Should Public Transit be Free?

As always, leave a comment down below if you have ideas for our future videos. Like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon so you won't miss my next video!
=TIMESTAMPS=
0:00 Introduction
2:23 Reason 1: People are willing to pay to travel!
3:31 Reason 2: Free Transit Cheapens Transit
6:16 Reason 3: Low-Income Riders should ride cheap
7:43 Reason 4: We need the fare revenue
=ATTRIBUTION=
Epidemic Sound (Affiliate Link): www.epidemicsound.com/referra...
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
=PATREON & KZbin MEMBERSHIPS=
If you'd like to help me make more videos & get exclusive behind the scenes access and early video releases, consider supporting my Patreon or right here on KZbin! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.
Patreon: / rmtransit
KZbin Memberships: / @rmtransit
=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=
Discord Server: / discord
(Not officially affiliated with the channel)
=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Website: reecemartin.ca
Substack: reecemartin.substack.com
=ABOUT ME=
Hi, my name's Reece. I'm a passionate Creator, Transportation Planner, and Software Developer, interested in rapid transportation all around my home base of Toronto, Canada, as well as the whole world!

[@RMTransit]

I want to address the significant controversy this video seems to have generated! 1) I tried pretty hard to make it clear in the video that a lot of my arguments were not meant to be broad strokes but generalizations, for example I qualified free as "universally free" because I do think some users should ride for free, and it would take a whole other video to talk about who those groups might be - for example I quite like the idea of giving kids free transit for example. 2) I made sure to mention increased cost for car *use* as some wise commenters pointed out, current models of use encourage you to use your car as possible once you have it, and I think creating pricing for that in various ways (again could be another video) is a good way of discouraging auto use, and further subsidizing transit use. 3) I didn't mention what fare I thought was reasonable! I probably should have done this, I am not a fan of London levels of expensive fares, but I do think fare by distance is generally the best system (again with the caveat that we need to make cutouts for some users). 4) Some very quick users mentioned that monthly passes essentially act as universally free transit, this is another good point I probably should have addressed, though many people do not use monthly passes (some systems don't offer them and they are not very useful in disintegrated systems) because of their cost and upfront inflexibility, I think I've mentioned this before but I would generally prefer fare capping if we want the monthly pass style cost model. 5) All this is to say there are way too many complexities to iron out in a fare system than I could cover in a single video, and so maybe my title and thumbnail need workshopping to be qualified (point taken here), nonetheless I think there are a lot of great discussions both for, against, and adjacent to the video topic here - and I am happy! Edit: Also I probably should have stated that my video was mostly about current day North America and not about a hypothetical future or locale where transit is doing better and this is something that I think becomes much more important to tackle.

[@heythere9371]

I was excited to find a KZbin channel about public transportation, but I'm disappointed to find out this channel takes the standard neoliberal arguments about means testing seriously. Public transit should be free

[@sciencecw]

In Switzerland you can get a full year national pass for about $3000, for all bus, trams, ferries, commuter trains, intercity trains in the country. And a lot of people use the system enough that it is worth it. Quality is more important than price in a transit system

[@pedroasmribeiro]

Here in São Paulo elderly (older than 65y), people with disabilities, pregnant women and low-income students have free rides. Other students pay 50% fare, as well as teachers (but on their case, only for State-run rail transit, not city buses). Otherwise, we use a flat-rate fare with subsidies, a distance-based fare would be very unfair and unpopular as the poorest people live far away from city center (it's the inverse income distribution of North American developed countries).

[@nickfielding5685]

you argument is not true. the free transit is about evening out the cost .that every pay the same percent not the same amount. Free transit dose not benefit the rich it Hindis them. Free transit is paid by tax. it will be more fair for ever one. 100- 3=97, 100000000-3=99999997 . . if they pay the same percent of tax is more fair

[@nickfielding5685]

City beutiful, Sam Bur, not just bike and tom scoot is more informed on topic, city beutiful, Sam bur are town planer

[@eamonryan5581]

I feel like public transit should be free for both children and seniors as seniors don't have as many transportation options and they usually don't have a license and are not able to bike which seriously limits their transportation options.

[@1234canadianguy]

I would also add low-income individuals and families that should be able to ride transit for free or at the very least, be charged a lower fare. As a person from a middle-class family, I wouldn't mind tbh to help pay for free/low-cost transit to these demographics through the farebox.

[@Giruno56]

Are not able to bike? You've never seen a senior on an ebike. They are everywhere here in the Netherlands

[@jtsholtod.79]

@@Giruno56 To be fair, seemingly everyone in NL is willing and able to bike (although that was not always the case). Not nearly so in North America, and given the condition and priority on roads, I can't blame them. I wish that would change, but that's a whole different subject.

[@Giruno56]

@@jtsholtod.79 I agree with you. Cycling in the US is something extremely dangerous and only doable if you are very fit. My comment was more to show that when adequate infra is in place, seniors will gladly cycle. Too gladly, for some here.

[@bellairefondren7389]

Or you could just make it free for everyone.

[@kevinlove4356]

In Toronto and most Western cities, private automobile operators pay precisely zero to use the city streets, in spite of putting very expensive wear and tear on those streets. Cyclists and pedestrians also pay zero, although their maintenance burden is almost zero so this makes some sense. Why should transit users be the one and only class of street users to pay a user fee?

[@willy4170]

When you buy a bus ticket, you are not paying for the road, but for the gas, the driver's salary, and the the maintenance of the bus, or you didn't thought of that?

[@Duck-wc9de]

tell that to the Lisbon city hall and its yellow, orange and red zones.

[@transcendentmoose8750]

Car drivers pay things like excises on petrol, and rego fees/road taxes, and depending on your jurisdictions GST on things like tyres and spare parts and the car itself

[@kevinlove4356]

@@transcendentmoose8750 So what. Cyclists and pedestrians pay GST on shoes, many food items, bicycles and spare parts, etc. Those are not user fees to use what are supposed to be public streets. Public transit users are the one and only class of street user to pay a user fee. Moreover, here in Toronto, precisely zero of the taxes/fees you mentioned goes to the municipal government which has to maintain the public streets. The wear and tear that a vehicle puts on streets goes up as the fourth power of vehicle weight. In other words, almost all of the maintenance costs of our streets are inflicted by motor vehicle operators, who then pay zero towards those maintenance costs.

[@oskar6747]

@@willy4170 No. We have really high fares in Helsinki region and it's only because we have built a lot of new rails. (Metro extension, airport train and new tramlines) If we only paid for the gas, salary and maintenance our tickets would probably be a third of current prices or even less.

[@SummerADDE_Elevators]

My local transport authority are losing millions of money due to less ticket sale thanks to covid and is planning to reduce services to save money. If the public transport was free and fully funded by taxpayers then we wouldn't have that sort of problem to begin with.

[@Absolute_Zero7]

That's not how that works though. First you have to understand nothing is "free". When public transport is free, and fully funded by tax payers, that just means that at all times it will be more expensive to subsidize. If your local transport authority can't afford to run full service due to COVID, it won't be able to afford to run free transit. 2nd, the big argument for making transport free is that you're sacrificing hard cash for a stronger economy. When you subsidize transport to make it free, the economic case is that free and more accessible transit means that more people can get to work and places they need to go, which means more people buying stuff, more people working, and you get more money back through taxes. When you have a recession like COVID where people aren't commuting to work as much, and aren't going out shopping as much, the economical case to spend that much money on fully subsidizing transit isn't there anymore, so transit will be cut regardless.

[@sciencecw]

That's a complete inversion of logic. How is public transport good if no one is taking it?

