digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why free public transport would work

ecostreet.com — The environmental benefits of free public transport are numerous and could save taxpayers money.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • whataboutdave, on 10/10/2007, -12/+92Nothing is "free". Try "tax-subsidized".
    • bacon_skoda, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Why tax-subsidized transport would work.
    • ajb2015, on 10/10/2007, -9/+35Free in that you would not need a metro card. And so what if it is paid for with taxes, I'd rather my tax dollars go towards helping the average citizen than dropping a bomb on someone half a world a way.
      • Aupajo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Best to leave America then :)

        But seriously, my country (New Zealand) has free public transport in my city for inner-city travelling, and it definitely works.
      • skatastrophy, on 10/10/2007, -17/+11I'd rather use my tax dollars for myself and my family than for either of these things.

        I don't use public transport. Let the people using it pay for it.
        • ZiggityZhang, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18Why stop there? Let's get rid of police and firefighters too! A pay-per-use Police force sounds great!
          • positron, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, but if you weren't then I agree.
          • thall, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3The public at large benefit from police and firefighters, you can't say the same thing about public transport.
          • jthomp3120, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I think the article just did bro
        • slezzzter, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Public transport != Law enforcement. There is a right to protection under the law, but there is no right to transport.

          As for firefighters, some areas of the country do have non-tax-funded fire departments. Unless you pay dues (called donations to volunteer fire depts) they will ensure that the fire on your property does not spread, but won't use resources to save your own structure.
        • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Eh, don't ignore the public welfare clause! Technically, it gives Congress the power to legislate anything that's for the good of the community. (My Con Law professor would ***** himself if he heard me say that, but he never gave a good argument against it other than that he doesn't like it.)
      • blast_flame, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'd rather have a theft donate the money to charity than spend it on drugs and bullets but I would prefer he wasn't a theft at all.
    • jdh24, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5You just hate the poor!!!
      • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5 It's not just the poor that use public transit...Lots of average folks use it...Blind and visually impaired use it, the elderly use it,kids who can't drive use it,, tourists use it,etc.
      • huskerdude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I use it. I'm not poor, blind, or a child. I just don't want to drive in the city.
    • crash331, on 10/10/2007, -19/+6I second that.

      No ***** way do I want free public transport. Why? Because I live in the suburbs and would never use it. The cockwads who think free everything is a good idea should burn in hell, ***** communists.
    • Rukaribe, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Have you ever ridden the bus? I dunno about your city but in mine it attacks some sketchy people! Like the other day this dude literly ***** his pants on the bus. Do you realize how bad that smelled? The bus like revolted and kicked the guy off themselves, it was kinda touching almost to see us come together like that. Or how about the stupid teens with kids who sit at the front and block the alis right when you get on then talk extremely loudly to the other teen with a baby beside her?

      The bus isn't cool. Now if by free public transport you mean a super teleporter system, I'm all for that.
    • dynamitehacker, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8'Nothing is "free". Try "tax-subsidized".'

      Just like our free roads and highways.
      • thall, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Roads are everywhere and nearly everything everyone uses in life (like food being delivered to your grocery store!) couldn't have happened without someone driving on a road. You can't say the same thing about public transportation.
        • emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You and many others seem to be missing the point completely. While I don't necessarily agree with the idea, the goal here is to encourage people who don't already use public transportation to do so when possible. I rarely use public transit right now, but if I had to pay for it whether or not I actually use it, I would certainly be using it a lot more often.
      • pw378, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Maybe you are some hippie that doesn't have a job, but yeah, the rest of us pay for the roads through our federal, state and property taxes. If everyone rides on a bus, then its probably a good idea, but not everyone is a city hippie looking for a free ride.
    • JrGhoull, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2you wouldnt need a card and it could potentially save u a lot of money. i just really wished there was a way for them to safely and cheaply substancially diversify where the train went. Because while the train cant drop u off at ur friends house (unless of course ur friend lives right next door to one of the train stop) it could take u to say, a major mall, or an area in which there are many stores. there are ways of doing this mind u, take the train to one stop, then take the bus to the mall or one of its major drop off points (trust me, its not nearly as efficient nor as easy as it may sound) but unless u are in a position where u dont have a choice, it makes more sense (time wise at the very least) to take a car or bike.
      hahah i guess what i'm tryin to say is, while making the whole thing free is a great idea, alot of these systems need to be expanded or at the very least made more efficient so that me taking public wont take me much longer than take my car would.
    • Devin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I don't see why the government wouldn't massively subsidize public transit, after all my car is being massively subsidized by many entities. It's being subsidized by the government (massive tax rebate, lower registration fees, free parking, etc. (LA County, State of California, IRS)), my credit card company (6%/3% cash back on gas, $1/100mi driven (Citi Driver's Edge)), the automaker ($2,000 off when purchased, free servicing thrown into the deal (Toyota)), my insurance company (hybrid discount, good driver discount, loyalty discount (Farmer's)). My monthly costs to drive my Prius, excluding the initial purchase price, are actually even with the cost for me to commute by bus, and with the car it's much faster, more flexible, and more comfortable. We have plenty of incentives to buy hybrid cars, so why shouldn't we have plenty of incentives to take transit? That or get rid of the incentives to buy a car...
    • slopyjalopi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1In Tokyo, most of the trains are privately owned and operated. Even the national network was privatized. Transportation was a service provided by private companies and maybe city governments when subways and railroads first came out. This free enterprise was corrupted by some corporations tying up with the government or just the government nationalizing transportation. I would rather pay the stupid ticket than pay extra in taxes. At least with tickets, it will work out cheaper in the long run and I have the freedom to not pay. And the government (federal esp) should stop building roads (pork projects)!
    • sotopheavy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1why not let employed people and homeowners have free public transportation. They have to get to work or they pay taxes. It also keeps out sketchy chuck (see: "***** his own pants" above).
  • OffPiste, on 10/10/2007, -15/+32Free? Only the air you breathe is free.
    • Bartboy919, on 10/10/2007, -7/+22You mean it costs money to pee in a public restroom? I am gunna be so broke.
      • otatop, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10It does in France. Or at least it did last time I was there.
      • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21I don't know about you, but I pee freely.
      • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14It costs tax money.
      • crash331, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It certainly does. Maybe not immediately. But if you piss in a Starbucks then they have a higher water bill, then they must start making more profits in order to pay for the higher water bill, and the only way to make more profits is to charge more or reduce costs.

