Why free public transport doesn't fix traffic (and what does)

[@DWPlanetA]

How does public transportation work where you are? Correction 5:04: The Indonesian currency is "Rupiah". We are sorry for this mistake.

[@briantedja1228]

Please learn currency next time😊 its rupiah not rupee, dont mix india with us thank you, and stop being ignorant😊

[@garyknight8616]

Poorly in the UK. Very poor coordination of services.

[@hiropoof]

I must say, living in Lithuania we do have the sense of reliability with public transport, we have apps that allow us to pay for the transport without need of cash, also provides traffic monitoring tools such as to see where and when the next bus will be and where it will take us, what buses to take to get from point A and point B. Although it does seem like the city is in a bit of chaos with the constant development of roads for bicycles, it does provide great alternative for moving around the city without the need of motor vehicles. I am happy with the change compared how it was.

[@muzsi19]

Switzerland: really good, but extremely expensive. I take often the car because it cost so much. Now I have a subscription for my town for the year, and I bought it because of the environment. I would spend less if I just use the car.

[@ElectricNed]

Poorly.

[@jdillon8360]

public transport needs to be frequent and reliable, and have good coverage. it also needs to be safe and accessible and clean. and did I mention it needs to be frequent? Meet all of those, and people will use it, even if they have to pay. Nobody is going to wait an hour for a bus, even if it's free.

[@asajayunknown6290]

I used to use transit every weekday. Then we had Covid. Now the frequency is like one per hour rather than every 5-10 minutes. And service ends at 9 or 10 pm, so using it for downtown events is no longer feasible. Throw in that it's also become a mobile homeless shelter and the only people who use it are the ones with no other choice.

[@Standard_Issue_Pedestrian]

100%! And then the 'last mile' has to be great, too. Walking, cycling, and other forms of micro-mobility, need to have pleasant, dedicated spaces to operate within.

[@Elbombisima]

And well connected. For example in my personal case, I live in an area that is, at first glance, well deserved by public transport. I work in another area (same city) that also seems well connected. However, Getting to work by private means takes about 20min while public transport takes 1h15min. It is not free, but almost, however I don't use public transport if I can avoid it because of the time it takes to get there or to come back.

[@Toobready]

Rich left leaning people want you to take a bus just by making a driving car more expensive. This results in more inequality and nothing else. In Poland for example left leaning parties slip into tunnel vision to look only at the biggest cities, forgetting about people from small villages where bus drives to the nearest city 3 times a day.

[@jdillon8360]

@@Toobready driving a car is expensive by nature. nobody is "making" it more expensive. poor people can't even afford to buy a car, let alone put fuel in it

[@Hasmilton]

You missed one point in the whole discussion - time to wait. We used to have busses in area I live every 30 mins. If you missed one, then you were at least 30 mins late - busses were empty. 2 weeks after frequency was adjusted to once every 10 minutes - busses started to be so full that sometimes it's difficult to enter it.

[@Tiagocf2]

Where I live buses may take up to 1 hour, and sometimes they didn't even show up and you have to wait for the next one.... and on weekends it gets worse It's unsuferable and I opt to take uber rides instead that are upwards of 10x as costly just to avoid the hassle

[@_Dibbler_]

In Hamburg we have an service thats called Moia. It is a ridepooling service and somewhat a mix between Taxi and Bus. There is an app where you can enter from where to where you want to go and the Moia bus will pick you up and drop you off where you want. And combines it with other passengers that have a similar route, so you wont get directly to you target, but in reasonable time. Its supposed to fill gaps in the public transport and is accepted quite well. Hamburg is everything but rural, but its only a start and the Moia service grows every year. It would be a good way to provide rural areas with public transport.

[@wyhesggifrid]

yup, frequency should be at the top of the list as well. Constant and reliable public transport is a must

[@darren25061965]

@@_Dibbler_ I visit Hamburg regularly (you have a beautiful City) and your daily travel tickets are excellent which allow use of multiple transport modes, here in the UK most daily travel tickets limit the user to 1 travel mode OR 1 service operator.

[@_Dibbler_]

@@darren25061965 Thank you. Yes, we are very lucky to have a very good public transport.

[@nevarran]

Yeah, it doesn't need to be completely free. Cheap, reliable and well maintained is enough.

[@leeman1525]

Yeah. I pay 365 euros a year for unlimited transit in the city. It’s very affordable. I only use my car once a week or so.

[@stephenspackman5573]

The benefit of making it free is that you get better flow in and out of vehicles, save money on ticket inspectors, simplify and streamline the design of stations, and so on. Maybe there are a few train enthusiasts you can dissuade from trying to visit every station or something by imposing fees, but are there really enough of them to make this important? Basically I'd argue that the entire discussion is backwards. The goal of transit (or any other piece of infrastructure) is not to make money, it's to adjust the fabric of the city to make it _overall_ more pleasant and efficient. Fees _could_ be part of that solution, but most likely they're not. The most ubiquitous form of urban transit is the elevator; how often have you been charged for an elevator ride? Not often, because generally, people want their buildings used, and the _mechanical_ overhead of accepting payment would just not be worthwhile. Why, logically speaking, would it be any different when moving horizontally?

