3 ms·

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 wher

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.

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.