        So your 5 buck latte now either tastes like ***** or will cost $5.50.
    • hipnerd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14I'd like the air I breathe to be free of petrochemicals and other pollutants. Free public transportation would help with that,
    • Aupajo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4...for now...
      • lordchronos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If the mentalists have their way we'll all be paying tax on the Co2 we exhale
    • pw378, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3and now 'Oxygen bars' are showing up in the malls....
  • islingt0ner, on 10/10/2007, -17/+21public good always work in theory.
  • gerbalblaste, on 10/10/2007, -7/+34having lived in two communities with free (ok, subsidized) transportation it works amazingly well. Everyone uses the system if they can, the city can recoup a lot of the expense through advertising on buses and such. IT also acts as a sort of class equalizer, provided intelligent placement of bus stops, etc.
    • thall, on 10/10/2007, -9/+10It also forces rural folk (like the farmers who grow your food) to pay into a system only the city folk get to benefit from.
      • hipnerd, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19Just like people pay for schools their children don't go to and roads they don't personally drive on. It's called infrastructure, and improving it can have both direct and indirect benefits for everyone, with better air quality being the most obvious.
        • thall, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2That logic is flawed, you're comparing apples to oranges. Everyone needs education (versus no education), not everyone needs a ride on a bus (versus other means of travel).
        • Protonz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I would say the flaw is that education should not be provided by the government. Roads have caused a lot of damage due to the subsidization of the personal car and urban sprawl.

          How can you be angry that I just spoke out against the 'personal automobile', yet support forced subsidized 'free' public transit?

          This is just another example of government trying to fix a problem they made by making more problems. Being raised a socialist, it took me a long time to realize it.
        • stubear, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Schools are paid largely through things like property taxes, meaning they are a local tax based on the community you live in. By improving public schools you in turn help increase the value of your neighborhood and thus your house. Public transportation would have to work on a larger basis, meaning increased sales tax, a gas tax or some other form of state tax. People living in areas without convenient access to public transportation would be unfairly paying into a system they cannot benefit from at all. No increased property value, no possibility to use less gas (which they would also be paying taxes on), and less money with which they could contribute to the economy.
        • sunamc, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1@stubear.

          Transportation has a direct influence on urban form. Improving public transport systems and not adding to existing roads will create an efficient city with increased densities and consuming less land, as well as removing subsidies on low density. This will lead to an improved economy within the city and alleviate a lot of the negative externalities associated with car use and low density living.

          This link goes into a lot more depth what I am talking about. It's by a well respected Australian economist. http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-price-to-pa ...
      • JavertHolmes, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9If it makes you feel any better, Thall, cities usually give out more money in taxes to the rest of the country than they get back in services.

        Take Toronto for example: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp? ...
        • thall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Well, the suburbs actually take the harder hit, even according to that fraser report (Toronto only bears 1/2 what the 905 region pays), and I'm sure riding the rocket costs more than a YRT bus. If you're going to compare dollar for dollar you also have to look at the inflated salaries city folk receive compared to equivalent positions in smaller towns, as well as more competitive pricing for many basic necessities (note how GTA's gas prices are always 10 c/L cheaper than the maritimes). If you want to live in the city and reap the benefits of city life, you gotta put up with the costs that come with that lifestyle too. FWIW, I've lived in both the 416 & 905 areas and I've tried various combinations of TTC, GO, YRT, walking, and driving as main transportation to work. In my opinion TTC/YRT/VIVA/DRT should each be funded only with a 50/50 mix of local property taxes and fares because if a service supposedly improves life for a region of the population, then that region shouldn't have a problem paying for it.
        • pw378, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually that argument is *****. For example, the State of Alaska pays the federal government 3-4 times in taxes what it gets in return. When Senator 'tubes' managed to get a $20mil bridge approved it was quickly killed. While everyone talks about the 'bridge to nowhere' few people ever actually looked into what they were trying to do which would have had a huge and beneficial impact over the long term. No, I don't trust the federal government to 'fairly' manage our money -- the money ends up in the hands of the corporations or being used to stifle our freedoms.
      • jmknsd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5something like this is usually paid for at the city level, right?
        • thall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Toronto's public transit system continually relies on local *and* provincial/federal funding.
      • obeythefist, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1x
    • rocket777, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Economics in 1 lesson: Public policy decisions must weigh ALL effects over ALL time. Not simply some visible effects over the short haul.