[@mindstalk]

@@stephenspackman5573 "benefit of making it free" I don't think any of those benefits are robust. Pre-paid access from gated platforms improves flow. Any system with good ridership makes a lot more in fares than it spends on inspectors. Paid access doesn't prevent great transit systems from existing. I have nothing against free transit in theory; it's pretty nice. But for any real system, the extra funding it would take to make fares free would be better spent making service better.

[@LetterboxFrog]

Free transport literally has no value. Queensland is pioneering AUD0.50 fares. The data can be used to improve the network, and being so cheap, compels people to compare with the car. For me in Canberra, it takes 15 minutes to ride my electric Motorcycle to work at my convenience. Public Transport is currently free while card readers are being replaced (Normally ~AUD3.50, but it takes around 45-50 minutes in peak periods, and don't go frequently (20 minutes in peak & often delayed, to hourly off peak). Ignoring the capital costs, @ $1 a week in electricity $300 in rego and insurance, and another $200 annually in maintenance, I get value and convenience. My wife's large SUV, not so much. When I move home to Queensland, the train will give more more value in terms of time savings and convenience as the Scooter will be subject to heavy traffic.

[@unknownman5090]

Many forget it.

[@JimFaindel]

I spent a semester abroad in Buenos Aires, where I became a huge fan of the Subte (subway). It basically gave me access to all the parts of town I cared to visit, it never took more than 5-10 minutes to walk from one station to another, there was free wifi on each of them, and precise timers for when the next train would be arriving. And on top of that, not only were fares inexpensive (even for a college student on a scholarship), but rides even got cheaper the more I took! Oh, and did I mention the AC? Or the fact that lines remained open till midnight? Or that it also linked with bus lines to nearby cities and suburbs, as well as the interstate passanger railways? Argentinians complained a lot about overfilled wagons and insecurity, but coming from México city and its truly hellish Metro system, the Subte was a dream come true.

[@ezekb3]

Yes, as a tourist is great but when you need it to get to your workplace it's useless. I had to stop using it in the morning because it was always full and I couldn't get in so I couldn't get in time to my workplace. And at night it doesn't work and that's very bad when you work at night shift also because as a teacher I get paid shit.

[@soennecken8]

In Perth, Western Australia, I live on a road with 25000 vehicles passing my house every day, but there is no bus. There was a bus service, but it ran very infrequently, so no-one used it. Instead of increasing the frequency, the bus company cancelled the service. I used to be able to walk 600 metres to another bus which would take me to work via the train. Then the timetable was changed, and I would have had to leave home 3 hours before work started to get there on time (or drive half an hour). So I drove to the train station, parked at the park-and-ride, and was at work in an hour. This was OK until my car was vandalised (there is no security and no threat of apprehension, so offenders feel safe in their business). I did my best, but I cannot use public transport for this most frequent and mundane trip. I now drive to work. A former mayor of Bogota has many times been quoted to have said that a civilized country is not where the poor can afford to drive cars, but where the rich choose to use public transport. By that measure, Australia is not civilized.

[@houndofculann1793]

@@mostlyguesses8385 "cars just work" yeah, with an extreme cost for everyone compared to everything else

[@crafterrium8724]

@@mostlyguesses8385 they "just work" because we've built a society around them, if society was built to get rid of cars you would say "buses just work" or "walking just works"

[@TheOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO]

​@@mostlyguesses8385 this is coming at the expense of usable land. There is no place to build housing when every available section of land is filled with massive roads, parking lots, and personal garages. This asphalt comes at the expense of living space (which contributes to the housing crisis) and greenery making our cities hotter and less liveable. I don't have an issue with cars. But cities should not cater to the convenience of the car, but instead to the people who actually live in the city.

[@numberM4]

@@mostlyguesses8385 It "just works" until the car breaks down and it costs $5,000 to fix it.

[@crafterrium8724]

@@mostlyguesses8385 but they dont really save any time when you could walk 5 minutes to your job

[@cdiehr-xm3mc]

I live in Germany. For me, the time lost in transfers and first/last-mile connections is was kills public transit for me. My commute to work by car is only 20 minutes, but by tram/train it is 45 minutes. I am not willing to sacrifice that time.

[@cstedtler4964]

Almost 1 hour less traveling on workdays is a positive, Also living in Germany I use the 49 Euro Ticket. The money not spend on everything owning a car loosing value right after purchase, insurance, maintenance + parking fees should be evaluated. Public transportation for sure needs improvement. So does rethinking of options. Shared riding, Car sharing, speed limitations + save bike lines would be things to lessen the amount of single drivers.

[@qj0n]

It's not exactly lost if you know how to spend efficiently. I personally use my time in tram to either answer work emails (so it's already counting as working) or read the book. In summer I more often use bike, which I consider a physical training, which I still want to have 2-3 times a week, so another thing checked And car? That's quick, but basically wasted time

[@ready4oil]

​@@qj0n Depends how crowded your type of transportation is. When I used to take trains in a city, they were overcrowded af. I can't do anything in this time, except rethinking my life choices, if choosing a workplace 40km away from my home was a good idea.

