[sustran] Re: Why Free Public Transport is a BAD idea? - Comments

[Lee Schipper]

I disagree with Lloyd on the analogy. Public transport systems have very high running costs/variable costs. While it is not free to maintain cycleways or sidewalks, costs are small. And many of us DO advocate charging for using roads!

Lee Schipper, Ph.D
Project Scientist
Global Metropolitan Studies

2614 Dwight Way 2nd floor 
University of California Berkeley 
CA 94720-1782 USA

TEL +1 510 642 6889
FAX +1 510 642 6061
CELL +1 202 262 7476  
skype: mrmeter
http://metrostudies.berkeley.edu/

Senior Research Engineer
Precourt Energy Efficiency Center
Stanford University
 

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org at list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Lloyd Wright
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 3:48 AM
To: 'eric britton'; Sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Subject: [sustran] Re: Why Free Public Transport is a BAD idea? - Comments

While I am somewhat neutral on this topic, I would note that many of the arguments put forth would apply equally to sidewalks, cycle ways, public parks, public toilets, etc.

And yet, I doubt most of us would advocate charging a fee for use of these (although there are cities that do charge for access to parks and toilets).

We don't generally advocate charging a fee for using the sidewalk because it is viewed as a public good.  And hopefully we all support walking as public policy (as well as cycling and public transport).

I am struck by the fact that in many cities with free public transport, the Armageddon suggested in some of the comments does not happen.  The systems are well maintained and operated.  There are still pedestrians and cyclists.
And they do not become too crowded because they are sized to meet the demand, which should be a design principle regardless of the fare level.

The free transport business model can also be sustainable.  For example, Orlando (FL) has a very nice free inner city BRT service paid for by fees on private vehicles (which has a nice bit of justice to it).  Miami has a truly wonderful free People Mover.  

Obviously, the examples from Florida and Belgium are not representative of what would happen in developing Asia.  But I am not sure that free public transport is out of the question for these contexts.  

And hopefully, we can continue to use sidewalks, cycle ways, parks, and toilets before the economists demand a strict application of user/polluter pays.

Best,

Lloyd

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+lwright=vivacities.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+lwright=vivacities.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of eric britton
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 17:53
To: Sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Subject: [sustran] Why Free Public Transport is a BAD idea? - Comments

New comment on your post "Why Free Public Transport is a bad idea?"
Author : Anzir Boodoo (IP: 91.107.131.247 , 91.107.131.247) E-mail : ab at transcience.co.uk
 
 
Eric,
 
I think you are forgetting a couple of other major reasons...
 
5. Free public transport creates modal shift from walking (and possibly cycling). For example, the free city centre bus in Leeds (UK) has mostly replaced trips on foot, not trips by taxi from the railway station (as
intended) or even short hop trips by bus. Free public transport can thus be a loser on public health grounds (people should be walking and cycling more), and CO2 emissions (which are higher by bus than on foot)
 
6. Free public transport may encourage people to travel more, since the only cost is their time. This will also increase individuals' level of emissions, not to mention pollution from diesel buses (as they will stop more and we will need more of them)
 
7. Free public transport may encourage people to use their city centres more than local suburban centres (I don't have any evidence for this!), or large out of town hypermarkets instead of their local suburban centres or local shops.
 
8. Free public transport is unfair on the "polluter pays principle". All transport produces CO2 emissions, from breathing when you walk or cycle, to the fuel use of motorised transport. Are we allowing people to burn fuel and not pay for the damage this causes?
 
9. It's well known anecdotally (from observation, if not from studies) that people value things they pay for, and not necessarily things they get for free (see "the tragedy of the commons"). What about respect for drivers, vehicles and infrastructure?
 
Before you ask, I'm all for cheaper public transport, and believe we should be subsudising it to an extent, but I don't think making it free is the answer. I know the mayors and officials of towns like Hasselt in Belgium (where buses are free) would disagree...
 
You can see all comments on this post here: 
http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/why-free-public-transport-is-a-
bad-idea/#comments
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------
To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss

--------------------------------------------------------
If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.

================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). 

--------------------------------------------------------
To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss

--------------------------------------------------------
If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.

================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South').