5 ms·

Compare this to free public transit in some European cities

by magicbuzz 8y ago

xienze 8y ago
It’s not free though. So figure out how much of your tax goes towards public transportation and _then_ compare.
- cletus 8y ago
  It's nothing out of pocket though. And that's the point. Also your argument cuts both ways. The US as a whole subsidizes car ownership to a huge degree. Do you want to factor that in too?
  - xienze 8y ago
    > It's nothing out of pocket though. And that's the point. No wonder politicians can so easily manipulate the public. “I don’t pay money at the time the service is rendered, therefore it’s free!” It is coming out of your pocket, just at a different time. > The US as a whole subsidizes car ownership to a huge degree. Are you making hand wavy arguments about wars for oil or something? Last I checked roads are paid for by various taxes, including gas tax, which I pay.
    - cma 8y ago
      How are oil wars hand wavy?
      - xienze 8y ago
        Because it’s a nonsensical argument that first and foremost presumed the US actually engages in wars for the purpose of securing oil.
        cma 8y ago
        Securing our "economic interests" is one of the primary roles of the US military, and our main interest in the middle east is certainly oil.
    - vkou 8y ago
      Gas tax pays for less then a third of highway maintenance. The rest of it comes from the general tax pool. As a non-driver, I get to subsidise your 'free' roads. When you combine the total cost of ownership, subsidies, and infrastructure, you'll find that cars are far more expensive, privately and publically, at moving people than buses.
      - xienze 8y ago
        > The rest of it comes from the general tax pool. As a non-driver, I get to subsidise your 'free' roads. Unless you happen to use a bus. Then you benefit from it. And as a non-public transport user, I subsidize your public transit. It’s a wash. > When you combine the total cost of ownership, subsidies, and infrastructure, you'll find that cars are far more expensive, privately and publically, at moving people than buses. I never said otherwise. I objected to the argument that there is such a thing as a “free” bus service. The OP was comparing said “free” service to paying for a bus ticket. It’s not a fair comparison to make.
        vkou 8y ago
        > Unless you happen to use a bus. Then you benefit from it. And as a non-public transport user, I subsidize your public transit. It’s a wash. If we go to a restaurant, and go halvesies on the bill, but I order a salad, and you order a steak dinner with a bottle of champagne, it's not a wash. Subsidies to public transit vs subsidies to personal automobiles is more similar to that situation. But yes, nothing is free. However, plenty of services are 'free', in that there is no cost to the user, as opposed to a non-user.
- zrobotics 8y ago
  OK, but what does that change? Ride public transport and fund it through taxes, or drive a car and still pay for public transit? You don't have a choice, so it is effectively free.
  - xienze 8y ago
    The OP was comparing out of pocket transport expenses versus “free” public transport, attempting to make an argument that us dumb Americans have to pay for something that someone else can get for “free”. It’s not a valid argument. They both cost money, figure out what that amount actually is before making arguments about relative cost.
- tinus_hn 8y ago
  As opposed to those free roads that appear magically out of thin air!
peterwwillis 8y ago
Free transit is mostly an edge case. It's almost always limited to small cities or municipal areas (including in Europe), and often target the elderly and students. There are interesting consequences to free public transit, such as picking up some new kinds of riders at the same time as turning off other riders. But it can be pretty effective in the right cases. Baltimore has a free shuttle bus called the Charm City Circulator. It's not intended to move people around the city. Instead it's targeted at a central problem area that may otherwise be prone to increased traffic congestion, pollution, and slower or lower ridership. It also facilitates tourism and gives an incentive for workers to live in/near the downtown area. The CCC is popular enough that it's hard to get on one heading downtown in the mornings because they're so packed with people heading to work. And strangely enough, it's much cleaner and with fewer undesirable riders than regular (paid) buses in the city. This is probably due to the historically segregated layout of the city and the particular routes these buses take. The biggest problem with the CCC is it hasn't been funded or maintained properly, so these strange custom shuttles are breaking down and there's nothing to replace them. As a result they had to cut down some of the routes, while they also expanded the most popular route to travel farther north.
- stevekemp 8y ago
  I live in Helsinki. If you're pushing a buggy, with a child aged 0-6, travel is free on Trams, Busses, and local-rail/subways. When it comes to long-distance transport (between cities) children travel free, but the parent with the buggy has to pay. Edit: For comparison-purposes an electronic ticket for unlimited (local) tram, bus, or subway travel would cost an adult approximately €50/month.
- stephengillie 8y ago
  Seattle had a free ride area for a while. They ended the program in 2012. http://metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/bus/ride-free-area/index.html http://metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/bus/ride-free-area/index.ht...
duiker101 8y ago
I am European, I have been in most of the EU big capitals and many other cities, never seen free public transport and I almost never even heard of it.
- avaika 8y ago
  > I almost never even heard of it Estonia plans to be the first one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17107317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17107317 So it doesn't exist yet, but might come true soon enough.
- cpmouter 8y ago
  Not only is free public transport unheard of, it's also pretty expensive. A ride in Barcelona is like 2€+ now!

