11 ms·

Why not make it just free for everybody? Public transportation typically has profit margins of -50% to -90% anyway... just take it to -100% and get a huge boost

Why not make it just free for everybody? Public transportation typically has profit margins of -50% to -90% anyway... just take it to -100% and get a huge boost in ridership! (And probably save some expenses relating to collecting payment/enforcement.)

Shivetya 8y ago
previous studies done showed that making it free did not result in significant uptick in usage[1]. It really comes down to, does it go where you want from where you want when you want and all this on a timely basis. Hence the big reason buses always win over rail as they can adapt to changing needs. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/why-cant-public-transit-be-free/384929/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/why-can...
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > A 2002 report released by the National Center for Transportation Research indicated that the lack of fares attracted hordes of young people, who brought with them a culture of vandalism, graffiti, and bad behavior—which all necessitated costly maintenance Interesting. So making it free actually increased costs.
  - naniwaduni 8y ago
    That the costs increased seems obvious. The causes here are a bit interesting, but well-known to anyone who's run a free service.
  - skywhopper 8y ago
    The wording here, "hordes" of young people is pretty telling of the bias of the writer. Young people are one of the most important target audiences of public transportation, since they aren't able to drive.
    - watwut 8y ago
      When it is for free, then more of them don't earn more money.
- skywhopper 8y ago
  "Buses always win over rail"? In what way do you mean? Fixed routes like rail encourage investment around stations more than bus stops. Rail that doesn't share right-of-way with auto traffic can also be significantly faster than buses. Also, if you look at large cities with mature and widely used public transportation systems (London, Paris, NYC, Chicago), you'll find that both rail and buses are both integral parts of the system. In terms of the cost, for systems that aren't heavily used (but nonetheless are essential) getting rid of the fare would probably actually save money, because the slowdown in service, the confusion over payment, and the whole infrastructure to support and enforce payment is actually more expensive than the revenue it generates. It would also serve the population better, be a more pleasant and relaxing experience for riders and drivers, and speed up service. So even if it doesn't increase ridership, it's still worth doing.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > the big reason buses always win over rail A bus from where I live to London takes about 5.5 hours, compared to 2 hours on a train. I can also get a meal served on a train and work comfortably at a large table, which I can't do a bus. Busses definitely don't always win over trains. I think they hardly ever do.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    Every time I get a bus in London I regret it, without fail. And London has the best bus system in the UK
  - hopler 8y ago
    That's an extreme example of long distance travel, not normal commuting distance.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      Well it's certainly extreme and long distance on a bus! It's fine on a train.
- enedil 8y ago
  Have you been to Europe?
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  A combination of buses and trains is far superior to buses only. For longer journeys, buses are far too slow. When buses replace trains (e.g. for track maintenance) in Melbourne, travel time usually doubles.
pseudolus 8y ago
One of the major issues around offering free public transportation is funding. Public purses are pretty strained everywhere and additional taxes are unlikely to be accepted. Physically, there's also a problem in that systems are simply not geared for the expected increase in ridership which in itself is sufficiently large enough to cause problems but not meaningful enough to cause a significant dent in car use. I believe this was one of the rationales behind the decision of Paris not to offer free public transportation to all. In France, Dunkirk apparently does offer free public transportation for all but it's a small city [0]. [0] https://www.france24.com/en/20171109-france-french-cities-public-transport-free-dunkirk-compiegne https://www.france24.com/en/20171109-france-french-cities-pu...
- zanny 8y ago
  There is absolutely no "shortcut" for cities to skimp on having sufficient transit infrastructure to get people where they need to go. If you underbuild, people drive cars. If you overcharge, people drive cars. If you restrict car traffic, people simply don't move or work in your city and your economy dies. One way to balance between free ride abuse and people not using the trains because they have a car is to give residents the "average" number of rides a commuter would use in a week to them every week for free. Maybe even give people who don't own motor vehicles more free rides as a "thank you" from the city for not making them maintain the road and parking infrastructure for you. But any city that is not expanding its transit to meet demand is crippling its own economic potential. Its a shame that pretty much every US city is guilty of this but most of the US government is designed to self-sabotage things like publicly run transit anyway.
  - k_sh 8y ago
    > most of the US government is designed to self-sabotage things like publicly run transit anyway What level of US government is sabotaging transit? The federal government doles out at least $2.3B every year for transit projects[0], meanwhile state and local governments throughout the US are approving tax increases for more transit. [0]: https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/about-program https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-i...
r32a_ 8y ago
In Melbourne, Australia, Trams are free for everyone within the CBD district
- ousta 8y ago
