12 ms·

Free Public Transport in Estonia

166 points by dullgiulio 7y ago

jpatokal 7y ago
https://outline.com/WLYEMW https://outline.com/WLYEMW
danans 7y ago
The brilliant thing about making public transit free is that unlike many other things that can be government subsidized, free public transit can't be stolen or arbitraged.
- mherdeg 7y ago
  Yeah I grew up hearing that "The optimal price of public transit is free". The one pitfall I was told about was something called a "free-rider problem", which in this specific context doesn't have its normal economic meaning and refers to people taking up public-transit resources while not actually trying to get from Point A to Point B. Just for example, if your transit is clean, safe, supervised, a moderate temperature, and has long journeys, what fraction of its users will be using it to get somewhere vs. using it because it is a safe place to be? In the Bay Area, there is "Hotel 22", the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority #22 bus from Eastridge Transit Center to Palo Alto Transit Center, about a two-hour ride running 24 hours a day (see e.g. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11249291/The-dark-side-of-Silicon-Valley.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/... or https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/10/31/homeless-turn-overnight-bus-route-into-hotel-22/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/10/31/homeless-turn-overnig... - a safe warm place to sleep for $6). In Pynchon's "V" there is Benny Profane "yo-yoing" on the 42nd Street Shuttle from Grand Central to Times Square, but his contemporaries were certainly finding shelter there: https://harpers.org/archive/1956/03/subways-are-for-sleeping/ https://harpers.org/archive/1956/03/subways-are-for-sleeping... These aren't necessarily bad side effects but understanding how folks will use the system when it's free is an important part of making the policy decision to make it free.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    In an ideal world, there are other clean, safe, supervised and temperature controlled places that you can provide that make hanging around public transit not a particularly attractive option.
  - blunte 7y ago
    This is not a public transportation problem, this is a housing/wage problem.
    - function_seven 7y ago
      True, but that's not useful when creating transit policy. The housing and wage problems are present within the society you're writing your transit policy for. If those problems exist, then your transit policy must account for them.
  - iknowstuff 7y ago
    Ahh, there it is, the US can never have nice and clean things because of its massive inequality. Judging by European countries it would seem like there are ways to fix that.
    - baroffoos 7y ago
      Reminds me of a comment I saw on HN a while ago about an American shocked that other countries have public toilets that aren't covered in shit, blood and needles. It seems like so many Americans are not even aware that the problems they face are not global and they just take it as a fact of life.
      - WanderPanda 7y ago
        This is absolutely against my experience. When I visited the US last year I was surprised by how clean and well maintained public toilets were. I am not used to this, as in Germany public toilets (if they even exist) are totally disgusting.
- isostatic 7y ago
  How do you ration limited seats on a train? By charging more at certai times you encourage those who can choose less desirable services to do so.
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    By adding more trains on the route at peek times. "Less desirable services" means taking limited space using cars
    - isostatic 7y ago
      Rail lines can take a certain amount per hour (say 32 on the Victoria line). They are already maximum length and maximum capacity, and already leave people behind. Buses are cheaper but slower. Those who aren’t in as much of a hurry can take the bus or walk. With no cost differential people will base it just on time, increasing time taken on the rail service. Same applys on long distance. Sometimes I need to be in London at 9am so will take a more expensive busier peak train. Sometimes I don’t need to be there until the afternoon so I travel on quieter or slower trains, saving money and freeing space for those who do have to be in by 9am.
      - CaptainZapp 7y ago
        Rapid Bus Transit[1] systems seem to be a good way to combine high capacity with (almost) guaranteed transit times and much lower costs than building rail, let alone subway systems. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit
      - tty2300 7y ago
        Add more tracks. We have 8 lane highways but a 4 track train line is unthinkable?
        luckylion 7y ago
        That might work in the US but it won't in Europe where cities are generally densely packed. You can't just tear down a few rows of houses/dig new tunnles/turn the city into one big construction project to add more space for tracks.
- emerongi 7y ago
  After the rural buses here were made free, the companies that own the buses started inflating the passenger amounts. The subsidies were in part dependent on how many passengers are taking the bus - to avoid paying for bad/inefficient routes - and of course it immediately got taken advantage of.
  - dullgiulio 7y ago
    They cannot inflate the numbers. There is a (free) card system. When boarding the bus you have to validate the ticket. The ticket system is handled by a separate company, not by the bus companies.
    - baroffoos 7y ago
      That seems pointless. Why make everyone carry around a card that has no purpose for the user. Why not just let the government design all the routes and manage it.
      - westpfelia 7y ago
        Helps keep companies from lying about number of people using the lines. Makes sense honestly.
      - HatchedLake721 7y ago
        In Tallinn, Estonia, free public transport is for city residents only, which pay local taxes. You get a “city resident card” that you use on public transport to get a free ride. Everyone else pays as normal
      - hapidjus 7y ago
        To keep track of how the system is used maybe. What lines are popular and what lines can be reduced.
      - atoav 7y ago
        You can track the flow of people within your own country, you could even display full buses in realtime and send a notification to get the next one. And most important: you can differentiate locals from tourists.
- sansnomme 7y ago
  But it can be exploited by crowd sourced delivery services.
  - atoav 7y ago