[@BLAQFiniks]

​@qj0n it's nauseous to read/write in a car for many ppl and public transport is even more "jumpy" with much less sitting space (except long distance trains), besides, what about the rush hour, when everyone goes to/from work and is squished shoulder to shoulder? Nothing productive can be done in those conditions, except clutching your bag to the chest & trying not to fall~

[@weldonyoung1013]

​@@BLAQFiniks well if you're a senior that might be the only way to get a seat on public transit. Falling that is - as evenyone else will not be in public and absorbed in whatever device they are carrying.

[@realhawaii5o]

As a Tallinn resident, I'll tell you that I'm pretty happy with the free public transport and it's 100% the reason why I did not get a car when I got a driver's license.

[@tristanridley1601]

Free is good, but maybe the question is what is better. Would you rather free, or better? In the real world you can have both, but which is the priority to focus on politically? Overwhelmingly, the results say that better is more important than free, I think. I wish it was cheaper here, though...

[@petrhajduk9955]

The data from your city shows that free is not enough. Not enough for the people sitting in car queues at least.

[@realhawaii5o]

@@tristanridley1601 I have a line that takes me from 30 meters down from where I live to 50 meters away from where I study. Comes every 10-15 minutes. Really can't complain 😅 I honestly think the quality is quite good. I can reach any part of the city in roughly 1 hour.

[@mypdf]

I think it just needs to be cheap enough. Would your decision really be different if it would be like 10-50€ a month? Probably not as it is still a LOT cheaper than a car.

[@byunbaekhyun2283]

​@@tristanridley1601 free and better can go hand in hand, the fact that you have to "choose" between both is sickening, it proves that the political system is broken.

[@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un]

Worth mentioning the Dutch approach to biking, by analogy. They've done a lot of work to make biking safe and convenient, but that also include making driving inconvenient for urban trips, the "redesign your city" mentioned briefly in the video. Modal filtering means that bikes have direct routes, cars have to go around. People will bike when it's the fastest way to get where they're going. Same with transit, which can mean bypassing traffic and more direct routes. Also, frequency, frequency, frequency. Another example of a transit city in Asia is Pyongyang. Pyongyang has a lot of transit! Before war in the 1950s, the city had trams but said tram system was destroyed during US air raids, so it built a new system from scratch. Before this system was built, trolleybus lines and a metro system were created. The trolleybus system first opened in 1962, with opening of a line from the Three Revolutions Exhibition at Ryonmot-dong to the Pyongyang railway station. Today, the system has 12 lines with a length of 56.6 km, serving Pyongyang and its suburbs. The Pyongyang Metro has two lines, the Chollima Line and the Hyŏksin Line, with the lines opening 1973 and 1978 respectively. This means the Pyongyang Metro opened one year before the Seoul Subway Line 1 did in 1974. The fare costs 5 DPRK won, or half a US cent. The Pyongyang Metro is among the deepest metros in the world, with the track at over 110 meters (360 ft) deep underground. Due to the depth of the metro and the lack of outside segments, its stations can double as bomb shelters, with blast doors in place at hallways. Most of the 16 public stations were built in the 1970s, except for the two most grandiose stations, Puhŭng and Yŏnggwang, which were constructed in 1987. The Pyongyang Metro artwork is incredible too. Like Moscow and St. Petersburg Metro stations, Pyongyang's stations have chandeliers too! At Yonggwang (Glory) station, its chandeliers represent the fireworks that celebrated the Koreans' victory, and the pillars are sculpted in the shape of victory torches. At Kwangbok (Liberation) station, there are murals showing scenes of the forest from which Kim Il-sung led guerrilla anti-Japanese attacks. The trams finally opened in 1991 as a solution for overcrowded trolleybuses, with three lines, and the Kumsusan shuttle that connects Samhung station with the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun. The tram shuttle line opened in 1995 when the mausoleum opened, to replace the closed Kwangmyong station as the palace became a sacred site and as Kwangmyong was located below the mausoleum, it closed. A number of Tatra T4 trams and its trailer B4 were bought from Dresden, Magdeburg and Leipzig in 1997-1998, while the Kumsusan shuttle uses VBZ Be 4/4 Type Ib rolling stock from late 1940s that was retired from the Zurich network in 1994 on a gauge of 1,000 mm, different from the 1,435 mm gauge of the other lines. In 2008, the City Transportation Company of Prague sold 20 used T3s to Pyongyang. In August 2018, following the introduction of new trolleybuses and metro cars, new partially domestically-produced tram cars were introduced in Pyongyang for the first time in about twenty years. The bodies were manufactured by Pyongyang Bus Repair Factory and named Thongil-181, on the chassis of the Tatra KT8D5K. A ban on bikes was lifted in 1992, and now many people also bike alongside taking transit, and the government has built bike lanes and even introduced Ryomyong bikeshare. Almost all cities in the DPRK have one primary central square, often the site of a monument, a revolutionary museum, a children's traffic park (where kids learn to drive in mini cars), or other significant buildings that either political or cultural. DPRK urban-planning also includes limited urban sprawl, as new developments in DPRK cities tend to take the place of older areas of the city, rather than building new developments further out. In Pyongyang, this is the case with the developments of Mirae (Future) Scientists Street in 2015, Changjon Street in 2012, Songhwa Street in 2022, Hwasong Street in 2024, and Ryomyong (Dawn) Street in 2023. Micro-districts are made up of residences alongside their supporting amenities like public spaces, offices, shops, and schools. A key aspect is both the equality of the residential buildings and the encouragement of people to spend more time in the community, hence the focus on parks and playgrounds