[@oddball90]

Having a people pay based off of their income sounds way more complicated and creating more questions than answers. Just let people ride for free and raise taxes, the first few years will be growing pains but soon the ridership will increase. From a city bus driver

[@Bobrogers99]

Miscellaneous thoughts on the subject: A major objective of public transit should be to get cars off the city streets, so prices should be low enough to attract those drivers. Some cities have an involved zone system, but maybe they should just charge a buck to get on and call it good. For low-income people and seniors, receiving a free transit card may not be so easy because of the application process. I really doubt that free transit will be flooded with those who want to walk or bike. Lastly, how much is spent on the whole fare system, including equipment and personnel?

[@BcroG11]

If fares are low, they might as well be free, because you'll save money by not having to administer those fares.

[@mentonerodominicano]

"I really doubt that free transit will be flooded with those who want to walk or bike." If the frequency is bad many bikers and walkers may not flood the free system, but if the frequency is reliable then a lot of people who would have biked/walked otherwise (or maybe not even done the trip at all) will be using the free system for short local trips. This might just be me, but I honestly prefer to walk 40 minutes to my destination than to wait 20 minutes for the next bus that will take me to my destination in 5 minutes.

[@_aullik]

@@mentonerodominicano There certainly might be some induced traffic, however this is a small amount. The question should be whether or not that is also an improvement in living quality. If it is, than i don't see it as a problem.

[@PtrkHrnk]

I think best system would be easy to use and understand. *"Contactless"* bank card payment for *flat rate fare* is the way. That means no looking for change, no need to calculate zones, just *tap and go* your way. It's infuriating this isn't standard across the board!

[@juice-opinion]

this is a crucial first step--in zoned systems, those making longer commutes tend to be lower income, making the fare system regressive. if you just had to move from queens to mineola, your monthly mta budget just tripled!!

[@PtrkHrnk]

@@juice-opinion I understand, and I didn't consider that the flat rate zone has to end somewhere... Then there's no option, just for people to have the income (or whichever equivalent). But I guess, there's never late to advocate for betterment of whole society, not jut public transport...

[@sciencecw]

@@juice-opinion well but now it punishes people who take a short ride frequently. The reality is that public transport fares is regressive no matter what you do. You cannot solve a taxation problem with transport network.

[@buitenzorg5970]

Regional rail and highway in my country works the same with bank card payments on progressive rate (further you go, higher you pay, computer does the calculation on entry and exit points and subtract balance accordingly) but the problem is we're still a developing country that not everyone have bank account so transport authorities need to issue their own cards

[@asdfghyter]

yes, i love places where you can use a normal contactless bank card to pay for transit. and that seems to be more and more places over the world. i’ve encountered it at most places i’ve visited lately, for example in the London, Stockholm, Helsinki and Singapore, so hopefully it will become the norm everywhere soon

[@jonathan9662]

Here in Vienna(Austria) we have a fare System were the annual ticket fare is 365€, or more commonly refered to as 1€ per day. It was introduced ten years ago and is quite a sucess story (There are now more annual tickets then cars registered in Vienna), furthermore a couple of cities in Germany are looking into adopting this system. Another step which helped with bringing people out of there cars was, that a lot of companys located in Vienna subidise/ pay for the ticket for their employees(I belive it's tax deductable or something like that). Since last year the minister of Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology is working on an extension of this system for all of Austria. It's called the 1,2,3 Ticket and consistes of three diffrent tiers/tickets (all ticket are annual tickets but for convinience there are referred to by their daily cost). With the 1€/per day ticket you can use the complete public transit system in one state, like already possible in Vienna, Tyrol and Vorarlberg, with the 2€/per day tier in 2 states and with 3€ you can use the complete public transit system in austria regardless if its the ÖBB(federal railway) or the local public transit system in a city, even long distance trains, can be used... It's a, in my opinion, really good aproach to get more people of the road and into public transit, even on longer distances. Furthermore as a future Video Idea: In Switzerland and Austria their is no "Highspeed lines", but rather so called High capacity lines which are built with speeds up to 250/200 kph and can be utelised by higher speed trains like the railjet(Siemens Viaggio Comfort/ max speed of 230/kph) and freight trains which gives the system a way higher capacity and flexebility in combination with a so called Taktfahrplan(Integrated Synchronised Timetable (KCIT)) . Maybe a video outlining the differences/ pros and cons compared to traditionell high speed systems and, which I find particualary interesting, if this is system/approach is maybe worth looking into in North America, could be good content. Regardless of that, thank you for the Great content :).

[@croatiantransportchannel7103]

Oh yes, I would love to see Reece's opinion on integrated timetables (Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic are awesome examples) and I find it awesome that you can use one ticket for all the transit in the whole country. There's none in Croatia because bus lines and trains are direct competitors (what libertarianism does to transit).

[@laurilahtinen307]

The Vienna 365 model is amazing! I was initially worried about whether the ticket was affordable in practice as well because 365€ is a ton of money to pay at once, but looks like according to Wiener Linien it can be paid by "monthly or annual direct debit (SEPA)" as well. Not sure if a monthly charge would result in extra banking fees though.

[@C.Q.Q]

A ley challenge ro such nice round number is how will it deal with inflation when they occur

[@jonathan9662]

@@C.Q.Q Well luckily the Motor vehicle/fuel Tax and pricing of Public parking can be inreased ;)

[@kalle911]

@@croatiantransportchannel7103 _"There's none in Croatia because bus lines and trains are direct competitors (what libertarianism does to transit)."_ hear, hear, my fellow eastern European. Meet Estonia: the administrations of roads+waterways+air were put together to form one department of transportation to better integrate different methods of transportation. How about railways? Well apparently it's not so certain if combining railways with road traffic has any benefits, the ministry of communications is still analyzing that. Those people in charge need to spend a vacation in Switzerland without getting to use a car to get around. (most of our county buses are 100% subsidized and compete with trains on the same routes as well as commercial buses)

[@petitkruger2175]

there’s a great video by ‘city beautiful’ on this topic- I would really recommend it

[@Nouvellecosse]

Yes I saw that! And PLANifax also has one.

[@comentaristax9804]

always nice to have that completely different perspective

[@steveweidig5373]

You should come to Luxembourg if you get the chance, as here in the entire country we have free public transportation. Public transportation is also continuously getting expanded, so there's an ever-increasing supply of public transportation. That's not to say that there is no pay option, a first class ticket in trains still costs 3€. In other words, it's free to use for everyone, but you can still pay for better service. Lastly, it was implemented just before Covid hit the country (February 2020), and as a result to protect the drivers, they only opened up the back doors, limiting any contact the drivers had with potential sick passengers, even with mask mandates in place. This would not have been possible without the free transportation.

[@user-jq1zr3uf7r]

About your point relating to high income users- this could be easily solved by using progressive taxation to pay for free transit

[@RMTransit]

Except that doesn't tie the expense to their use of what should be an attractive service.

[@thecoloursquad8572]

If we can subsidize roads to the point where they're free to drive on, we can do the same thing with transit.