    AFAIK there already are (and probably have been since trains exist) courier services that bring you stuff via train in express tempo. Even if trains were free and they wouldn’t throw you out when you fill the train with parcels, taking a truck or a plane might just be more economical, cause you can drive to distribution places directly.
sebcat 7y ago
Is it free even if you have to pay for it?
- icebraining 7y ago
  For that matter, is anything free when TANSTAAFL? The concept still makes sense in context; it's free for people in the user role, even if they also have the taxpayer role.
msla 7y ago
Fully free public transport isn't that rare in the US: My home city, Missoula, Montana, has had it for years.[1] No passes, no metering. Wikipedia has a list, of course. [2] However, some of those routes aren't fully free, just free to some and, therefore, still incur metering costs. I wonder how much metering a bus route costs, overall, inclusive of enforcement of laws against "turnstile-jumping" or whatever you'd call it. [1] https://www.mountainline.com/mountain-line-to-operate-zero-fare-beginning-january-2015/ https://www.mountainline.com/mountain-line-to-operate-zero-f... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport
novaRom 7y ago
My city started to provide free public transportation every Saturday. As result, more people visit central shops and restaurants in historical center. They discuss now to make it too on Sundays.
- baroffoos 7y ago
  That makes a lot of sense. I imagine public transport is largely underutilized on weekends without everyone trying to get to work.
- _nalply 7y ago
  Where are you located?
Doubl 7y ago
Estonia seems to be a great country for these sorts of initiatives. Is it because vested interests are less of a thing there? Also being small might help, I suppose, more agile perhaps?
- Tankenstein 7y ago
  The small <-> agile thing is very real. I've seen it take very little time (2-5y after conception) for big ideas to be implemented in reality, countrywide, whereas doing it somewhere like the US would be next to impossible.
  - rimliu 7y ago
    What forbids to do it on a state level? City level?
    - Doubl 7y ago
      Depends on how much local autonomy there is which in turn depends on how much taxation is raised by local government. In some countries local governments are funded from central taxation and are more or less instructed on what they can or can't do with it.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Don't worry, as the EU gets more power, individual countries in Europe will be less able to implement these ideas.
- jedberg 7y ago
  They only have 1.3 Million people, so it's easier logistically do to a lot of what they want and therefore it's easier to roll back things that don't work because they take less investment. Also their population is relatively young, and more willing to do these things. Lastly, their last two Prime Ministers were under 40, and one was an engineer. They've also had computer scientists in their upper ranks heading up things like the e-citizenship program and their election security.
oikos 7y ago
Everyone gets a seat because the whole population is around million and the capital 400K. It's less complex to manage than, say, London. Less dense. The whole idea was a mayor's election campaign. Rest of the parties were all against it. Referendum: ask any population if they'd prefer free transport. There: 75.5%. The money comes from somewhere. Although Estonia had average less national debt, their infrastructure (health service, education etc) is post2008 screwed like everywhere else.
- jfoster 7y ago
  The money certainly comes from somewhere, but is it more efficient this way? No ticket sales overhead, no enforcement overhead, etc. Seems smarter given that public transport is something that you would want the population to use instead of their own vehicles.
  - maccard 7y ago
    > No ticket sales overhead, no enforcement overhead, etc. There are still ticket sales in this (and most like this) programs. Usually they only apply to nationals/residents of the city/town, and others have to buy tickets.
    - collyw 7y ago
      I imagine you need a lot less staff.
    - jfoster 7y ago
      It seems like a missed opportunity if they're doing it that way. They get a bit of revenue, but they could otherwise have been more tourism friendly and done away with unnecessary ticketing infrastructure.
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  "Everyone gets a seat" when the system is correctly dimensioned not when the overall population is small.
- 7y ago
StanislavPetrov 7y ago
This seems like a very good and logical idea in places that have the capacity, especially those with high poverty rates. In some places, however, such as here in New York, free public transportation would make a bad problem already worse. Our public transit systems are badly over capacity already and literally falling apart at the seams, with much of the infrastructure being literally over 100 years old. The systems simply weren't designed to carry this many people, and making these systems free would make accelerate the decay and make the overcrowding even worse.
pisipisipisi 7y ago
Idea of free public transport (for rural areas: to add mobility to shrinking (age) and city-moving population) is interesting, to combat the otherwise natural process of urbanization and centralization. Same for the cities that actually have meaningful public transit needs and solutions (Tallinn, maybe Tartu and Pärnu). Implementation as a "FREE stuff, vote for me" is total fail - bad timetables, pointless long routes etc. Flexible and on-demand transportation is required for rural areas (right now money gets wasted on subsidies rather than real problem) and for dense areas different approaches than just throwing money at a sub-optimal solution (maybe "use a bicycle" would be better than "success if you don't take a car but take stinking and smoking bus instead").
PrimeDirective 7y ago
