8 ms·
Axiom: Public transportation is a more efficient (in terms of many basic resources valuable to society: first and foremost among them energy and space) way to g
by morsch 13y ago
Axiom: Public transportation is a more efficient (in terms of many basic resources valuable to society: first and foremost among them energy and space) way to get around, so it's in society's interest to shift as much mileage as possible towards it.
The central question is two-fold: How much of a shift would result from a given decrease in price? And how do we relate the (primarily:) monetary cost of making it free-to-ride with the (primarily:) non-monetary benefits of any given shift? The result of this question could give you an answer if making it free would be worthwhile.
Some thoughts:
I think decreasing the price per ride from e.g. 1 USD to 0 USD would make for a bigger shift in uptake than decreasing it from 2 USD to 1 USD. Not having to think about whether each single tour is worth the price of admission makes it a viable default way of getting around. This is just the usual flat rate argument that also applies to things like internet usage.
Making public transport free would invariably result not just in a shift towards it from other modes of transportation, it would also lead to an overall increase in mobility, which in terms of some resources reduced the gains in efficiency.
There's a valid argument that the efficiency of public transport is highly dependant on the amount of utilization: big buses and trains carrying single digit amounts of passengers can use up more energy than individual transportation. An increase in overall uptake would tend to reduce such problems since you'd get a small bus load full of people in cases where you'd have only a few now.
Obviously, free to ride public transportation is a particularly huge potential improvement for people who otherwise could not afford to get around. And since mobility is such an important part of life in modern society (minus us nerds who manage to leave the house only once per week), free-to-ride public transport has a massive impact in terms of social equalization.
- _delirium 13y agoI think there's also an argument that it's not particularly unfair for drivers. One current trend is to charge drivers for access to congested areas: congestion charges in city centers, toll roads along congested routes, and fast-track toll lanes on non-toll highways. An alternate approach is to spend that money on getting other people off the road: subsidize transit so that some percentage of my would-be fellow drivers get off the road and onto buses or trains, leaving a less congested road for me.
- smutticus 13y agoExactly. I've never understood why proponents of public transit don't say this more often. The more people that use public transit the fewer people who drive. Which means less traffic for everyone else still driving.
- clarkmoody 13y agoI read about a study in the book Traffic[1] that seems to negate this view, for buses at least. The findings were as follows: 1. More people use buses along a certain stretch of road. 2. Said stretch of road sees less congestion. Bus riders save time! 3. Noticing that this road has less congestion, more drivers take this route. 4. Route becomes congested due to increased interest. 5. Buses take just as long as cars to get to destination. 6. Bus riders migrate back to cars due to lost advantage of bus. 7. Road is more congested than before. Overall, Traffic is a fantastic read and really opened my eyes. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371658410&sr=1-1&keywords=traffic+book http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/03072...
- kbenson 13y agoIs this a case study, or a way something "could" go bad? Specifically 6. Bus riders migrate back to cars due to lost advantage of bus seems to encompass some assumptions that aren't necessarily true: 1) Bus riders have cars In SF, many people don't own cars because the city isn't particularly car friendly. If buses get too slow, I can see some riders using alternate transportation, but I doubt very many would choose to use a car (and most probably don't have one to use). Note: I don't live in SF, but was born, raises and continue to live an hour North. My primary mode of travel there is in a car, and it's not ever pleasant. 2) Bus riders ride buss primarily because it's quicker What about being cheaper? What about convenience (it's a different type of convenience, but it's liberating to not have to worry your vehicle is safe and whether you've forgotten keys somewhere).
- clarkmoody 13y ago
- VLM 13y ago"a massive impact in terms of social equalization." The folks who don't like that, can prevent the equalization by careful scheduling and have already done so. I live in a nice civilized town/city and the bus routes travel within one block of every square inch of the city hourly. So average transit time is one hour, max theoretical (assuming not missing the bus, etc) is a bit less than three hours. Unfortunately I can drive in my car between any two points in 10 to maybe 15 minutes worst case. I can, and have, repeatedly out walked the city bus by walking direct pt-pt rather than meandering all over the city. Its really more of a bad weather service, or a service for people who can't walk. Also I live in a civilized town/city but work in the neighboring uncivilized dump of a city, which has slightly better bus service, but schedules have been "optimized" to keep us separate such that my commute via bus would seem to only take about two hours each way, but careful optimization of schedules increases that to at least three hours with lots of standing around at the transfer point. Of course in a car its about 20 minutes, maybe 40 at rush hour. And that's how you keep social groups separated even with low subsidized (or even free!) bus fares.
- malandrew 13y agoIt sounds like your city would be a great candidate for decent bike lanes.
- corresation 13y agoThat sounds quaintly conspiratorial, however it is incredibly complex to optimize bus routings, especially given financial limits most systems operate under. Any change will always be at the detriment of someone else, and the last mile(s) problem is enormous.
- arnsholt 13y agoLogistics is hard in general, is my impression. In fact, most of the interesting problems logistics seem to reduce to NP-complete problems, which has some unfortunate consequences for finding optimal solutions.
- 13y ago
- danielweber 13y agoPrices also help keep the foul-smelling derelicts off the bus. Maybe you think "well, foul-smelling derelicts deserve to ride the bus." And you could well be right. But other people won't ride the bus with the foul-smelling derelicts. If your goal is have a bus system you can feel happy about, this isn't a problem. If your goal is to have a bus system that people actually use, this is a big problem.
- mullingitover 13y agoSo in a nutshell, your argument is that if the public transportation were free, nobody would use it because it's too crowded?
- danielweber 13y agoIt takes very very few derelicts to make the bus system too crowded to use.
- Shivetya 13y agowhen it becomes free how do you keep people from living on it?
- ben0x539 13y agoGive them a better option?
- abraininavat 13y agoCrazy talk. Clearly they have housing and jobs, they just like living on the bus!
- paulhauggis 13y agoI feel like you would like this, to punish society for not "giving them a better option".
- scarmig 13y ago
- glesica 13y agoPersonal anecdote. I am a student. In the town where I live, university students (and faculty and staff if I'm not mistaken) can ride the municipal buses for free. This has had an enormous impact on my behavior, even versus a very small charge like 25 cents. I don't often carry cash, and maintaining a fare card is a hassle, so if I had to pay for the bus I probably wouldn't use it very often. But since I can hop on to any bus I happen upon without worrying about paying or figuring out which transfers I need, I use it all the time.
- sliverstorm 13y agoPersonal anecdote: it isn't price that is the problem, it is "convenience". Growing up, the only bus I could take came once an hour, and usually only took me halfway to my destination. So I walked, and often beat the bus.