[@juice-opinion]

i see this the same way as m4a. fare free transit wouldn't deprive the system of needed funding, it would reduce administrative overhead and make funding more equitable since taxes are progressive. saying we shouldn't abolish fares because it makes the mode more competitive under the status quo almost misses the point--the status quo is actively suppressing the equitability of these systems, by stratifying the ridership and prioritizing revenue-postive expansion over universal coverage and accessibility the roads and city streets are free to use and that's generally a good thing. yes we should toll long car commutes and congestion, but before dismissing truly public infrastructure we should think about what's going to be the most efficient way to guarantee everyone the human right of mobility

[@nickfielding5685]

He not a town planner he is uninform

[@derpmansderpyskin]

I know it's been a year so sorry about that, but there's a few problems with your comparison. 1. M4A would reduce overall costs because something like 1/3 of the cost of healthcare comes from administrative overhead. This just isn't true for transit. There is very little administrative overhead with something like payment processing. 2. "taxes" are not, as a whole, progressive. Federal income tax in the United States is progressive, but transit funding comes mostly from local governments, who usually impose sales or flat taxes, which are actually regressive. In theory you could fund it with a property tax but this just doesn't happen. 3. Unfortunately, we live in the status quo, and we cannot improve our situation without taking our situation into account. If your goal is to actually improve transit within our current reality, then you should not be cutting off one of it's major sources of funding. Yes, in an ideal world, transit would be free. But we cannot get to that ideal world without working from the status quo we live in now.

[@juice-opinion]

the question posed by the video is "should", not "can"

[@Seawiz21]

@@derpmansderpyskin Hey hey, here’s a few problems with your rebuttal: 1. Fare overhead is different for each agency but with the rise in hardware requirements to maintain viability of things like smart fare systems which are soon to become the norm. We have examples of transit agencies who’ve opted to eliminate fares to avoid the increased cost associated with fare collection. Hard infrastructure, delivery, fuel cost, adds up and it disproportionately effects smaller and rural transit agencies. 2. There are more ways to fund it than property tax. Jurisdictions can increase taxes on themselves to do it like Island County, they can move money around like in KS, or the government can provide grants for pilots like in Richmond. Even then the energy should be directed at changing restrictive funding structures and not the possibility of zero fare. Zero fare and transit improvements aren’t mutually exclusive and have no evidence demonstrated anywhere that they are. All of the fare free systems on earth atm are currently all expanding service is multiple ways. Fare revenue doesn’t cover the cost of any infrastructure that would make rail faster, or more frequent and grants are collected for it regardless. The Status Quo is currently we have demonstrated scaleable successful examples of fare free networks that are expanding transit and ridership jumps through the roof. Transit has to be universally accessible before we start talking about improvements. A bus that moves to fast for low income, disable or the otherwise disadvantaged to catch is no improvement of any kind.

[@Nouvellecosse]

It's an interesting topic and I think the video does a good job of supporting the "con" case. However, I wish he had more directly addressed all of the pros, a major one being the elimination of friction involved in fare collection and enforcement. Fare collection can slow down boarding in some systems, make the service more confusing (loading smart cards, deciphering fare zones, time limits, transfers, etc.) and require expensive staff and infrastructure (extra info booth agents, smart cards/readers and fare inspectors for newer setups, change/token dispensers for older setups). I've heard proponents of free transit argue that the bureaucracy associated with fare collection/enforcement takes a big bite out of the overall revenue collected, and makes the system operate less efficiently.I think to really make the "con" case effectively, you'd need to take time to rebut all the major pro arguments.

[@RMTransit]

I am playing devils advocate to a degree, because my audience is made of people who are intensely pro transit, its often less helpful to provide the obvious arguments for things rather than providing counterarguments. This is the same reason I often omit certain things from my videos that people complain about, most viewers are pretty well versed and those that aren't pick it up!

[@itechcircle9410]

does nouvelle écosse mean northern Scotland?

[@Nouvellecosse]

@@itechcircle9410 nouvelle is French (feminine form) for new, so it would mean New Scotland.

[@kevinlove4356]

@@itechcircle9410 No, it means Nova Scotia, one of Canada's 10 provinces.

[@itechcircle9410]

@@kevinlove4356 oh ok lol im stupid

[@bellairefondren7389]

If we're considering making transit free or not, one topic that could be considered is fare evasion. In New York at least, the police have used fare evasion to disproportionately target young black males as part of "broken windows" policy.

[@xhonkeri4066]

All your points are valid. However cars are practically essential in most of the GTA. Charging more for gas/making parking expensive will require a huge revamp of our infrastructure to make it friendly for transit, walking, and biking.

[@Globalurb]

I agree. Owning a car is already expensive in the GTA with insurance and 407 bills. Without attractive/competitive transit and alternatives, people are just going to pay more and keep driving.

[@zanderc9749]

This is why retrofitting our suburbs with more commercial, better bike and transit lanes is essential. It will make it clear that you can live in Mississauga and still walk to the nearest transit station to get to work. This assumes that there are new taxes that divert funding from highways and car ownership and into public transit.

[@IWouldLikeToRemainAnonymous]

After some thinking I'm guessing you're all talking about the Greater Toronto Area and not Grand Theft Auto?

[@Globalurb]

Universally free public transit could make sense in cities with such a low fare farebox recovery ratio that it doesn't make sense to spend money collecting fares or it could get done with a mere subsidies increase. (There are many North American transit systems in that situation)

[@Blaqjaqshellaq]

Detroit comes to mind.

[@tylerkochman1007]

I think there needs to be an amount to which public transit fares are tax-deductible.

[@edisonz2006]

Luxembourg has free public transport across it's entire country!

[@RMTransit]

Yep, it is a small country though

[@lucal7528]

​@@RMTransitPublic transport is not great in Luxembourg and people stick to their cars because it is faster and more convenient. Free public transport is just a big political marketing stunt imo

[@SianaGearz]

@@lucal7528 I think free public transport specifically in places with bad public transport infrastructure can rescue them. I have lived in a small (EU) city that has terrible public transport, terrible walkability, the city is nearly bankrupt (on paper - in reality it's prosperous), but it has to subsidise the public transport to something like 90%, because everybody who can avoid it, does so, the buses run empty. At that point it's completely infeasible to make the schedule and connections better, because that would need more vehicles and more drivers, and there's no case for it, since nobody uses it anyway. But the situation is overall untenable, the city is also not navigable by car, because it has a walled off historic core under protection, and a walled off rich people's area and nature reserve under protection, and the cars must all squeeze through a tiny needle hole between those, the congestion is insane, the drivers are all angry at each other and everyone else. Some kind of decisive step needs to be taken to break out of a political deadlock that has occurred, that it doesn't make sense to improve the city because nobody uses the services, and nobody uses the services because they're so terrible. So what kind of steps can be taken? Well people who don't have bikes won't simply bike, there is a barrier to entry. But the car owners can be compelled to opportunistically leave the car at home if they can skip the effort and cost of buying the tickets, and people do make use of free service just because it's free, even if they can afford to spend more, so yeah it can get some rich guys out of their metal tanks, and so what if everyone is paying for it, it's worth it to have roads that actually function. That would generate demand in public transport, and that in turn would make it possible to improve the service. Potentially, the public transport can be free for 10 or 20 years, and as the service is improved, the fees can be introduced again, and then it would be also much less unprofitable, it could go from being 90% loss to something much more tenable and sensible.

[@SB-fi3yy]

The tram works fine and is very popular. In the ciry, the short-distance bus and train commutes are faster than driving, because you don't waste time trying to find a parking space.