      Public anything means force, which means do this or go to jail; if you refuse, we will shoot you. Someone must be held at gunpoint or it's not a public policy. If there are no guns, and it's working, it's called free enterprise.
    • obeythefist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2My only problem with free transit in large cities is the lack of facilities we have to support the thousands of psychologically indigent citizens who have nowhere to go except public transit. Make it free and it's suddenly not used by commuters to get to work, but by people who need help and can't get it.

      As for this whining about non-users having to pay for it, ***** you. We pay taxes in order to better social infrastructure, not so that you, specifically, can get something out of it. What is podunk South Dakota getting out of the Iraq war? Not a god damned thing. So go dip your testicles in some pig manure and accept the fact that, yes, you assholes are a part of American society.
  • troymcdavis, on 10/10/2007, -9/+41Most places in the US just don't have the population density to make public transportation feasible.
    • Zap2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14yes, but every city does....put it in action there!
      • thall, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2As long as city taxes are the only taxes raised to support it.
        • dt40, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I presume that you are equally vehement in your opposition to telecom Universal Service Fund taxes which result in cities subsidizing rural areas?
      • akatherder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Take a city like Detroit. Almost everyone who works downtown lives in the suburbs 30-60 minutes away. Am I going to drive an hour, park my car and hop on a bus for the last 5 miles?
        • glecko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I doubt you would drive, park, and ride - but you might be inclined to move back into the city if it were feasible. What might that accomplish? Resurrect "dead" portions of the city, reduce your commute time, add to your family/leisure time, reduce the air pollution caused by the longer commute.

          Consider that our current way of life - living in the 'burbs isn't sustainable for the LONG term - we're all going to have to start thinking about how we can move ourselves around more efficiently and reduce the impact that movement.
    • CptBuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why does it have to be "free" though? I live in Massachusetts where we have a long history of a very popular commuter rail and T system (subways/metros for the rest of you). The only people who pay (well, mostly) are the people who use it. Its popular enough to be completely packed at rush hour and it works very well. The only thing that making it free would do would be to make it so crowded as to be worthless, no pun intended.
      • Fluffiness, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's also an insanely small system. If more people were using it, it would get bigger. I don't think the green line has been updated in 75 years.
        • CptBuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1well, they are planning on building an urban loop as i understand.
    • sunamc, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1The reason why car is king and low densities is because the government has continually built road infrastructure and neglected mass transit. Modes of transportation has a direct effect on the urban form (shape, density). That's why things like building more roads only offer a short term benefit, as it opens up access to new land which can only be accessed by car and therefore only viable for low density housing.

      Building more roads will never improve congestion or transportation within a city.
  • diggumup, on 10/10/2007, -16/+34The car is the ultimate symbol of freedom in the U.S.A . It allows the American to travel huge distances, at a fast speed, at an absurdly low cost (travel an average of 20 miles for only $2.70 current average) whenever they want, wherever they want. The idea of public transportation, even if free, is so antithetical to a personal automobile that the vast majority of them would rather be stuck on a backed up stretch of highway in their car choking on the very air pollution that they are creating at the end of their own exhaust pipe than ever step on a public bus or rail.
    • mishabear, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I agree to a point. The auto does bring freedom but we are also finding that people when "forced" to bus for the first time actually find it relaxing enough to start using it more often. We recently had some freeway work done on I-5 in the Seattle area and people who never used the train or busses before found the experience enlightening. I can't say how many of those people continued to drive/bus into work but the experience was pleasant and memorable for many. At least it's a start. Park and Ride lots also make the experience easier for many. Like a previous poster stated, "Most places in the US just don't have the population density to make public transportation feasible". The Park and Ride lots allows the system to reach further into rural areas making public transportation more feasible.

      Of course this only works when people are en route to a central "downtown" area or on a bus route along the way. Many people (like me) live and work rural and work odd hours so public transportation is not an option.
      • aethelberga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6One of the main reasons you will never get people out of cars and onto public transportation is that the car is also an extension of the personal space. Once you leave work and get into the car, you are already "home", so to speak. It has your music, you can smoke, have a coffee and, most importantly, you are alone. Even if you face a pig of a commute, you are doing it in your own space.
        • mikesherov, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Sounds like you never had to sit in a commute coming home from the city.All of the things you mentioned besides smoking that you can do in a car, you can do on train. I can drink coffee and listen to my ipod. Also, I can sleep, drink beer, read a book, do a crossword on my train ride home.... all of which I can't do in my car.
          I've had the option of driving to the city, and I've chosen the train for convenience.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13you realize out highway system is a huge socialist subsidized commodity (excluding toll roads). If they priced roads better, more people would take public transportation.
      • CptBuck, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Thats because highways have to be subsidized. There isn't enough land to have, say, free enterprise with competing roads.
        • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3huh? If you didn't subsidize roads, there would be less of them (although probably in better shape) and the demand for land would be less not more. Subsidies boost supply. If you subsidize roads, you are going to get more roads and hence pave over more land. Socialized highways are the reason for things such as urban sprawl and why it is much harder for mass transit to get a better foothold in most places in the U.S. except a few very populous cities.
        • CptBuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My point is that roads have to be provided by the government, or at least provided by a monopoly. Theres no way that you could have 2 highways of different quality competing for your toll dollars because we simply don't have enough land to build those two highways.
    • mrfunybuny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think many people in America are starting to feel just the opposite... that cars used to provide freedom but now they're a burden... you can't do anything without driving... it would be nice to have choices and it would be nice if my car was an item of convenience and not an absolute necessity.
  • PrettyLadyGrace, on 10/24/2007, -24/+24I would really like to get the government out of my life as much as possible. I dont need them running my transportation system, we all know what happens when the government decides to run something.. they have a monopoly that results in corruption and second rate service
    • mishabear, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6That just means we need to fix the government.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10That just means that we need to fix people. That's what you might as well say.
        • bacon_skoda, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2he means we need to fix voters that vote in dumbasses.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9For a good example of what a privately owned transport system (in this case, an interstate) looks like, drive I-35 between Wichita and Oklahoma. You're welcome to pay the toll for use, and you're welcome to get off on any exit free of charge... so long as the exit leads to a McDonalds and Philips 66.

      Government and private industry make us take it up the ass. The problem with private industry is that it often gets government to allow them to boff me sans lube at twice the price so some CEO can have a second yacht.
      • thall, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2An interstate is not a good example of privatization at all. They receive assistance from the government and competitors can't go setting up parallel toll roads where ever they want. Transportation means such as bus, train, subway, taxi, car pooling, single commuter, bicycling, skateboarding, roller blading, or even walking all become competitive means to get around for a lot of people. If a privately run bus system jacks its prices up high enough or squashes quality low enough, many people will switch to another means of transport.
    • aussieNickuss, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10Look how having your health system NOT run by the government works for your country.
      • PhantomBantam, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Wait, you believe that? Do you have any idea how heavily regulated the health care industry is? Do you really think ***** HMOs arose from the free market? The fact that the US government pays more on health care per GDP than any other country is not a sign of incredible influence in the running of the health system?
      • thall, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Free markets heavily restricted by government aren't free at all. The government either needs to be all in (regulate and fund) or all out (no regulation and no funding), this half-in/half-out mix of regulation without funding is what's screwing it up as it creates a legal but unchecked monopoly.
      • obeythefist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2WTF? You assholes act like the unregulated free market would be a good thing for health care. So, let me make a few comparisons for you:

        Unregulated, free market:
        1. Firefighters: Your house burns to the ground if you can't afford to pay them.
        2. Cops: The guy who can pay their fee has justice on his side.
        3. Banks: You put your money there at your risk while the banks trade stocks, make capital investments, and earn billions of dollars with no risk to themselves.
        4. Garbage disposal: You pay the $35 a month to get your refuse properly disposed of while your neighbor just throws his in his yard.
        5. Emergency Medical care: "We got you stable at an initial cost of $11,500.oo. Now you need an MRI, CT scan, and immediate blood transfusion. We can save your arm with micro-neuro-surgery. That'll be $12,000 to get started..."

        One of these actually happens in our country. Which one do you think it is?
    • dt40, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13So you would prefer that the government stop building roads?
      • thall, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Everyone relies heavily on roads, you can't say the same thing for public transport.
    • mrfunybuny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1SO APPARENTLY THE ROAD SYSTEM in you town is not run by your government... Interesting, what town is this?
  • RonnieW, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2and we crashed another server :)
  • reubencm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11im not convinced that it is the cost that stops people from using public transprt. there are so many other factors, it just isnt convinient in most cases, and i think that is more of a pressing issue than cost.
    • dynamitehacker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Often one of the main reasons why it's inconvenient is because not enough people use it, so they can't justify providing more service. If free transit increases ridership then it's easier to justify increased service. And if more people use it, especially middle class people who pay most of the tax bill, then it's easier to justify spending public funds on it.
  • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Good public transit works in heavy metro areas (like NYC, for instance, which has excellent public transit), but free? You try maintaining trains, subways, and buses without charging something to use it and not dumping tons of money into it that could go to other areas.
    • zeroduck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3At least here in the Twin Cities, the public transportation works pretty well. For under $3, you can get almost anywhere (most of the time for $1.50). The problem begins when you need to get out into the suburbs, where the buses only operate during rush hour.

