[sustran] Reinventing Transport in Cities: Pillar 1- Public transport should be free

[eric.britton at free.fr]

Dear Brendan,  

 

I don't want to get overly stuck on the world "free" here, a source probably
of more heat than light,. So let me just pop in a few thinking points on
this in an attempt to explore all this a bit more and perhaps more
creatively;

 

1.	Private cars do not "work" in most of our cities -- so the
alternative mobility model should be based on other kinds of services, and
specifically a rich range of travel options that together can provide
"better than cars" access (and economics) to all concerned. 
2.	High quality service - which is what we need - is going to cost
money.
3.	Cities with mobility systems that work well have healthier local
commerce, higher real estate values and tax bases than those that do not. 
4.	"Public transport" (more or less fixed route, fixed schedule
services)  should be as seamless as we can make it. This means that users
should have easy access and that barriers such as fare boxes need to be
removed.
5.	Well working transport services of all kinds require tight
information feedback loops, bringing us straight to smart cards of various
types.
6.	There are a growing number of cities around the world that are
actually delivering free transit services today.  And I am rather sure that
these are not anomalies nor guilty of soviet-style inefficiencies.  (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-fare_public_transport for some more on
this.. A bit rough but still a useful first point of reference if needed.))
7.	The Paris Carte Orange experience is one interesting experience to
ponder (there are plenty of others but what is particularly interesting
about the Carte is that it has been around for a long time and has in many
ways shown the way). The Carte is financed through a number of revenue
streams, of which the actual traveler contribution is less than half. 
8.	There are, as you and others point out, lots more poor people
depending on public transit in most places (the usual captive riders) which
certainly suggests that it would be unfair and potentially dangerous to hit
them with the full bill for transit.  And they deserve high quality
transportation.
9.	All of which suggest to me that we need to put on our thinking hats
and really give attention to new ways of financing and accessing transport.
Fortunately the present systems that we have in most places are so terribly
expensive and so grossly underperforming on just about all bases, that it is
in fact an easy model to improve on. 

 

What I am trying to get at here is that we will do very badly if we fail to
take these points into account as we rethink our transportation arrangements
. Which we very definitely should be doing.

 

Best/Eric 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Brendan Finn [mailto:etts at indigo.ie] 
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Reinventing Transport in Cities: Pillar 1- Public transport
should be free

 

Dear Eric, 

 

I think we are at cross-purposes here. Let me spell out the two main
concerns I have about free or under-priced transit : 

 

1) Sooner or later, an incoming government will change the ground rules and
either pull the funding or deregulate the market, with devastating and
long-lasting effect. The only question is whether it will be a drastic
shock, or death by a thousand cuts. The issue is vulnerability caused by
dependency, and the history of urban areas and public transport is littered
with such casualties.

 

2) Funding free public transport is very inefficient, since a huge amount of
money is required just to keep basic services going. But most users have the
affordability and willingness to pay fares, especially for a good quality
product. (Perhaps the USA is an exception, if only the socially marginalised
ride the bus). For example, if bus services in Dublin were free, it would
require an annual subsidy of over $200 million just to keep the current
service working. Nonetheless, the money is gone just to give them what they
have already (and grumble about). Consider, by contrast, the dramatic impact
of the same $200 million annually spent on a combination of BRT and
bus-lanes, short-term subsidy to launch new routes, more buses to guarantee
a seat, customer-care programs, subsidy for revenue losses due to fare
integration. Spend the money where it has the most impact, both on the
quality of service and capturing the public's attention.

 

Today's public transport already costs money. If you want 'better than car',
it's going to cost an awful lot more. People are willing to pay for
everything else - bread, shoes, electricity, going to the movies. Finding a
balance between what the user pays, and who pays for what (users pay for
operations, society invests in infrastructure and improvements) is not
'old-thinking', it's in line with everything else in life.  

With best wishes, 

 

 

Brendan.