  they weren't free for foreigners when i was there. good move.
  - whatusername 8y ago
    It's only within the very central grid. The rest of the cities network requires payment.
- wyattpeak 8y ago
  I think it's worth specifying that Melbourne's CBD is pretty small, and there aren't a lot of reasons why you'd need to travel within it where you haven't already gotten in by public transport (for which you have to pay, and travelling within the city afterwards wouldn't cost extra even if it weren't free - our pricing scheme is notoriously complicated). I live in the CBD, and the only time it ever actually saves me money is in getting to the bus station to the airport. It was introduced as part of a protracted plan (or lack thereof) to get rid of their least profitable ticket, and has been carefully designed to sound good while minimising utility. Not to disparage the concept, but in this instance it was introduced to raise revenues, not lower them. Indeed, as Melbourne's trams are run by a private company, none of their policies are designed out of public-mindedness.
  - ACow_Adonis 8y ago
    The trams are managed by a contracted private company, but pricing and public transport policy is set by the government, which is your first of several factual errors. There are multiple reasons you'd need to travel within the CBD where you haven't already gotten in by public transport: It opens up multiple locations in the entire CBD and surrounds to a single day trip without shuttling cars between overly expensive and time consuming parking. The office can go out together for birthdays, christmas parties, etc without worrying about people's travel means and budgets. Need to get down to the other end of the CBD for a business meeting: tram. Need to meet someone for coffee? Tram. Tourists love it when they're staying central and it gives a good impression of our city. Some don't even buy tickets any more when coming for a convention or show. I can go out and meet my friends/wife for lunch at various parts of the city, get down to the mall to do some shopping, and get back up to work all in the same lunch break now. Not everyone just does single destination trips in and out the city without doing anything else. It allows one to move around the city and venues with less attention to the weather. Not having to tap on or off increases boarding/alighting times for a given amount of throughput and in quiet times. (irrespective of whether you've paid to commute in or not) Many of us from the surrounding suburbs now walk into the city and back out again, making a day of it in the city: this brings life and vibrancy to ALL the surrounding areas and increases walk-ability and foot-traffic, not just in the CBD. There's a whole ring of neighbourhoods on the periphery of the free-tram zone where walking now substitutes for hoping onto a tram 1-4 stops out from the CBD because you know you can make a free transport day of it. --- The downside is of course more congestion on trams in the city as more people are using it to move around a few kms of space. And lower city-based tram revenue, but its also partly responsible for added life and vibrancy in the CBD. The over-crowding is a definite downside when you're only commuting in/out/through the CBD, since you still pay and now often share the trams with large numbers of people going 3 or 4 stops, but we can hardly pretend there are no benefits. Source: live just outside the CBD.
baq 8y ago
completely free means you have one less legal reason to kick out the bad kind of homeless.
- yardie 8y ago
  Unlike The MTA the Paris metro shuts down at 1AM. So no one is camping out on the platform, for long. And last time I was there the controllers were scanning passes quite frequently.
  - tom_mellior 8y ago
    > So no one is camping out on the platform, for long. I've never been in the Paris métro after it shut down, but are you saying the homeless people camping in some stations in the evenings, wrapped in their sleeping bags, get up at 1 a.m. and file out? I somehow doubt that.
    - ahakki 8y ago
      They are kicked out. The doors are locked.
      - iodbh 8y ago
        I have spent a couple of nights in locked metro stations myself : before locking, they just warn that they're going to lock. Whoever's still inside is locked in until morning, but there's no kicking out.
        hopler 8y ago
        Using subway stations as shelters during off peak hours is a masterstroke of efficient infrastructure. Every city should do that.
        pelasaco 8y ago
        nope, the right would be everyone be able to have a place to live. There is no dignity in supporting the poverty.
bsaul 8y ago
Except a boost in ridership is absolutely not what you’d want in an overpopulated city like Paris. Subway is so bad i’ve already witnessed people waiting for trains from outside the station itself. in the peak hours you often have to skip two or three trains because they’re packed.
- tzs 8y ago
  > in the peak hours you often have to skip two or three trains because they’re packed What's the interval between trains at peak hours?
  - jimktrains2 8y ago
    A few minutes.
  - niea_11 8y ago
    I used to take the metro line 3 from station saint-lazare. At peak hours there was a train practically every minute. As soon as one train leaves another one enters the station a few seconds after. So I often did what parent said. skipping two or three trains isn't that bad when there that many trains.
    - bsaul 8y ago
      try line 13
      - niea_11 8y ago
        That is a line that I always try to avoid :). I was forced to use it for a short period of time, but I was lucky, I traveled only on the section from Montparnasse to Chatillion which, I think, is not as busy as the rest of the line because most passengers transfer to other lines at montparnasse.
        bsaul 8y ago
        i used to do place de clichy / st ouen at 7pm a long time ago, and i sometimes had to stay on the dock for 20 minutes letting train pass.
writepub 8y ago
Why not aim for 0% profit, and keep public transit self sustaining? Everything has a cost, and making something (virtually) cost 0 only transfers the cost elsewhere
