• AJ Sadauskas
    link
    fedilink
    0
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    @TheOne From the article:

    "After two successful test phases, the city’s decision has been made: bus and tram travel will become free for Montpellier’s residents. From December 2023, none will have to pay for public transport.

    "In this way, the city aims to reduce air pollution, cut emissions and support disadvantaged groups.

    "The measure is part of a 150 million euro package that also includes the construction of new bicycle lanes.

    Anyone have thoughts on free public transport? Would it work in your city?

    https://scoop.me/montpellier-free-public-transport/

    #planning #UrbanPlanning #transport #tram #trams #train #trains #ClimateCrisis #ClimatePolicy #railway #metro #cities

    • Tom Andraszek
      link
      fedilink
      111 months ago

      @ajsadauskas @TheOne - in #Queensland, the fare box revenue is so small, that eliminating the whole fare collection and enforcement would have a very minor effect on the budget, and could even be net positive if it lead to less driving (health, pollution, crashes, congestion) and more mobility.

      The government keeps the full ongoing costs of the fare system secret, but we know for example that they spent A$371 million to add a payment by credit card option. Fare revenue in 2022: A$203m.

      • AJ Sadauskas
        link
        fedilink
        011 months ago

        @tom_andraszek @TheOne Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, in theory, the logic of requiring a fare is that, as patronage increases, there’s more money to improve services.

        So more passengers -> more fares -> more services -> more passengers -> more fares.

        It’s a virtuous cycle.

        As opposed to cars, where more passengers -> more traffic -> worse travel times.

        That being said, there are good alternatives.

        Properties close to public transport services tend to have higher property prices.

        A small council rates levy or property tax can capture that value, and be used to pay for the service.

        Another option is the Hong Kong Metro model, where the service generates a profit as a result of property development above and around the stations.

        In theory, that revenue could be used to fund a public transport service.

        • Tom Andraszek
          link
          fedilink
          111 months ago

          @ajsadauskas @TheOne - yes, but the situation needs to be evaluated as a whole from the point of view of the user and trip: car vs PT vs active transport: marginal cost, door to door speed, quality, safety, comfort, availability. By making PT free, we would be making it a bit more competitive against car here. As it is, it loses to car in most categories for most trips, in #GoldCoast: 5% to 85%.

          • Josephine Roper
            link
            fedilink
            111 months ago

            @tom_andraszek @ajsadauskas @TheOne I don’t think people are entirely rational economic access-seeking actors on a per-trip basis. I’m more interested in the psychological difference between pay-per-trip (transit) and pay-once-a-year (car insurance, rates - plus monthly payments if you have a lease, but you can’t just not pay them if you don’t drive, it’s a long term commitment too).

            • Josephine Roper
              link
              fedilink
              111 months ago

              @tom_andraszek @ajsadauskas @TheOne Free PT is one way to align payment frequency (well, remove the pay-per-trip and replace it with nothing), but another is discounted long term public transport passes, creating pre-commitment to taking public transport. And another, perhaps more politically difficult, is road fares per car trip…

              • Josephine Roper
                link
                fedilink
                111 months ago

                @tom_andraszek @ajsadauskas @TheOne Well not perhaps, obviously more difficult. Discounted monthly passes already used to exist, and I don’t see that they’re technically incompatible with smart-card systems.

                Monthly or yearly passes could be salary sacrified and/or a welfare benefit, resulting in many people getting effectively free PT - but seeing it differently from general free PT, as a thing of value that they paid for/were given and should take advantage of… maybe.

              • Tom Andraszek
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                @jroper @ajsadauskas @TheOne - oh, people are definitely #PredictablyIrrational when making decisions - check out the 2008 book by Dan Ariely, especially the chapter about the disproportional power of free.

                Yep, if you want people to use something less, make them pay for it every time they use it (there are no PT passes in Queensland).

                Also, people rarely compare total car ownership costs, which some PT advocates are fixated on, vs fares. It’s per trip decision if you have a car already.