[@AmelieZh]

LUX is small though. And population wise

[@ericbkennedy]

I normally nod my head along with videos on this channel, but I think this one has some gaps and mistakes that undermine the argument. The biggest problem is the conflation of what the system /ought/ to be versus what it /could/ be, which is made in the fourth argument. I absolutely agree that it’s hard to imagine how we’d make up the funding gap in North American transit if we eliminated user fees… but that argument isn’t relevant to the question of what system is /best/ in an ideal world. Conflating those two questions ("what is the best possible system?” versus “what is the best option among the currently available choices?”) makes it harder to have informed conversations. I agree that user fees are likely part of the "best available" solution, but I think it's much less clear whether they're a part of the "best possible" solution. Reece is also right to point out that owning a car is expensive… but we can’t ignore the difference in decision architecture and user experience between expenses at the point of use versus hidden expenses. Owning a car /feels/ cheap because you get into it for free, drive away for free, and most of the costs are divorced from the experience of using it (e.g., purchase price, insurance) or less salient because of their infrequency (e.g., fuelling). By contrast, hopping on public transit - particularly in systems using cash or credit card payment - /feels/ expensive. Real and perceived cost are radically different. Moreover, only a subset of transit users are going to go car free entirely. The perceived cost matters: part of the reason we've chosen to keep a car is because we know we'll feel guilty about doing things (e.g., going hiking, camping, visiting friends) if we face those expenses at time-of-use, whereas we don't if we bundle and hide them. And, frankly, transit is /expensive/: for my partner and I to visit Waterloo on GO + TTC + GRT is $65 + $13 + $13 = $91, while the gas cost is sub $20, on a car that's paid off, with insurance/maintenance that we're already paying. If the choice is $91 out of pocket or $18 gas plus the bonus of feeling like you're amortizing existing costs over more trips, you can imagine which makes sense at time-of-use. (You are right here that we might not need /all/ transit to be universally free... but the scenario above only really makes financial sense if GO implements their $10 all-day-Sunday deal 24/7 and TTC/GRT are free on either end.) This matters because we want /all/ people to have positive experiences with transit, as they vote for its funding and the people who make choices about it. I agree that targeting subsidies at those who need them most is important and appropriate… but we also need to remember that maintaining the buy-in of large swaths of the voting public is critical for ongoing funding. Making this a system that is appealing to some users and unappealing to others risks fostering resentment, stigma, and overall declining support of the system. Finally, I find the argument about wanting people to /not/ make transit trips (and should walk/cycle instead) a little bizarre. In my view, at least, mobility is a social good: it should be as easy as possible for people to move around, to visit family and friends, to get healthcare and other services, etc, etc. I’m more than happy to trade off some small fraction of micro trips (e.g., someone riding a bus for two stops that they could have walked) in order to make mobility more accessible for the majority of logical cases. Policing which cases people “really need” transit is odd: ideally, it should be plentiful for all! Now, you do point out here - rightfully - that making it easy, pleasant, and accessible for people to use something will make more people use it (that's the whole point, right?) and therefore make it more crowded. But, again, don't confuse a self-imposed constraint ('the way things are') with a god-given rule ('the way things have to be'): it will indeed be more crowded if we refuse to add more service, but we could (shocker) just add more service. If your argument is "don't make transit free because we should oppose service expansion and also crowding," fine... but own the fact that such an argument is based on specific values (e.g., "we shouldn't invest more tax dollars in transit") and if you're willing to hold different values (e.g., "the way to deal with wealth disparity is through taxes, not through transit fares" or "it's worth investing in public goods") the "crowding is inevitable" argument doesn't hold any water. Anyways, sorry to be critical. I really do love these videos, but I’m just not sure I buy the arguments being made here.

[@dijikstra8]

Thank you!

[@RMTransit]

Haha, I think your comments here are more sophisticated than what I talk about in the video which I would consider to be some basic arguments against free transit. I do want to point out that I did mention that some groups of people probably shouldn't have to pay, but I do think that as some commenters have eloquently put it, a nominal fee for most users is not a bad thing. I also think part of the issue with driving as you point out is that the cost is all paid upfront (which some commenters mentioned about monthly passes which I probably should have addressed), this is why I suggested having more tolls and costs which correlate with car use, and which correlate more strongly with car use in urban areas (parking / major road infrastructure). Re. micro trips, I don't know if that's really the only way I have seen transport "overused" because of low cost. As mentioned in the video and in the comment, some groups should have universally free access, but I do think for many we should be trying to reduce overall trips taken and long trips for a number of reasons, maybe I can discuss in a future video. Anyways, I am going back on my self imposed vacation!

[@craigeaton5619]

I think another point is that people seem to respect things they have to pay for - even if it’s only a small sum, so paying a fee feels like belonging and not expected so “most” people will not trash or damage something they paid for.

[@robmausser]

I think transit should be very very affordable to ride, and mostly subsidized. But it should still cost something. Even if its like, 50 cents a ride. Theres a strange thing that happens with humans when something is totally free, that they feel the need to completely abuse that right. Its why most health insurance has a co-pay, even if its like $5. That measly $5 stops people from hoarding pills, etc. It puts an intrinsic value on the item, even if its cheap. Whenever I think of free transit or something completely free, i'm reminded of my 'environmentalist' roommates. We moved one year from an apartment that had all paid utilities, to an apartment with utilities included. Within days they were leaving lights on all the time, cranking the heat up in the winter, and the A/C in the summer, taking hour long showers. As soon as there was no penalty for abuse, all bets were off. Free stuff stops us from being efficient and resourceful. You will say "but im not like that!" Sure, but enough people are to cause an issue.

[@1234canadianguy]

I remember one of my profs making a similar argument against universally free public transit in that he said that people will just ride the subway all day every day for the hell of it since it's free. But that's not to say that certain demographics such as children, students, seniors and the poor shouldn't be entitled to free or low-cost transit, for which they absolutely should. It's just that as Reece said, why should both a Bay Street banker and an office cleaner be able to ride the TTC for free, even the former clearly has more than enough money to pay the full fare, while the latter struggles to pay even the $3.25 single ride fare, let alone a monthly Metropass. This is on top of your arguments to which I completely agree with.

[@derpmansderpyskin]

There is a term for this in economics called "moral hazard". It's the exact reason why many economists advocate against making things like healthcare or university completely free, because these things have costs, and if the costs aren't taken into account by the users, then they will probably use more of it than they really need to.

[@robmausser]

@@derpmansderpyskin Yep! Exactly. It also creates a social disconnect between the realities of things needing to be funded somehow, and people just expecting something to exist without effort or merit. Transit costs governments billions of dollars yearly, and even though we pay taxes for it, you don't see that itemized or represented in some way. People start to think things come from the sky after generations of things just existing for "free"

[@lucaspublictransport995]

It's funny how I always have your same opinion about almost every topic about public transport, even with the "unpopular opinions" :) Could you make a video about trolleybuses and electric buses?

[@burgerpommes2001]

There is an alan Fisher video about this

[@CharlsonS]

Battery electrics are already superior in most applications

[@eldrago19]

The only use case for a trolleybus is if you are going to be running it off the cable network. Otherwise a tram is vastly superior especially as you can have a power rail as opposed to over head wiring that people will complain is ugly.

[@TheOceanChannel2]

Will you do one on a ferry system? Like bc ferries or Hong Kong sun ferry/first ferry

[@ECPDA]

Halifax Ferry!

[@user-bv7um1ds7y]

Glad to see you got a lav mic, it makes your video way better quality, excited to see your channel grow!

[@mondoman712]

Why does making transit free mean it's subsidised for the wealthy? Surely because they will be paying a larger proportion of the tax revenue that will pay for the free transit, it actually means you end up with a fairer system than having a flat rate no matter you income level.

[@zanderc9749]

My thoughts exactly! It seems he glosses over the taxes aspect of his arguments.

[@kevinstfort]

@@zanderc9749 exactly

[@taipeicome3599]

I actually hope it will be real. However, to keep rolling stocks, rail, and instruction in the station in the loop, we need to pay for public transit.

[@haweater1555]

Hong Kong metro is the only transit system in the world that turns a profit, when not just for operating costs, but capital costs and expansion. Tokyo metro turns an operating profit, doesn't pay it way for new lines.

[@markfinn0]

There are a few that turn a profit, besides HK. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio

[@MikeJoseph1992]

I complete agree with everything you said.

