I read an article somewhere (hackernews or reddit) where a public transit specialist who was in favour of free transit changed his tune after seeing the results of a trial. The system got...
I read an article somewhere (hackernews or reddit) where a public transit specialist who was in favour of free transit changed his tune after seeing the results of a trial. The system got absolutely trashed and abused. Ridership went down not up as people didn't feel safe anymore. I'm on mobile at the moment, but if anyone has the link handy please share. There's a human nature phenomena at play here where charging a small fee improves behaviour tremendously.
Similarly, I listened to a podcast where they interviewed a transit planner that said it would actually be more effective to increase ridership by making the system better. Mostly by increasing...
Similarly, I listened to a podcast where they interviewed a transit planner that said it would actually be more effective to increase ridership by making the system better. Mostly by increasing the frequency of routes. Basically, if the train or bus runs so infrequently that missing it means I have to wait an extra hour people don't use it unless they have no choice.
In principle I think I'm in favor of these services being free but there a clearly some tradeoffs to consider when funds for transit are as limited as they are in the US.
Yeah I’m inclined to agree here. I’d much rather pay the same or even slightly higher fares if that means better headways and later service, more frequent weekend service, or wider coverage....
Yeah I’m inclined to agree here. I’d much rather pay the same or even slightly higher fares if that means better headways and later service, more frequent weekend service, or wider coverage.
Particularly in a city where transit fare is metered rather than flat rate, free fare just means a subsidy for suburban commuters at the expense of city dwellers.
I know that it'll vary by transit system, but I'd be happy to subsidize suburban commuters' public transportation usage a bit to get/keep them using it and limit how much they drive their cars...
I know that it'll vary by transit system, but I'd be happy to subsidize suburban commuters' public transportation usage a bit to get/keep them using it and limit how much they drive their cars into the city on the regular.
I'd rather redevelop the burbs into more mixed-use development so there isn't as much uneveness between daytime and nighttime population across regions that necessitates moving all the people in...
I'd rather redevelop the burbs into more mixed-use development so there isn't as much uneveness between daytime and nighttime population across regions that necessitates moving all the people in and out every day. But yeah, in the short term you kind of have to subsidize it.
Exactly. Cost isn't what prevents me from using transit, the infrequent service and bad routes in my city prevent it. A monthly pass where I live is $60. The insurance on my very shitty old car is...
Exactly. Cost isn't what prevents me from using transit, the infrequent service and bad routes in my city prevent it.
A monthly pass where I live is $60. The insurance on my very shitty old car is $75 a month. The cost is not what's stopping me from taking the bus.
I visited Japan and was amazed with their public transit infrastructure. Huge coverage. Frequent. On time. Safe. The costs were also very reasonable ($2 / $3 a ride). It was super convenient.
I visited Japan and was amazed with their public transit infrastructure. Huge coverage. Frequent. On time. Safe.
The costs were also very reasonable ($2 / $3 a ride). It was super convenient.
That's an interesting perspective. I find myself sympathetic to the free fare position but now I see the other side of the argument. Some people see public transportation as a right. I think they...
That's an interesting perspective. I find myself sympathetic to the free fare position but now I see the other side of the argument.
Some people see public transportation as a right. I think they are right... to a degree. But it is also a privilege to a degree. Same with healthcare. One has a right to medical care, but one can also be thrown out for being unruly. At one point, I ended up in the care of Highland Hospital, a county hospital in Oakland, after a catastrophic injury. One visit, a beleaguered nurse told me that his previous patient, an uncooperative and belligerent homeless man, had just been thrown out after being caught trying to steal the staff's personal devices. But I'm getting off track now.
I think a good, pragmatic balance would be to offer to low/no-income people and youths free transit cards that are linked to their identities and can be suspended or revoked after X number of misbehavior in a certain time period. I, like OP, also ride the BART; it's really disheartening to see human waste, spilled milkshakes, and fast food litter in stations and on trains. I think it'd do violators good to be forced to walk in order to appreciate the privilege of public transit infrastructure.