Tallinn resident for the past 30 years, here. I don't know what the heck this article is talking about. > The buses are on time, the trams are shiny and new, and passengers usually get a seat. The buses are not on time. They are constantly leaving early, a problem that has been brought up numerous times but just doesn't get fixed. The trams and buses are indeed new(ish) but not shiny. There is a problem with funds allocated for cleaning the public transportation. Although it's not the worst by far, but it's also not a rule that they are clean. Especially in the winter. [1][2][3] > Tallinn’s city government came up with the idea of free transport after the 2008 financial crisis. Estonia was hit badly, and even though the city paid more than 70% of public-transport costs, ticket prices were still too high for poorer residents. No, it was for the 2009 local election campaign. Initially the idea was to keep it for a short duration. Literally no-one had complained about the ticket prices. They were not expensive, even if our economy was in a bad state. The same party did this same ploy for the rest of the country too. Literally no-one asked for this and cost is not the biggest problem, by far.[5][6] > Since Estonia regained independence in 1991, car ownership rates have doubled. Interesting side note, ever since the Tallinn introduced the free public transport, car ownership rates have soared.[4][8] > Opponents branded the idea populist and unaffordable. Estonia was pushing through tough austerity measures at the time, including a 10% pay cut for public-sector workers. Critics predicted the transport system would become overcrowded and underfunded. The row was only resolved by a referendum. A referendum where 20% of the eligible population only voted.[7] The referendum was phrased in way where saying "no" didn't make sense. It was a populist move and the voter turnout mirrors that. Also, I can't remember any other referendums happening in Tallinn. > Surprisingly, though, instead of collapsing, public transport has improved, despite a €12m hit to the system’s finances from lost ticket sales. Tallinn’s population has grown, leading to a boost in local tax intake. Additional revenue comes from tourists and non-Tallinn residents, who still have to buy tickets. The use of public transport in Tallinn has gone up by 10%, while the number of cars in the city centre has gone down by 10%, meaning less congestion. Again, not entirely true. I don't know where the decrease of 10% cars figure comes from and also the city center is so small, even if it were true, it's literally a drop in the ocean. I have to pass the city center every day, actually the way the transportation lines are built up, most people have to pass the city center.[4][8] > Free public transport on its own is not enough to stop people driving, though the evidence is that it helps. In Tallinn higher parking fees and reduced space for cars also played a part in cutting city-centre traffic: on-street parking now costs €6 an hour, and some parking spaces and car lanes have been replaced by bus lanes. Officials say providing a free alternative allowed them to avoid a backlash when driving in the capital was made more expensive and less convenient. Yet the car ownership keeps growing. You'll see the problem clearer when you compare transportation lines from the Soviet era (30-50 years ago) and realize the lines have barely changed. Yes, there are some new lines but there are buses that drive the same route for decades now, when the jobs have shifted locations. Also, by funding the "free" public transportation, Tallinn has left schools and kindergardens underfunded. I do agree that people have definitely gotten used to it and it is comfortable. I like that they have also included trains within city limits to this. People are riding trains and we are actually buying new trains. TL;DR: * this article is mostly a fluff piece * spend a day in Tallinn and ride the trams and buses and then to same in Helsinki. We have much to strive for * it isn't free, we all pay for it and get a crappy experience * the city has awful pedestrian roads (they are narrow and cars are king) and non-existent bike lanes (especially in the city center) * they need to modernize the routes * etc, there's literally a 1000 page book that can be written about Tallinn's transport woes [1] https://www.postimees.ee/1790081/bussid-ja-trollid-valjuvad-peatustest-liiga-vara https://www.postimees.ee/1790081/bussid-ja-trollid-valjuvad-... [2] https://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/rahvahaal/eksperiment-paljud-tallinna-bussid-soidavad-pidevalt-graafikust-ette?id=69971065 https://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/rahvahaal/eksperiment... [3] https://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/rahvahaal/anna-teada-uhistranspordist-mis-lahkub-peatusest-liiga-vara?id=69733639 https://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/rahvahaal/anna-teada-... [4] https://longread.delfi.ee/artiklid/tallinnasse-voorib-iga-paev-juurde-50-000-autot-linn-jaab-neile-kitsaks?id=83978754 https://longread.delfi.ee/artiklid/tallinnasse-voorib-iga-pa... [5] https://news.err.ee/833235/survey-free-bus-plan-unpopular-among-target-rural-demographic https://news.err.ee/833235/survey-free-bus-plan-unpopular-am... [6] https://news.err.ee/861958/county-buses-often-overcrowded-since-free-transport-introduced https://news.err.ee/861958/county-buses-often-overcrowded-si... [7] https://news.err.ee/103737/75-vote-for-free-public-transit-in-tallinn-referendum https://news.err.ee/103737/75-vote-for-free-public-transit-i... [8] https://blog.stat.ee/tag/auto/ https://blog.stat.ee/tag/auto/
nabla9 7y ago
The reason why free is good in public transport is because more people move around for work and fun, better it is for the whole area. Abusing the system is not a problem. It improves the quality of life even if it's done just for fun. Free electricity or water for residents would lead to waste. You still want to maintain the markets. Giving every resident free card to use in public transport does that. When government pays according to the use, bus companies will respond to user demand. The local government can still subsidize unprofitable routes etc. but it's good that those things must be decided separately.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > You still want to maintain the markets. Giving every resident free card to use in public transport does that. Why not give them money instead? They can choose to buy a ticket or choose to ride a bike/walk and use the money elsewhere. You might keep the market for public transportation (though I have my doubts: why would the provider need to respond to demand if he's paid no matter what?), but you're strongly intervening in the transportation market in general.
  - OskarS 7y ago
    Why does one preclude the other? "Free public transport" and "give poor people money" can both be excellent policies, there's no reason one should only pick one. The point with specifically making public transport free is because using public transport instead of using cars is A Good Thing. It's like a reverse pigouvian tax: we want to encourage people using public transport, so lets make it free. Instead of charging for it, tax something we don't like (i.e. cars) and pay for it that way.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      We're not just making cars relatively worse, but also walking and cycling, and we're encouraging (medium distance) travel in general. I don't know that this is a good idea, though I do agree that if you want to encourage travelling, it's fair to not only make it available to the rich. I'd much prefer people to use any form of transportation when required and not spend their leisure time by descending upon the inner city, but that's a personal preference.