[@FredIsMyName22]

Thank you for the sections

[@genoobtlp4424]

I‘d love if CH implemented free public transport simply because that’s pretty much the only thing I can think of to further improve it.

[@mondoman712]

I think maybe a lot of the commuter heavy transit could go free (and I disagree with Reece here because IMO it's a good way to get everyone to pay for transit proportionally to what they earn, rather than it subsidising transit for the wealthy), but I would think getting the income from tourists using transit would be important. Also at least here in Zurich there's a lot of transit adjacent improvements that should be made, such as drastically improving the bicycle infrastructure, subsidising bikes & ebikes and just building more transit accessible housing. Plus on a separate note I really think Switzerland should follow France and Germany's lead with banning domestic flights where trains are available, I don't think any domestic flights need to exist in Switzerland and there's probably a few short international flights that could also be banned because the trains are good enough.

[@dijikstra8]

@@mondoman712 I really don't think income from tourists is a big source of income for any transit agency, certainly not sufficient to justify implementing an expensive fare control system just for them.

[@genoobtlp4424]

@@mondoman712 True, transit adjacent stuff might be a good idea and yeah, what's up with CH domestic flights, I mean if you're making two landings in CH on an international flight. you could justify selling tickets for the CH section and if you need to transfer planes between your CH airports, that's another justification, but in this day and age with the rise of point to point flights, I doubt that's still necessary

[@rae0521]

An analogy in my mind is that public transit plays the same role for a city as our circulatory system does in our bodies. It makes life possible. In other words - ESSENTIAL. Charging each ride serves only to create the equivalent of choking off your blood supply in your body. Of course it should be at NO COST per ride but be paid for from the public purse like the roads and sidewalks. BUT... it must be RELIABLE, EFFICIENT, CLEAN, SAFE and run 24/7/365. There might be far less ridership at certain hours (late at night, for example) then perhaps reduce service to hourly but other than that A MAXIMUM of 15 MINUTES WAIT. If this was done, I think we'd cut road traffic in HALF immediately. Who'd be putting thousands per year into a private vehicle when all the transport they need goes right by their door every 15 minutes? Sure... exceptional situations will still require private transportation... and rural people REQUIRE private vehicles at least to shop for essentials and for emergencies... but other than that, NO FEE PUBLIC TRANSIT everywhere is the only intelligent way to go, IMO.

[@emporioalnino4670]

6:17 i automatically shouted "TRUUUUUEEE" aloud in response when I heard that

[@PauxloE]

"We need the fare revenue": Free transit of course needs to be paid somehow. I think free transit advocates normally have some idea where the money would come from - that would normally be taxes. I don't think the argument "imagine how difficult it would be to get 100% of the costs from the government" counts - the government would be the one deciding to provide free transit, so they need to pay for it (and define what they require). Of course, if you are in the constraint of "X amount of government money is given to public transit, and you can either get additional money from fares or can not do so", then it becomes a different discussion. "Low income riders should ride cheap" is not really an argument against free public transit (it's just an argument against the argument "poor people can't pay fares" for free public transit). The taxes from which it would be financed (especially if income based) are generally paid more by higher-income people anyways, so they are (indirectly) paying more than low-income people anyways. (And if your taxes don't come from high-income people, you need to fix your tax system first.) This also obviates the need of special reduced (or free) fares for low-income people (or younger people, older people, students, etc.). Not having a complex fare system also makes it simpler for users and also for the traffic company - you need no ticket vending machines, nor entry checks or randomly ticket checking personnel, so you have less costs. (And if you say "but then all the tourists ride for free" - that's nice, we like to have tourists! (In cities with a high number of tourists it might be a problem, and there you can raise a tax on hotels etc.)) "People don't value it when it doesn't cost" - that's psychology, and I don't think should be an argument (street usage is also free in most places, but people are still using them). The only argument I buy is "It makes people use transit where walking/biking is better" (though that's the same with daily/weekly/monthly/yearly passes, which most regular transit users here have - it just gives a lot of flexibility). (I even intentionally didn't buy a monthly/yearly pass just so I'd have some incentive to ride my bike more - I combined it with single ride tickets and a monthly pass for my bike, so I'd often use my bike in one direction and the train in the other.) I agree that increasing the car usage is needed, but that's an orthogonal topic ... or you could use the income from tolls and parking fees to finance the public transit (but then you get the danger of coupling those together, and creating an incentive for the traffic company to get more people to drive cars).

[@markfinn0]

North American systems traditionally are flat fare - you pay the same no matter what the distance. Switch that to pay-by-distance (tap on/tap off) - maybe $1 to travel 2 stations, and $5-$6 to travel from one end of the line to the other. Free for everyone would make transit vehicles "homeless hotels". Cars - charge them a "central city" fee - but only for one-occupant vehicles.

[@adammurphy6845]

Great topic! In Melbourne, trams are free within the CBD (central city), which you covered in your Toronto vs. Melbourne tram-off. This has lead to (pre-covid) huge over-crowding, as people are now taking the tram for short trips, instead of walking the few blocks. This disadvantages paying passengers that are travelling to places outside the CBD, as their tram is more crowded and delayed. Of course, no increase in service was provided when this policy was introduced and it's a policy most experts and the like are advising be scrapped.

[@emporioalnino4670]

yea I don't really like the free tram zone

[@adammurphy6845]

@@emporioalnino4670 Same! Love trying to get on at RT57 at Flinders/Elizabeth and it being crammed and then empty out by/at Vic Market!

[@fauzirahman3285]

I'm envious that you can already have the vaccine already. Over here there's still a lot of the vulnerable and essential workers who have yet to be vaccinated. I agree with the points you raise about free public transit. I feel that if the government subsidises fares 100% there might be little incentive to improve public transport, especially when a lot of budget tightening takes place.

[@InflatableBuddha]

While I agree that we shouldn't make transit free if it means reducing service, I do think it can become a fare-free service over time. We should be looking at it as an essential public service, the same as healthcare or education, and funding it adequately through tax revenue (possibly also land value capture?). As a universal service, anyone can access it, but this will mean implementing a more progressive tax system that levies higher taxes on corporations, and wealthier individuals (high wealth, capital gains, estates, etc). - which is something we should do anyway. I think the claim about user fees being a limiting factor for ridership is a bit misguided. The idea should be to encourage trips; to have excellent transit systems that people use for most or all of their trips (of course combined with walking and cycling for shorter trips). Few people will take transit simply for the sake of taking a trip, and even if they do, it causes considerably less environmental or social harm than the equivalent unnecessary trip done by automobile.

[@suprateekbaksi9096]

I would like you to do video on transport infrastructure projects of India. while most of them will be beneficial, sometimes I feel they can get inefficient as they are more for political reasons than people benefits

[@RipCityBassWorks]

Hell yeah! Congrats on getting the vaccine! I don't like needles either, but it is worth it.

[@bloodydoll5897]

i really love this video in the context of the whole thing, i think the structure wouldve been a good thing to tweak. the beginning sounds like a well off white person saying that transit is art or something and that basic needs can be cut bcus they are costly and useless, even though that appears to be the opposite of what youre saying, and i think it would cause less heartache if you re structured your video to make your overall stance clear as early as possible in a thesis, and then went into more detail about why you have that perspective!

[@pmorris1940]

Pennsylvania, where I live, has a non-universal free transit system. It is available only to people over 65. Local transit systems which choose to participate (including most of them and certainly the largest) issue cards to seniors. In exchange, the transit systems are subsidized by the State, using part of the profit from the state lottery. As far as I know, this system is unique. It almost makes me think the lottery is a good thing.

[@maneatingcheeze]

As a KC resident, I feel attacked! Then again, as a KC resident, I'm just happy the city is finally starting to take mass transit seriously.

[@gtmc]

Here's a video idea: Tokyo Train Network Explained. You can do so so many videos on it!

[@Blastnet_DanHarris]

I can't say I'm surprised that this topic would generate some controversy. I'm glad you covered kids riding free in your comments. I'm someone who supports the concept of free transit but understand that the reality of many systems means we're FAR from being able to do that without undue burdens on current financing models. Somewhere like Toronto, it's unfathomable for most to even think about replacing 80% of the funding. There should absolutely be a freeze until the farebox recovered drops to at least 70% with funds being replaced by permanent funding from the Federal and Provincial governments. The pandemic was a good example of why places like Toronto are TOO reliant on fare box, so when ridership drops it has too much of a negative impact on funds. Lots to unpack and if you continued with videos like this, you could do one on each facet of the issue.

[@pampelius1267]

I think it all depends on how the free transit is funded. I feel like it's just much simpler to make it free for everyone instead of having some elaborate bureaucracy where you need to prove you're "poor enough" to get the free or subsidized fare, and some people always fall through the cracks. If it's tax funded (and the tax system in your country is fair), the rich guy riding for free is still paying more for it than the poor one, so I don't really see the problem when it comes to equality or fairness (again, as long as the tax system makes sense of course and rich people actually do pay their fair share, which I admit is a big assumption). Besides, you no longer need to check tickets, which also costs some money and just makes it a bit more inconvenient for everyone to use the transit, even if you can easily afford it. Just being able to get on and off without even thinking about tickets is worth something, at least to me

[@burgerpommes2001]

In Germany daily commuters have season tickets so it doesn't cost them if they do short trips

[@j.s.7335]

Good point. I think Reece should have addressed this. We already have essentially free transit for pass holders, and I assume it creates the same problems.

[@burgerpommes2001]

@@j.s.7335 I think it is much better because you don't have to care about how much money you have left on your oyster card You buy the ticket once a year put it in your purse and don't think about it

[@tja00a]

Also a great example from Germany is the student ticket that often comes with the tuition fee. The free transit in the region can create a lot of traffic. As the semester starts, the influx if riders on some lines can be enormous. False incentives, like choosing an appartnemt in the 'hip' neighbouring city an subsequent commuting are an outcome. On the other hand, the car ownership rates among students have also plummeted... Mixed feelings

[@RMTransit]

I probably should have. . . .

[@macgobhann8712]

There's a project that seems to be coming into fruition in my hometown (Jacksonville FL) that is not promising at all. Usually expansions to public transport excite me, and is why I watch your channel and am subscribed, but the new plans for transport in my homecity are honestly worse than what we currently have. Basically their replacing the people mover system with small automated cars (basically small glorified busses) that both operate on dedicated lanes and through street traffic. It's a very interesting approach, but imo, a very bad one, and id love to hear your opinion on it. Edit: forgot to mention it's called U2C

[@xoxxobob61]

@DudeGuyMan as your fellow Floridian from Miami it is saddening to see what will happen to the People Mover system in Jax. Both of our cities were lucky to get such a system mostly paid by the FEDS but while Miami excelled at integrating it with it's Metrorail & Bus Systems it seems like the Politicians in Jax don't know how to deal with it & have resorted to the worst possible option. Jacksonville will continue to grow & Mass transit will eventually have to be addressed there if the city wants to continue to grow.

[@AaronSmith-sx4ez]

Free Transit Pros: 1) Without the need for pay gates, stations can be smaller and much more effecient (easier to walk to/from). 2) Metro benefits huge from economies of scale...free fares can help reach critical scale. Milwaukee's fake metro "The Hop" has been popular because it has been free. 3) Cars are a negative externality 4) Totally not fair that highways are free to use and not forced to make a profit, while metros are routinly forced "to make a profit". 5) Payment systems can be intimidating/confusing for tourists and out-of-town visitors Free Transit Cons: 1) The homeless/druggies/loiterers would hang out at the train stations.

[@eriklakeland3857]

2:35 it's so silly to me when people act like gas prices are the sole factor of the cost of a car trip. We should be pushing for multicar households to reduce to 1, making the case that selling your car provides cash for a downpayment for housing.

[@Maverickgouda]

I think in order to even begin to consider this one, I’d have to see North America start with better transit service and infrastructure. Too many arguments are going to get tangled into it. We have issues with city density and frequency of transit in a repetitive cycle with low funding & low ridership. What other solutions? Where I’m at, the ridership of buses (no other public transit present) isn’t great and we don’t have them coming often enough, so I wouldn’t see a harm in zero fare increasing trips and a higher frequency/more buses to meet the higher demand. It’s a pro in some places with that problem. Even if most people are willing to pay for travel, Zero fare could help the operating model, as others mentioned, the current situation slows the process and necessitates enforcement. What other measure(s) could streamline this more or comparably? Also, the high-earner paying the same amount to ride in your example is very exceptional around here. Given the current system, it’s such a hassle that you won’t catch this theoretical person on most American transit. I’m not wealthy, but trying make sustainable choices, it makes me feel different being that the people who use it are the ones with limited options (side note: my bad greyhound experience, it’s cost-inhibitive for a car owner). Maybe transit really just doesn’t have a good publicist like cars, because in public opinion it has an association with poverty and yet car ownership is the standard even for those who have the transportation needs that don’t make them the best candidate for it & even before 2020 so many could not afford a $400 blow to their budget.

[@bradleydilks6376]

I wonder if you would consider the different payment methods as if that mode should be free or not. In a closed system I could see still requiring a fare but in a open or proof of payment type of system does all the costs of ticket machines, payment verification people and other cost outweigh the income from the tickets? Should there be a charge for parking at say a light rail station on top of your ticket cost? Along the subject of fares what is you take on flat rate vs distance rates (like in DC)

[@xoxxobob61]

In Miami, Florida we have a half-cent penny Sales Tax that is dedicated solely for Mass Transit funding since 2002. The Revenues this Sales Tax generates yearly allows for Miami to operate it's Downtown People-Mover (30,000+ Daily Passengers) for free since then. In addition Miami was been able to expand it's Heavy Rail MetroRail system to the Airport (Cost $500 Million USD) without Federal funding. The upside is that Miami is a "Tourist" destination so Tourists basically pay the Sales Tax on everything they buy and contribute to Transit funding!

[@haute39234]

We could have a funding model like how we have for roads, general taxes + gas taxes, ie. transit property tax + low User fees. Transit benefits us all so it should be funded generally, but also User fees can help fund future development, provide a sense of ownership in transit, and provide important ridership data. Honestly that's basically what we have now, its just not explicitly guaranteed that x% of your property tax is only for transit (AFAIK). I want that done, and for the taxed amount to be higher, and the user fee to be lowered by 50% or more. I also want the transit levy to increase the larger your "lot size to household ratio" within city limits (because that lowers density), and the further you are from a reliable transit line (because you're car dependent).

[@slam5]

I'm i n Vancouver and our funding is fine as is. Once rdership go back to pre-covid, things will be fine.

[@RMTransit]

Vancouver is doing a good job, but the suburban service is weak

[@slam5]

@@RMTransit actually it depends on which one. It is very uneven. Surrey, not bad. New Westminster, pretty reasonable. Richmond, not good at all consider that it is right next to Vancouver. I’m referring to bus service here

[@phillyzfynest7]

Great subject. I used to drive for KCATA/RideKC. EVEN THE PASSENGERS RATHER PAY FOR FARES.

[@SSNewberry]

I hear you.

[@michaelthompson679]

The problem is a lot of the fare revenue is needed to make further improvements

[@kevinlove4356]

Too bad that we don't have any other way to raise money for public services. I don't know, let's call it "taxes."