- dorfsmay 8y ago
  I agree. Let's start charging cars every time they use streets and highway based on their mass and space used.
  - DamnYuppie 8y ago
    How does that differ from state registrations and fuel taxes?
    - mcny 8y ago
      > How does that differ from state registrations and fuel taxes? The taxes are too low. > The report documents that the amount that road users pay through gas taxes now accounts for less than half of what’s spent to maintain and expand the road system. The resulting shortfall is made up from other sources of tax revenue at the state and local levels, generated by drivers and non-drivers alike. This subsidizing of car ownership costs the typical household about $1,100 per year—over and above the costs of gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees. https://outline.com/6A63aM https://outline.com/6A63aM I feel like this is the same story that repeats itself all over the place. Another one is when our northern neighbors in Canada complain about the Chinese elite buying up homes AND keeping them vacant. They want higher taxes on empty homes and homes owned by Chinese nationals. I say such a scheme is racist. The real solution is to increase real estate and property taxes on EVERYONE so each unoccupied house is a net positive return for the community. Nobody likes this idea. They don't want to pay higher taxes themselves. They just want to charge people who aren't there and don't have a voice. Another example, when I brought up the idea of taxing revenues instead of profits, people said that retail grocery stores would fail instantly because they run on very slim margins. If we said taxes apply on total revenue, anyone operating on razor thin margins would pretty much instantly go out of business. (I usually don't like to admit my ideas are horrible but this one was pretty bad in hindsight. However, the point is taxes on businesses are too low as a percentage of revenue. As an individual, I am also able to spend all the money I earn. I don't claim I should pay no income tax.)
ekianjo 8y ago
When the network is saturated what do you gain out of a free ride for everyone? More crowded trains and more people hating trains. Well done!
stevekemp 8y ago
Estonia did just that: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/estonia-is-making-public-transport-free/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/estonia-is-making-pub...
- throwaway123mmm 8y ago
  And luxembourg
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - chriswwweb 8y ago
    Yes Luxembourg will be first, here is a good article about it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/05/luxembourg-to-become-first-country-to-make-all-public-transport-free https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/05/luxembourg-to-... It was already really cheap, but it was annoying to always have to buy a ticket, have coins in your pocket to do so or remember to recharge your card. As a luxembourgish citizen that uses buses and the tram in luxembourg city from time to time, especially the night shuttles back home after going out, so I'm really happy this will finally soon happen. I also think it financially makes sense for the country, all public transport costs the country 1 billion but the fares only bring 30 million in, so covering those last 30 million by taxes is in my opinion a good idea. The ticket machines can now get abolished which will save costs too and the workers controlling tickets will be able to do other tasks like related to security instead of hunting down people that didn't pay their 2 euro ticket.
- ihatemgs56 8y ago
  must be nice to live in a country that's not even have half the size of Washington state and has a smaller population than one county (King, to be specific, has more than two million if I remember) in it.
  - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
    I truly do not see why that matters. For the most part, such things are just an excuse to avoid installing a public robust transportation system. Yes, the amount of people you have, size of area, and terrain makes different sorts of stresses on your system - which is why they need to be somewhat customized to an area. Businesses do this all the time, and I don't see how it is too big of a hurdle to overcome.
trias 8y ago
the ride fare is necessary to scare people off public transit, otherwise the service would be overused.
Foobar8568 8y ago
Public transportation in Paris is already somewhat overcrowded, especially during rush hours on several lines(cannot get it even by letting several subways pass). It's mandatory that employers reimbourse 50% of the price, and overall it's already really cheap. All in all, it's a bit pointless and more a stunt. (it's free as well for a couple of tiers if I remember well)
pelasaco 8y ago
Millennials :) They do for free but raise the taxes to cover the -100%, there is no free lunch buddy.
sgjohnson 8y ago
Because nothing is ever “free”. s/free/paid for by the taxpayer
- icebraining 8y ago
  So what? The point is that it's already mostly paid by the taxpayer, this is just slightly increasing that percentage to 100%.
namdnay 8y ago
I'm worried this could be seen as a subsidy of tourists by taxpayers. Then again you could work around that by increasing the city night tax - except then you'd be giving even more unfair advantages to airbnb cheaters
brmgb 8y ago
That was considered. A study was commissioned and concluded [1] against for several reasons : - the projected impact on car use was negligible (around 2%) ; - the projected increase in the number of users (between 6% and 10%) is above the current infrastructure capacity ; - the new cost (3.3 billions euros) would be mainly supported by the Paris agglomeration inhabitants through their taxes rather than spread on all users ; - it's already free for the poorest and heavily subsidised for most of the local. [1] https://www.iledefrance-mobilites.fr/actualites/conclusions-de-letude-menee-sur-la-faisabilite-de-la-gratuite-des-transports-en-commun-en-ile-de-france-leur-financement-et-la-politique-de-tarification/ https://www.iledefrance-mobilites.fr/actualites/conclusions-...