[@Nitsudog]

When I visited Jakarta, I couldn't help but notice the density of their public transport system - trains, subways, metros, busses - and if all else fails, Grab & GoJek (which is more than what my home city can boast). But my gripe with place is that they have still ways to go in connecting the transit hubs to the actual destinations such as commercial centers with literal last mile infrastructure such as pedestrian tunnels, bridges etc. It may seem spoiled, but Jakarta's oppressive humidity and heat (and I'm saying this as a fellow Southeast Asian) makes walking the last few hundred meters still quite a sweaty challenge.

[@ramadhanisme7]

Well yeah that's the biggest challenge with switching into public transport in jakarta

[@doujinflip]

The car-centric "modernization" of post-independence Jakarta doesn't help, where among the first things they did was pave over the colonial tram network and widen the streets accordingly. The subsequent attempts at reinstalling mass transit makes it disjointed and inconvenient (open air TransJakarta stations, MRT with too few gates and exits, and especially you Jakarta LRT). Mass transit is one thing the government _says_ it will fix on their new city Nusantara, but if the Korean (Sejong City) and Egyptian (New Cairo) versions are an indication, this will also end up an massive oversight and expensive afterthought.

[@SagaciousEagle]

Travelling on motorcycle is equally if not more of a sweatier challenge than walking the last 500m let's say.

[@pbp_everydaylife3432]

THIS IS also one of the problem. NOBODY thinking about air-flow in Jakarta. We can control how air flow into our city. BUT it must be planned very carefully! Meticulously! I would invest billions for experiment apparatus where a new IMB would need to be wind tested. I don't care if people cannot build economically, because it is more not economical if everyone have to stay inside and uses air-con.

[@vokasimid5330]

@@pbp_everydaylife3432 or the more cost effective solution, since it's still technically a developing country, SHADES!

[@yanndooms8892]

"You can only put pressure on car drivers if you have good public transport alternatives ready" Yeah tell that to the belgium goverments, because they didn't get that memo.

[@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986]

Exactly the same in the UK. Charge more to use cars but provide absolutely no alternatives in the form of any investment in public transport so instead all people do is drive cars exactly the same amount and pay more for it

[@michiel5160]

They don't care about you.

[@marcgtsr]

That's a dream, you have to dismantl car infr to provide alternatives,the video suggestion is jot possible

[@Suppi-xf1hd]

Tell it to Sweden where they let you pay more for public transportation even if it don't get any better.

[@majorfallacy5926]

You don't even need to make an app. Make data publicly available through an interface and people will build apps for it. That way instead of needing an entire department for it, you just need a few backend devs and a well connected project manager

[@JakubMacháček-o8x]

It is already quite common for public transport providers to make their data available to the public.

[@majorfallacy5926]

@@JakubMacháček-o8x I haven't seen real time tracking data yet. Also I know that european train companies are particularly unwilling to share detailed data (although the eu is hopefully stepping in next year)

[@nunyabidness3075]

If the transport is public, then they’d rather control the app because that means more employees which is desirable to people who run public institutions.

[@stephenspackman5573]

@@JakubMacháček-o8x But of course this should be done on a national level. It's hard to justify the effort of figuring out idiosyncratic feeds. Not that timetables themselves shouldn't be coordinated at scale.

[@stephenspackman5573]

@@majorfallacy5926 I've been in several cities where Google was able to tell me where the next bus was. Unfortunately I didn't keep notes on what worked where. I'm thinking in the UK, maybe in Taiwan? I don't know if this is accomplished with feeds from the transit agencies or by anonymised pings from riders' devices, though.

[@AverytheCubanAmerican]

