Public Trabsport.
3)Cars also generly have lots of parking space, generly free. If those spaces where removed, or charged, less people would take ther cars to work and more money & space would be freed-up for PT.
4) PT takes way more people using less space, fule, and materials then cars (especialy SUV's), só high inflation bieng atributed to money used by PTs is kinda half the story...
Also, it makes a difference how much of the operating costs are currently covered and whether more demand will be created in peak periods which might then result in cutting services in the off peak. Most urban areas do not pay any attention at all to the transit dependent and they will most likely get the services they need cut first.
No, what should be promoted is the building of public service infrastructure to reach the people who decides to use their car. More bus coverage and more bus stops should be built and then people would not even consider time as a problem aka use their car. Also, using Chile as an example for e.g Europe is a terrible comparison.
Where can I find some of the sources you used in this video? Specifically the one about free public transport surveys in Chile.
Malta has free public transport but at peak times the service is totally overcrowded and often passengers are left stranded as loaded buses drive by
If you want me to use public transit, it has to be better than driving.
It must cost less, be extensive (to everywhere I want to end up), be easily understandable, take a similar amount of time and effort. It must be VERY safe, extremely reliable, operate 24/7, and involve minimal walking. It should also offer a degree of privacy during transport.
Other than cost, I get all of those in my car... Can you say the same about public transport? Genuinely asking
Out of curiosity, have you ever suffered poverty or been poor? I ask for clarification due to your tone 😊
@@saralittman573 My family was dead center middle class and I am currently near the top end of poor. I lived in a million dollar house in the late 90's and on the street in the 2k's.
In my comment, I'm only referencing my personal feelings, and I should point out that I'm somebody who strictly prefers a suburban or rural lifestyle. I avoid cities at all costs, and this def factors in to my opinion.
Also, I'm actually a big fan of expanding public transit service and decreasing it's cost for those in need. I'm only speaking of the factors that effect my personal transportation decision making.
Thanks
are you Murican?
It's silly to assume that travel time on collective transport must be unproductive. It only takes a phone, a tablet or a book (and perhaps earbuds) to be productive on a bus, train or airplane. Even when offline, we can read and reply to email (synced later) while listening to podcasts. Don't try this while driving however.
In my city, there was recently a votation for making public transport free or not. I was against but my friends were for, and I failed to convince them that free public transport is a bad idea.
This video is excellent at doing that, I will definitely share it to my friends.
The most important point here is that increasing quality and convenience is more important than decreasing the price
I agree. Quality of public transport is more important than the price. I live in the north of Stockholm, and using public transport is by far the easiest way to get to the center or the south of the city. Going by car would take approximately as long, when there's no traffic. But owning a car is expensive. Most often, I travel by bike. It's quite convenient, and free. And you're allowed to bring your bike on the train, so often the fastest and most convenient way to travel is to take the bike to and from the train.
This is just anecdotal, but my city (Southwest of USA) got rid of public transportation fares during COVID and I (in my 20s) have replaced about half of my driving for trips >1 mile with a combination of walking, cycling, and public transport to go shopping, visit friends/family, and go to various evening activities. If fares were ever reinstated I may continue using the buses and streetcar here, but the public transportation system is nowhere near good enough that I would pay for example $20 a month like the Barcelona example (I would probably only spend marginally more per month on gas if I drove, and I would save a good amount of time). Right now, I justify my longer commutes by the fact that I am not paying any transportation costs and am preventing a minuscule amount of additional environmental destruction. However, with fares reinstated, it would be harder for me to see this decision as the most sound.
Either way, my city is very slowly moving toward improving its public transportation, and I am looking forward to some of the routes on main streets not being only every half an hour during work hours on weekdays.
Another thing to consider, when you drive you not only spend on gas but also on car maintenance and repair, insurance, tax, pay occasional speeding or parking ticket, possibility of crash costs (insurance often have deductible) cost of purchasing vehicle in the first place, and the less distance you drive the more percentage these other costs make compared to fuel, but most often it's more than gas itself.
Totally agree that with the conclusion of the quality being more important than the price.
This can also been seen in other areas of transportation such as biking. People will often assume that things like weather or topography influences bike use, but when we actually look at the data what really makes the difference is the infrastructure and how convenient it is. So not surprisingly countries like the Netherlands, which has good infrastructure for both, has higher use of both modes of transportation, and in many cases the trips done by cycling or public transport there are quicker than driving.
