in the peak hours you often have to skip two or three trains because they’re packed.
What's the interval between trains at peak hours?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Paris#Historic...
https://parismap360.com/carte/image/en/paris-rer-map.jpg
But even if cutting prices is within Paris only it will probably affect suburb-Paris traffic, because it changes the cost of a trip to Paris, possibly now cheaper than driving. The article is light on details, but it looks like these measures are taken by the city of Paris with the aim to reduce the traffic within the city.
The government is currently investing $25B in building more relief capacity, but who knows how much investment you’d need to handle the unlimited travel demand caused by a free fare.
There is little point in making public transport free there. This is still money to be paid one way or another.
Or walking... Do you walk a quarter mile or do you ride the bus? If the bus is free the number of able bodied people using the bus for trivial distances could increase.
Metro rail is sexy, but it's only one part of the transport mix.
I think that making public transport free in an easy step on the way to a city that relies a lot less on cars. Of course making it more attractive to walk or cycle and more expensive to drive is very important too, but that requires a lot more work.
it’s dangerous because roads are very narrow ( so protected bike lanes are rare) and there’s a lot of traffic.
the bike city service got changed recently to include electric bikes and as a result nothing worked for months ( not sure it’s back to normal yet).
Even if you manage to get a bike there’s a very high chance your bike will have defects because people like to do stupid things with them, like getting down stairs, or hitting the curbs.
and finally, if you think about buying yourself a bike, expect to have it stolen on average once a year ( depending on its price).
Very few people would have this luxury in city like Paris, where housing is prohibitely expensive in the city center, where many offices are traditionally located.
And, before you say "You might be inclined to find a job where more affordable housing is available", many people do not have so much choice in terms of where to work (same as working from home).
Above a certain frequency buses become extremely unreliable and dwell times start impacting travel time because bus stops only have so much room. With trains you have more room to work with, but once you run out the marginal cost of building new lines runs in the hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars.
I don't think you can write off the decrease in foot traffic free public transit would cause.
When services are made free, people have to wait longer, paying with their time instead of with money.
People who don't want to wait and are not given the choice of paying for faster service end up having to buy cars instead, making traffic worse for everyone.
I was born in Paris and have lived there for 30+ years, and the vast majority of the time I can take the subway just fine.
13 is a mess indeed but 4 is also bad , 7 has a lot of trouble, 12 has crack addicts on the dock menacing passengers, etc..
i’m also born and raised in Paris, and lived there for 40 years, but once you take the subway in other crowded cities ( honk kong, tokyo, shanghai, sf , london, etc) you realize having a subway that smells urine and shit , has technical issues every single days, and simply can’t handle the population flow at all, isn’t « normal ».
We can live with it, the whole society has adapted to it, but i wouldn’t call the situation «fine».
I take the 4 all the time as it is right next to my place, without any issue. In fact I cannot even remember the last time it was packed.
I also traveled and did not find other subways to be considerably better in every aspect. Subway in Japan is horribly complicated for example, with different companies operating the various lines of some major cities! London's tube is known to be overcrowded as well, and I feel like technical issues happens everywhere but in Paris the driver actually tells you what's going on.
People like to romance what happens in Paris, don't be fooled, in reality it's just safe and fun in my opinion.
- the projected impact on car use was negligible (around 2%) ;
- the projected increase in the number of users (between 6% and 10%) is above the current infrastructure capacity ;
- the new cost (3.3 billions euros) would be mainly supported by the Paris agglomeration inhabitants through their taxes rather than spread on all users ;
- it's already free for the poorest and heavily subsidised for most of the local.
[1] https://www.iledefrance-mobilites.fr/actualites/conclusions-...
In France, Dunkirk apparently does offer free public transportation for all but it's a small city [0].
[0] https://www.france24.com/en/20171109-france-french-cities-pu...
One way to balance between free ride abuse and people not using the trains because they have a car is to give residents the "average" number of rides a commuter would use in a week to them every week for free. Maybe even give people who don't own motor vehicles more free rides as a "thank you" from the city for not making them maintain the road and parking infrastructure for you.
But any city that is not expanding its transit to meet demand is crippling its own economic potential. Its a shame that pretty much every US city is guilty of this but most of the US government is designed to self-sabotage things like publicly run transit anyway.
What level of US government is sabotaging transit? The federal government doles out at least $2.3B every year for transit projects[0], meanwhile state and local governments throughout the US are approving tax increases for more transit.
[0]: https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-i...
168 billion total from state and local.
https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...
Public transit on the other hand sees only 24.38 billion total.
https://www.bts.gov/browse-statistical-products-and-data/tra...
At this level a couple billion dollars is hardly anything.
That's about a fifth of what just Paris spends per year. For a 300-million inhabitants country, it seems a bit low.
Or is it unions? Or maybe something down the chain?