start123 7y ago
As an expat living as Tallinn resident for a couple of years, here are my two cents 1. Having public transport has a remarkable effect on the quality of life - At any time of the day, I can hop on go to any part of the city without worrying about costs involved. I have started to go out more than sitting at home simply because it's hassle-free. 2. Connectivity and frequency are quite poor if you don't reside in the city centre. It gets even worse (even in the city centre) at night. Majority of residents tend to live in the outskirts and they continue to use private vehicles in spite of free public transport. 3. Short journeys that were covered by foot are now covered by public transport defeating the purpose. Most of the times, I use a bus for half a km even though I can walk that distance quite easily. 4. The population is very low so one can easily find empty seats on most routes.
- PrimeDirective 7y ago
  you are 100% correct. #3 is especially funny in the city center, where most lines pass anyway
- mb_72 7y ago
  Re: 2 - I can't agree. Yes, the trams and trains stop running soon after midnight and start up ~5am or so, however that is pretty good time coverage. Many people in Tallinn don't own cars, and use the free public transport a lot, plus the coverage up to the city limits is also quite good: https://www.visittallinn.ee/static/files/063/2018_tallinn_transportation_map_eng.pdf https://www.visittallinn.ee/static/files/063/2018_tallinn_tr... One 'problem' here is that Taxify / Bolt is so cheap. I'll not even think about dropping 5EUR on a fare if it means slightly less hassle / time getting somewhere.
  - start123 7y ago
    I cannot imagine going out at night if there was no Bolt/Uber. I pretty much have to walk home or some distance to get a bus. The weather doesn't help either - standing at a bus stop in winter when the next bus is in 20 mins or so is not a pleasant experience.
    - 7y ago
lqet 7y ago
I am a huge fan of public transportation, and I think using it should be as easy as possible. But here is a possible problem with this idea: if you make public transport free, you change the social structure of the riders. As the cost of public transportation does not depend on income, free rides have far greater benefits for the lower classes, and this may lead to public transportation having the image of "transportation for the poor", which may then lead to vast parts of society avoiding riding on it. After some time, it may even become a stigma, and the lower classes will also avoid using it. I fear that free public transport may lead to lower passenger numbers in the long run, except in areas with a homogeneous population.
- rjprins 7y ago
  Who the hell thinks "this is for poor people, so I don't use it"? That's some serious small-minded thinking.
  - lqet 7y ago
    Of course it is! But sadly this is just the way a lot of people think, maybe without even realizing it. Why do you think middle-class families try to avoid living in poorer neighborhoods?
    - OskarS 7y ago
      Poor people shouldn't be punished because upper- and middle-class people are narrow-minded.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Poorer neighbourhoods often come with years of deprivation, including dilapidated housing stock and distinct lack of local amenities and services. When there are services and amenities in reasonable striking distance, such as in cities, people don't avoid living in poor areas terribly strongly - or how would you get rapid gentrification of all those former poor places? That so often seems to "just happen" - without focused investment. Surely a subsidised or free bus or tram service should in no way discourage rich or poor as it is the amenity? What discourages better off people from public transport is unreliability or sparse service - as achieved by the UK's mid 80s deregulation everywhere except London. More surprisingly perhaps, so does price-gouging on fares and season tickets. Why don't we avoid free parks, beaches and forests because poor people may be there too?
Quarrelsome 7y ago
It is worth noting that as far as I know enforcement of ticketing was _super_ low in the first place. To an extent this is just accepting the reality that some people will just bunk the fare given that the system is self-managed, i.e. you validate your own ticket. When I've been in Tallinn in the past I've seen people not pay as a matter of habit. This is arguably the logical outcome of public transport. Ticket inspecting is expensive, inefficient and barely effective (without effectively doubling the staff costs of each service) and stopping the bus for the drivers to collect fares impacts the efficiency of the service (e.g. the "classic" old person paying in pennies slowing the bus down). Given that transport is often heavily subsidised by the government anyway this is just giving up on the problem as its hard to find a cost-effective means of enforcing the collection of fares while keeping those fares affordable.
jyriand 7y ago
There was one additional reason why city wanted to create a free public transportation only for local residents. So that all the people who were working in Tallinn, but whose(?) place of residence was outside of city, would register themselves as Tallinn's official residents, and that means more tax payer money coming to city budget. Win-win. Edit: improved spelling
known 7y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19886337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19886337
lambdadmitry 7y ago
This is a good example of policy makers not falling for the fallacy of "efficient public transport system = financially self-sufficient". A good public transport system has to be cash-negative because of its positive externalities. If it's cash-positive, it's either too expensive, under-investing, or both. It's a government's job to price the externalities in by reaping the fruits of economical growth (via taxes) and investing it back into public transport.
cambaceres 7y ago
It is not free, Estonians pay for it with raised taxes. Good for the ones with low income you would think, except of course those with low income that does not use public transport but still has to pay for it.

