9 ms·
D.C. free bus bill becomes law as zero-fare transit systems take off
- sourcecodeplz 4y agoFree as in a free lunch? I've heard there's no such thing. I know of places where pensioners (over 65yr olds) get it free but not universal. There are pros and cons to this of course but overall: people who didn't take the buss before are not going to now all of a sudden.
- braingenious 4y agoFree at point of use. It is paid for by taxpayers, like every other bit of public transit in the country.
- lokar 4y agoLike pretty much all transportation systems (roads, trains, airports, etc) in all nations.
- mertd 4y agoYes and that's absolutely fine. America needs to reevaluate its extreme aversion to investing in collective good.
- ahahahahah 4y agoNote that generally public transportation funding is already <25% covered by fares and so to the extent that you think "paid for by taxpayers" is positive or negative, this doesn't actually have that much impact on that aspect.
- braingenious 4y agoI think it’s great! I’m happy for my tax dollars to go to transit! The net positive of keeping drunk drivers off the road, increased access to work for people and increased access to workers for businesses is great! Not a big fan of fares though, as somebody that’s dropped my wallet in the dark in the middle of the night in a sketchy part of town.
- dx034 4y agoWhere do you see that 25% number? According to Wikipedia, most systems around the world seem to be >50%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
- ahahahahah 4y agoI feel like your comment is rather disingenuous, given that almost everything there that covers the U.S. is actually well below my generous "25%" and (even beyond the sort of U.S. being the default for HN discussions the topic we are discussing is specifically a U.S. case). The biggest case from your link above that threshold would generally not even be considered "public transportation" (Amtrak, that is). Given how overwhelmingly your source supports my position for the topic at hand, it's hard to assume good intent.
- sien 4y agoAmtrak also includes State subsidies as 'revenue'. They also don't count depreciation. They then want 45Bn or some such enormous figure for maintenance from the Feds. https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2183214 https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2183214
- zbrozek 4y agoI would absolutely take Caltrain more often than ~never if it were cost competitive with driving. But it isn't, so I actually take it low single digit times per year under special circumstances.
- yuliyp 4y agoCaltrain is definitely cheaper than driving for one person. As an example, Palo Alto to San Francisco caltrain is $7.70 for a 32 mile ride. That's 24 cents per mile. The IRS mileage rate is 62 cents per mile. Even if you add $5.50 for parking at the station, it's 41 cents per mile.
- vlovich123 4y agoHow much is it in terms of min/$?
- zbrozek 4y agoI drive a cheap EV which I charge for free. A marginal mile costs me about 18 cents. On top of that I'm usually traveling to SF to visit friends with my wife. Hard to justify taking the train.
- mixmastamyk 4y agoWhat about car insurance, tolls, wear and tear, potential tickets, etc?
- yellowapple 4y agoI don't know of any tolls that would be relevant in the provided SF <-> Palo Alto example, and car insurance is static. Tickets are also easy enough to avoid. Wear and tear is really the main concern.
- yuliyp 4y agoHow do you figure 18 cents? a $30k EV amortized across 200k miles is 15 cents alone. Add any maintenance on top of that and you're easily over 18 cents of marginal cost per mile before electricity or any other amortizable costs (risk of accident, tolls, parking, etc).
- tshaddox 4y ago> people who didn't take the buss before are not going to now all of a sudden. I suspect a lot would. Some public transit systems are shockingly expensive. And even price-insensitive people would benefit from increased ridership of price-sensitive people if it also led to improved service.
- heavyset_go 4y ago> There are pros and cons to this of course but overall: people who didn't take the buss before are not going to now all of a sudden. I'm sure there are people who would benefit from this, like those carpooling and relying on rides from friends and family, to those who wouldn't be able to afford to work in places that would otherwise require a car to commute to that they don't have, etc.
- alwayslikethis 4y agoMaking transit free really misses the point. The money is much better spent on actually improving the transit options, such as buying more buses to improve frequency, building new tram or rail lines, or general maintenance (cleaning) that make using the transit more appealing for all but the most desperate. Look at all the cities in Asia and Europe where normal people use transit. Very few of them are free, though they may be cheaper than in North America. The key is making it convenient and comfortable when compared against other options, especially driving.
