6 ms·

> You're cherry-picking your own examples. It worked in Iowa City. Indeed, it worked in Brisbane (a metro area comparable to Baltimore in the U.S.) and Lanzhou

> You're cherry-picking your own examples. It worked in Iowa City. Indeed, it worked in Brisbane (a metro area comparable to Baltimore in the U.S.) and Lanzhou (comparable to Boston-Cambridge-Newton): congestion was reduced, the environment benefited, and usage increased in many cities that dislodged from that equilibrium and switched to a free-of-charge or symbolic-charge model. I don't think GP's claim stands, for transit cities big or small.

benatkin 11mo ago
> a metro area comparable to Baltimore in the U.S. That doesn't make it a serious transit city
- skylurk 11mo ago
  It's an order of magnitude larger than Iowa City, though.
- saithound 11mo ago
  Odd hill to die on, but if you wish to argue that Iowa City is a serious transit city, but Brisbane and Lanzhou are not, feel free to state your definition of serious transit city. These cities are bigger than Iowa City and their public transport share of journeys to work is higher than any similarly-sized U.S. metro area. Beware: if there are no true Scotsmen left, and your definition of serious transit city excludes everything apart from ~10 European cities, the conclusions that one can draw from the policies of serious transit cities will be so limited that they will in fact be useless.
  - benatkin 11mo ago
    I was just pointing that out from the post you replied to, I don't agree with the author. However, I think that Iowa City isn't doing the symbolic fare, and that Brisbane's 50 cent fare would make some kind of a difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translink_(Queensland)#Fares https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translink_(Queensland)#Fares
    - saithound 11mo ago
      Thanks. > However, I think that Iowa City isn't doing the symbolic fare, and that Brisbane's 50 cent fare would make some kind of a difference A reasonable point. That very well might be the case, and if everybody thinks symbolic-fare is better than no-fare, I won't be the one to oppose it.
denkmoon 11mo ago
Further cherry picking. Brisbane's free buses are only the "city loop". The rest of the transit system is fare based. It also has not stood the test of time yet.
- batiudrami 11mo ago
  The fare is a flat au 50c, though. It is basically free.
  - ncruces 11mo ago
    Basically free is not free. The point of buses is to replace cars, not short walks. If you make it so that everybody who could walk 5min takes a bus, the bus will have to stop more often - and for longer - which makes it worse for the people who can't just walk 5min. The trick is to balance the system so that buses (and other forms of transit) are cheaper - and approximately as convenient - as cars, without making them cheaper and more convenient than walking (for those who can still walk). Fares don't necessarily need to be about financing the system. They can be about setting the correct incentives, and ensuring people value the service they're getting.
    - mckn1ght 11mo ago
      Another solution that’s already used to help mitigate increased stop frequency is express routes that connect farther endpoints together.
    - sudosysgen 11mo ago
      It's very unlikely people are actually going to take the bus for a 5 minute walk : the wait time for the bus is going to be on that order of magnitude and you'd need your route to be perfectly aligned and have perfect stop placement for that to happen. Most likely, you will have extra trips because people won't feel the need to justify the fare.
      - ncruces 11mo ago
NedF 11mo ago
[dead]
panick21_ 11mo ago
It also hasnt worked in other places. Like Estonia. The data for "invest in capacity and speed" is much better then the for "reduce fares". So if you have extra money, the evidence on what to do is 100% clear.
- ndsipa_pomu 11mo ago
  If you're looking for return on investment, then cycle infrastructure is the way forwards. Each mile travelled by bike actually benefits society (less illness etc) whereas each mile travelled by car costs society. > For every £1 invested, walking and cycling return an average of around £5-6 > A study of New York concluded that, in terms of health: “Investments in bike lanes are more cost-effective than the majority of preventive approaches used today.” From https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/case-cycling-economy https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/case-cycling-economy
  - Dr4kn 11mo ago
    People that walk or bike are also more likely to do small shopping locally. This benefits the local economy and gets less money to international big box retailers, which generally pay less taxes. If you drive by a small market you often won't park your car to go there. Cars and trucks destroy streets fast. Having less of them keeps repairs less frequent. Infrastructure for walking and biking can exist for multiple decades or even millennia
    - rangestransform 11mo ago
      So you’re saying that people should do shopping locally, spend more, and waste more time to prop up inefficient businesses who don’t benefit from economies of scale? Tell that to voters and then try to win an election. Society exists to make our lives easier, not to prop up as many businesses and employees as possible as a make-work make-taxes program.
      - panick21_ 11mo ago
        Oh my god the obsession with 'economics of scale' is such narrow minded nonsense. Shopping locally is more efficient, because the distribution network distributes things locally much more efficiently then a bunch of housewives in their SUVs. Sure its cheaper for the shop providing the food, but for the society its more expensive. What you are completely missing is the massive cost of all the infrastructure and the massive subsidizes therein to create these centralized stores. And then the massive cost in time and capital investment for every users to buy a car to pick that stuff up. You are also ignoring the massive waste this creates because people only go shopping every 1-2 weeks. And you are ignore the lack of fresh foods in the food system because of this behavior. That of course Americans eventually pay in their medical systems. If you actually do some research you will see the systematic bias that is in the zoning code, infrastructure cost calculation and services. Walmart often consumer more in just police services then they pay in taxes. Walmart is systematically gaming the property rights system to pay almost no taxes. And yet Walmart uses a huge amount of land and requires a huge amount of public infrastructure to sustain itself. If you really need to do some massive pickup of stuff for a party or something there are still larger stores you can go to as well, just not for everyday stuff. Actually having a shop where I can locally pick up fresh food every day or every other day is actually much more convenient and saves far more time. And I know this is crazy for Americans to consider, but as a society it would be nice if people without a car could also buy food sometimes. This video points this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHTzqHIngk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHTzqHIngk

benatkin 11mo ago

> a metro area comparable to Baltimore in the U.S. That doesn't make it a serious transit city

skylurk 11mo ago
It's an order of magnitude larger than Iowa City, though.
saithound 11mo ago
Odd hill to die on, but if you wish to argue that Iowa City is a serious transit city, but Brisbane and Lanzhou are not, feel free to state your definition of serious transit city. These cities are bigger than Iowa City and their public transport share of journeys to work is higher than any similarly-sized U.S. metro area. Beware: if there are no true Scotsmen left, and your definition of serious transit city excludes everything apart from ~10 European cities, the conclusions that one can draw from the policies of serious transit cities will be so limited that they will in fact be useless.
- benatkin 11mo ago
  I was just pointing that out from the post you replied to, I don't agree with the author. However, I think that Iowa City isn't doing the symbolic fare, and that Brisbane's 50 cent fare would make some kind of a difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translink_(Queensland)#Fares https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translink_(Queensland)#Fares
  - saithound 11mo ago
    Thanks. > However, I think that Iowa City isn't doing the symbolic fare, and that Brisbane's 50 cent fare would make some kind of a difference A reasonable point. That very well might be the case, and if everybody thinks symbolic-fare is better than no-fare, I won't be the one to oppose it.

denkmoon 11mo ago

Further cherry picking. Brisbane's free buses are only the "city loop". The rest of the transit system is fare based. It also has not stood the test of time yet.

batiudrami 11mo ago
The fare is a flat au 50c, though. It is basically free.
- ncruces 11mo ago
  Basically free is not free. The point of buses is to replace cars, not short walks. If you make it so that everybody who could walk 5min takes a bus, the bus will have to stop more often - and for longer - which makes it worse for the people who can't just walk 5min. The trick is to balance the system so that buses (and other forms of transit) are cheaper - and approximately as convenient - as cars, without making them cheaper and more convenient than walking (for those who can still walk). Fares don't necessarily need to be about financing the system. They can be about setting the correct incentives, and ensuring people value the service they're getting.
  - mckn1ght 11mo ago
    Another solution that’s already used to help mitigate increased stop frequency is express routes that connect farther endpoints together.
  - sudosysgen 11mo ago
    It's very unlikely people are actually going to take the bus for a 5 minute walk : the wait time for the bus is going to be on that order of magnitude and you'd need your route to be perfectly aligned and have perfect stop placement for that to happen. Most likely, you will have extra trips because people won't feel the need to justify the fare.
    - ncruces 11mo ago

NedF 11mo ago

[dead]

panick21_ 11mo ago

It also hasnt worked in other places. Like Estonia. The data for "invest in capacity and speed" is much better then the for "reduce fares". So if you have extra money, the evidence on what to do is 100% clear.

ndsipa_pomu 11mo ago
If you're looking for return on investment, then cycle infrastructure is the way forwards. Each mile travelled by bike actually benefits society (less illness etc) whereas each mile travelled by car costs society. > For every £1 invested, walking and cycling return an average of around £5-6 > A study of New York concluded that, in terms of health: “Investments in bike lanes are more cost-effective than the majority of preventive approaches used today.” From https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/case-cycling-economy https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/case-cycling-economy
- Dr4kn 11mo ago
  People that walk or bike are also more likely to do small shopping locally. This benefits the local economy and gets less money to international big box retailers, which generally pay less taxes. If you drive by a small market you often won't park your car to go there. Cars and trucks destroy streets fast. Having less of them keeps repairs less frequent. Infrastructure for walking and biking can exist for multiple decades or even millennia
  - rangestransform 11mo ago
    So you’re saying that people should do shopping locally, spend more, and waste more time to prop up inefficient businesses who don’t benefit from economies of scale? Tell that to voters and then try to win an election. Society exists to make our lives easier, not to prop up as many businesses and employees as possible as a make-work make-taxes program.
    - panick21_ 11mo ago
      Oh my god the obsession with 'economics of scale' is such narrow minded nonsense. Shopping locally is more efficient, because the distribution network distributes things locally much more efficiently then a bunch of housewives in their SUVs. Sure its cheaper for the shop providing the food, but for the society its more expensive. What you are completely missing is the massive cost of all the infrastructure and the massive subsidizes therein to create these centralized stores. And then the massive cost in time and capital investment for every users to buy a car to pick that stuff up. You are also ignoring the massive waste this creates because people only go shopping every 1-2 weeks. And you are ignore the lack of fresh foods in the food system because of this behavior. That of course Americans eventually pay in their medical systems. If you actually do some research you will see the systematic bias that is in the zoning code, infrastructure cost calculation and services. Walmart often consumer more in just police services then they pay in taxes. Walmart is systematically gaming the property rights system to pay almost no taxes. And yet Walmart uses a huge amount of land and requires a huge amount of public infrastructure to sustain itself. If you really need to do some massive pickup of stuff for a party or something there are still larger stores you can go to as well, just not for everyday stuff. Actually having a shop where I can locally pick up fresh food every day or every other day is actually much more convenient and saves far more time. And I know this is crazy for Americans to consider, but as a society it would be nice if people without a car could also buy food sometimes. This video points this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHTzqHIngk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHTzqHIngk