you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 months ago (14 children)

There has been research done into this, showing that free stuff can exhaust a resource like this much faster. E.g. cheap tickets could get drivers out of their cars, but not the people who'd walk two blocks. Plenty of countries with free public transport that seem to work just fine, but you might end up happier with cheap public transports rather than entirely free buses. Not having to deal with tickets would be really nice though, for everyone involved.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago (13 children)

    Link it

    The entire municipality of Fredericia has free busses and literally none of the problems everyone keeps describing has happened.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11116-016-9695-5.pdf

    My opinions on this subject are nuanced. While I think free fares are definitely the ideal assuming unlimited resources, they are probably not the best intervention you can do for improving the overall transit posture of a given city. Infrastructure investments are almost always going to be a better bet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Why do you have to assume unlimited resources? That is frankly a very dumb approach to this topic. Social mobility pays for itself. It is a net-positive for a city to allow residents to move freely and easily, even if the bus, when nothing else is accounted for, does cost fuel. Busses, trams and trains are infrastructure investments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    I think you might be misunderstanding. My point is that resources are not unlimited, and hence prioritizing infrastructure investments - meaning a more comprehensive transit network with better headways - is preferable to fully removing user fees.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I think you are misunderstanding my point. Removing at-use fees enables social mobility that strengthens the economy far beyond what the fees would ever dare charge for the service. You can make it free and improve its service. Those are not mutually exclusive. This is entirely a political barrier, and any rational society that believes in the future would just make the damn bus free, because there are no downsides and a lot of upsides.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 3 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Buses, and this might shock you, aren't as sensitive to waste as other systems. If you need to get from point a to point b and using the bus is faster than, say, walking, then it wasn't a wasted trip. And if it wasn't shorter, the person who wasted their time is the one punished for wasting their time.

    So, no, vague unlisted studies about other systems isn't relevant here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Bullshit. I lived in countries with both fully free healthcare and with a small fee, and if anything the system works better in the countries where it's free.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    Are the data and scholarships in the room with us now?

    I've read 16 independantly verified deep studies across multiple economic states that proved conclusively that buses being free increased the productivity of a populace, reduced time taken off, and directly increased lifespans of the participants. I had a link to these studies somewhere... hold on...

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)