[@michaelthompson679]

​@@kevinlove4356 even with taxes, fare revenue is still needed, as a lot of the financing is done by revenue backed bonds

[@kevinlove4356]

@@michaelthompson679 That is a choice to pay for something by borrowing money rather than current taxation. It has the disadvantage that the bill is going to come due, with interest. And the advantage that politicians who borrow the money will be retired when the debt comes due.

[@cduemo]

What do you think about cities that have free zones for downtown/core areas?

[@comentaristax9804]

please please talk about brt. The one in my home city looks like a chicken truck on peak hour (Lima but also happens in Bogota). Should it maybe become light rail? or maybe something strange like double deck 4 car buses.

[@RoboJules]

What if monthly transit passes offered parking discounts and free parking at park and ride facilities. Suddenly the transit pass becomes a tool used by drivers. Then if you have enough lines that are as fast and convenient as driving, the driver has more of an insentive to use transit when it makes sense to. As a driver who also takes transit, that's a real insentive that suits my life, and could get me to take transit more, as I'm not constantly filling up my transit card. You would probably see the emergence of suburban households with one car and one transit pass instead of two cars. That to me makes much more sense than free transit as an insentive.

[@kueller917]

I did have some conflicts with the last couple of ones. Obviously the 6-figure earner doesn't need the subsidy but I don't think that alone is sufficient a case against making a universal service. Coming from the US it's an argument used a lot in opposing other services like funded universities and healthcare. And the last point is more about specific lines. There are some systems in the US that don't rely that much on fares. If making the system free was only a smaller step, and maybe one that could be easily covered by taxation, is it worth trying? Maybe in some fractioned capacity like free local lines but not regional ones.

[@MattMcIrvin]

My city has free buses right now! I'm sure it's a great boon to some people. But I don't use them because the frequency is once an hour and going most places would require waiting for a transfer at the downtown hub.

[@nickhiscock8948]

You could discuss the Adelaide O Bahn system and the Brisbane underground busways. Perhaps as a comparison video

[@oreh350]

The capital of Estonia has been having free public transit for almost 10 years.

[@RMTransit]

Yes, Tallinn is very nice!

[@ianprince1698]

as a pensioner in the UK, I get free bus travel but I don't get a free or cheap car, I get a disabled card for parking privileges but for the card I would only qualify for the discounted car if I was under 60 years of age by the way, trackless trams are what they called trolleybuses in some parts of England

[@Flamindaemon89]

It already is free for all the fare evaders in Adelaide South Australia. Sometimes when im driving a bus route maybe half of the passengers will pay..

[@roylandscottness]

Of course wealthy folks should ride for free too. How is the system paid for? Hopefully some form of a progressive tax. So the wealthy London rider you described is paying more in taxes than they're getting out of the system. Most modern transit funding models, without the subsidies and carveouts, are incredibly regressive.

[@roylandscottness]

We need to start looking at free basic transit like we take free basic healthcare and free basic education for granted.

[@AradhyaGujar]

As a Londoner I was baffled to see the public transit in America (excl NYC). It's so bad even in big cities like LA and Miami. Canada, Toronto mainly has been far better but still has a lot of room for improvement

[@rancidmarshmallow4468]

these are overall some kind of weak arguments. a lot of them boil down to "people who can pay should pay for these things, like the 6-figure earner riding the tube" but we can tax them to pay for it. then, they're paying for it even if they don't use it, further incentivizing them to do so over driving. The other case is that "transit isn't free, it shouldn't cost nothing to use" but the fact is that we live in a world where because driving is so prevalent, heavily subsidized, and encouraged, anything that competes with it must be as well, and it's just as politically infeasible to reduce the subsidies for driving as it is to increase them for transit. as for cycling and walking, they don't really compete with transit significantly, they complement it, and while these modes should be improved, that can't happen instead of transit.

[@gabrielstravels]

Oxford Brookes University students here in Oxford can ride three of our city bus routes for free: 100, 400 and U5

[@azan-183]

I also think public transit shouldn't be completely free (which I have received bashing for LOL). I think people from specific communities (seniors have a yellow card, I think low-income riders use the same blue ones but it's a special account thing) should get free/reduced fare options, but this is the same argument of cars shouldn't pay. We can't exactly indefinitely support either system without some sort of cost to it. Most cities can't accommodate more cars, so driving a car to the city should become charged incrementally. Similarly, if transit is at/overcapacity, they should increase the fare slightly. The DC Metro is having a discussion about this, and it is said that the fare cards would stay to track trips even in a free system. Also, many people noted they don't notice what the fare costs on a daily basis, they just fill them with a round number like $20. Also, they said, without fare revenue (which WMATA heavily relies on) they would have to cut service until they receive more jurisdictional funding which basically won't happen. I think this might be feasible for local bus systems, (the Alexandria DASH is I think guaranteed to move to free buses) but not for huge rail systems with high operating costs.

[@leonpaelinck]

It should be free for children and very affordable for adults imo. Maybe add a "symbolic" price so people tend to have more respect.

[@ErelH]

Here in Israel we have free transit for soldiers and a 50% discount for children, seniors and students. Transit isn't expensive to begin with as well and there are free 90-minute transfers in urban trips

[@KcarlMarXs]

The soldiers help maintain an apartheid state so???

[@bmw803]

I bet that you dont have big unions driving the cost of operation up.

[@ErelH]

@@bmw803 At the moment they're aren't enough bus drivers so the companies are aggressively hiring. Every company is trying to give the drivers better terms than the other one in order to attract drivers

[@bmw803]

@@ErelH That's a good thing. When employees have the guns, things are better balanced on the workplace. Let competition determine wages, hours and all other elements.

[@ErelH]

@@bmw803 I agree. And the Ministry of Transport has been o a renovation spree recently, building better accommodations for drivers at terminals

[@gregessex1851]

You nailed it when you mentioned unnecessary trips taken because it is free. Whilst you can make a case for the free transit when you look at the global savings to the community (environmental, reduced use of cars, etc), it falls over when you have to divert huge amounts to funding peak hour services. Sydney, Australia is a case in point. Currently a large part of the community (those on concession cards including everyone over 60) can travel all day on all forms of public transport for A$2.50. The problem is that a large number of these people are using services during peak periods which requires billions of dollars to be spent on keeping service levels acceptable. Transit works better and delivers more community benefits when the demand is spread which allows resources to be allocated more efficiently. There have been attempts to only allow the reduced fares to be used outside of peak periods (which is still around 20 hours per day), but it's political poison. To make matters worse, fares across the entire network (around 200km from Sydney) are capped at A$50 per week. This results in people living unsustainably long distances from Sydney because it is perceived as being cheap. Public transport will always be subsidised in Australia (in the order of 80%) but you still need to send a price signal to prevent poor planning outcomes.

[@matthewalbery8827]

on the subject of ideas; retrofitting tramways to existing roads. Cost of laying track and the merit of "ultra light rail" (being proposed for the UK at Coventry) Potential future problems with increasing vehicle capacity?

[@qwincyq6412]

Public transit should be free, or at least at minimal cost to the rider. Here in Ottawa they run behemoth double decker buses to downtown with a handful of passengers on them, while neglecting local service. Then politicians wonder why people don’t shop locally. Transit is already subsidized through property taxes so we already partially pay for a service we don’t or can’t use. So make transit safe, reliable, and convenient, paid for, and we’ll use it.

[@Lennard222]

Universally free transit is the opposite of subsidizing the rich. Train fairs are a few percent of the normal workers paycheck, whereas they're 0.00001% of a millionaire's income. With free public transit investors and companies would pay much more than the average citizens, which is very fair, because they also indirectly profit from a solid infrastructure.