In Luxembourg, while Luxembourg remains to have the highest rate of car ownership per household in Europe, they consider it a success, as it did solve traffic jams in Luxembourg city center. Thanks to the increased use of the tram system and a reorganization of the way its streets work. The tram has exclusive right of way and has priority at crossings so is never stuck in traffic jams. They have also eliminated free parking unless you are a resident of a specific zone, even if you're willing to pay. Finding a parking spot is challenging, and driving in the city center can be stressful due to many bus-only lanes and numerous restricted turns. So even when there's traffic, buses can bypass all that traffic thanks to the dedicated bus lanes. Luxembourg's free transit program works because they're wealthy and they have quality multimodal transit, and that's the key. Quality is how you encourage drivers to take transit, not free fares. It going where you want it go, when you want it, is a much bigger concern than whether it's free or not. And if you pay a fare, that's money that can go directly back into improving service, too. It's silly for North Americans to call for systems like SEPTA, BART, CTA, and NY's MTA to be free when those systems are heavily reliant on fares to stay afloat because they are constantly in crisis when they don't get the funding they need to improve. Thankfully, the MTA got congestion pricing. I've been taking the MNR and LIRR, and I'm thankful I qualify for a disability discount because I take paratransit, as my fare is 50 percent off a weekday peak fare. Programs like that for low-income and people with disabilities are good! But free fares for everyone on big city metro area systems can only be possible with quality transit being the best way to do everything, with total government support. Instead of yelling at transit agencies of big cities when agencies face a financial crisis, Americans calling for free fares should support congestion pricing instead. It encourages transit ridership as people avoid traffic, funding for improved transit, and safer streets. In the case of the MTA, their congestion pricing program includes exemptions for low-income and those with disabilities, and it benefits not just subway projects but also projects on the Staten Island Railway, MTA buses, and the MNR and LIRR commuter rail. Projects across the MTA system, like expansion, accessibility projects, new buses, signal modernization, track upgrades, electrification, etc If you want a great example of a North American city that has encouraged transit ridership with different options, look at Jersey City, NJ. Close to 50 percent of Jersey City rides transit. Jersey City is part of the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail system (with stations in downtown and the outer areas of the city; like 9th St-Congress St connecting to the Heights of Jersey City with an elevator despite the station itself being in neighboring Hoboken) connecting places like Union City, Weehawken, North Bergen, Hoboken, and Bayonne, is served by NY Waterway ferries to Manhattan, is part of the PATH rapid transit system (which connects NYC with places in Jersey City, Hoboken, Harrison, and Newark), Journal Square is an important hub for PATH and buses, the city has corridors with frequent NJT buses and jitney/dollar vans to places like Newport mall, Journal Square, and even NYC, and the city started a subsidized microtransit service with Via in Feb 2020 for better accessibility in the outer areas of the city, creating a Central Zone (downtown and Journal Square) and an Outer Zone (the rest of the city) with trips costing as cheap as a bus fare and trips within the Outer Zone costing less than trips between downtown or JSQ and outer. In Q1 2024, for weekday ridership per mile, the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail had 2,964 weekday riders per mile. The HBLR got 48K daily weekday riders in 2024. Compared to their length, the length of the HBLR in 2024 is 17 miles with 24 stations. The HBLR goes where people want to go like Newport mall, Liberty State Park for the Liberty Science Center, etc, and it helps that it has connections at multiple stations, like at Hoboken Terminal which is a hub for NJT commuter rail, HBLR, ferries, PATH and buses! TOD has played a huge role in encouraging ridership in Jersey City and Hudson County, NJ in general. Both the HBLR and the PATH have led to lots of TOD and pedestrianization in downtown JC. The housing boom that Jersey City has experienced is Austin, Texas-level, which is incredible for a city much smaller than Austin! In addition, Jersey City has built miles of protected bike lanes and have bikeshare stations by HBLR and PATH stops.

[@beanilham7795]

As a Jakartans, I truly respect you for mentioning our way to make people use public transit. A dedicated lane for busses that separated from any other traffic, don't see that often. Funfact, Jakarta used to have tram system, but it died when car campaign from the US arrived, the rail and station are buried in asphalt, you can see the remains of it until this day though. A lot of it are found from the underground subway project that Jakarta had called the MRT.

[@Tantamazoule]

Indonesia car culture come from Japan bro, so it is actually Toyota campaign

[@wuvme9354]

@@Tantamazoule no, its actually shitbox importer campaign

[@Clukay404]

​​@@wuvme9354it is from Japan tho, like they work with the government to set up factories to build "Toyota Kijang" in 1977 and they popularized it here

[@ZeusWillBack]

i will always choose tram over buses. Its way smoother ride.

[@lunnardo]

Nah it is Soekarno anti-Dutch campaign which is why we don't use the Tram anymore. And also narrow vision of our leader which exclusively sees private transport as a means of transport instead of thinking how to built a good public transport.

[@mariae9429]

I think something worth exploring is the accessibility for families/children. I live in Sweden and have a lot of friends who use public transport - until they have children. Then, it gets more inconvenient. Even if it's often free to board a bus if you have a child in a pram, it's more of a hassle with the extra walking, and changing from a bus to a train etc. It would be interesting to hear about possible solutions to that.

[@DWPlanetA]

Hi Maria, that’s an interesting observation! Thank you for sharing ✨

[@LKH165]

That's true! Public transport isn't family friendly most of times. Often, it's too focused on moving a mass of workers to and from downtown and city comercial centers

[@wkypa_6o6pa]

Cycling to the bus station saves a lot of time. It's a shame that bicycle parking lots are not that popular in Sweden. For small kids we use a cargo bike. That works really well!

[@aurelspecker6740]

Honestly, for a city like Tallinn, they can just try to copy Zurich. In Switzerland, public transit is clearly the dominant form of transport within cities. And in terms of size, Tallinn and Zurich is pretty comparable. Unlike the megacities in southern america and asia. Most importantly: Car traffic CANNOT impede public transit. As soon as public transit is "stuck in the same traffic jam", public transit doesn't work, because there is no incentive of using it.