Shivetya 8y ago

previous studies done showed that making it free did not result in significant uptick in usage[1]. It really comes down to, does it go where you want from where you want when you want and all this on a timely basis. Hence the big reason buses always win over rail as they can adapt to changing needs. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/why-cant-public-transit-be-free/384929/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/why-can...

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> A 2002 report released by the National Center for Transportation Research indicated that the lack of fares attracted hordes of young people, who brought with them a culture of vandalism, graffiti, and bad behavior—which all necessitated costly maintenance Interesting. So making it free actually increased costs.
- naniwaduni 8y ago
  That the costs increased seems obvious. The causes here are a bit interesting, but well-known to anyone who's run a free service.
- skywhopper 8y ago
  The wording here, "hordes" of young people is pretty telling of the bias of the writer. Young people are one of the most important target audiences of public transportation, since they aren't able to drive.
  - watwut 8y ago
    When it is for free, then more of them don't earn more money.
skywhopper 8y ago
"Buses always win over rail"? In what way do you mean? Fixed routes like rail encourage investment around stations more than bus stops. Rail that doesn't share right-of-way with auto traffic can also be significantly faster than buses. Also, if you look at large cities with mature and widely used public transportation systems (London, Paris, NYC, Chicago), you'll find that both rail and buses are both integral parts of the system. In terms of the cost, for systems that aren't heavily used (but nonetheless are essential) getting rid of the fare would probably actually save money, because the slowdown in service, the confusion over payment, and the whole infrastructure to support and enforce payment is actually more expensive than the revenue it generates. It would also serve the population better, be a more pleasant and relaxing experience for riders and drivers, and speed up service. So even if it doesn't increase ridership, it's still worth doing.
chrisseaton 8y ago
> the big reason buses always win over rail A bus from where I live to London takes about 5.5 hours, compared to 2 hours on a train. I can also get a meal served on a train and work comfortably at a large table, which I can't do a bus. Busses definitely don't always win over trains. I think they hardly ever do.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Every time I get a bus in London I regret it, without fail. And London has the best bus system in the UK
- hopler 8y ago
  That's an extreme example of long distance travel, not normal commuting distance.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    Well it's certainly extreme and long distance on a bus! It's fine on a train.
enedil 8y ago
Have you been to Europe?
toomanybeersies 8y ago
A combination of buses and trains is far superior to buses only. For longer journeys, buses are far too slow. When buses replace trains (e.g. for track maintenance) in Melbourne, travel time usually doubles.