Making housing affordable in the Bay Area requires housing densification, which in turn depends on transportation alternatives to driving, like biking and public transit. Biking is seen as dangerous, and rightfully so (see my above 'catastrophic injury'). And public transit is undesirable to people who can afford to drive. Safe, clean public transit is, I believe, one of the lower turtles of the Bay Area housing problem turtle stack.
I think I agree with your broad idea here but I don't think means-testing has any benefit. I think requiring you to go get a transit pass, like a library card, for access to the transit network...
I think a good, pragmatic balance would be to offer to low/no-income people and youths free transit cards that are linked to their identities and can be suspended or revoked after X number of misbehavior in a certain time period.
I think I agree with your broad idea here but I don't think means-testing has any benefit. I think requiring you to go get a transit pass, like a library card, for access to the transit network could be a great way to manage unruliness and petty crimes. But, I think only offering free fare to the poor and the young would only increase bureaucratic overhead (verifying means) and social resentment (muh entitlements). Also, just generally IMO, systems funded by the public should be available to the entire public. Tourist-heavy cities maybe could charge for access to non-residents, though, subsidizing the transit system for the people who depend on it with money from the people who can afford a vacation.
Free fair for minors is pretty popular in the US, and the way it often works is kids don't have to scan any cards or passes. They just ride for free with the bus driver waving them on. This makes...
Free fair for minors is pretty popular in the US, and the way it often works is kids don't have to scan any cards or passes. They just ride for free with the bus driver waving them on. This makes things much easier for parents with a group of kids.
This already exists in the Bay Area. It's called the Clipper START program. The problem (and I'm not for or against this, just laying out the problem here) is that enforcement is expensive and...
I think a good, pragmatic balance would be to offer to low/no-income people and youths free transit cards that are linked to their identities and can be suspended or revoked after X number of misbehavior in a certain time period.
This already exists in the Bay Area. It's called the Clipper START program.
I, like OP, also ride the BART; it's really disheartening to see human waste, spilled milkshakes, and fast food litter in stations and on trains. I think it'd do violators good to be forced to walk in order to appreciate the privilege of public transit infrastructure.
The problem (and I'm not for or against this, just laying out the problem here) is that enforcement is expensive and often quite unpopular among community groups. Online commenters seem to be very excited about enforcement and security on BART and other Bay Area transit lines, but if you actually attend a public meeting on these things, you'll see community group after community group talk about the lack of trust between the public and enforcement officials. Prominent groups from soup kitchens to the Asian Law Caucus.
I suspect, but have no data for really, that online commenters tend to come from upper-middle class and upper class areas of the Bay Area where the police are perceived to have lots of community support. As such they're much more excited about strict fare enforcement than lower-middle and lower class communities. That doesn't necessarily mean that one outcome is better than the other (after all, increased safety on transit helps everyone no matter social class) but it does explain the difference in perception I see.
I think it also depends on the country. For example in Luxembourg people seem to be better behaved (in their everyday social interactions, not in terms of serious crime) and their free public...
I think it also depends on the country. For example in Luxembourg people seem to be better behaved (in their everyday social interactions, not in terms of serious crime) and their free public transport scheme seems to have been a success.
What seems to work is the model that some German-speaking countries (Austria and Germany) are adopting where they have lowered fees for public transport considerably – Austria has introduce an all-transport annual pass costing €1,000 (a few years ago) and Germany a monthly ticket for regional trains only which costs €49.
I think for people to feel safe you also need to have effective policing. For example, I am currently living in Switzerland and I have noticed that recently a lot of SBB (the state-owned train company) security staff have recently started to frequent a lot of busy routes. Other systems, such as the London underground system are so completely covered in CCTV (if you're ever in London, try to find a spot in the underground not covered by a CCTV camara – that's how dense it is) that they can track down a lot of people instigating anti-social behaviour, and also work out where the hotspots are and dispatch more police there.
Yeah living in Germany it's weird hearing Americans insist thet need higher fare gates to keep people out when here there just... aren't any fare gates. Even though public transport isn't free...
Yeah living in Germany it's weird hearing Americans insist thet need higher fare gates to keep people out when here there just... aren't any fare gates. Even though public transport isn't free (imo it should be), since it's policed by occasional random ticket inspections you have no barrier to getting on and people don't generally trash the place (or if they do it gets cleaned up pretty fast).
I think most American cities needs to focus on improving service more than anything else, but the idea that people trashing the system is inevitable if it's free... maybe consider that there are other factors causing that
Perhaps more suited to the other thread, but they're pretty related so I'll put this here: Is there even a reasonable solution to the no-income homeless populations though? Even setting aside...
If the government isn't going to fix the systemic issues
Perhaps more suited to the other thread, but they're pretty related so I'll put this here:
Is there even a reasonable solution to the no-income homeless populations though?
Even setting aside expense, which is a significant barrier, I'm not sure what an effective approach would be. There is a major drug-addiction and/or mental health component to deal with, and these people have either opted out of, or can't participate in, society in general due to this. Short of locking them up, which obviously isn't a great solution, you can't really force someone to undergo treatment.
In NYC we have guaranteed housing for anyone who needs it. We have methadone clinics and safe injection sites. There are still people who refuse all services and instead opt to just move into the...
In NYC we have guaranteed housing for anyone who needs it. We have methadone clinics and safe injection sites. There are still people who refuse all services and instead opt to just move into the end of a train. If a person is so far gone that they refuse all housing and treatment, what can the rest of us do?
In the past this problem was dealt with using, like, vagrancy laws. Pretty sure in England they used to round up vagrants and ship them to the New World. We used to have workhouses where we would store people. Can't support yourself? Well, now you live in a workhouse. You can't leave. You get a bed and food and water, and in exchange you are going to do whatever menial tasks we have for you. No, you don't get a choice. This is what you get for being a pauper.
Our society is a lot nicer nowadays. We've decided that forcibly rounding up and transporting people against their will isn't a very nice thing to do. We've decided that imprisoning people without just cause is not a very nice thing to do either. We've decided that there shouldn't be laws that (explicitly) make it illegal to be poor. But like... we didn't find another solution. Because it's too hard or too expensive to find another way, we are allowing them to die on the streets by default, which isn't very nice at all.
And that's to say nothing of the OTHER big ethical dilemma, the one that has to do with respecting the agency of people struggling with mental illness. Some of the people on the streets are so far gone that they can't take care of themselves. We allow them to refuse medical care, even if they are incoherent and ill, even if they are found wandering the subway tracks or assaulting pedestrians. Fifty years ago they would have been institutionalized. The institutions were terrible for sure, but they should have been reformed, not closed, because some people really do need full-time support. Of course, it is cheaper to allow them to live and die in a gutter than it is to house them, so that is what our society has opted to do. Again: not very nice...
I feel that. I believe BART, my local intercity subway, would have less crime if they raised the fare gates so that people couldn't easily jump over them as they freqently do now.
I feel that. I believe BART, my local intercity subway, would have less crime if they raised the fare gates so that people couldn't easily jump over them as they freqently do now.
As a fellow Bay Area resident, calling BART a local intercity subway sounds generous haha. At the same time, I'm not sure what would be the more accurate label because BART is such a weird system....
As a fellow Bay Area resident, calling BART a local intercity subway sounds generous haha. At the same time, I'm not sure what would be the more accurate label because BART is such a weird system. It's a frequent subway system under San Francisco, rapid intercity transit in the cities near SF, and then infrequent commuter rail service elsewhere.
Ive seen some similar studies and I think it can go both ways. If you dont enforce anything, even a small fare charge means nothing. Its hard to get any good studies though as the pandemic really...
Ive seen some similar studies and I think it can go both ways. If you dont enforce anything, even a small fare charge means nothing. Its hard to get any good studies though as the pandemic really made a mess of things and a lot of different issues are getting conflated.
I only have my limited perspective but this has been the case in my experience. I'm a nondriver, bus commuter. Sometimes my city has free fare events. During those events, the bus has many more...
I only have my limited perspective but this has been the case in my experience. I'm a nondriver, bus commuter. Sometimes my city has free fare events. During those events, the bus has many more passengers who make the experience a more nervous one, loudness, drunkenness, bad smells, bad hygiene. And then there's homeless people sleeping in the seats. I don't really care about that, I'd take the opportunity for a safer place to sleep too if I were them. But the drunk and disorderly people are a problem. I've personally had a drunk man be incredibly creepy to me on a bus, I'm talking calling me 'his girlfriend' and repeatedly, loudly harassing me for attention and replies.
If they're going to get rid of fares, they need to either train bus drivers to intervene when people are being unruly, or have security/social workers out there riding with passengers. Not every city is like this, not every bus route either, but I could see the system where I live completely turning into chaos.
In Spain they've made regional rail transport free for semi-frequent travelers, but in order to access it you need to buy a 10€ ticket every quarter that gets refunded if you use it 10 times in...
In Spain they've made regional rail transport free for semi-frequent travelers, but in order to access it you need to buy a 10€ ticket every quarter that gets refunded if you use it 10 times in those 3 months, otherwise they keep the 10€ deposit. It's an OK system, it was a pain to set up because I needed an app and account, but I haven't paid for rail travel in months. This system means the people who use the trains for free are the ones that would have been paying anyway, the turnstyles still exist so you can't just wander in off the street and get onto the trains.
AC Transit, the bus system in Oakland, CA, recently did a study on running their BRT line (their most heavily ridden line) as a free fare service. The current model is an "honor system" of fare...
AC Transit, the bus system in Oakland, CA, recently did a study on running their BRT line (their most heavily ridden line) as a free fare service. The current model is an "honor system" of fare enforcement, where you are encouraged to pay fare, but nothing happens if you don't. The analysis resulted in a couple findings:
The cost of enforcing fares on the line (it's a BRT with prepayment required at boarding time) would negate most of fare revenue that the line currently makes.
Riders tend to feel disheartened when they see others evade fare payment, leading to an effect of "fraying social cohesion".
Removing fare enforcement altogether would increase speeds on the line (no waiting for people trying to tap on and off at the stations) and would simplify boarding for riders.
Unenforced fares lead to more vagrant or unhoused individuals aboard. It's generally the bus operator's job to clear these folks at the end of the line. Not enforcing fares may increase the burden on bus operators and make them feel less safe at their job as they have to deal with problem passengers much more than riders do.
Overall it's a fascinating study with no easy answer.
There are no words for how much I love this concept. Specifically I love the idea of replacing fares with taxes collected from drivers. We build cities in a way that makes them hostile for people...
There are no words for how much I love this concept.
Specifically I love the idea of replacing fares with taxes collected from drivers. We build cities in a way that makes them hostile for people who do not drive, so it makes sense that those who have the privilege of driving should be the ones paying for the people disadvantaged in a world designed for them.
In theory, subsidized or free public transit facillitates enough economic activity to recoup the investment through taxes on said activity. The problem is it's hard to quantify that impact.
In theory, subsidized or free public transit facillitates enough economic activity to recoup the investment through taxes on said activity.
I definitely would have believed that notion pre-pandemic. But I wouldn't be surprised if the impact on businesses also indirectly affects public transportation that tries to rely on that. more...
I definitely would have believed that notion pre-pandemic. But I wouldn't be surprised if the impact on businesses also indirectly affects public transportation that tries to rely on that. more businesses utilizing WFH, buildings being near sold or simply squatted on (especially in this housing market), and overall travel/tourism just starting to recover makes for a tough road.