[@foobar9220]

@@aurelspecker6740 Zürich may be expensive and annoying to enter with a car, but there are still more than enough people driving into Zürich every day. Just tune in to the radio in the morning or evening...there is always lots of commuter traffic. It is the same for the other large Swiss cities. They may be better than American cities but this is definitely not what the goal should look like. It is not enough that people inside the city boundaries of Zürich get around without a car, one has to consider people from the surrounding areas as well.

[@aurelspecker6740]

@@foobar9220 Hey, we really don't have to argue about "too many cars in swiss cities". We completely agree on that. My point was just, that in comparison, based of facts, swiss city have a high rate of public transit and a low rate of car traffic. 20% is low in comparison. But still at least 15% higher than it has to be. (I assume that around 5% might in fact have a decent reason to use a car, be it for moving stuff. Working nightshift etc.)

[@victorchen9170]

Man I paid $20 CAD for a train ride from the airport to Uetliberg. Idk how people there afford public transit.

[@foobar9220]

@@victorchen9170 Everything in Switzerland is expensive, but so are the incomes. Also, only few people pay the normal price. Most have a half fare card (halbtax) and many have a full year ticket (Generalabonnement) which costs 4k CHF but allows you to use all the transit and also some cable cars. For many other cable cars, it acts as a half fare card, so this will amortize itself pretty quickly if you use it for commuting and also in your spare time

[@aurelspecker6740]

@@mostlyguesses8385 Have you ever been to Switzerland?!? Yes, most swiss drive from the suburbs, which are very common in Switzerland. Switzerland is definitely not a heaven when it comes to traffic mode split. It IS much better than other European countries, unfortunately, I only have data from cities, old data for whole of switzerland, and no data for other european countries. I would love, if you can share your data, if you have any. You are vastly off, if you think it's a matter of income. It is really the "average" swiss citizen than uses transit. In fact, I would even claim that the "rich" would use it more, just based that car usage is much lower in cities, while income levels are a lot higher in cities. (btw. city borders are very restriciting, suburbs are usually not included into the cities.)

[@Pabloparsil]

What you are saying "we tried to make public transportation good, but we didn't see people using it enough, so it's time to force them". I would appreaciate it more if authorities just looked at the different travels people make and see if there really is a public transportation alternative. If it takes you 3x the time to get to work, it's not really an alternative. Instead of demonizing car users, it'd be best to try to understand them first.

[@leysan7729]

💯 if you need half a day by public transit vs an hour by car, then public transit is not an option. That time is too valuable.

[@GrinyaLovesYou]

As the xkcd mentioned, there is an opinion among urban planner people, anything that makes a city worse place to drive in makes it a better place to live, short of scattering random tire spikes in the area :) Also, some people will drive no matter what.

[@veggieboyultimate]

A lot of countries should seriously invest more to encourage public transit.

[@Krucezam]

I have same opinion on that ! It also reduces parking space and wont require so called ev cars

[@johnmoirangcha]

@@Krucezam the governments, the engineers, the authorities know what the best solution would be, they just don't do it. It's all about politics and money games.

[@adam145]

When an expensive car that costs money to run is the better choice, it means public transport is just inconvenient. There will always be situations where a car will be better for user but if you can cover 95% of your commuting with a bus or a train then that system works.

[@nilsp9426]

It is in our general public interest because it reduces the necessary resources (inlcuding money) for transportation, while making transportation more comfortable. Sadly, too many people still make money by making transportation harder (while selling their cars as the solution to your transportation needs). But I think there is a great chance in this debate: it is of great clarity and not too emotionally pre-occupied. It can serve as a primer that sharing things with other people (in this case transportation methods) can improve our experience. Too many of us have learned to think with bitterness and try to grab all they can for their exclusive personal use.

[@denziokruize9059]

10:36 The transport system in my country, The Netherlands, get's a lot of criticism from my fellow countrymen. But when you compare it to other countries, it's not so bad. Sure, it can be expensive. But most trains, busses, metro's, trams, etc. are on time for around 90% of the time. And on time means within five minutes of the scheduled time. And even if it's late, you can check the current position within most of the transit apps, you'll see the fares and you can check-in with a bank card, your phone or an dedicated chip card. This makes traveling with public transport, which I do multiple times a week, pretty enjoyable here.

[@NiekNooijens]

The problem in the Netherlands is that service is infrequent and delays are pretty common. 89% of trains is on time. This sounds pretty good, but in reality it means that if you commute by train, on average you have at least one delay per week. I lived in Japan for a year. Their punctuality is above 99% and 18 - 20 trains per hour is normal.

[@someone_else...]