From the title i was scarred that it will be some sort of "public transit should make money" video but i was pleasantly surprised, you made very good points and sourced them too, and i agree witht he conclusion rhat money is only a part of the problem, the main things are quality of service and intervals intervals intervals. Here most buses run on a 10-15min interval, some trams even at 5-7min and metro on 1.5min in peak hours, i cant even imagine having one bus coming thru every hour with no alternatives
In summary: B.S
You are correct. I live in India where the public transport is heavily subsidized due to which the adoption of new technology like electric buses and trains becomes difficult, because they need government funding to do it. In the end it reduces the interest of middle class and upper middle class to travel in these vehicle which increases traffic on the road due to private vehicle
Public transport needs to be an adequate replacement for private transport if getting cars off the road is the objective. However, there should be substantial efficiencies gained from completely free transport. It's a bit of a chicken and egg argument - you could start by making transport free and then improving it, or improving it and then making it free. Making it free and leaving it as a poor substitute for private transport seems to be the mistake that is most commonly made.
The problem with free or cheap transport is that too many people want to use them. In Jyväskylä, Finland, local public transport suffered from having too many passengers a decade ago. All the buses were always full. The problem was solved when the buses raised the price of tickets, in which case the number of public transport passengers decreased without having to increase the number of shifts, and the bus company now makes more profit with fewer passengers than than it did before when the buses were overloaded and crowded. Now there is more space in the buses and it is more comfortable to travel when there are far fewer passengers.
In many cities in India like Delhi and Bengaluru, local women are provided with free bus services, but only on city buses, and only for local women.
Income based assistance for free public transport in combination with tolls and congestion pricing would steer "traffic" towards more public use in general. And yes you have to improve the services as well from cleanliness, comfort like A/C heat, and convenience with timely arrivals/departures and maybe more trains/buses. And don't forget safety because there's a stigma of being robbed etc
This logic is flawed. Of course people will still use the car instead of walking if the city isn't walkable. If walking is an active danger and everything is 20 km away, no one will walk. If there isn't also a train or bus service where you know it will arrive on time, you won't use it so you don't get late. Making it free won't fix the fact that the bus always arrives 40 minutes late. Investing in more and better buses and more trams and railways, and painting a bus lane will. Making walkable cities with all of your shops and essential stuff in a 10 minute radius and with sidewalks will make less people drive.
Public transport for free is a GREAT IDEA, not a bad idea. Of course that in extremely expensive countries with an already congested network, like in Switzerland, it is not a good idea because there is no more room to add more people, but in other countries, like Netherlands and Luxembourg it is a great idea. Even Portugal created it for senior citizens and its a success so far.
You see, in Switzerland people already use public transport heavily therefore there is no incentive to use it even more, since the system is at breaking point as-is. But in other countries it can incentivate its usage.
The socalist (sv), the communust (rødt), Labour Party (AP) and Centrist Party (SP) voted (and passed) for free public transport in the region of Stavanger, Norway. a oil and gas rich region, with twice the average salary of Sarpsborg and Fredrikstad. We also have a law that says rich regions need to give some money to poorer region such as sarpsborg and fredrikstad, which Stavanger havent done. The right are currently trying to force them to answer ous where they found enough money to fund this, but they wont tell, because they know they stole it by ignore the law of fair share between the poorer regions.
With no fare or fare collection system some way will be needed to keep the unwashed homeless from joyriding all day to keep warm.
Exactly. It is so common in winter.
If the authority is autocratic enough, re education centres can solve this issue. Or Labour Camps to be built to make them 'work from home'.
Free public transportation? Yeah, the service is going to be a nightmare.
Public transportation mostly helps with not needing a parking, and in some cases it's faster than car traffic. But with it one can't choose when and where to go on demand.
Transportation is an equalizer, like education. It helps to achieve equality of opportunities. This is why it should be free and high quality for all.
Where I live (a small city in the uk) we have low quality, infrequent and expensive public trasport. The only ones who use it are those who don't have a choice. In my city it is a tax on the poor already.
I'm from Chile, and when I was working I was using the public transport in Santiago which is very modern with buses and metro integrated, very frequent, electric buses with AC, etc so I was using it for my commute and it took me like 30min door to door so it was not bad, I have to say that the public transport in Santiago is highly subsidized.