Okay, but bear in mind there's not a single significant public transit system in America that's funded through fares. In fact other than a small handful of systems in Asia I don't think there's a...
Okay, but bear in mind there's not a single significant public transit system in America that's funded through fares. In fact other than a small handful of systems in Asia I don't think there's a public transit system in the world that breaks a profit. Fares are never going to cover funding.
The problem isn't that free fare makes funding harder. The problem is that we need to stop thinking of public services like transit as a profit center and recognize them as investment in our communities.
It's not that the systems need to make a profit from fares so much as they're a major funding source. Many municipalities in the US have farebox recovery rates around 30% which means over a third...
It's not that the systems need to make a profit from fares so much as they're a major funding source. Many municipalities in the US have farebox recovery rates around 30% which means over a third of their funding comes from usage! Many cities and states are facing budget shortfalls, and there isn't money to increase transit funding.
If you cut off 30% of transit funding without a guaranteed revenue stream, then you get public transit that's even more dependent on electoral politics. From a bureaucracy and efficiency perspective, transit riders directly funding transit might even be better than increasing tax rates.
Also, the politicians in charge of transit systems have a financial incentive to improve transit since their salaries and budget are partially dependent on increasing ridership.
Here in San Francisco most people don’t pay for transit. The shock on everyone’s face when Muni police randomly hop on and ticket people sizable fines is pretty funny, mainly because it’s people...
Here in San Francisco most people don’t pay for transit. The shock on everyone’s face when Muni police randomly hop on and ticket people sizable fines is pretty funny, mainly because it’s people that can definitely afford $2.50 but are too lazy/cheap to scan their clipper card.
If my memory doesn't fail me, in the Soviet Union transport prices were ridiculous but never free, that was done on purpose for people to feel that there was a certain underlying cost. In...
If my memory doesn't fail me, in the Soviet Union transport prices were ridiculous but never free, that was done on purpose for people to feel that there was a certain underlying cost.
In Argentina they are living a similar situation, public transport is so cheap it is virtually free, but not free and I'm guessing that may be the reason also: preventing abuse. Probably the social fabric and economic status plays a role, as another person commented it is free in Luxemburg, but their day to day life can't be compared with the US or Argentina.
I read an article somewhere (hackernews or reddit) where a public transit specialist who was in favour of free transit changed his tune after seeing the results of a trial. The system got absolutely trashed and abused. Ridership went down not up as people didn't feel safe anymore. I'm on mobile at the moment, but if anyone has the link handy please share. There's a human nature phenomena at play here where charging a small fee improves behaviour tremendously.
Similarly, I listened to a podcast where they interviewed a transit planner that said it would actually be more effective to increase ridership by making the system better. Mostly by increasing the frequency of routes. Basically, if the train or bus runs so infrequently that missing it means I have to wait an extra hour people don't use it unless they have no choice.
In principle I think I'm in favor of these services being free but there a clearly some tradeoffs to consider when funds for transit are as limited as they are in the US.
Yeah I’m inclined to agree here. I’d much rather pay the same or even slightly higher fares if that means better headways and later service, more frequent weekend service, or wider coverage.
Particularly in a city where transit fare is metered rather than flat rate, free fare just means a subsidy for suburban commuters at the expense of city dwellers.
I know that it'll vary by transit system, but I'd be happy to subsidize suburban commuters' public transportation usage a bit to get/keep them using it and limit how much they drive their cars into the city on the regular.
I'd rather redevelop the burbs into more mixed-use development so there isn't as much uneveness between daytime and nighttime population across regions that necessitates moving all the people in and out every day. But yeah, in the short term you kind of have to subsidize it.
Agreed, absolutely.
Exactly. Cost isn't what prevents me from using transit, the infrequent service and bad routes in my city prevent it.
A monthly pass where I live is $60. The insurance on my very shitty old car is $75 a month. The cost is not what's stopping me from taking the bus.
Odd Lots podcast by chance?
