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.
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.
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.
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.
Right, I live in a town where the only public transit are buses which are totally free, it’s excellent and nobody is “exhausting the resources” or whatever.
There are hundreds of studies on exactly this topic in disciplines from economics to public health. They are most common on the topic of universal healthcare and ensuring timely access.
The consensus has always been that charging a nominal fee (e.g. £5) drastically reduced unnecessary usage and increases access across the population. Policy proposals generally recommend for a set number of free appointments per year for the subset of the population below an income threshold.
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.
Maybe people would believe you more if you actually posted something that actually backs up your claim rather than repeating the same “the facts are on my side” claim and resorting to ad hominems 🤷
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.
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…
Have have absolutely no conception of reality whatsoever if you consider £5 a nominal fee. None whatsoever. Of course you don’t understand buses. You don’t use them. At all.
Link it
The entire municipality of Fredericia has free busses and literally none of the problems everyone keeps describing has happened.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Right, I live in a town where the only public transit are buses which are totally free, it’s excellent and nobody is “exhausting the resources” or whatever.
There are hundreds of studies on exactly this topic in disciplines from economics to public health. They are most common on the topic of universal healthcare and ensuring timely access.
The consensus has always been that charging a nominal fee (e.g. £5) drastically reduced unnecessary usage and increases access across the population. Policy proposals generally recommend for a set number of free appointments per year for the subset of the population below an income threshold.
Just search for it.
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.
It’s directly relevant and buses are just as susceptible to waste and scarcity of capacity as any other system.
Sorry reality doesn’t agree with your internally constructed and parasocially reinforced narrative.
Maybe people would believe you more if you actually posted something that actually backs up your claim rather than repeating the same “the facts are on my side” claim and resorting to ad hominems 🤷
Reality doesn’t agree with your assertion that £5 is a nominal fee for a bus ride.
£5 is not a “nominal fee” if you take multiple buses a week to get to multiple places, transport over a month could add up to hundreds of pounds
A nominal fee would be like 5 pence
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.
Cool, data and scholarship disagree with you. But, I’m sure that we’ve all been enlightened by your layman’s opinion on a well-studied topic.
None of which you cite.
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…
deleted by creator
Have have absolutely no conception of reality whatsoever if you consider £5 a nominal fee. None whatsoever. Of course you don’t understand buses. You don’t use them. At all.