I am a migrant in the Netherlands and commute to work with train and bus 90-minute one-way (unavoidable circumstances). When I began seven years ago, the experience was excellent, much better than what I was used to in my home country, and as a train fan I actually enjoyed it and/or would get some work done. But now, there is no possibility of sitting down during rush hour, people are stuffed in like animals and falling over each other. Just like the country I ran away from. I have to leave home before six and return after six to be able to have a peaceful journey sitting down. This has even had serious health and social consequences for me. For now I have to find excuses to work from home, and will learn to drive and get a car as soon as I can afford it. Or, change my job. TLDR: it needs investment in logistics and engineering, not nudges, fines and awareness. That said, being able to know where a bus is and how long it will take to get to my stop, is still a great wonder of science for someone from a poor country like me 😂

A good system envied by others doesn't make it perfect. There's always room for improvement. For me as a turist, the Dutch fare system is so great. I don't have to learn about zone borders or different operators. I just tap my credit card and go. It's so convenient and relaxing.

[@thenamen935]

Same here in Switzerland, we got a punctuality quota of 92% and a connectivity quota (you reach the next train when changing, even though your train is late) of 98%. So you only really arrive later than around 3min late in 2% of the trips. Also thise 2% most often are long distance trips, regional trains are way more punctual than that (thanks to the system priorizing punctual trains to late trains, so one train that is late doesn't slow down others). Yet still most people already get annoyed when the train is 1min late...

[@Aidiakapi]

I think in the more populated areas of the country the public transport is decent. In the rest, it's really not that good. There's many trips that I'd like to make by public transport, but even assuming no delays, it takes 3 hours vs 1.5 hours by car. On top of that, out of my last 4 times taking the journey, 3 of them did have a half hour delay, because service is infrequent. To top it all off, the last step of the journey has its last train at 0:20, so if you don't want to risk getting stranded, you should take the one at 23:50, and now you have to leave quite early. I much prefer trains, but for so many trips, it's so impractical, even in the Netherlands.

[@Nico-dt5hu]

Jakarta has one of the most amazing first and last mile transport infrastructure. Just under 3000 minibuses serving 100+ free routes that take you to the nearest bus stop/station or to use when other modes arent available. The major homework is the satellite cities, where half of the commuters are from, implementing that same system. We still have a long way to go.

[@Axobattler]

Even in Kuala Lumpur, there is a great LRT system, yet it is rarely ever used

[@tomte5678]

In Germany, even with the Deutschlandticket for 50€/month the train situation is still horrible. Trains are super late, sometimes they are even canceled last minute... We need a well-oiled public transport system, not only in cities but between them and on the countryside. Free wifi, tables, etc. That'd be so great ❤ what about your countries?

[@Mivoat]

London, the public transport is pretty good. I wrote off my car about 15 years ago without replacing it, and haven’t missed it once.

[@cyberRowboat]

congrats, we should celebrate people that do not have a driver's licence or a car 🥂🎉😄

[@eggplantandpeach]

Japan is also similar.

[@ianhomerpura8937]

back then, London built its suburbs around the railway stations, like the Northern Line in the 1930s.

[@danielx555]

I spent eight days in London, and it was remarkably easy to get around on public transit.

[@ElioTheBeste]

But, not in London southeast, Woking, Surrey 🙄

[@TQ-e5u]

I live in Dublin, Ireland, and I've noticed the changes the local city council is trying to make. In recent years, a lot of parking space has been gradually removed, making it increasingly inconvenient to drive into the city centre. However, with the current 'Phase 3' changes to the public transport system, public transport in my area has become less reliable, and travel times during peak or near-peak hours are worse than ever. Although it's still too early to judge what the final outcome will be, hopefully, things will only improve from here.

[@rocko44444444]

Looking at M50, they have to try harder.

[@potrebitel3]

I hate having to own cars, but have no option in suburban USA. Love when I visit cities around the world with working public transport.

[@HolgerJakobs]

It's a generally bad construction of many US cities. They should introduce shops for daily needs in suburbia.

[@armandoventura9043]

Thank Ford and Dodge for that

[@shauncameron8390]

@@armandoventura9043 The poster lives in the US, not Canada.

[@shauncameron8390]

Yet you chose to live in the suburbs where owning a vehicle is the only feasible way to get around.

[@stephenspackman5573]

@@HolgerJakobs The US is all about self-hatred. The inconvenience and inhumanity is deliberate.

[@krishna_ms]

Talking about the UK, it's still a lot cheaper to rent a luxury car, fill it with fuel, pay the congestion charge and emissions charge to got to London than booking a train ticket for 2 or more people. You can't reduce the number of cars without making public transport reliable.

[@alvinrezkikurniawan6781]

5:04 Correction, NOT Rupee, But RUPIAH. Rupee is India urrency, while Rupiah is Indonesia currency.

[@DWPlanetA]

Thanks for the correction! We have now updated the subtitles. Apologies for the mistake.

[@Globalurb]

That was one of many mistakes in that video.

[@mycodenameisejatt]

Both same... Rupee-Rupiah, India-Indian Islands

[@eksen7221]

​@@mycodenameisejattthank you sherlock

[@fidelcatsro6948]

Indonesia is not Indian island​@@mycodenameisejatt

[@nicolanobili2113]

In my home town in northern Italy, the local government has always tried to penalize cars while not improving buses. The result is horrible. Sometimes you just need to use your car, because the area you need to reach is not connected or because you transport a heavy load. In those cases, wasting time zigzagging instead of travelling in a straight line, waiting for traffic lights which are not synchronized or looking for a car park does not help reduce traffic or pollution

[@Ennio444]

If people have to take two trains, packed and with no free seats, to get to a workplace that's 1:30h away from home, while nearby housing is half empty or filled with aribnbs... Peoole will not abandon cars.