I visited Japan and was amazed with their public transit infrastructure. Huge coverage. Frequent. On time. Safe.
The costs were also very reasonable ($2 / $3 a ride). It was super convenient.
That's an interesting perspective. I find myself sympathetic to the free fare position but now I see the other side of the argument.
Some people see public transportation as a right. I think they are right... to a degree. But it is also a privilege to a degree. Same with healthcare. One has a right to medical care, but one can also be thrown out for being unruly. At one point, I ended up in the care of Highland Hospital, a county hospital in Oakland, after a catastrophic injury. One visit, a beleaguered nurse told me that his previous patient, an uncooperative and belligerent homeless man, had just been thrown out after being caught trying to steal the staff's personal devices. But I'm getting off track now.
I think a good, pragmatic balance would be to offer to low/no-income people and youths free transit cards that are linked to their identities and can be suspended or revoked after X number of misbehavior in a certain time period. I, like OP, also ride the BART; it's really disheartening to see human waste, spilled milkshakes, and fast food litter in stations and on trains. I think it'd do violators good to be forced to walk in order to appreciate the privilege of public transit infrastructure.
Making housing affordable in the Bay Area requires housing densification, which in turn depends on transportation alternatives to driving, like biking and public transit. Biking is seen as dangerous, and rightfully so (see my above 'catastrophic injury'). And public transit is undesirable to people who can afford to drive. Safe, clean public transit is, I believe, one of the lower turtles of the Bay Area housing problem turtle stack.
I think I agree with your broad idea here but I don't think means-testing has any benefit. I think requiring you to go get a transit pass, like a library card, for access to the transit network could be a great way to manage unruliness and petty crimes. But, I think only offering free fare to the poor and the young would only increase bureaucratic overhead (verifying means) and social resentment (muh entitlements). Also, just generally IMO, systems funded by the public should be available to the entire public. Tourist-heavy cities maybe could charge for access to non-residents, though, subsidizing the transit system for the people who depend on it with money from the people who can afford a vacation.
There's currently a 50k person study of free transportation cards in the greater bay area. It could spur change.
Free fair for minors is pretty popular in the US, and the way it often works is kids don't have to scan any cards or passes. They just ride for free with the bus driver waving them on. This makes things much easier for parents with a group of kids.
This already exists in the Bay Area. It's called the Clipper START program.
The problem (and I'm not for or against this, just laying out the problem here) is that enforcement is expensive and often quite unpopular among community groups. Online commenters seem to be very excited about enforcement and security on BART and other Bay Area transit lines, but if you actually attend a public meeting on these things, you'll see community group after community group talk about the lack of trust between the public and enforcement officials. Prominent groups from soup kitchens to the Asian Law Caucus.
I suspect, but have no data for really, that online commenters tend to come from upper-middle class and upper class areas of the Bay Area where the police are perceived to have lots of community support. As such they're much more excited about strict fare enforcement than lower-middle and lower class communities. That doesn't necessarily mean that one outcome is better than the other (after all, increased safety on transit helps everyone no matter social class) but it does explain the difference in perception I see.
I think it also depends on the country. For example in Luxembourg people seem to be better behaved (in their everyday social interactions, not in terms of serious crime) and their free public transport scheme seems to have been a success.
What seems to work is the model that some German-speaking countries (Austria and Germany) are adopting where they have lowered fees for public transport considerably – Austria has introduce an all-transport annual pass costing €1,000 (a few years ago) and Germany a monthly ticket for regional trains only which costs €49.
I think for people to feel safe you also need to have effective policing. For example, I am currently living in Switzerland and I have noticed that recently a lot of SBB (the state-owned train company) security staff have recently started to frequent a lot of busy routes. Other systems, such as the London underground system are so completely covered in CCTV (if you're ever in London, try to find a spot in the underground not covered by a CCTV camara – that's how dense it is) that they can track down a lot of people instigating anti-social behaviour, and also work out where the hotspots are and dispatch more police there.
Funding is of course a separate matter.