166 points by dullgiulio 7y ago

https://outline.com/WLYEMW https://outline.com/WLYEMW

The brilliant thing about making public transit free is that unlike many other things that can be government subsidized, free public transit can't be stolen or arbitraged.

mherdeg 7y ago
Yeah I grew up hearing that "The optimal price of public transit is free". The one pitfall I was told about was something called a "free-rider problem", which in this specific context doesn't have its normal economic meaning and refers to people taking up public-transit resources while not actually trying to get from Point A to Point B. Just for example, if your transit is clean, safe, supervised, a moderate temperature, and has long journeys, what fraction of its users will be using it to get somewhere vs. using it because it is a safe place to be? In the Bay Area, there is "Hotel 22", the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority #22 bus from Eastridge Transit Center to Palo Alto Transit Center, about a two-hour ride running 24 hours a day (see e.g. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11249291/The-dark-side-of-Silicon-Valley.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/... or https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/10/31/homeless-turn-overnight-bus-route-into-hotel-22/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/10/31/homeless-turn-overnig... - a safe warm place to sleep for $6). In Pynchon's "V" there is Benny Profane "yo-yoing" on the 42nd Street Shuttle from Grand Central to Times Square, but his contemporaries were certainly finding shelter there: https://harpers.org/archive/1956/03/subways-are-for-sleeping/ https://harpers.org/archive/1956/03/subways-are-for-sleeping... These aren't necessarily bad side effects but understanding how folks will use the system when it's free is an important part of making the policy decision to make it free.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  In an ideal world, there are other clean, safe, supervised and temperature controlled places that you can provide that make hanging around public transit not a particularly attractive option.
- blunte 7y ago
  This is not a public transportation problem, this is a housing/wage problem.
  - function_seven 7y ago
    True, but that's not useful when creating transit policy. The housing and wage problems are present within the society you're writing your transit policy for. If those problems exist, then your transit policy must account for them.
- iknowstuff 7y ago
  Ahh, there it is, the US can never have nice and clean things because of its massive inequality. Judging by European countries it would seem like there are ways to fix that.
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    Reminds me of a comment I saw on HN a while ago about an American shocked that other countries have public toilets that aren't covered in shit, blood and needles. It seems like so many Americans are not even aware that the problems they face are not global and they just take it as a fact of life.
    - WanderPanda 7y ago
      This is absolutely against my experience. When I visited the US last year I was surprised by how clean and well maintained public toilets were. I am not used to this, as in Germany public toilets (if they even exist) are totally disgusting.
isostatic 7y ago
How do you ration limited seats on a train? By charging more at certai times you encourage those who can choose less desirable services to do so.
- baroffoos 7y ago
  By adding more trains on the route at peek times. "Less desirable services" means taking limited space using cars
  - isostatic 7y ago
    Rail lines can take a certain amount per hour (say 32 on the Victoria line). They are already maximum length and maximum capacity, and already leave people behind. Buses are cheaper but slower. Those who aren’t in as much of a hurry can take the bus or walk. With no cost differential people will base it just on time, increasing time taken on the rail service. Same applys on long distance. Sometimes I need to be in London at 9am so will take a more expensive busier peak train. Sometimes I don’t need to be there until the afternoon so I travel on quieter or slower trains, saving money and freeing space for those who do have to be in by 9am.
    - CaptainZapp 7y ago
      Rapid Bus Transit[1] systems seem to be a good way to combine high capacity with (almost) guaranteed transit times and much lower costs than building rail, let alone subway systems. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit
    - tty2300 7y ago
      Add more tracks. We have 8 lane highways but a 4 track train line is unthinkable?
      - luckylion 7y ago
        That might work in the US but it won't in Europe where cities are generally densely packed. You can't just tear down a few rows of houses/dig new tunnles/turn the city into one big construction project to add more space for tracks.
emerongi 7y ago
After the rural buses here were made free, the companies that own the buses started inflating the passenger amounts. The subsidies were in part dependent on how many passengers are taking the bus - to avoid paying for bad/inefficient routes - and of course it immediately got taken advantage of.
- dullgiulio 7y ago
  They cannot inflate the numbers. There is a (free) card system. When boarding the bus you have to validate the ticket. The ticket system is handled by a separate company, not by the bus companies.
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    That seems pointless. Why make everyone carry around a card that has no purpose for the user. Why not just let the government design all the routes and manage it.
    - westpfelia 7y ago
      Helps keep companies from lying about number of people using the lines. Makes sense honestly.
    - HatchedLake721 7y ago
      In Tallinn, Estonia, free public transport is for city residents only, which pay local taxes. You get a “city resident card” that you use on public transport to get a free ride. Everyone else pays as normal
    - hapidjus 7y ago
      To keep track of how the system is used maybe. What lines are popular and what lines can be reduced.
    - atoav 7y ago
      You can track the flow of people within your own country, you could even display full buses in realtime and send a notification to get the next one. And most important: you can differentiate locals from tourists.
sansnomme 7y ago
But it can be exploited by crowd sourced delivery services.
- atoav 7y ago
  AFAIK there already are (and probably have been since trains exist) courier services that bring you stuff via train in express tempo. Even if trains were free and they wouldn’t throw you out when you fill the train with parcels, taking a truck or a plane might just be more economical, cause you can drive to distribution places directly.

