Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: If Public Transport Was Free, Would You Leave Your Car At Home?
dkatana writes: The Estonian capital launched a program of free public transport to encourage people to leave their cars at home. But they never did. When Tallinn launched the program ridership numbers did increase, but not by the 20% the city had projected. Instead, they grew by a modest 3%, and by people already using public transport. What happened is that more pedestrians and bike users started to use public transit instead of walking and cycling. But car users continue to drive to work. Do you think the same would hold true in the U.S. if a similar program was started?
If you make routes that are not useful - or have non-useful time tables - free, people still won't use them. A lot of driving that is done now is done in part because people are making commutes that are not easily - if at all - accommodated by existing public transportation infrastructure. If it takes two hours to get from A to B by public transport because you have to travel to C first - covering at least twice the total distance along the way and waiting for connecting buses or trains - people won't do it.
The other thing is the availability of parking. If parking in the city is affordable and available, that reduces the appeal of public transportation.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
We don't drive cars only because they are cheaper than public transit, but faster too.
People will respond from very high density cities and point out what I say isn't true for them. They don't need free rides for motivation, because in their situation, public transit is actually better. They should take the moment to get some insight; the world isn't waiting for their advice and doesn't want their lives.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Is it convenient? If I take the transit and it only extends my commute from say 10 minutes to 20 minutes, but I don't have to worry about paying for parking, finding parking, etc. sure I'd take it. But I probably already would be. If it took 1.5 hours and two transfers where I have to wait 20 minutes each at a terminal, vs 30 minutes driving, no, I would not take transit.
1) I can get anywhere I want with public transportation as it is right now. The problem is that it takes literally four to eight times more time (in my specific circumstances), and my time is far from free.
2) The notion that it's free is, frankly, dishonest and disingenuous. *Somebody* is paying for it, and that somebody is me, in one form or another. Just because the money is not coming directly from your wallet at that instant doesn't mean it's not happening.
3) It ignores subjective value. I often enjoy driving. I don't enjoy being crowded into a bus or tram / trolley. Trains aren't too bad from a comfort standpoint, but still not as fun as driving.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
The public transportation in the US — and almost everywhere else — is so heavily subsidized by taxes already, the cost of the actual fare is not a factor.
Personal car is simply more convenient. Oh, and the road maintenance is also heavily subsidized by taxes.
Humanity should stop all such subsidies — allowing private companies to build roads and/or run buses/trains/planes/bicycles as they believe promises the most profit. Currently the people deciding, what to do, and people profiting (or losing) from the decisions are distinct groups — the sooner one's own decision(s) cause him to make/lose money personally, the sooner the healing will begin.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Free of drunk people, or homeless people who smell so bad it's unpleasant to be near them?
Free of limitations in when I can depart, or how much longer the ride takes than driving?
Free of the inability to easily stop to grab a coffee or use the bathroom?
A car usually costs you several hundred dollars/euros per month. A ticket for public transportation is usually a fraction of that, maybe 100 dollar/euro. Why would you think that reducing that cost would make a significant difference?
I frequently ride public transit in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. It is the largest fare free system in the US. It is used by many people but growth in usage depends on many factors. Park and Ride lots make a big difference for people who live outside of town and must drive to get even close to their destination. Sidewalks make a difference because people who live close enough to walk to a bus stop have to have a safe place to walk. The Chapel Hill buses have bike carriers on the front so that bike riders can take the bus for part of their trip.
But one of the biggest factor is how easy it is to find parking. Cities use a huge amount of their space just to store cars during the day. The more expensive and hard to find parking becomes, the more people will use free public transit.
And all of this takes time. People have to adjust to the new reality of bus transportation being easier and cheaper than owning and driving a car. Over time, people will make decisions about where to live based in part on the presence of public transit. And if businesses also locate in areas served by transit, then it's easier for people to live and work on a transit line.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
Depends - does the public transport system suck less than driving a car?
Yes, driving 45 minutes through rush hour traffic sucks, but when the alternative is to drive 20 minutes, then spend an additional 40 minutes riding on public transport, waiting for a transfer, and finally walking exposed to the weather for 10 minutes at each end of the trip (40 minutes total exposure, just long enough to get totally rain-soaked at both the beginning and end of the day)... well, then, it doesn't really matter if you give that away for free, does it?
Public transportation isn't even the real issue here, it's local zoning laws. When bedroom communities encourage suburban sprawl, you end up with hundreds of McMansions stacked on top of each other and the nearest bus stop is miles away. Meanwhile, roads are built to discourage bicycling (just adding a lane on the side doesn't negate the dozens of dangerous intersections you have to navigate to survive each way). Transportation routes really only service arterial streets, and those are only zoned commercial. My car is 15 feet from my back door. Public transportation isn't ever going to do that with cities built the way they are. Not even close enough to be competitive.
And I'm not just serviced by a poor local system; the American Public Transportation Association named UTA the Outstanding Public Transportation System of 2014.