Now leaving in England, I was using the bus to commute to my job, but the frequency was every 20min and sometimes they were not doing some services due to shortage of drivers. In short, it was a bad experience in winter. So I bought a car and now I'm happy driving my car without waiting for the bus. I feel sorry when I see the people waiting at my bus stop when I pass by though.
The key is the waiting times, but also most of us don't like walking, standing, or being squeezed every day. The car is much more comfortable and fast.
I live in Warsaw and we have ticket for all kind of public tranport in entire city for 50PLN for students and 100PLN for adults. It can be cheaoer if you buy 3 month ticket or longer. I ve never needed driving license. From my peers, those who have driving license are usually those who grew up in different, smaller cities.
In my city, Vienna, with roughly 1.9 million inhabitants, more than 1.2 million people use public transport as their main mode of transportation. Compared to that, only about 730.000 people own a car. There is multiple reasons for this, and of course the fact that public transport will take you anywhere in the city at any hour of the day with mostly short waiting times is one od the main factors, but i would also argue that the incredibly low cost of only 1€/day for unlimited use inside Vienna plays a major role. This price did not change for over a decade at this point and has proven resistant to inflation. I am very happy to live in a city where public transport is as amazing as it is while also being very cheap.
My bus system stopped collecting fares during covid, supposedly because money is unsanitary
I think what the issue with this debate is that it usually only ever focuses on the supply side of travel but not the demand. If your town is zoned so that there is residential, commercial and industrial zones, there will be much larger demand to drive/take public transport than a town where all of your needs are a 15-minute walk away. Pushing work-from-home and hiring local would slash demand. Furthermore, as I believe your video shows, it’s hard to reduce car usage indirectly as it’s simply very convenient for most people. To reduce usage it must be dealt with directly through taxes or subsidies. Considering most cars lie idle 22 hours a day and most cars have empty seats when operational, the space cars take up is mostly waste. Community cars that use ride-share organisation would probably be the most direct way to tackle congestion both in traffic and in parking.
In Staten Island the railway is free up until St. George and Tompkinsville stations. I wish that free transit was more well provided for because I feel like so many more people would use the train if the service was more frequent. Trains on average can come anywhere between 10-30 mins and combining that with a 30 min ferry which is already bad as it is, but much worse when you combine the two. Free transit needs more funding anf better service if agencies want the transit to actually be used as opposed to driving, and that’s true even if you want fares.
Summary: free pública transport is good, but Just not suficient.
I understand the argument that the free trips are trips that would not happen if they were not free very well.
I live in a village near a big town. If the public transit was free I would go there on weekends more often (off peak times). I would not go there during the weekdays peak times, because I am working elsewhere.
Ban delivery companies making deliveries to offices/shops during rush hours.
Look at the elizabeth line in the uk. TfL figures suggest that the Elizabeth line has attracted around 140,000 additional journeys in London each weekday than otherwise would have been the case.
Just build more.
Metro in Montreal is 4,75$
Ticket for jumping the fence is 230$
Got 2 of those… not planing on paying them, not if I don’t get a big raise! Good luck collecting money I don’t have!
So to what degree do free road use count as free public transport and would paying for access to the use of road network then combat congestion.
if you made public transport free, all the infrastructure dedicated to pay for the tickets could be removed. A lot of public agents are now focused on checking that people don't commit fraud => it would save a lot of money, thus removing the "cost of surveillance and checking" to replace it with trust.
I would appreciate it if you had looked into this issue
Put a chip in the bus pass that is fingerprint activated. Low income and disabled people get free bus rides, stolen bus passes without the fingerprint stop working. In canada on disability who has been told she can't drive, i buy a $46 bus pass for the month. As it stands now, if my bus pass is stolen, i have to pay another $46. Now that's a small number, but another small number is my budget for rent, food, bills, everything. My monthly disability income is currently $1,131 and that is the only income i have. I receive only $1,131/month, pay $850 rent for a room in a basement. Then there are bills and groceries, and even with the help of a food bank i still run out of money on things i need and have to forage and lean on others for half of each month that extra $46 I'm having to spend at least once a month could help me afford to survive in a society that is trying to choke homeless out.