sebcat 7y ago

Is it free even if you have to pay for it?

icebraining 7y ago
For that matter, is anything free when TANSTAAFL? The concept still makes sense in context; it's free for people in the user role, even if they also have the taxpayer role.

msla 7y ago

Fully free public transport isn't that rare in the US: My home city, Missoula, Montana, has had it for years.[1] No passes, no metering. Wikipedia has a list, of course. [2] However, some of those routes aren't fully free, just free to some and, therefore, still incur metering costs. I wonder how much metering a bus route costs, overall, inclusive of enforcement of laws against "turnstile-jumping" or whatever you'd call it. [1] https://www.mountainline.com/mountain-line-to-operate-zero-fare-beginning-january-2015/ https://www.mountainline.com/mountain-line-to-operate-zero-f... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport

novaRom 7y ago

My city started to provide free public transportation every Saturday. As result, more people visit central shops and restaurants in historical center. They discuss now to make it too on Sundays.

baroffoos 7y ago
That makes a lot of sense. I imagine public transport is largely underutilized on weekends without everyone trying to get to work.
_nalply 7y ago
Where are you located?

Doubl 7y ago

Estonia seems to be a great country for these sorts of initiatives. Is it because vested interests are less of a thing there? Also being small might help, I suppose, more agile perhaps?

Tankenstein 7y ago
The small <-> agile thing is very real. I've seen it take very little time (2-5y after conception) for big ideas to be implemented in reality, countrywide, whereas doing it somewhere like the US would be next to impossible.
- rimliu 7y ago
  What forbids to do it on a state level? City level?
  - Doubl 7y ago
    Depends on how much local autonomy there is which in turn depends on how much taxation is raised by local government. In some countries local governments are funded from central taxation and are more or less instructed on what they can or can't do with it.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Don't worry, as the EU gets more power, individual countries in Europe will be less able to implement these ideas.
jedberg 7y ago
They only have 1.3 Million people, so it's easier logistically do to a lot of what they want and therefore it's easier to roll back things that don't work because they take less investment. Also their population is relatively young, and more willing to do these things. Lastly, their last two Prime Ministers were under 40, and one was an engineer. They've also had computer scientists in their upper ranks heading up things like the e-citizenship program and their election security.

oikos 7y ago

Everyone gets a seat because the whole population is around million and the capital 400K. It's less complex to manage than, say, London. Less dense. The whole idea was a mayor's election campaign. Rest of the parties were all against it. Referendum: ask any population if they'd prefer free transport. There: 75.5%. The money comes from somewhere. Although Estonia had average less national debt, their infrastructure (health service, education etc) is post2008 screwed like everywhere else.

jfoster 7y ago
The money certainly comes from somewhere, but is it more efficient this way? No ticket sales overhead, no enforcement overhead, etc. Seems smarter given that public transport is something that you would want the population to use instead of their own vehicles.
- maccard 7y ago
  > No ticket sales overhead, no enforcement overhead, etc. There are still ticket sales in this (and most like this) programs. Usually they only apply to nationals/residents of the city/town, and others have to buy tickets.
  - collyw 7y ago
    I imagine you need a lot less staff.
  - jfoster 7y ago
    It seems like a missed opportunity if they're doing it that way. They get a bit of revenue, but they could otherwise have been more tourism friendly and done away with unnecessary ticketing infrastructure.
NotPaidToPost 7y ago
"Everyone gets a seat" when the system is correctly dimensioned not when the overall population is small.
7y ago

StanislavPetrov 7y ago

This seems like a very good and logical idea in places that have the capacity, especially those with high poverty rates. In some places, however, such as here in New York, free public transportation would make a bad problem already worse. Our public transit systems are badly over capacity already and literally falling apart at the seams, with much of the infrastructure being literally over 100 years old. The systems simply weren't designed to carry this many people, and making these systems free would make accelerate the decay and make the overcrowding even worse.

pisipisipisi 7y ago

Idea of free public transport (for rural areas: to add mobility to shrinking (age) and city-moving population) is interesting, to combat the otherwise natural process of urbanization and centralization. Same for the cities that actually have meaningful public transit needs and solutions (Tallinn, maybe Tartu and Pärnu). Implementation as a "FREE stuff, vote for me" is total fail - bad timetables, pointless long routes etc. Flexible and on-demand transportation is required for rural areas (right now money gets wasted on subsidies rather than real problem) and for dense areas different approaches than just throwing money at a sub-optimal solution (maybe "use a bicycle" would be better than "success if you don't take a car but take stinking and smoking bus instead").