The TTC/Subway in Toronto has 'change collectors' - people at every station who do change, they earn over $100K if they work a lot of overtime.
There are effectively no automatic change booths at the stations, and no automated way to just 'buy a token and get on'.
Can you imagine why it's so inefficient?
Why they can't just get machines for that?
My cousin is senior at a contracting agency that's building out the new stations - everyone from top to bottom is charging huge for government work.
CGI, a Canadian consulting firm billed the US Gov. more than a $ 1 Billion for healthcare.gov - something that Google had to 'come in and fix'.
Governments are much bigger and more powerful than ever before, individual litigation is on the rise, 'special rights and concerns' are at the forefront, and there are a million legal tangles to any major project.
Many of these things, on their own are 'good things', but on the whole, it really creates a tangle.
The reason very little gets done is that we are caught up in our own efficient bureaucracies, public and private.
It has all the hallmarks of the things you bring up in your comment. Contractor was going to build it, but fire department demanded a special lock in case of emergency, screwdriver for a nail problem, etc.
That's actually what they do in Toronto now. It's all "Presto Card" automated.
Astonishingly, the 'change collectors', who only sell tokens don't sell Presto cards.
Yet another mind-blowing bit of incompetence.
In Montreal, not only can you buy temporary cards (with money or visa), but you can also put rides on them in a fully automated way.
I will admit that the situation in Toronto may be temporary, but it's still utterly ridiculous.
And why you have to line up, pay, enter the station, and buy 'presto card' passes ... from the newstand in most cases ? ...
It's utter dysfunction.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/estonia-is-making-pub...
It was already really cheap, but it was annoying to always have to buy a ticket, have coins in your pocket to do so or remember to recharge your card. As a luxembourgish citizen that uses buses and the tram in luxembourg city from time to time, especially the night shuttles back home after going out, so I'm really happy this will finally soon happen.
I also think it financially makes sense for the country, all public transport costs the country 1 billion but the fares only bring 30 million in, so covering those last 30 million by taxes is in my opinion a good idea. The ticket machines can now get abolished which will save costs too and the workers controlling tickets will be able to do other tasks like related to security instead of hunting down people that didn't pay their 2 euro ticket.
Businesses do this all the time, and I don't see how it is too big of a hurdle to overcome.
Guangzhou had to pull the plug on free transit during the 2010 Asian Games because queue times for the metro increased by half an hour just to get into the station, let alone board a train. What’s the use of a free train if you can’t board it?
And last time I was there the controllers were scanning passes quite frequently.
I've never been in the Paris métro after it shut down, but are you saying the homeless people camping in some stations in the evenings, wrapped in their sleeping bags, get up at 1 a.m. and file out? I somehow doubt that.
But I’m going to continue funding homicide investigations.
“Don’t make things livable in small and practical ways, just hold out for total structural revolution and the solution to multigenerational and intractable social problems” is an infuriating line that unfortunately guides much of San Francisco policymaking.
- Can't solve homelessness without mass affordability.
- Can't have mass affordability without density.
- Can't have density when voters are worried about congestion and parking impacts of development.
- Can't stop worrying about congestion and parking impacts of development when you drive everywhere.
- Won't stop driving everywhere until transit is attractive.
Homelesness and repulsive transit are a feedback loop. We have to break it somewhere. Fare enforcement is a lever we actually have.
So yes, I'm willing to tell some homeless people to go to a shelter (of which there are plenty in the city) rather than ruin a transit system used by half a million commuters.
1. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Human-waste-shuts-dow...
(2) You live in a society and pretending that you don't and funding nothing isn't going to make the problem go away, it's going to be there getting worse. This is the dark side to America's individualism. Everyone looks out for themselves and pretends nobody else's problems should matter to them, then look around at the crap pile that leaves behind and wonders whose responsibility it should be -- not theirs to be sure.
I live in the CBD, and the only time it ever actually saves me money is in getting to the bus station to the airport.
It was introduced as part of a protracted plan (or lack thereof) to get rid of their least profitable ticket, and has been carefully designed to sound good while minimising utility.
Not to disparage the concept, but in this instance it was introduced to raise revenues, not lower them. Indeed, as Melbourne's trams are run by a private company, none of their policies are designed out of public-mindedness.
There are multiple reasons you'd need to travel within the CBD where you haven't already gotten in by public transport:
It opens up multiple locations in the entire CBD and surrounds to a single day trip without shuttling cars between overly expensive and time consuming parking.
The office can go out together for birthdays, christmas parties, etc without worrying about people's travel means and budgets.
Need to get down to the other end of the CBD for a business meeting: tram. Need to meet someone for coffee? Tram.
Tourists love it when they're staying central and it gives a good impression of our city. Some don't even buy tickets any more when coming for a convention or show.