@@saralittman573 Putting chips in things and fingerprint recognition costs money and only the multi-million criminal parasites who push these products make money. I really am surprised that you are so sloppy with your cards and passes. I have had credit cards and bank cards and a driving licence for more than 50 years and I have NEVER lost ANY of these and I have never been held at gun point and my property stolen but ... well .... I live in Britain.
The most efficient answer is to make buses free. This gets rid of the administrative costs and the driver can drive the bus and not waste time selling tickets or checking stupid passes. I am a habitual car driver but I did an experiment several years ago. I made several bus journeys. One of them took 63 minutes. The bus was stationary at bus stops for 33 of those minutes, at one stop waiting for "Mrs Figgins" who was hyper-ventilating because she couldn't find her 12 rides for the price of 10 ticket. We were also stationary for 4 minutes whilst the driver fiddled with his ticket machine and recorded the imformation on a report sheet. Some bean counter in the bus company office wanted to know how many tickets had been sold by various points of the drivers shift ... MY CHRIST ! and we all sat there like lemons whilst he did it. Of course, the engine was left running spewing filth into the atmosphere. Buses spew out the same amount of filth when stationary as they do when being driven at a steady 15 mph. Some time is taken for passengers to board and alight but I suggest that the journey could have been completed in 40 minutes enabling the driver to cover 60% more ground per shift, allow the passengers to get where they are going more quickly and burn far less fuel per mile.
If the money was put into buses instead of bloody stupid, inconvenient and grossly expensive rapid transit and stupid trams people would have a far better service. Idiots say that rapid transit is faster. You tell that to the person who lives three-quarters of a mile from the nearest station when it is raining .... "I won't be long, Love. I'm just DRIVING down to the metro station to pick up Gladys .... alright ?" We could have bus stops every 220 yards (8 per mile). That doesn't mean 8 vehicle stops per mile. There wouldn't be anyone at most of them but it would mean that at least those living along the route would never be far from a stop.
We must also have a network and frequent services throughout the day from early morning to late at night to limit waiting at bus changes and a less frequent service throughout the night so that it is possible to travel from anywhere to anywhere conveniently at any time. For you in America, that is not practical for country areas but would be possible in all major urban areas ..... where most Americans live.
I have solutions to solve the peak crushes by FORCING employers to make it possible for employees to work fewer longer working days. Obviously, you don't care anymore, but the time taken to travel to and from work in congestion is a nightmare. Many people would love to travel half an hour earlier, work half an hour longer each day and have 14 days more holiday, or work an hour longer each day and have 26 days more holiday. 232 days at 7.5 hours "desk time" per day is 1,740 hours per year, 218 days at 8 hours "desk time" per day is 1744 hours per year, 206 days at 8.5 hours "desk time" is 1742.5 hours per year. No lunch breaks and travelling time on the days off (lunch breaks and travelling time IS work time. If you are not going to work, you wouldn't be wasting time travelling, would you ?) and possibly a faster journey on the work days. Given the chance, I know that the majority of employees would welcome the chance to work FEWER longer days.
I am living in Switzerland now and for the first time in my life I have to consider transport when budgeting, and it is awesome! Back in Argentina I never gave it a second thought, transport is so cheap it might as well be free if you have an ok job. But it sucks badly. Here in Switzerland I do have to consider the cost, although of you aren't traveling more than 30 minutes it is not that bad, and even when it is the quality is so spectacular I am happy to pay the price
Not all spending leads to inflation!
It depends on what is bought. If the good bought has a lot of positive externalities like for example vaccines (or public transport) it can decrease inflation.
This happens whenever a good provides/frees up more resources than it consumes/locks down.
Surprise: if people don’t like your product (in this case public transport), the selling price doesn’t really matter
Public transit is a public good. It reduces traffic and emissions. There’s no good reason NOT to make it free at point of use and fund it through taxes. Doing so would also eliminate slow boarding due to time spent collecting fares
Work from home can save emissions, then probably no more peak hours.
Whilst travel/waiting time and the ease of use of public transport do play their roles in whether or not people make use of it, so does the cost of it.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a matter of or/or, it can also be a matter of and/and. And optimise public transport, and make it free or at the very least very affordable.
Where i am public transport sucks. wait times are long sometimes longer than what it would take to walk from place to place. A voucher for an e-bike with cargo capacity would be a better solution where i am.
I feel these analysis is more applicable for developed countries and not poor countries. Developing good public transportation in poor countries will have huge impact.