- heavyset_go 4y agoYou can do both at the same time, as doing both tackles both an overlapping problem and two+ different problems.
- mixmastamyk 4y agoOne of those options makes it more expensive.
- rektide 4y agoDC area has spent bazonga-bucks OMG amounts of money to keep doing these kinds of expansion projects. The silver line snakes way out through Virginia, for a pretty (very) small fraction of riders every day & a handful of people going to IAD (Dulles) airport. The Purple Line has started snaking around the beltway, at least for the northern MD parts that were still willing to fund & try, but has dragged on, slated originally to open last year & still at least 4 years out & crazy over cost. It seems unlikely to make a sea change difference, but perhaps!! We want to believe, maybe after a lot of time. DC started building a new streetcar network, and seemingly gave up after realizing fixed infrastructure like this was insanely expensive and prone to constant blockage. Most American cities highly subsidize transit. Going to fully subsidized is not really a major hurt. It's a kind of easy action we can just do, for little real pain. Much less pain than many of the expansive would be micro-mega-projects, that probably in most cases will be massive budget items with decades of debt, with only very very very long term development benefits. In DC, few of our transit systems have capacity problems. Our citywide network is quite good, very well connnected whatever direction you want in most places. The proposal that we add more busses, that we build new lines: it feels wildly out of touch, like it's prescribing someone elses solution, that doesn't make sense here. This is a good sensible next step for DC, to make what we have work much better for many, especially those who can most benefit.
- 0xB31B1B 4y agoFree transit is stupid. When surveyed, the huge majority (98%) of weekday transit riders say they want increased service over decreased prices. Everyone wants 10 minute or less headways. People will pay 3 dollars for a bus ride if the line has 10 minute headways or less and signal priority, but they won't take the bus if its stuck in traffic and has 30 minute headways. The reality is that transit funding for free transit is zero sum, and the riders of the system would prefer if the money was spent on improved service instead of free fares.
- braingenious 4y agoWhat percentage wanted increased service and decreased price? Was the question phrased “Pick one (1) of the following two things”? I would love to see the data on “What would improve your experience using public transit?”
- Scoundreller 4y ago98% of consumers of any product/service would be willing to pay more but most places don’t allow this kind of price discrimination.
- charlieyu1 4y agoI mean this can be solved by giving discounts to elderly/disabled/poor people
- heavyset_go 4y agoAt some point, means testing for a $1.50 bus ride is going to cost more than it saves and can become a barrier to the ridership that it's intended to encourage.
- kennywinker 4y agoYour issue seems to be with funding. Fares are usually quite a small component of transit system’s budgets. We don’t require users of city streets to pay fares to use that transportation infrastructure, with exception of the occasional toll-funded highway/bridge/tunnel, and we spend many many billions of tax dollars more on those than we do on public transit. If free transit is a bad idea so are free city streets.
- scrollaway 4y agoTo you all complaining about free transit, I invite you to actually look the next time you take the bus or metro at the amount of infrastructure dedicated to ticketing, validation and enforcement. I invite you to think about the amount of money spent on it. I invite you to think about the amount of time wasted by people on ticketing. The queues at ticket booths, people spending time researching what pass they want. Seniors spending time asking for their special card so they can get it cheaper or for free. The amounts spent on advertising to reduce gate jumpers, or to tell people about the latest formula or whatever. The massive amounts spent on RND of new techniques to make going through the gates quicker because it’s an annoying experience. The bad deals made with payments companies to be able to take card payments directly at the gate. Really it’s insane. When you start believing that public transit should be free because it’s infrastructure (there’s a lot of reasons why it should be free), you start actually seeing just how much money and time would be saved. Then it clicks.
- loeg 4y agoSo, it would help your argument if you could put concrete figures to any of these perceived costs, and then contrast that with the lost fares.