I can go out and meet my friends/wife for lunch at various parts of the city, get down to the mall to do some shopping, and get back up to work all in the same lunch break now. Not everyone just does single destination trips in and out the city without doing anything else.
It allows one to move around the city and venues with less attention to the weather.
Not having to tap on or off increases boarding/alighting times for a given amount of throughput and in quiet times. (irrespective of whether you've paid to commute in or not)
Many of us from the surrounding suburbs now walk into the city and back out again, making a day of it in the city: this brings life and vibrancy to ALL the surrounding areas and increases walk-ability and foot-traffic, not just in the CBD. There's a whole ring of neighbourhoods on the periphery of the free-tram zone where walking now substitutes for hoping onto a tram 1-4 stops out from the CBD because you know you can make a free transport day of it.
---
The downside is of course more congestion on trams in the city as more people are using it to move around a few kms of space. And lower city-based tram revenue, but its also partly responsible for added life and vibrancy in the CBD.
The over-crowding is a definite downside when you're only commuting in/out/through the CBD, since you still pay and now often share the trams with large numbers of people going 3 or 4 stops, but we can hardly pretend there are no benefits.
Source: live just outside the CBD.
I'm not unaware of this fact, but consider it basically irrelevant. Trams were privatised in 1999, after which the long series of fare policy adjustments were so baldfacedly opposed to public interest that the argument they were done absent pressure from whichever private organisation owned them at the time is warrantless. And they weren't subtle about the pressure, either - their arguments that their mandate wasn't profitable enough were ceaseless.
If you believe there are other factual errors, let me know.
Addressing the other points would more or less come down to citationless expressions of experience, so I don't know if it's worthwhile. I recognise that you do raise a few benefits, but I don't accept that it's an improved situation over the previously free Swanston Street route absent some numbers. We'll probably have to agree to disagree.
Everything has a cost, and making something (virtually) cost 0 only transfers the cost elsewhere
The taxes are too low.
> The report documents that the amount that road users pay through gas taxes now accounts for less than half of what’s spent to maintain and expand the road system. The resulting shortfall is made up from other sources of tax revenue at the state and local levels, generated by drivers and non-drivers alike. This subsidizing of car ownership costs the typical household about $1,100 per year—over and above the costs of gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees.
I feel like this is the same story that repeats itself all over the place.
Another one is when our northern neighbors in Canada complain about the Chinese elite buying up homes AND keeping them vacant. They want higher taxes on empty homes and homes owned by Chinese nationals. I say such a scheme is racist. The real solution is to increase real estate and property taxes on EVERYONE so each unoccupied house is a net positive return for the community. Nobody likes this idea. They don't want to pay higher taxes themselves. They just want to charge people who aren't there and don't have a voice.
Another example, when I brought up the idea of taxing revenues instead of profits, people said that retail grocery stores would fail instantly because they run on very slim margins. If we said taxes apply on total revenue, anyone operating on razor thin margins would pretty much instantly go out of business. (I usually don't like to admit my ideas are horrible but this one was pretty bad in hindsight. However, the point is taxes on businesses are too low as a percentage of revenue. As an individual, I am also able to spend all the money I earn. I don't claim I should pay no income tax.)
No transit agency in the USA accomplishes that, to my knowledge.
Like highways, these are infrastructure. The goal isn't to recover 100% of revenue from the farebox because it generates revenue indirectly. Without roads you wouldn't have trucks. With a $6.50 Muni ride you wouldn't have much of a downtown core.
There are some notable examples like Hong Kong MTR which generates 125% of operating expenses from the farebox, though their density helps and their creative business model (allowing MTR to own surface rights above stations it constructs [2]) help that out an awful lot. I'm sure if Muni/Bart/Caltrain were gifted the land on top of each station we'd see fares come down real quick.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
[2] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2154424...
s/free/paid for by the taxpayer
It really comes down to, does it go where you want from where you want when you want and all this on a timely basis. Hence the big reason buses always win over rail as they can adapt to changing needs.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/why-can...
Interesting. So making it free actually increased costs.
In terms of the cost, for systems that aren't heavily used (but nonetheless are essential) getting rid of the fare would probably actually save money, because the slowdown in service, the confusion over payment, and the whole infrastructure to support and enforce payment is actually more expensive than the revenue it generates. It would also serve the population better, be a more pleasant and relaxing experience for riders and drivers, and speed up service. So even if it doesn't increase ridership, it's still worth doing.
A bus from where I live to London takes about 5.5 hours, compared to 2 hours on a train. I can also get a meal served on a train and work comfortably at a large table, which I can't do a bus. Busses definitely don't always win over trains. I think they hardly ever do.
And London has the best bus system in the UK
For longer journeys, buses are far too slow. When buses replace trains (e.g. for track maintenance) in Melbourne, travel time usually doubles.