      I'd rather take the bus/light rail. I always seem to meet cool people waiting for the bus, and it's good time to get some reading done.
    • dynamitehacker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If they get more people out of their cars they could save a lot of money in road maintenance. Roads wear out very quickly in major cities because of the heavy use.
  • r0b0, on 10/10/2007, -14/+1Did anyone else read that as free pubic transport?
  • nephari, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Seems like it's down already -- is there a mirror?
  • Brianguy2000, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6Only creeps and losers ride the bus. I know because I'm one of them :)
  • Alex2, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3And on the 8th day, God created a solar powered transit system and had the hapless souls who were sent to purgatory to maintain it.



  • Kronos6948, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I live in Philly, and I'd love to see the TWU allow this...Every few years, they go on strike for more money. I haven't ridden SEPTA in a year or two, and the fare isn't too bad, but now they're getting rid of transfers (pay a little extra when getting on your first bus, they give you a transfer ticket, and you use that to get on the next bus on a different route, saving you money). A lot of people in Philly rely on mass transit, so they have the city in a stranglehold when they go on strike, simply because of the traffic issues that arise, and the parking situation. I doubt free MT would ever hit places like Philly.
  • tacklebox, on 10/10/2007, -14/+7i dont want to pay for poor people to ride the bus any more than I already do.
    • bacon_skoda, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4hey! leave that bum alone, I paid for him to sit next to you!!
  • joshuagor44, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Montreal seriously needs free public transportation. As good as it is, it's just not worth it.
  • slut, on 10/10/2007, -5/+32If only we'd spent 500 Billion in America on a public transportation system rather than 500 Billion in Iraq for oil. Makes you wonder.
    • ShadySpace, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17500 billion on transportation? If we dedicated that much cash to it we'd all be teleporting by now.
      • slut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Thats the point, we wouldn't even need that much.
    • bacon_skoda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8i was hoping we can drop 500 billion solar panels in the USA.
    • arthurdent3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I would rather have some of that 500 Billion back in my pocket so I can spend it on my own privately owned transportation system that wouldn't have routes to nowhere.
      If there is a need for something someone would fulfill that need. The problem in big cities is that there are too many rules and regulations that make it almost impossible for a private company to come in and provide a needed service.

      • dynamitehacker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"The problem in big cities is that there are too many rules and regulations that make it almost impossible for a private company to come in and provide a needed service."

        Yeah, they should allow private companies to set up businesses that taxi people around the city in specially marked vehicles... they could call them taxis. That would be really useful.
    • fickenbaisage, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0C-C-C-Combo Breaker!
  • AndrewTechie, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Woot...70 diggs and a 500 internal server error.
  • danubecities, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14The government subsidizes cars to a great extent. The roads you drive on aren't free. Gas is artificially cheap too. Then there's car insurance, maintaining your car, etc. The true cost of car ownership far exceeds the cost of mass transit. Most Americans spend near a quarter of their salaries on private transportation (cars). Buses and trains in the U.S. are about as good as in most developing countries. I'd much rather have my taxes go toward a decent mass transit system rather than subsidizing everyone else's cars. Or better yet, eliminate all taxes for building roads and transit and let the market decide where money should go. There should be incentives for private companies to start their own mass transit operations. Already many companies in the Bay Area operate their own private transit systems for their employees since public transit is so deficient. These transit systems are much better than anything the public sector would offer.
    • arthurdent3, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4I would rather have my tax dollars in my pocket so I can spend them as I feel not as some bureaucrat feels, thank you. And private transportation systems would work if the local cities got out of there way.

    • fjc8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If there was a bus route that went to where I wanted where I live (even an okay one), it'd end up costing more in time than what it'd be worth. $285/mo (for my car and all costs) is much more than $50/mo for a bus pass. But riding the bus would turn a 15 minute drive on the expressway to work into a much longer trip; assuming the buses are taking the route from home to downtown to work, at least 40 minutes just driving, before even considering walking & waiting. So even if there was a great transportation system, would it be worth it? The extra money spent driving would easily be made up by doing more work if it was a significant amount of money. But it's not.

      In other words, public transportation would either have to provide a fast route from here to work or pay me significantly amounts of money to ride it before I would consider it.

      Things would be different if housing costs were an issue or I had to worry about a 15 mile drive taking an hour... but I don't.
    • fjc8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"The roads you drive on aren't free. Gas is artificially cheap too."
      But gas isn't artificially cheap. It's taxed, and that's where part of the funding for the roads come from (along with vehicle registration)
  • toxicvarn90, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Well, all I know is that after 3 months of using Metro buses, I've gotta say buses are the perfect homes for homeless people and crackheads. It barely moves, people inside barely talk to each other, and there is a great chance that the TV's are broken.
    • JrGhoull, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1ur an *****, but u made me laugh, dugg.
  • warragul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5In our city we were told it cost over 90% of the fare just to collect it. And that was with subsidised fares. So they sacked the station staff and the conductors. Now fares cost even more and fare-evasion is rife. Might as well be free for some people. All that free money from gambling (and why not prostitution) could do some good. Free public transport would do so much good.
  • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12It wouldn't work. Free at least. If free then there is a disjunction between supply and demand (as usual with state interference). Suddenly the price (nothing) does not represent the supply (limited). The demand would be disproportionately high in comparison to the supply and the system would come grinding to a halt.