pseudolus 8y ago

One of the major issues around offering free public transportation is funding. Public purses are pretty strained everywhere and additional taxes are unlikely to be accepted. Physically, there's also a problem in that systems are simply not geared for the expected increase in ridership which in itself is sufficiently large enough to cause problems but not meaningful enough to cause a significant dent in car use. I believe this was one of the rationales behind the decision of Paris not to offer free public transportation to all. In France, Dunkirk apparently does offer free public transportation for all but it's a small city [0]. [0] https://www.france24.com/en/20171109-france-french-cities-public-transport-free-dunkirk-compiegne https://www.france24.com/en/20171109-france-french-cities-pu...

zanny 8y ago
There is absolutely no "shortcut" for cities to skimp on having sufficient transit infrastructure to get people where they need to go. If you underbuild, people drive cars. If you overcharge, people drive cars. If you restrict car traffic, people simply don't move or work in your city and your economy dies. One way to balance between free ride abuse and people not using the trains because they have a car is to give residents the "average" number of rides a commuter would use in a week to them every week for free. Maybe even give people who don't own motor vehicles more free rides as a "thank you" from the city for not making them maintain the road and parking infrastructure for you. But any city that is not expanding its transit to meet demand is crippling its own economic potential. Its a shame that pretty much every US city is guilty of this but most of the US government is designed to self-sabotage things like publicly run transit anyway.
- k_sh 8y ago
  > most of the US government is designed to self-sabotage things like publicly run transit anyway What level of US government is sabotaging transit? The federal government doles out at least $2.3B every year for transit projects[0], meanwhile state and local governments throughout the US are approving tax increases for more transit. [0]: https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/about-program https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-i...

r32a_ 8y ago

In Melbourne, Australia, Trams are free for everyone within the CBD district

ousta 8y ago
they weren't free for foreigners when i was there. good move.
- whatusername 8y ago
  It's only within the very central grid. The rest of the cities network requires payment.
wyattpeak 8y ago
I think it's worth specifying that Melbourne's CBD is pretty small, and there aren't a lot of reasons why you'd need to travel within it where you haven't already gotten in by public transport (for which you have to pay, and travelling within the city afterwards wouldn't cost extra even if it weren't free - our pricing scheme is notoriously complicated). I live in the CBD, and the only time it ever actually saves me money is in getting to the bus station to the airport. It was introduced as part of a protracted plan (or lack thereof) to get rid of their least profitable ticket, and has been carefully designed to sound good while minimising utility. Not to disparage the concept, but in this instance it was introduced to raise revenues, not lower them. Indeed, as Melbourne's trams are run by a private company, none of their policies are designed out of public-mindedness.
- ACow_Adonis 8y ago
  The trams are managed by a contracted private company, but pricing and public transport policy is set by the government, which is your first of several factual errors. There are multiple reasons you'd need to travel within the CBD where you haven't already gotten in by public transport: It opens up multiple locations in the entire CBD and surrounds to a single day trip without shuttling cars between overly expensive and time consuming parking. The office can go out together for birthdays, christmas parties, etc without worrying about people's travel means and budgets. Need to get down to the other end of the CBD for a business meeting: tram. Need to meet someone for coffee? Tram. Tourists love it when they're staying central and it gives a good impression of our city. Some don't even buy tickets any more when coming for a convention or show. I can go out and meet my friends/wife for lunch at various parts of the city, get down to the mall to do some shopping, and get back up to work all in the same lunch break now. Not everyone just does single destination trips in and out the city without doing anything else. It allows one to move around the city and venues with less attention to the weather. Not having to tap on or off increases boarding/alighting times for a given amount of throughput and in quiet times. (irrespective of whether you've paid to commute in or not) Many of us from the surrounding suburbs now walk into the city and back out again, making a day of it in the city: this brings life and vibrancy to ALL the surrounding areas and increases walk-ability and foot-traffic, not just in the CBD. There's a whole ring of neighbourhoods on the periphery of the free-tram zone where walking now substitutes for hoping onto a tram 1-4 stops out from the CBD because you know you can make a free transport day of it. --- The downside is of course more congestion on trams in the city as more people are using it to move around a few kms of space. And lower city-based tram revenue, but its also partly responsible for added life and vibrancy in the CBD. The over-crowding is a definite downside when you're only commuting in/out/through the CBD, since you still pay and now often share the trams with large numbers of people going 3 or 4 stops, but we can hardly pretend there are no benefits. Source: live just outside the CBD.