Yeah living in Germany it's weird hearing Americans insist thet need higher fare gates to keep people out when here there just... aren't any fare gates. Even though public transport isn't free (imo it should be), since it's policed by occasional random ticket inspections you have no barrier to getting on and people don't generally trash the place (or if they do it gets cleaned up pretty fast).
I think most American cities needs to focus on improving service more than anything else, but the idea that people trashing the system is inevitable if it's free... maybe consider that there are other factors causing that
Perhaps more suited to the other thread, but they're pretty related so I'll put this here:
Is there even a reasonable solution to the no-income homeless populations though?
Even setting aside expense, which is a significant barrier, I'm not sure what an effective approach would be. There is a major drug-addiction and/or mental health component to deal with, and these people have either opted out of, or can't participate in, society in general due to this. Short of locking them up, which obviously isn't a great solution, you can't really force someone to undergo treatment.
In NYC we have guaranteed housing for anyone who needs it. We have methadone clinics and safe injection sites. There are still people who refuse all services and instead opt to just move into the end of a train. If a person is so far gone that they refuse all housing and treatment, what can the rest of us do?
In the past this problem was dealt with using, like, vagrancy laws. Pretty sure in England they used to round up vagrants and ship them to the New World. We used to have workhouses where we would store people. Can't support yourself? Well, now you live in a workhouse. You can't leave. You get a bed and food and water, and in exchange you are going to do whatever menial tasks we have for you. No, you don't get a choice. This is what you get for being a pauper.
Our society is a lot nicer nowadays. We've decided that forcibly rounding up and transporting people against their will isn't a very nice thing to do. We've decided that imprisoning people without just cause is not a very nice thing to do either. We've decided that there shouldn't be laws that (explicitly) make it illegal to be poor. But like... we didn't find another solution. Because it's too hard or too expensive to find another way, we are allowing them to die on the streets by default, which isn't very nice at all.
And that's to say nothing of the OTHER big ethical dilemma, the one that has to do with respecting the agency of people struggling with mental illness. Some of the people on the streets are so far gone that they can't take care of themselves. We allow them to refuse medical care, even if they are incoherent and ill, even if they are found wandering the subway tracks or assaulting pedestrians. Fifty years ago they would have been institutionalized. The institutions were terrible for sure, but they should have been reformed, not closed, because some people really do need full-time support. Of course, it is cheaper to allow them to live and die in a gutter than it is to house them, so that is what our society has opted to do. Again: not very nice...
I feel that. I believe BART, my local intercity subway, would have less crime if they raised the fare gates so that people couldn't easily jump over them as they freqently do now.
As a fellow Bay Area resident, calling BART a local intercity subway sounds generous haha. At the same time, I'm not sure what would be the more accurate label because BART is such a weird system. It's a frequent subway system under San Francisco, rapid intercity transit in the cities near SF, and then infrequent commuter rail service elsewhere.
Some of the fare gates have already been raised. I saw them just the other week at the Rockridge station.
Hi neighbor : ), Thanks for the information!
Ive seen some similar studies and I think it can go both ways. If you dont enforce anything, even a small fare charge means nothing. Its hard to get any good studies though as the pandemic really made a mess of things and a lot of different issues are getting conflated.
I only have my limited perspective but this has been the case in my experience. I'm a nondriver, bus commuter. Sometimes my city has free fare events. During those events, the bus has many more passengers who make the experience a more nervous one, loudness, drunkenness, bad smells, bad hygiene. And then there's homeless people sleeping in the seats. I don't really care about that, I'd take the opportunity for a safer place to sleep too if I were them. But the drunk and disorderly people are a problem. I've personally had a drunk man be incredibly creepy to me on a bus, I'm talking calling me 'his girlfriend' and repeatedly, loudly harassing me for attention and replies.
If they're going to get rid of fares, they need to either train bus drivers to intervene when people are being unruly, or have security/social workers out there riding with passengers. Not every city is like this, not every bus route either, but I could see the system where I live completely turning into chaos.