This video says it's new, but I distinctly remember watching it before. Recycled?
No, the video is new, but is just a bunch of crap, so it is normal that you think you watched it already, because there are plenty of videos with just crap.
I think a root cause analysis is needed: My suspicion is that all such issues are caused by subsidies for constructing transportation infrastructure coupled with not charging market prices for usage.
What about free transport and Fees so expensive to drive a car into the inner city, fees that make those current city core parking costs seem cheap. Delivery drivers and other required vehicles exempted.
If you do that you give no incentive to improve public transport. It can be a terrible service, but it will have the clients locked up, because there will be no competition.
you were doing well until you said that making transit free could cause inflation. Most of the USA and UK outside of a few metro areas are in deflation with people in debt and little pocket money. Putting more money in pockets will stimulate local businesses.
Ive alway s like busses and always will when school get on cards are not pay as age but the thing nearly everything is payed for these days so if it was the only transport would you walk miles but would you get on bus get on to one for 1stop 😢
The 9 euro ticket in Germany said something different. But yeah the autolobby
Where can I find this study?
People use cars for trips when it's cheaper or to go to a spot that public transport (PT) didn't go to. So if you just make PT free and don't solve the issue of poor routing, of course you're experiment won't show any increase in PT usage.
I don't know if it's fair to say that free public transport is intrinsically regressive when we're really talking about overlaying on a reality in which the wealthy are the ones with the best access to it. Not only do I think it would be relatively simple to tie a program like free public transit to income or wealth levels, but an emphasis on expanding access to transit to areas that are underserved in concert with such programs would very much be the kind of targeted efforts that would have the sort of impact that would be assumed in implemented free public transit.
It would be awesome if everything was free
The German 9 EUR ticket Experiment from last year got similar conclusions. People were going more often with all kinds of public transportation, but in addition to cars or instead of walking or using a bicycle. So no positive environmental impact.
That is false!
Traffic decreased by over 20% and air quality improved as well.
The problem was the supply was the same so it couldn't keep up with the demand.
For whom already used public transport on their day to day it became less of a solution that it was previously.
The smartest thing that should be on everyone's mind right now should be to invest in different streams of income that are not dependent on the government. Especially with the current economic crisis around the world. This is still a good time to invest in gold, silver, and digital currencies (BTC ETH...).
It isn't that there would be more money in the economy, unless printing machines go burrrr to fund it, but that money would be prioritized to other things. Yes prices of certain items may go up from increased demand but overall spending power would be increased for those people who would forgo car ownership. Of course, the main thing is that unless you are in certain areas public transportation sucks and the joke is that everyone thinks people should use public transportation....just not themselves.
The people who live closest to stations in London are, in the main, more wealthy because the cost of property around stations is more expensive. Why? Because people save time travelling to the station if they can afford to live close to one. Public transport density seems pretty important. In and round London, and certainly where I live, the frequency of services is very high. Both buses and trains going to whatever destination every 10-12 minutes. 5 or 6 services per hour. The only times its worth using a car for me is either: going out of London (because the cost of a train ticket to the south coast is more than the cost of fuel and public transport is less flexible outside London); going to a super market where the effort of carrying the weekly shopping home by bus is not work the time.
If you have enough money to do free transport you have enough money to make every single bus on the network be 10-15 mins or better for 24 hours instead!
As for my personal point of view, it is never a good idea to make something totally free, there will always be some kind of abuse : About 15 years ago the government in Belgium decided to make the use of buses free for retired people. As a consequence several seniors took the bus just to have a ride during the day and because of this the buses were crowded in the peak hours. Now there are reduced tariffs for the retired people which is a wiser thing to do. However, making public transport cheap(er) (e.g. during rush hour) is a good idea but it needs to be done by making the use of cars less attractive. As mentioned, the ease of use is very important : if you need to take your car to go to the nearest public transport stop, it will be very tempting to do the whole trip by car. It is also important that the frequency of use and the punctuality of the timetables can be met. A last remark : the use of trains is subsidized by the governments, but so is the price of petrol and the use of cars (at least in Belgium).
The regional city I live, has Free Buses but I hardly took 1 time in a decade. Other than a waste of time, going to somewhere else without or less public transport or higher fares, the quality of people are better.
I found that retirement to be great solution to my transport issues. I can rise at 9.30 every day and just stay at home watching RUclips videos. Problem solved.