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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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
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).