PrimeDirective 7y ago

Tallinn resident for the past 30 years, here. I don't know what the heck this article is talking about. > The buses are on time, the trams are shiny and new, and passengers usually get a seat. The buses are not on time. They are constantly leaving early, a problem that has been brought up numerous times but just doesn't get fixed. The trams and buses are indeed new(ish) but not shiny. There is a problem with funds allocated for cleaning the public transportation. Although it's not the worst by far, but it's also not a rule that they are clean. Especially in the winter. [1][2][3] > Tallinn’s city government came up with the idea of free transport after the 2008 financial crisis. Estonia was hit badly, and even though the city paid more than 70% of public-transport costs, ticket prices were still too high for poorer residents. No, it was for the 2009 local election campaign. Initially the idea was to keep it for a short duration. Literally no-one had complained about the ticket prices. They were not expensive, even if our economy was in a bad state. The same party did this same ploy for the rest of the country too. Literally no-one asked for this and cost is not the biggest problem, by far.[5][6] > Since Estonia regained independence in 1991, car ownership rates have doubled. Interesting side note, ever since the Tallinn introduced the free public transport, car ownership rates have soared.[4][8] > Opponents branded the idea populist and unaffordable. Estonia was pushing through tough austerity measures at the time, including a 10% pay cut for public-sector workers. Critics predicted the transport system would become overcrowded and underfunded. The row was only resolved by a referendum. A referendum where 20% of the eligible population only voted.[7] The referendum was phrased in way where saying "no" didn't make sense. It was a populist move and the voter turnout mirrors that. Also, I can't remember any other referendums happening in Tallinn. > Surprisingly, though, instead of collapsing, public transport has improved, despite a €12m hit to the system’s finances from lost ticket sales. Tallinn’s population has grown, leading to a boost in local tax intake. Additional revenue comes from tourists and non-Tallinn residents, who still have to buy tickets. The use of public transport in Tallinn has gone up by 10%, while the number of cars in the city centre has gone down by 10%, meaning less congestion. Again, not entirely true. I don't know where the decrease of 10% cars figure comes from and also the city center is so small, even if it were true, it's literally a drop in the ocean. I have to pass the city center every day, actually the way the transportation lines are built up, most people have to pass the city center.[4][8] > Free public transport on its own is not enough to stop people driving, though the evidence is that it helps. In Tallinn higher parking fees and reduced space for cars also played a part in cutting city-centre traffic: on-street parking now costs €6 an hour, and some parking spaces and car lanes have been replaced by bus lanes. Officials say providing a free alternative allowed them to avoid a backlash when driving in the capital was made more expensive and less convenient. Yet the car ownership keeps growing. You'll see the problem clearer when you compare transportation lines from the Soviet era (30-50 years ago) and realize the lines have barely changed. Yes, there are some new lines but there are buses that drive the same route for decades now, when the jobs have shifted locations. Also, by funding the "free" public transportation, Tallinn has left schools and kindergardens underfunded. I do agree that people have definitely gotten used to it and it is comfortable. I like that they have also included trains within city limits to this. People are riding trains and we are actually buying new trains. TL;DR: * this article is mostly a fluff piece * spend a day in Tallinn and ride the trams and buses and then to same in Helsinki. We have much to strive for * it isn't free, we all pay for it and get a crappy experience * the city has awful pedestrian roads (they are narrow and cars are king) and non-existent bike lanes (especially in the city center) * they need to modernize the routes * etc, there's literally a 1000 page book that can be written about Tallinn's transport woes [1] https://www.postimees.ee/1790081/bussid-ja-trollid-valjuvad-peatustest-liiga-vara https://www.postimees.ee/1790081/bussid-ja-trollid-valjuvad-... [2] https://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/rahvahaal/eksperiment-paljud-tallinna-bussid-soidavad-pidevalt-graafikust-ette?id=69971065 https://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/rahvahaal/eksperiment... [3] https://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/rahvahaal/anna-teada-uhistranspordist-mis-lahkub-peatusest-liiga-vara?id=69733639 https://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/rahvahaal/anna-teada-... [4] https://longread.delfi.ee/artiklid/tallinnasse-voorib-iga-paev-juurde-50-000-autot-linn-jaab-neile-kitsaks?id=83978754 https://longread.delfi.ee/artiklid/tallinnasse-voorib-iga-pa... [5] https://news.err.ee/833235/survey-free-bus-plan-unpopular-among-target-rural-demographic https://news.err.ee/833235/survey-free-bus-plan-unpopular-am... [6] https://news.err.ee/861958/county-buses-often-overcrowded-since-free-transport-introduced https://news.err.ee/861958/county-buses-often-overcrowded-si... [7] https://news.err.ee/103737/75-vote-for-free-public-transit-in-tallinn-referendum https://news.err.ee/103737/75-vote-for-free-public-transit-i... [8] https://blog.stat.ee/tag/auto/ https://blog.stat.ee/tag/auto/

nabla9 7y ago

The reason why free is good in public transport is because more people move around for work and fun, better it is for the whole area. Abusing the system is not a problem. It improves the quality of life even if it's done just for fun. Free electricity or water for residents would lead to waste. You still want to maintain the markets. Giving every resident free card to use in public transport does that. When government pays according to the use, bus companies will respond to user demand. The local government can still subsidize unprofitable routes etc. but it's good that those things must be decided separately.

luckylion 7y ago
> You still want to maintain the markets. Giving every resident free card to use in public transport does that. Why not give them money instead? They can choose to buy a ticket or choose to ride a bike/walk and use the money elsewhere. You might keep the market for public transportation (though I have my doubts: why would the provider need to respond to demand if he's paid no matter what?), but you're strongly intervening in the transportation market in general.
- OskarS 7y ago
  Why does one preclude the other? "Free public transport" and "give poor people money" can both be excellent policies, there's no reason one should only pick one. The point with specifically making public transport free is because using public transport instead of using cars is A Good Thing. It's like a reverse pigouvian tax: we want to encourage people using public transport, so lets make it free. Instead of charging for it, tax something we don't like (i.e. cars) and pay for it that way.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    We're not just making cars relatively worse, but also walking and cycling, and we're encouraging (medium distance) travel in general. I don't know that this is a good idea, though I do agree that if you want to encourage travelling, it's fair to not only make it available to the rich. I'd much prefer people to use any form of transportation when required and not spend their leisure time by descending upon the inner city, but that's a personal preference.