    This is also why roads tend to be congested to begin with. Because there is no direct cost per mile driven on the road (and no tariffs for different times of day) the roads are effectively free. You are charged the same no matter how you use them so a disjunction occurs here. There is no increased funding to account for increased road usage (especially at peak time) and as a result no drive to solve the problem.

    If you really want to make the transport system work then charge people per mile driven at with tariffs for different roads and at different times. Then charge for the congestion impact per vehicle (i.e. a bus has a lower congestion impact per passenger than a car by a factor of about 10). This way the cost on car drivers at peak time in congested areas increases dramatically and public transport becomes more viable there, in rural areas where cars are more viable their costs actually decrease. A system that is both fair and practical, there is no chance any government will ever introduce it.

    Of course in my country road tax on all types of transport gets ripped off for other things in any case and that's the first thing to fix.
    • mudgod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3One thing being the demand isn't infinite and supply can be built to match demand. As someone else here quoted a well built system like say the one in manhattan precludes the need to own a car, potentially saving people tens of thousands of dollars (car cost + fuel + insurance)
    • JrGhoull, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1u know how there are all sorts of different forms of government out in the world? and how we look down on them, while praising our own? yeah...this is proof that capitalism ant all its cracked up to be either...
  • Ebacherville, on 10/10/2007, -14/+8Sorry why should i have to pay for someone that want to take the bus.. I would never use this public transport why the heck should I pay for it. More socialistic crap.. just like Russia did..
    • harlowsmonkeys, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Because if 50 people have a bus to ride and so don't take their cars, that's 50 less cars you have to contend with when you drive. Think about that next time you are stuck in traffic.
  • thebrawl, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Stop calling taxed things free. You could save a lot more money by not starting yet another inefficient overpriced government run program. If public transportation really saves money then go start a public transportation company. People will pay for your buss rides if it really saves them money. That's what used to make America great - FREEdom of choice.
  • insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Actually, it is free for those that ride it. Because all the poor people using public transportation don't pay taxes. And because the bus is full of poor smelly people, those that do pay(i.e. the middle class) don't feel safe using it.
    • JrGhoull, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2lol u REALLY believe you're going to be attacked in one, don't u? :-P
      alot of those "smelly" people, would actually probably constitute as lower middle class people (though they should count as poor since that could help them get money from the gov and allow them to pay less to the gov) and would probably "smell" from work. they would be taking the bus home from work, you'd be taking the bus home from work. so i really dont know what ur getting at, and i consider ur statement uncalled for.
  • earthwormzim, on 10/10/2007, -11/+8Socialist crap. Burried.
    • insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I assume you home school your kids and would never let the fire department put out your house if it's on fire.
      • mcdaddy1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3you make no sense. his/her money has already stolen from him to pay for these services so receiving the benefits is okay. Doesn't mean he's against it.
        • insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I like to wonder how he keeps his house from burning down if the state didn't offer that socialized crap.
  • DivisibleByZero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Why does the free part matter? I pay like $30 a month to ride the bus. If I drove to work every day, that'd run me like $50 a week.

    Making it free isn't going to get more people to ride the bus. Convenience is the big problem. The bus here only runs every half an hour, takes twice as long to get me where I'm going, and isn't reliable enough to show up at the stop on time, so my commute ends up taking anywhere between 45 and 75 minutes, whereas driving would take 15.

    Find a way to make public transportation more convenient, and more people will use it.
    • JrGhoull, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2u know, part of it is convinence though. if i dont have to go and buy a ticket or even have any money on me, if i can just hop on, that could possibly be a pretty big incentive for me to ride the bus. and if that happened, maybe then they could/would increase the number of buses.
      haahh truth be told...i think this is something of a chicken or the egg dilema. would it take more buses to get people to use it, or would it take more people to get more buses?
      • xixor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Digg won't let me reply to DivisibleByZeros' comment, oh well:

        $50 a week? Lets see, insurance per year for car, lets estimate $1000. Price of car per yer, lets estimate $1000. So, that works out to $2000/52 = $38 per week without any thought for gas, oil or maintenance. Lets say we added up everything you spend on your car for your entire life, and divide by the number of weeks you have used that car, and call this the average price per month to operate your car, even though there will be some significant one-time costs (i.e. cost of purchase, major maintenance). I think that $50 per month is a very low estimate on the total average monthly cost of vehicle owership.

        I am going to step out on a limb and say daddy pays your car payments.
  • JavertHolmes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I would pay extra in bus/subway fares to ride vehicles that have no passengers who think I want to hear the latest top 40 song on their cell phone/public MP3 player.
  • arthurdent3, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Let see in this article they use Belgium as an example. What a poor example the average income tax rate in Belgium is over 50% and considered one of the world highest. No thank you I would rather have my money in my pocket to spend as I feel fit.
    Government doesn't work, private industry will always do it better.
    • JrGhoull, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Government doesn't work, private industry will always do it better."