In Spain they've made regional rail transport free for semi-frequent travelers, but in order to access it you need to buy a 10€ ticket every quarter that gets refunded if you use it 10 times in those 3 months, otherwise they keep the 10€ deposit. It's an OK system, it was a pain to set up because I needed an app and account, but I haven't paid for rail travel in months. This system means the people who use the trains for free are the ones that would have been paying anyway, the turnstyles still exist so you can't just wander in off the street and get onto the trains.
AC Transit, the bus system in Oakland, CA, recently did a study on running their BRT line (their most heavily ridden line) as a free fare service. The current model is an "honor system" of fare enforcement, where you are encouraged to pay fare, but nothing happens if you don't. The analysis resulted in a couple findings:
The cost of enforcing fares on the line (it's a BRT with prepayment required at boarding time) would negate most of fare revenue that the line currently makes.
Riders tend to feel disheartened when they see others evade fare payment, leading to an effect of "fraying social cohesion".
Removing fare enforcement altogether would increase speeds on the line (no waiting for people trying to tap on and off at the stations) and would simplify boarding for riders.
Unenforced fares lead to more vagrant or unhoused individuals aboard. It's generally the bus operator's job to clear these folks at the end of the line. Not enforcing fares may increase the burden on bus operators and make them feel less safe at their job as they have to deal with problem passengers much more than riders do.
Overall it's a fascinating study with no easy answer.
There are no words for how much I love this concept.
Specifically I love the idea of replacing fares with taxes collected from drivers. We build cities in a way that makes them hostile for people who do not drive, so it makes sense that those who have the privilege of driving should be the ones paying for the people disadvantaged in a world designed for them.
This provides convenience for riders, but challenges funding models for transit.
In theory, subsidized or free public transit facillitates enough economic activity to recoup the investment through taxes on said activity.
The problem is it's hard to quantify that impact.
I definitely would have believed that notion pre-pandemic. But I wouldn't be surprised if the impact on businesses also indirectly affects public transportation that tries to rely on that. more businesses utilizing WFH, buildings being near sold or simply squatted on (especially in this housing market), and overall travel/tourism just starting to recover makes for a tough road.
Okay, but bear in mind there's not a single significant public transit system in America that's funded through fares. In fact other than a small handful of systems in Asia I don't think there's a public transit system in the world that breaks a profit. Fares are never going to cover funding.
The problem isn't that free fare makes funding harder. The problem is that we need to stop thinking of public services like transit as a profit center and recognize them as investment in our communities.
It's not that the systems need to make a profit from fares so much as they're a major funding source. Many municipalities in the US have farebox recovery rates around 30% which means over a third of their funding comes from usage! Many cities and states are facing budget shortfalls, and there isn't money to increase transit funding.
If you cut off 30% of transit funding without a guaranteed revenue stream, then you get public transit that's even more dependent on electoral politics. From a bureaucracy and efficiency perspective, transit riders directly funding transit might even be better than increasing tax rates.
Also, the politicians in charge of transit systems have a financial incentive to improve transit since their salaries and budget are partially dependent on increasing ridership.
No, we need the exact opposite - demand roads be self-funded and ban all new road construction until the existing roads turn a profit!
Here in San Francisco most people don’t pay for transit. The shock on everyone’s face when Muni police randomly hop on and ticket people sizable fines is pretty funny, mainly because it’s people that can definitely afford $2.50 but are too lazy/cheap to scan their clipper card.
If my memory doesn't fail me, in the Soviet Union transport prices were ridiculous but never free, that was done on purpose for people to feel that there was a certain underlying cost.
In Argentina they are living a similar situation, public transport is so cheap it is virtually free, but not free and I'm guessing that may be the reason also: preventing abuse. Probably the social fabric and economic status plays a role, as another person commented it is free in Luxemburg, but their day to day life can't be compared with the US or Argentina.
edit: typos