Compare this to free public transit in some European cities

xienze 8y ago

It’s not free though. So figure out how much of your tax goes towards public transportation and _then_ compare.

cletus 8y ago
It's nothing out of pocket though. And that's the point. Also your argument cuts both ways. The US as a whole subsidizes car ownership to a huge degree. Do you want to factor that in too?
- xienze 8y ago
  > It's nothing out of pocket though. And that's the point. No wonder politicians can so easily manipulate the public. “I don’t pay money at the time the service is rendered, therefore it’s free!” It is coming out of your pocket, just at a different time. > The US as a whole subsidizes car ownership to a huge degree. Are you making hand wavy arguments about wars for oil or something? Last I checked roads are paid for by various taxes, including gas tax, which I pay.
  - cma 8y ago
    How are oil wars hand wavy?
    - xienze 8y ago
      Because it’s a nonsensical argument that first and foremost presumed the US actually engages in wars for the purpose of securing oil.
      - cma 8y ago
        Securing our "economic interests" is one of the primary roles of the US military, and our main interest in the middle east is certainly oil.
  - vkou 8y ago
    Gas tax pays for less then a third of highway maintenance. The rest of it comes from the general tax pool. As a non-driver, I get to subsidise your 'free' roads. When you combine the total cost of ownership, subsidies, and infrastructure, you'll find that cars are far more expensive, privately and publically, at moving people than buses.
    - xienze 8y ago
      > The rest of it comes from the general tax pool. As a non-driver, I get to subsidise your 'free' roads. Unless you happen to use a bus. Then you benefit from it. And as a non-public transport user, I subsidize your public transit. It’s a wash. > When you combine the total cost of ownership, subsidies, and infrastructure, you'll find that cars are far more expensive, privately and publically, at moving people than buses. I never said otherwise. I objected to the argument that there is such a thing as a “free” bus service. The OP was comparing said “free” service to paying for a bus ticket. It’s not a fair comparison to make.
      - vkou 8y ago
        > Unless you happen to use a bus. Then you benefit from it. And as a non-public transport user, I subsidize your public transit. It’s a wash. If we go to a restaurant, and go halvesies on the bill, but I order a salad, and you order a steak dinner with a bottle of champagne, it's not a wash. Subsidies to public transit vs subsidies to personal automobiles is more similar to that situation. But yes, nothing is free. However, plenty of services are 'free', in that there is no cost to the user, as opposed to a non-user.
zrobotics 8y ago
OK, but what does that change? Ride public transport and fund it through taxes, or drive a car and still pay for public transit? You don't have a choice, so it is effectively free.
- xienze 8y ago
  The OP was comparing out of pocket transport expenses versus “free” public transport, attempting to make an argument that us dumb Americans have to pay for something that someone else can get for “free”. It’s not a valid argument. They both cost money, figure out what that amount actually is before making arguments about relative cost.
tinus_hn 8y ago
As opposed to those free roads that appear magically out of thin air!

peterwwillis 8y ago

Free transit is mostly an edge case. It's almost always limited to small cities or municipal areas (including in Europe), and often target the elderly and students. There are interesting consequences to free public transit, such as picking up some new kinds of riders at the same time as turning off other riders. But it can be pretty effective in the right cases. Baltimore has a free shuttle bus called the Charm City Circulator. It's not intended to move people around the city. Instead it's targeted at a central problem area that may otherwise be prone to increased traffic congestion, pollution, and slower or lower ridership. It also facilitates tourism and gives an incentive for workers to live in/near the downtown area. The CCC is popular enough that it's hard to get on one heading downtown in the mornings because they're so packed with people heading to work. And strangely enough, it's much cleaner and with fewer undesirable riders than regular (paid) buses in the city. This is probably due to the historically segregated layout of the city and the particular routes these buses take. The biggest problem with the CCC is it hasn't been funded or maintained properly, so these strange custom shuttles are breaking down and there's nothing to replace them. As a result they had to cut down some of the routes, while they also expanded the most popular route to travel farther north.

stevekemp 8y ago
I live in Helsinki. If you're pushing a buggy, with a child aged 0-6, travel is free on Trams, Busses, and local-rail/subways. When it comes to long-distance transport (between cities) children travel free, but the parent with the buggy has to pay. Edit: For comparison-purposes an electronic ticket for unlimited (local) tram, bus, or subway travel would cost an adult approximately €50/month.
stephengillie 8y ago
Seattle had a free ride area for a while. They ended the program in 2012. http://metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/bus/ride-free-area/index.html http://metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/bus/ride-free-area/index.ht...

duiker101 8y ago

I am European, I have been in most of the EU big capitals and many other cities, never seen free public transport and I almost never even heard of it.

avaika 8y ago
> I almost never even heard of it Estonia plans to be the first one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17107317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17107317 So it doesn't exist yet, but might come true soon enough.
cpmouter 8y ago
Not only is free public transport unheard of, it's also pretty expensive. A ride in Barcelona is like 2€+ now!