- Gibbon1 4y agoSFMTA's fare box recovery ratio is 17%. Were for driving it's 50% but the sums are vastly higher. While back read a fair argument that when you consider the alternative is a person driving the the proper fare price for mass transit is negative.
- loeg 4y agoSFMTA's recovery ratio prior to Covid was in the 20s %, and 30s a few years ago: https://www.sfmta.com/reports/muni-farebox-recovery-ratio https://www.sfmta.com/reports/muni-farebox-recovery-ratio Looking at 2020 ratios in isolation doesn't give a very complete picture.
- Donckele 4y ago
- akandiah 4y agoThe farebox recovery ratio in many western nations are not enough to ever fully fund public transport. In many cases, the systems to collect fares end up costing hundreds of millions of dollars. These costs are never made back. It makes sense to make it free.
- loeg 4y ago> The farebox recovery ratio in many western nations are not enough to ever fully fund public transport. True, with emphasis on fully. > In many cases, the systems to collect fares end up costing hundreds of millions of dollars. That figure seems extremely high for "many cases," but the exact figure isn't really material. > These costs are never made back. It makes sense to make it free. No, that's just not true. My local metro spent $17 million on fare collection to net $167 million in revenue (2019). It would have to cut $150 million in other service to go to free fares.
- sien 4y agoFor people interested - Farebox Recovery Ratios around the world : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio In many parts of the developed world the ratio is 30% plus which can be an enormous amount of money. In Boston fare revenue is 500M . Making things free would cause big issues for many of them as you say.
- Xylakant 4y agoThe calculation is not that simple, though. One expected effect is less car rides, which would require less car infrastructure and maintenance. That would also result in significant savings, car infrastructure is expensive.
- loeg 4y agoMaybe in some holistic view of spending, but that isn't the reality of transit agency budgets. If transit saves DOT $50M, it doesn't go into transit's budget.
- TOMDM 4y agoAs a DC local, this essentially just formalises what has become the status quo. Fair evasion is rampant here, both on the metro and buses. At least people won't have to bother with even the theatre of pretending to care about it on the buses now.
- Bukhmanizer 4y agoThe biggest bus service where I live doesn’t really enforce fares. I’d say that 95% of people who cause problems on those busses haven’t paid. There are 2 smaller services that do enforce fares, and unsurprisingly they don’t have nearly as many problems.
- FormerBandmate 4y agoThe metrobus is already like that. I’m hard pressed to see how it could get worse tbh
- aquarium87 4y agoI knew a woman in DC who was late for work because a guy tried to get on the bus, was denied entry because he couldnt/wouldn't pay, and so he pulled out a gun and shot the bus driver dead. She wasn't even phased. This was about 15 years ago. Proof of fare is better than having transit employees be the enforcers. Free is even better, theoretically. But be wary, transit in DC may turn into moving homeless encampment as there is no real way to tell someone they can't stay on the bus all day
- dools 4y agoMaybe we should think about providing houses for homeless people instead of trying to kick them off public transport then ...
- midoridensha 4y agoThey tried that in places like New York, and it hasn't worked out well. The problems are much deeper than people just not having a place to live, for many of them.
- dools 4y agoThen perhaps they need a house and a job, and mental and physical healthcare. And perhaps that needs to be provided for a few decades to reverse the generational trauma caused by involuntary unemployment and poverty.
- midoridensha 4y agoThe people causing the problems people complain about can't hold down a job, and will trash any house they're given. What they need is to be put in a mental institution, but that became unfashionable during the 80s for some reason. With proper help, some of them probably could be returned to society. And of course there are many who are just victims of circumstance; those really should be helped with housing and jobs, though it's arguable that being homeless for too long has caused some of these people to turn into those needing acute mental care, so there is that.
- WirelessGigabit 4y agoTaken the bus/metro in Los Angeles? Meth, knives, people taking a piss right there... My wife refuses to take any kind of public transportation alone.
- mixmastamyk 4y agoIf you want transportation free of sleepers and walking dead, there must be fares and gates. Otherwise you’ll end up with the horrors of the LA Metro… meth heads smoking up, stairs dripping with blood, etc.
