My home state of Queensland recently cut a wide range of transit fares to 50 cents (about $US 0.30). The proposal was originally put forward by the Greens, then adopted by the centre-left Labor party and retained by the conservative LNP after an election win. Congestion pricing still a bridge too far.
From an economic perspective it may make sense to provide zero-fare busses, but speaking as a rider, when Seattle briefly changed to zero fares, the results were appalling: homeless people took to riding the warm and dry busses as an alternative to sleeping in tents, and the seat congestion and urine-filled seats that resulted dissuaded me from wanting to ever ride the bus again.
Based on the problems, Seattle wisely rolled back the zero fares policy.
It's definitely something that can occur. It's interesting that it really does depend on city-to-city (which makes sense tbh). In New York, basically 50% of bus fares are evaded and thus I don't think bus fares serve as a deterrent. But regardless, strength of other social services could dictate whether a bus free system work. One could argue that maybe bus fares should be directed towards social services.
Free transportation in a major metropolis is not a bad idea; in fact it is a good idea---I think. 1) Emissions per passenger can be tightly controlled. Safety can be enhanced, more real estate can be available for building human domiciles and supporting enterprises
Government-run public transport leads to inefficiency, waste, and misallocation of resources. Routes, schedules, and pricing are determined by bureaucrats rather than actual demand. Moreover, coercive funding distorts incentives. Private alternatives—taxis, ride-sharing, or innovative transport solutions are crowded out. Money that people could use to improve their own lives or support businesses they choose is instead taken from them to fund a service they don’t use, and redirected to politically connected contractors, the companies running the system, and the bureaucrats managing it.
Voluntary, market-driven transport would respond more flexibly to real demand, rewarding efficiency and innovation rather than political influence
The overall issue is that privately run public transport would need to charge prices at a level to cover operating costs/capital costs and profits. This would lead to a far higher price, which in turn results in a socially sub-optimal outcomes. Most of the value generated by public transport is captured via other taxes - income taxes, corporate taxes, sales taxes etc. That's because public transport boosts these activities. By charging a much higher price of use for public transport, these revenues would dramatically fall.
I do agree that the management of public transport could be more open - that is choices of where to expand public transport, where to increase service etc might be currently decided in a less than great manner.
I think that having a nominal fee would make more sense than having them as free.
When things are free, they tend to be abused, with much more graffiti/bad actors/worse passengers, like another commenter mentioned.
There's a psychological difference between free and cheap for consumers, as something as free signals that a service is less valuable. A service that is paid for is likely to be treated with more respect, behaviourally. A free appointment for healthcare is more likely to be skipped, but even a nominal fee can encourage someone to attend.
I'd have to look more into studies on this before ruling it out completely, but I have seen that free provision, whilst well intentioned, often has unintended behavioural consequences and are more open to abuse.
These are definitely elements that should be considered (optimally, if roads are charged more appropriately, then a nominal transit fee would also be justified, as it would encourage walking/biking). On the flip side, a payment system also costs a lot to run - scanners, credit card fees etc. One solution enacted is some European is a significantly discounted yearly card for citizens of the city - in NYC it could be implement that if you file NYC taxes, you get an annual transit card for free or a nominal fee.
Most of what you say here is valuable and important. However, the questions of how much and at what price are far from separate. More frequent service cuts the time cost, which is the big disadvantage of the bus. Looking at it from the other direction, cutting time cost increases ridership, which can actually bring down the production cost.
I think we agree here. If the provision of an extra bus on one line generates enough value to cover the cost of running the extra bus, then the bus should be provided. Of course, measuring value is 'tough' (assumptions on valuing time) and the cost is linked to where the funding comes (for example, the cost increasing an income tax could be larger than the value from the bus).
My home state of Queensland recently cut a wide range of transit fares to 50 cents (about $US 0.30). The proposal was originally put forward by the Greens, then adopted by the centre-left Labor party and retained by the conservative LNP after an election win. Congestion pricing still a bridge too far.
From an economic perspective it may make sense to provide zero-fare busses, but speaking as a rider, when Seattle briefly changed to zero fares, the results were appalling: homeless people took to riding the warm and dry busses as an alternative to sleeping in tents, and the seat congestion and urine-filled seats that resulted dissuaded me from wanting to ever ride the bus again.
Based on the problems, Seattle wisely rolled back the zero fares policy.
It's definitely something that can occur. It's interesting that it really does depend on city-to-city (which makes sense tbh). In New York, basically 50% of bus fares are evaded and thus I don't think bus fares serve as a deterrent. But regardless, strength of other social services could dictate whether a bus free system work. One could argue that maybe bus fares should be directed towards social services.
Free transportation in a major metropolis is not a bad idea; in fact it is a good idea---I think. 1) Emissions per passenger can be tightly controlled. Safety can be enhanced, more real estate can be available for building human domiciles and supporting enterprises
Government-run public transport leads to inefficiency, waste, and misallocation of resources. Routes, schedules, and pricing are determined by bureaucrats rather than actual demand. Moreover, coercive funding distorts incentives. Private alternatives—taxis, ride-sharing, or innovative transport solutions are crowded out. Money that people could use to improve their own lives or support businesses they choose is instead taken from them to fund a service they don’t use, and redirected to politically connected contractors, the companies running the system, and the bureaucrats managing it.
Voluntary, market-driven transport would respond more flexibly to real demand, rewarding efficiency and innovation rather than political influence
The overall issue is that privately run public transport would need to charge prices at a level to cover operating costs/capital costs and profits. This would lead to a far higher price, which in turn results in a socially sub-optimal outcomes. Most of the value generated by public transport is captured via other taxes - income taxes, corporate taxes, sales taxes etc. That's because public transport boosts these activities. By charging a much higher price of use for public transport, these revenues would dramatically fall.
I do agree that the management of public transport could be more open - that is choices of where to expand public transport, where to increase service etc might be currently decided in a less than great manner.
I think that having a nominal fee would make more sense than having them as free.
When things are free, they tend to be abused, with much more graffiti/bad actors/worse passengers, like another commenter mentioned.
There's a psychological difference between free and cheap for consumers, as something as free signals that a service is less valuable. A service that is paid for is likely to be treated with more respect, behaviourally. A free appointment for healthcare is more likely to be skipped, but even a nominal fee can encourage someone to attend.
I'd have to look more into studies on this before ruling it out completely, but I have seen that free provision, whilst well intentioned, often has unintended behavioural consequences and are more open to abuse.
These are definitely elements that should be considered (optimally, if roads are charged more appropriately, then a nominal transit fee would also be justified, as it would encourage walking/biking). On the flip side, a payment system also costs a lot to run - scanners, credit card fees etc. One solution enacted is some European is a significantly discounted yearly card for citizens of the city - in NYC it could be implement that if you file NYC taxes, you get an annual transit card for free or a nominal fee.
Most of what you say here is valuable and important. However, the questions of how much and at what price are far from separate. More frequent service cuts the time cost, which is the big disadvantage of the bus. Looking at it from the other direction, cutting time cost increases ridership, which can actually bring down the production cost.
I think we agree here. If the provision of an extra bus on one line generates enough value to cover the cost of running the extra bus, then the bus should be provided. Of course, measuring value is 'tough' (assumptions on valuing time) and the cost is linked to where the funding comes (for example, the cost increasing an income tax could be larger than the value from the bus).