[@kuanysh_sartay]

I think, free public transport have a sense in some Western Europe and Scandinavian countries like Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden etc. They have a "green energy" and "zero fatality" policies, which oriented on using more sustainable public transport and bicycles, also they develop alternative energy sources. Citizens of these countries pay high taxes, about 40-60% of a salary. Also, the difference between rich and poor people is low, comparison to other countries, so passengers wouldn't be marginalized. So, I think, people of these countries are need a free transit. But, of course, for other places it is not a good solution for different reasons.

[@donalddavis303]

Do a greyhound episode for north america

[@jamesdukes1869]

Yes they should ik there is some that are free but I think all should be

[@SonsOfSevenless]

make transit free and make drivers pay for it. the planet is dying; we don't have time to mess around.

[@gawi4405]

Uhh where did you get the idea that North American transit systems have high farebox recovery rates? Just averaged out the list of ratios on Wikipedia, it comes to 21% for the US and 119% for Asia. It's still too much of an ask for our conservative governments here to fund that 21%, and service would indeed get worse. But no, we absolutely do not fund our transit mostly with fares.

[@GreaterJan]

I think the climate change argument is actually really strong in favor of free transit. We should be doing everything we can to take climate action IMMEDIATELY by reducing car trips to a minimum, even if this does introduce additional trips. I would be interested in seeing case studies of cities which have already implemented free transit, how did they 'fare'? 😉

[@milesdunstan-daams4855]

the thing is if it increases ridership enough away from cars it will save the goverment more money as cars are even more subsidised than trains

[@maciejz7892]

Lots of very small cities in Poland have free public transport, becose cost cities less then non free public transport. There are to big for pay to drivers metod to by effective, it take to long time. But thay also too small to get enough revenue from ticket system (distributing and control cost).

[@jeffreywenger281]

Something you do not address is the cost of collecting transit fares. This is not small. In NYC, running metrocard is a major operation, complete with call centers and a lot of physical infrastructures. As NYC is already 80% subsidized, the fare charged for riding the subway covers a lot less transit operation after subtracting the cost of collecting that fare.

[@FredIsMyName22]

My simple argument is that people need to pay for the resources they use to travel (I specify this because libraries and universal healthcare are good). Taking a bus (electric or not) is still using lots of resources.

[@AdamFordGhostships]

Public transport is a public good. So "we" don't need the fare revenue, if we are the taxpayers collectively or we are the government. Subsidising public goods is what governments do. And every gvernment in some way subsidises its public transport network already. So all we are talking about with free public transport is a further extension of the existing subsidy to the point where the cost to the traveller is zero. So pretending free public transit is some sort of "alternative regime" idea is misguided from the outset. Next: price signals DO work to modify consumer behaviour, and if that weren't true, the entire field of economics would need to be re-written. If you want people to undertake more of a given behaviour, if you want to make it as easy as possible for people who would otherwise get in their cars to get public transport instead, free public transport will enhance this. FACT. And having a larger proportion of the population more habitually using the network means the presure on government to keep investing in the network is maintained. Which decouples the argument about needing the revenue for investment. The revenue winds up in consolidated government revenue anyway. It's invariably NOT used to to fund major capital works, which invariably need their own funding source under most governmental regimes. Public transport is a public good, and it should be free.

[@RMTransit]

It is absolutely a public good, but it is a constrained resource as well

[@kevinlove4356]

@@RMTransit Perhaps constrained in theory, but as a practical matter it is almost always possible to expand transit service to meet demand.

[@josephnguyen5917]

Free transit! I would vote for it!

[@JacobOhlssonBudinger]

What about free or subsidised transit for minors like in London. Here under 16s get free buses and most rail journeys on TfL for less than a pound.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

How about pay people a small amount for using bike shares by adding it to their transit pass. For every Km rided, pay out 5 cents (This should be easy compared to Automobile tax credits for commuting), and cap the total at $30 or something. This does everything your looking for; making it less expensive to bike then transit and encourage those social benefits, making users aware of the cost of transit and more appreciative. Like you said, charge tolls on express ways, charge more for parking, and I'll add increase land taxes (not on the buildings though) around transit routes to pay the difference, along with savings by reducing road coverage and healthcare expenses. I don't agree with free tranist for low income and charging for higher income users though. Transit should be a token cost, maybe 2-3 dollars a day (meaning an avid biker might cover half the monthly cost), that is easily within reach of everyone. Think its hard getting a 20% subsidy for transit now? Think about how hard it will be if its only for the poors and higher income users feel included.

[@Lachlan100]

2 seconds in and I agree on both fronts, I don't like needles or universal free transit.

[@DMack6464]

U first gg

[@Lennard222]

Honestly I don't agree with you. Having universally free transit is a benefit even if it increases rides that are not necessary. The rides that you take to visit your grandma, hang out with your friends, or go to the cinema, make the city feel less seperated and tie togheter the social fabric. If all of Londons bridges where pay to use, it would no longer be a coherent city.

[@david_walker_esq]

I like that idea, maintaining the privacy of subsidised transit users. Why should it be a different colour card? I'm also in favour of taxing the hell out of commercial fuel to encourage transit use and development. I'm not in favour of privatised toll highways, but charging a toll on urban highways that could potentially subsidise transit makes sense. Drivers seem to forget that driving is a privilege. However, there should be a less taxed rate for fuel for shipping, transit, and municipal service vehicles (excluding taxi, Lyft or Uber drivers). Toll highways subsidising transit could be an issue in certain areas, though. From what I understand, Brightline and the State of Florida are currently in a snag over the potential loss of tolls should drivers make the switch from driving to riding the new highspeed rail system. It seems ridiculous that an electric highspeed rail company should subsidise a highway when the end goal should be getting more cars off the road to reduce carbon emissions. But, I guess that's the American way. As for Canada (or at least Ontario), add another dollar to the cost of a litre of gasoline and give that dollar to public transit. It's the least I can do if I choose to drive.

[@tld8102]

I can already feel american companies like Uber astroturfing this. Like open free public transport to reinvest in the community. Allowing the service to connect people/passengers to shops and business. This would spurr economic growth in the community enabling people to spend money more easily. The way you pay for it would be the greater economic growth.

[@eldrago19]

If you made bicycles free and created a system where they could be deposited at the end of the journey and placed barriers between bicycles and cars then I think you'd get a lot of bicycle ridership.

[@Dogod2]

I'm favoriting this video. It's a great example of diving into nuance that a lot of people don't want to see. Thank you.

[@annie9204]

The one thing I really disagree with you on is that driving should be more expensive. If we had good accessible transit in North America I might agree with that, but since most people living in medium to smaller cities as well as rural areas and towns don't have access to good transit, they don't really have any choice other than to drive. So there really isn't anything to incentivise them to do, it would just bring up living costs.

[@benb995]

As a fan of your videos this hurt to watch. The wealthy would be more than paying their way by means of taxes as is the case with socialized healthcare. Making it free at point of service would not only be a financial boon to low income riders, but wouldn't force unhoused and undocumented people to jump through bureaucratic hoops to apply for fare exemption. It would also of course take cars off the road, increase tourist and resident circulation, further cement public transit's importance, etc. The points you make against free transit are the same as those levied against public healthcare: they'll take it for granted, use services when they're unnecessary, funding should be directed towards improving the quality of servies rather athan making them free, etc. The the first two points are patently false as I'm sure you know living in Canada, and the idea that one must pick between socializing transit and improving its qulity is a false dichotomy. As someone who lives in NYC I don't see this happening tomorrow, but it should absolutely be the goal. I hope you reconsider this take, I'd love to see a future video where you openly support socialized transit without all the caveats.