- scrollaway 4y agoSome Americans will believe anything that helps them push away the thought that their social safety net is broken.
- mixmastamyk 4y agoNo belief here, seen with my own eyes. Nationalism not a good look.
- dx034 4y agoMany European cities have low flat fares and no gates. And yet, they don't encounter the problems LA has. Maybe it's a problem of society and not public transport.
- Ferret7446 4y agoEven if it's due to society, what are you going to do? Burn LA/CA to the ground and rebuild its society and culture to your tastes? The fact is that in the context of LA, fares and gates are needed.
- quintushoratius 4y agoHow about we try healthcare and housing? No need to sleep on the bus when you can sleep at home.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dools 4y agoBy enforcing a "user pays" model on public transport, we are requiring that the most disadvantaged support their own transport system, which they use to get around to go to jobs to support the wealthy. Meanwhile, the richest people, who are benefitting from the availability and mobility of labour, can afford to move around in luxury vehicles (sometimes driven by others). This is a negative feedback loop which renders public transportation increasingly dangerous and decreasingly effective. If you want to "fund" public transport, you should do it through increased taxation on cars (especially luxury cars) and air travel (in particular private aviation), but ultimately public money doesn't necessarily need to be entirely offset through taxation if it's federally supplied. There would be a lot to be said for a federal infrastructure spending bill that targeted uniformly effective and free public transport.
- mixmastamyk 4y agoLike the car tax idea, but free attracts the destitute and mentally ill. Offer the working poor and looking a transit pass instead.
- Broken_Hippo 4y agoOh, no, poor people might share the bus with me. Wouldn't want poor or mentally ill folks to do things like get to a doctors appointment, buy food, or visit family if they can't get there invisibly. /s. Now is when I'd like to remind you that you share spaces with mentally ill folks every single day and you don't notice a thing: A lot of destitute folks are disable and being destitute shouldn't mean that you have to have a lonely and hard life. And I'd also like to mention that you can both be destitute and have a job. You can be mentally ill and have a job.
- supersour 4y agoI think the parent comment is referring the homeless population which is violent or too public in their drug use/paraphernalia. Pick the right bus line in Vancouver. You will notice mentally ill, violent people, and it certainly discourages the public from using public transit. Now, will waiving a $2 fee change this meaningfully? Hard to day. But it's not helpful to ignore the problem.
- siruncledrew 4y agoAs someone who has ridden the DC bus before (mostly when the Metro broke), "free" meets the mark on the only price I'd pay to use it again. Aside from the other stuff you can probably picture, it's slow AF and takes longer to move between popular spots than drudging through traffic in a car or Uber. Now making the Metro free... that would pique people's interest.
- rektide 4y agoIt really depends. I biked a lot too but my commute north to Silver Spring was quite speedy, and it was more pleasant riding in this lovely city aboveground than underneath, for less money & significantly shorter travel time. Alas enforcement is not good, but DC has also made a signicant number of bus lanes that also do sometimes help. There's a good number of limited-stop bus routes that span some pretty long routes that would require much more cross-city metro riding, and serving many places the metro doesnt conveniently service at all. My feeling is generally the opposite of yours- actual urbanites are good at & love the buses, know some real handy convenient routes, and people further afield tend to only know & try the much simpler & more limited metrorail. DC just isnt that big; a handful of stops if you're going 2-4 miles is not really a concern.
- pugworthy 4y agoWhat gets me about the comments is that some of you who are the most negative are in big cities. Us little town folks with free bus service? We just don't have those negatives and we don't necessarily have the same negative opinions of it. At least if you are going to call it bad, preface your opinion with what your reality is, and acknowledge your reality isn't necessarily universal.
- supersour 4y agoVery true. I actually quite enjoyed taking the bus in small town BC, I never felt uncomfortable by the other passengers. The same can't be said about big city transit. Just look at the demographics of where homeless people flock to.
- mixmastamyk 4y agoTransit is even more expensive in sparse areas. If you are rich enough as a community to afford it being free, why not?