baq 8y ago

completely free means you have one less legal reason to kick out the bad kind of homeless.

yardie 8y ago
Unlike The MTA the Paris metro shuts down at 1AM. So no one is camping out on the platform, for long. And last time I was there the controllers were scanning passes quite frequently.
- tom_mellior 8y ago
  > So no one is camping out on the platform, for long. I've never been in the Paris métro after it shut down, but are you saying the homeless people camping in some stations in the evenings, wrapped in their sleeping bags, get up at 1 a.m. and file out? I somehow doubt that.
  - ahakki 8y ago
    They are kicked out. The doors are locked.
    - iodbh 8y ago
      I have spent a couple of nights in locked metro stations myself : before locking, they just warn that they're going to lock. Whoever's still inside is locked in until morning, but there's no kicking out.
      - hopler 8y ago
        Using subway stations as shelters during off peak hours is a masterstroke of efficient infrastructure. Every city should do that.
        pelasaco 8y ago
        nope, the right would be everyone be able to have a place to live. There is no dignity in supporting the poverty.

bsaul 8y ago

Except a boost in ridership is absolutely not what you’d want in an overpopulated city like Paris. Subway is so bad i’ve already witnessed people waiting for trains from outside the station itself. in the peak hours you often have to skip two or three trains because they’re packed.

tzs 8y ago
> in the peak hours you often have to skip two or three trains because they’re packed What's the interval between trains at peak hours?
- jimktrains2 8y ago
  A few minutes.
- niea_11 8y ago
  I used to take the metro line 3 from station saint-lazare. At peak hours there was a train practically every minute. As soon as one train leaves another one enters the station a few seconds after. So I often did what parent said. skipping two or three trains isn't that bad when there that many trains.
  - bsaul 8y ago
    try line 13
    - niea_11 8y ago
      That is a line that I always try to avoid :). I was forced to use it for a short period of time, but I was lucky, I traveled only on the section from Montparnasse to Chatillion which, I think, is not as busy as the rest of the line because most passengers transfer to other lines at montparnasse.
      - bsaul 8y ago
        i used to do place de clichy / st ouen at 7pm a long time ago, and i sometimes had to stay on the dock for 20 minutes letting train pass.

writepub 8y ago

Why not aim for 0% profit, and keep public transit self sustaining? Everything has a cost, and making something (virtually) cost 0 only transfers the cost elsewhere