start123 7y ago

As an expat living as Tallinn resident for a couple of years, here are my two cents 1. Having public transport has a remarkable effect on the quality of life - At any time of the day, I can hop on go to any part of the city without worrying about costs involved. I have started to go out more than sitting at home simply because it's hassle-free. 2. Connectivity and frequency are quite poor if you don't reside in the city centre. It gets even worse (even in the city centre) at night. Majority of residents tend to live in the outskirts and they continue to use private vehicles in spite of free public transport. 3. Short journeys that were covered by foot are now covered by public transport defeating the purpose. Most of the times, I use a bus for half a km even though I can walk that distance quite easily. 4. The population is very low so one can easily find empty seats on most routes.

PrimeDirective 7y ago
you are 100% correct. #3 is especially funny in the city center, where most lines pass anyway
mb_72 7y ago
Re: 2 - I can't agree. Yes, the trams and trains stop running soon after midnight and start up ~5am or so, however that is pretty good time coverage. Many people in Tallinn don't own cars, and use the free public transport a lot, plus the coverage up to the city limits is also quite good: https://www.visittallinn.ee/static/files/063/2018_tallinn_transportation_map_eng.pdf https://www.visittallinn.ee/static/files/063/2018_tallinn_tr... One 'problem' here is that Taxify / Bolt is so cheap. I'll not even think about dropping 5EUR on a fare if it means slightly less hassle / time getting somewhere.
- start123 7y ago
  I cannot imagine going out at night if there was no Bolt/Uber. I pretty much have to walk home or some distance to get a bus. The weather doesn't help either - standing at a bus stop in winter when the next bus is in 20 mins or so is not a pleasant experience.
  - 7y ago

lqet 7y ago

I am a huge fan of public transportation, and I think using it should be as easy as possible. But here is a possible problem with this idea: if you make public transport free, you change the social structure of the riders. As the cost of public transportation does not depend on income, free rides have far greater benefits for the lower classes, and this may lead to public transportation having the image of "transportation for the poor", which may then lead to vast parts of society avoiding riding on it. After some time, it may even become a stigma, and the lower classes will also avoid using it. I fear that free public transport may lead to lower passenger numbers in the long run, except in areas with a homogeneous population.

rjprins 7y ago
Who the hell thinks "this is for poor people, so I don't use it"? That's some serious small-minded thinking.
- lqet 7y ago
  Of course it is! But sadly this is just the way a lot of people think, maybe without even realizing it. Why do you think middle-class families try to avoid living in poorer neighborhoods?
  - OskarS 7y ago
    Poor people shouldn't be punished because upper- and middle-class people are narrow-minded.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Poorer neighbourhoods often come with years of deprivation, including dilapidated housing stock and distinct lack of local amenities and services. When there are services and amenities in reasonable striking distance, such as in cities, people don't avoid living in poor areas terribly strongly - or how would you get rapid gentrification of all those former poor places? That so often seems to "just happen" - without focused investment. Surely a subsidised or free bus or tram service should in no way discourage rich or poor as it is the amenity? What discourages better off people from public transport is unreliability or sparse service - as achieved by the UK's mid 80s deregulation everywhere except London. More surprisingly perhaps, so does price-gouging on fares and season tickets. Why don't we avoid free parks, beaches and forests because poor people may be there too?

Quarrelsome 7y ago

It is worth noting that as far as I know enforcement of ticketing was _super_ low in the first place. To an extent this is just accepting the reality that some people will just bunk the fare given that the system is self-managed, i.e. you validate your own ticket. When I've been in Tallinn in the past I've seen people not pay as a matter of habit. This is arguably the logical outcome of public transport. Ticket inspecting is expensive, inefficient and barely effective (without effectively doubling the staff costs of each service) and stopping the bus for the drivers to collect fares impacts the efficiency of the service (e.g. the "classic" old person paying in pennies slowing the bus down). Given that transport is often heavily subsidised by the government anyway this is just giving up on the problem as its hard to find a cost-effective means of enforcing the collection of fares while keeping those fares affordable.

jyriand 7y ago

There was one additional reason why city wanted to create a free public transportation only for local residents. So that all the people who were working in Tallinn, but whose(?) place of residence was outside of city, would register themselves as Tallinn's official residents, and that means more tax payer money coming to city budget. Win-win. Edit: improved spelling

known 7y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19886337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19886337

lambdadmitry 7y ago

This is a good example of policy makers not falling for the fallacy of "efficient public transport system = financially self-sufficient". A good public transport system has to be cash-negative because of its positive externalities. If it's cash-positive, it's either too expensive, under-investing, or both. It's a government's job to price the externalities in by reaping the fruits of economical growth (via taxes) and investing it back into public transport.

cambaceres 7y ago

It is not free, Estonians pay for it with raised taxes. Good for the ones with low income you would think, except of course those with low income that does not use public transport but still has to pay for it.