      LOL! dude..who do u think is running OUR government!??! heres a hint: why did bush want to go to iraq? answer? guys who are in the OIL industry who bush is close with. And what about katrina? and the big dig? those all have to do with the president making back alley deals with big companies...allowing them to make money off of other peoples suffering. You know what i've learned? all pure forms of government are bad. including capitalism. dont believe me? refer back then to my previous examples.
  • harlowsmonkeys, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The problem with public transportation in general is that it is not sufficient to replace my car. To make it sufficient (using buses for an example), they need to have frequent buses, 24/7, with dense coverage, AND they need to commit to keeping routes even if those routes get few passengers. But what usually happens is that someone decides that the routes that don't make money need to be closed down, and then you end up with sparse coverage, or only coverage during peak hours. And that means I can't rely on the bus. I've got to keep a car for those occasions when my transportation needs go beyond the most popular routes and peak hours.

    But then I'm likely to use my car, for the convenience, even on those occasions when my transportation needs happen to align with what the buses provide.

    Public transportation systems need to be treated as *systems*, not as collections of routes that can be individually shut down. Until that is done, they won't work, whether free or for pay.
    • SiNN4R, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Not to mention privately owned buses smell like urine. I can't even imagine what they would smell like if they were government run.
      • thall, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1People would always get sick from barely cleaned seats so wouldn't smell anything ;-)
    • sunamc, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1The problem with car use is that it is the cause of low density housing i.e urban sprawl. roads are an inefficient use of space and have to be heavily subsidised to 'alleviate'** traffic congestion.

      I agree with you on the public transport systems need to be treated as system. Public transport needs to be integrated with every other type of mode of transport; walking, cycling, driving etc. for them to work and to be viable, but governments are hopeless at doing this and understanding this principle.

      **it's really a short term benefit that is a part of the vicious cycle of congestion
  • reddevil3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3In Gainesville FL the bus system works surprisingly well (not perfect of course). I'm quite pleased with it. But as everywhere it should be left up to the states/cities/etc.
  • subterfuge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2what if the government let people have "charge cards" in cities, kind of like that Chase "Blink" card. you just get on a bus and swipe your card over a reader. that way only the people using the bus have to pay for it, and you save money and energy by not using paper.
  • manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I think a municipality that provides free services such as transportation and wifi would could possibly make the cost back by using these services to attract additional industry.
  • wassim2k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Google AdWords on buses. The banner would hear someone say something, and then display a related advertisement.
  • totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Actually, SF is exploring this right now. The issues they are studying:
    1) the high cost of maintaining the machinery to collect fares
    2) the high cost of trying to combat fraud/money collection
    3) the high cost of providing security/auditing the money collected
    4) all the extra people needed to do the above

    I'll be interested to see what they come up with. One big issue will be the unions, who don't want to see jobs go away based on this.


  • mbrane, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Let's take a closer look at Public Transit -- it is nothing more than people traveling collectively together. Collectivism = Socialism = Godless Communism. Some cities even paint their buses red -- what more evidence do you need that mass transit is a Marxist-Leninist Bolshevik plot dreamed up by baby-eating fellow travellers intent on destroying the hallowed right of the SUV owner to spew tons of carbon into their air.

    Remember, its un-american to care about the environment; the world was given to America to rule.
    • jthomp3120, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1God bless america and Bill Oreily
    • nonchai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2A wondeful tongue in cheek summing up of a vast proportion of the current US populace. Yee Ha for Ignorance. Long may it live.
  • antitab, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Pay public transport in major cities is already utter *****. God forbid it went free.
  • andrewgreve, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1TANSTAAFL!
  • thegreatgazoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Denver has a free shuttle on the downtown 16th street mall. It seems to be pretty efficient. But then it is just one street.

    I'd love to take public transportation to work. I live in the suburbs of Atlanta, and the nearest bus station is 5 miles away, and the bus does the wrong direction.

    I suspect if it was free that the homeless would use it for air conditioned/heated accomodations, and regular people who would normally try to take the bus wouldn't.
  • kaleberg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yeah, get the government out of the streets and roads business. They've screwed them up enough. Privatize the interstates. Sell off the canals and waterways to the highest bidder. Auction off the airports. Stop wasting our tax dollars on aircraft research. Get our troops out of the Gulf and let the oil companies hire mercenaries.

    It's a great model if you don't mind societal collapse. The fact is that the transportation sector cannot make it without subsidies. The Romans knew this with their legionary highways. Henry V knew it when he regulated posting houses. Our government has subsidized canals, steam ships, log turnpikes, railroads, automobiles, airlines, truckers and so on. Hell, Ferdinand and Isabella used government money to set up the original Atlantic and Pacific trade routes.