dorfsmay 8y ago
I agree. Let's start charging cars every time they use streets and highway based on their mass and space used.
- DamnYuppie 8y ago
  How does that differ from state registrations and fuel taxes?
  - mcny 8y ago
    > How does that differ from state registrations and fuel taxes? The taxes are too low. > The report documents that the amount that road users pay through gas taxes now accounts for less than half of what’s spent to maintain and expand the road system. The resulting shortfall is made up from other sources of tax revenue at the state and local levels, generated by drivers and non-drivers alike. This subsidizing of car ownership costs the typical household about $1,100 per year—over and above the costs of gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees. https://outline.com/6A63aM https://outline.com/6A63aM I feel like this is the same story that repeats itself all over the place. Another one is when our northern neighbors in Canada complain about the Chinese elite buying up homes AND keeping them vacant. They want higher taxes on empty homes and homes owned by Chinese nationals. I say such a scheme is racist. The real solution is to increase real estate and property taxes on EVERYONE so each unoccupied house is a net positive return for the community. Nobody likes this idea. They don't want to pay higher taxes themselves. They just want to charge people who aren't there and don't have a voice. Another example, when I brought up the idea of taxing revenues instead of profits, people said that retail grocery stores would fail instantly because they run on very slim margins. If we said taxes apply on total revenue, anyone operating on razor thin margins would pretty much instantly go out of business. (I usually don't like to admit my ideas are horrible but this one was pretty bad in hindsight. However, the point is taxes on businesses are too low as a percentage of revenue. As an individual, I am also able to spend all the money I earn. I don't claim I should pay no income tax.)

ekianjo 8y ago

When the network is saturated what do you gain out of a free ride for everyone? More crowded trains and more people hating trains. Well done!

stevekemp 8y ago

Estonia did just that: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/estonia-is-making-public-transport-free/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/estonia-is-making-pub...

throwaway123mmm 8y ago
And luxembourg
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- chriswwweb 8y ago
  Yes Luxembourg will be first, here is a good article about it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/05/luxembourg-to-become-first-country-to-make-all-public-transport-free https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/05/luxembourg-to-... It was already really cheap, but it was annoying to always have to buy a ticket, have coins in your pocket to do so or remember to recharge your card. As a luxembourgish citizen that uses buses and the tram in luxembourg city from time to time, especially the night shuttles back home after going out, so I'm really happy this will finally soon happen. I also think it financially makes sense for the country, all public transport costs the country 1 billion but the fares only bring 30 million in, so covering those last 30 million by taxes is in my opinion a good idea. The ticket machines can now get abolished which will save costs too and the workers controlling tickets will be able to do other tasks like related to security instead of hunting down people that didn't pay their 2 euro ticket.
ihatemgs56 8y ago
must be nice to live in a country that's not even have half the size of Washington state and has a smaller population than one county (King, to be specific, has more than two million if I remember) in it.
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  I truly do not see why that matters. For the most part, such things are just an excuse to avoid installing a public robust transportation system. Yes, the amount of people you have, size of area, and terrain makes different sorts of stresses on your system - which is why they need to be somewhat customized to an area. Businesses do this all the time, and I don't see how it is too big of a hurdle to overcome.

trias 8y ago

the ride fare is necessary to scare people off public transit, otherwise the service would be overused.

Foobar8568 8y ago

Public transportation in Paris is already somewhat overcrowded, especially during rush hours on several lines(cannot get it even by letting several subways pass). It's mandatory that employers reimbourse 50% of the price, and overall it's already really cheap. All in all, it's a bit pointless and more a stunt. (it's free as well for a couple of tiers if I remember well)

pelasaco 8y ago

Millennials :) They do for free but raise the taxes to cover the -100%, there is no free lunch buddy.

sgjohnson 8y ago

Because nothing is ever “free”. s/free/paid for by the taxpayer

icebraining 8y ago
So what? The point is that it's already mostly paid by the taxpayer, this is just slightly increasing that percentage to 100%.

namdnay 8y ago

I'm worried this could be seen as a subsidy of tourists by taxpayers. Then again you could work around that by increasing the city night tax - except then you'd be giving even more unfair advantages to airbnb cheaters

brmgb 8y ago

That was considered. A study was commissioned and concluded [1] against for several reasons : - the projected impact on car use was negligible (around 2%) ; - the projected increase in the number of users (between 6% and 10%) is above the current infrastructure capacity ; - the new cost (3.3 billions euros) would be mainly supported by the Paris agglomeration inhabitants through their taxes rather than spread on all users ; - it's already free for the poorest and heavily subsidised for most of the local. [1] https://www.iledefrance-mobilites.fr/actualites/conclusions-de-letude-menee-sur-la-faisabilite-de-la-gratuite-des-transports-en-commun-en-ile-de-france-leur-financement-et-la-politique-de-tarification/ https://www.iledefrance-mobilites.fr/actualites/conclusions-...