Umbrella ;)
I ride my bike year round in a fairly harsh climate. It's all about dressing appropriately. Even the people that drive to work in my office have a 10 minute walk to get here from the ramp (where the company subsidizes parking).
Just my opinion of course but I think we'd all be better off if we spent more time exposed to the weather and not spending our lives in climates controlled bubbles.
They'd have to pick me up at my doorstep, have a schedule flexible enough to wait for the dryer when necessary and stop for a breakfast tacos or bagels and coffee.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Please describe these experiences and their differences.
It's not a problem everywhere in the US, and I suspect that to the extent that it is a "problem" it tends to be exaggerated. A homeless person would rather not spend their limited funds on bus fare.
What I do believe is that many white, affluent people are fearful of being in close quarters with poor people and people of color.
I'll be busing it in the near future, solely due to it being free. I'll be moving about 35 miles from work. It's an estimated 45-60min drive. The bus is around 75-90min. At 25-30mpg, I'll be saving $8-10/day for the days I can take the bus. That would be about 85% of my net wage per hour. Considering I cannot pick up the extra saved hour at work, it's the only way to save some money on a tight budget. I also get the benefit of being able to read, instead of driving. I'd rather keep my current 1 mile commute, but we make due with the situation.
Public transport in the USA is almost uniformly low-ball, by which I mean to wave my hands at uncomfortable seating, sparse scheduling, sparse pickup and drop-off locations, smelly (nothing like an old diesel engine to get your sinuses in an uproar), and simply old-school -- the number of cities with proper elevated monorail systems that don't impact the streets or create shadowy hangouts for the unsavory is very small, and those (looking at you, Seattle) tend to not actually implement route coverage that is worth even considering for most excursions unless you're one of the lucky few who live, work and shop right along the line itself.
Offering something worth very little for free isn't going to get anyone very far, no pun intended (but I'm always happy when they fall out like that, lol.)
Considering my own use of private vehicles, I use them because:
o It's point to point; I start where I am and I end up where I'm going
o It's considerably more secure; windows up, doors locked, only trusted riders are on-board, and I control the vehicle
o I have my music (and my ham radio gear), in short, the environment is customized for me
o There's no waiting, no calling, and no communications problems
o Joyriding
o Car sex is fun and safe if done thoughtfully, while public transport sex is a direct route to the courtroom
Any of these would be sufficient, but all of them together are broadly decisive. A bright, scenic trip on a monorail appeals on its own merits; very little else does. That's because I have spent an enormous amount of time on public transport and liked it not at all.
My overall impression is that public transport as implemented here is that it is the very least we can get away with, regardless of the harm done.
I don't think we should be looking at it with an eye to making it incrementally better, either. It's a black hole that sucks very large amounts of money and returns nothing of new value. No one with an actual comprehension of the risks prefers public transport -- I think the most common case by far is that people use it because they have to use it.
What we need to be looking at is electric transport in varieties suitable for the individual and the various types of family units. Non-polluting in and of itself, utterly agnostic as to how the power it uses is generated, thus 100% friendly to conversion from polluting power generation to non-polluting. These vehicles can be extremely light and easy to park/store, ranging from tiny electric scooters for good weather use (we have one... awesome fun) through small enclosed commuter vehicles to full-on sedans and SUVs for people who need those. Circumstances and availability are rapidly improving in this regard. I see it as the best place to put our investment, if we are to be putting it anywhere in particular regarding transport itself. Beyond that, public funding should be going to infrastructure maintainance, because infrastructure decay is a very serious problem in this country.
I also think that in the urban context we tend to separate working- and living-specialized areas. This area is apartment buildings, that area has factories and so on, while shopping has clustered elsewhere. I suspect that's cost us more than it has benefited us. If the majority of people could reasonably live and shop close to their jobs, transport would be considerably less of an issue. But we don't seem to want to swallow that, and so we end up paying for our preference.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Once people have invested in buying car and already paying for gas, registration and depreciation, they feel like using it. The extra convenience exceeds the marginal cost. So if you make public transport free, the existing car users will continue to use cars, but the sale of new cars will decline. This will take time to show up in ridership statistics. Instead of measuring the ridership of public transport, the city should monitor registration of new cars (old cars registration should not be counted). That trend is a better indicator of long term success.
Another important factor is convenience. How good is the public transport? In my city in USA, public transport is pathetic. It stops at 7 pm on weekdays and no service on Sunday. Long distance (> 10 mile) stop after 9:00 am and do not restart till 4:00 pm. It means that I have to have a car and once I have a car, the marginal cost of operating car is same as the cost of public transport, so obviously I use car.
-- Does public perceive this free public transport continue to be free in future as well?
-- Is it good enough to completely get rid of the car?
If both of the above are 'yes', then it should show up in the new car registration statistics.
"But one of the biggest factor is how easy it is to find parking. Cities use a huge amount of their space just to store cars during the day. The more expensive and hard to find parking becomes, the more people will use free public transit."
Well no, that's not really a big factor. If you can't park at your destination of choice and public transit won't get you there, you won't go.