    Read some corporate and financial history. The private sector just handle transportation in the long run. They always go under and you know who has to bail them out because people want to drive down to the block to the convenience store. Maybe suburban kids associate being owned by a car as freedom. The subway and bus lines set me free when I was ten.
    • nonchai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1 the idea that privatisation reduces inefficiency or corruption is a myth. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesnt. The US medical insurance system sucks in far more money out of its customer base than many state funded and organised medical systems. Many projects that are done on a public scale are far cheaper thant when farmed out to corporates.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I love how a system that actually works is being shouted down because folks "just don't like it." This sort of ignorance (by ignorance I refer to the symptom of actively ignoring a public good for its own sake) is why the United States can be the wealthiest in the world but also fall behind third-world countries in health care, happiness, life expectancy, etc. We are the only ones preventing ourselves from being more, like a bunch of crabs in a barrel stepping over each other on our way out.
    Anyway, if I could decrease traffic in ***** Sim City by throwing out 700 dollars in fares a month, I would love to have that as an option.
  • eh270, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This argument is so full of holes, it's almost not worth addressing. I mean, I hardly think "fare evaders" and the cost of printing tickets are even on the top 10 list of problems facing any public transportation system.
  • Dorian822, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Public Transport + biodiesel = good for Earth.
  • schuder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Public transport, at least in Mass (supposedly a "progressive" state) sucks. I did a summer internship in DC years ago and comparing DC's Metro to Boston's T is not possible. The Metro is clean, efficient, fairly reliable and pretty cheap. A year later I took some summer classes in Boston and decided that I'd be a responsible citizen and take the commuter rail and subway to Harvard. First off there is never any parking at commuter rail stations (I took the 7:15 train, that's not terribly late). So I had to bribe the guys at the local lumber yard not to tow my car. Then it costs $7.75 one way, or $15.50 a day. My Taurus gets roughly 20mpg, its 40 miles or so to Boston which is $12 (round trip) at $3 a gallon. My car is also quicker (and I took the "Express" trains in which skipped stops). Also gave me the freedom to leave whenever (they only run trains once or twice between commuting hours). And even if you get their monthly pass (which I did) it's $250 a month. Not a huge saving even if you ride 5 times a week.
  • bincoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A) Anything controlled by one individual or group will charge what the market will bear, doesn't matter if it's 'free', anything that an individual can do for lets say $1 will always cost the taxpayer more like $5 if done by the gvt. or a subcontractor.
    B) Time is far far more valuable than money, so getting there in 15 minutes Vs. 2 hours matters.
    C) Public transportation in most forms involve holding up everyone else since 20 cars can get stuck behind one bus or train sitting in the way loading or unloading.
    D) Why should it be socialized? I really have no interest in paying over tax money so that someone else can go shopping, let them pay for me to go shopping, then i'll change my mind. :P
    E) I live in Phx, AZ. We have the 'lightrail project' going on now. It is financed by a bond so is called 'free' since the city isn't going to pay for it. The vast majority of busineses anywhere near the disater area of construction have gone broke, driving was slow before, now it's a nightmare, accidents and car damage abound. Peeps that used to be able to take a 15 minute drive now sit in traffic for the construction work for 30 minutes to get through an intersection. And Now the governer has annouced that the state is back into a deficit, it has been (very) in the black for years.
    F) A poll indicated that only 3 percent of drivers here will change to riding the train, like that's a waste of time and money, yes of lives too, many cars crash now due to simple construction everywhere you go.
    G) Socialism never has worked, still doesn't, and never will in the history of mankind, why do these peeps who decide for us and see nothing but $$$ in their eyes try to force it on us anyway?
  • jthomp3120, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If enough people rode public transportation to offset the cost of cars and it became popular, it would be an incredibly efficient system. People pay thousands to drive annually but the whole economy of having a public transportation system relies on the cost of driving being too much. It will happen once gas prices go up. Its a matter of time.
  • bincoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0yes but how do you make riding at 15 mph riding shoulder to shoulder with peeps you would really not want to know more popular than driving at 70 mph by yourself, while the stereo is blaring on the music you yourself like at the same time that you can smoke a ciggy in your own vehicle 'popular'. That's like trying to make moving to North Korea popular.
  • xixor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think that a major issue to be thought about is ridership when thinking of how easy it is to use public transit. Lets do a thought experiment for your city. Your city, probably overs around 5-15% for public transit ridership compared to using automobiles. Car drivers probably don't drive automobiles because of the time savings, it takes you 40-50 minutes compared to 15-20 for a car (I am talking door-to-door, including parking your car, walking from car, waiting for bus, riding on bus, etc.). When you drive somewhere, how often do you park directly outside your destination for free? Probably hardly ever. By the time you have paid for parking and walked to your final destination, your door-to-door trip time is probably higher. This kind of sucks. Now, imagine where public transportation ridership is at 50-75%. With this increased ridership, the frequency of buses will be greatly increased, lowering the total trip time, and you will probably be dropped off quite close to your destination.
  • ReinMasamuri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They tried to throw up a whole air rail system thing in Kansas City and it would have been a disaster. Too few people spread too far apart.. It really depends on whether or not people will actually use it and if it's not well thought out nobody will.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.