[@multienergico9299]

I used to commute by train, however it takes 1.5 hours opposed to 1 hour driving plus, I had more issues with trains getting cancelled/delayed than with traffic itself. Moreover, trains aren't cheap in the UK compared to driving, especially in my case that I have an EV and home charger. So until the situation with trains improves, driving is unfortunately the better option for me.

[@leeman1525]

I would rather the extra 30 min on the train to relax instead of driving. The rail network needs investment to improve on time performance.

[@multienergico9299]

@@leeman1525 If there were no delays, I could agree. But it was common to have delays/cancellations which lead to an extra 30 minutes until the next train. Also 30 minutes times two is 1 hour I am losing per day just commuting. When you have a family and therefore other obligations, that is a lot of time. Especially if it gets increased by delays/cancellations/strikes.

[@zeroyuki92]

​​@@multienergico9299 Delay and cancellations seems to be surprisingly often in Europe, I wonder why? I can understand mainland Europe with a lot of interconnection between different providers, but UK as well? As a reference, I don't think Indonesia or many other Asian countries has that issue. The problem is just capacity still lacking during peak times and poor connectivity at satelite cities, but I rarely heard about significant delays or cancellations.

[@bassplaya69er]

Not exactly a relaxing enviroment even in empty first class. Extra 30mins in a place of my choosing anh day of the week vs public transport.

[@SandroAntonucci87]

I mean those are things that can be fixed "easily".

[@Matty002]

9:40 'easy, enjoyable, affordable, accessible, reliable, comfortable' you guys forgot FAST! in america people will always choose cars if public transit isnt substantially faster, and this is an issue because america seems to hate grade separation for public transit. eg: cities like los angeles are building more rail but it remains slower than sitting in traffic because theres not enough grade separation

[@realquadmoo]

In Seattle we have a massive network of local buses and express buses, everything connects to the train stations and we’re growing our metro more than any other city in the country

[@BiscuitGeoff]

I live in a rural village in central England. The kids love travelling on public transport. When we visit Oxford, we use the Park & Ride; when we visit London, we take the train. However, day to day we have no choice but to use cars. I would much rather be relaxing with a book or podcast than driving on my commute. My work is actually close to a train station but my village has very limited bus services.

[@KuruGDI]

Just making driving a car more inconvenient and more costly will just make you get voted out. If I want to use my car, there will also be a politician who will promise me to get rid of the tax and people will vote for them. I will happily get rid of my car as long as public transport is as good and reliable as my car is. Just making everything worse for cars won't convince me to switch to public transport.

[@KyrilPG]

Depends on the political structure... There has been a recent series of polls and studies in France which have shown that, contrary to common belief (and "ambient noise"), a comfortable majority of people living in cities 50-100k and more in population, do support a reduction in speed and space allocated to cars in their neighborhood and city in favor of more pedestrian, micro mobility and cycling space, including fully pedestrianized and cycling streets or neighborhoods. (They only polled people in cities 50-100k inhabitants and more). So, politicians who reduce car space are not voted out because the population that decides on their seat is the one that is 60 to 70% in favor of these changes. The opponents are very loud, but they are a minority. And the ones that are the most in favor of cars and against bike lanes or pedestrianized streets usually do not live and do not vote where car space is reduced. This has been the case in Paris where the mayor is supposedly hated for the changes she enacted, but she's been reelected, and now neighboring cities are making the same changes. Some pro-car politicians try to override local elected officials, like in Canada (Toronto), where provincial politicians try to revert the city's decisions to build bike lanes. But this would be very difficult in France, and the local population would be furious if they tried. Still in Paris, the city hall recently forced a reduction in speed from 70 to 50 kilometers per hour on the inner loop road (the "Périphérique", Europe's busiest road), which is located inside the limits of the core city and thus, in its jurisdiction. Many complained about this decision loudly and in no uncertain terms, but the results are even better than expected. Compared to the same week, one year before, there was a 2.6dB(A) noise reduction on average, a substantial reduction in pollution and particles, a 37% reduction in congestion, a 68% reduction in accidents, and the average speed by day remained pretty much the same at 37.3 kilometers per hour, minus plenty of traffic jams. If it hadn't been "forced" by the city hall, this would never have happened because people don't like change and always refuse what they don't easily understand. Most drivers, and even a good chunk of the people living next to this major super busy road, were convinced it would increase congestion, as the traffic principles are sometimes counterintuitive. Thanks to the sometimes "heavy-handed" decisions of the city hall, there are now substantially more trips taken by bicycles in Paris than by car. And most schools no longer have cars running in front of them. What the people shortsightedly want is often quite different from what they aspire to, and that's the difficult thing. Giving a mandate by electing an official that will deliver what the people aspire to even if it seems to counter what they want or think they want in the short-term.

[@Xenomorph-hb4zf]

​@@KyrilPGNot in North America. For example Ontario Canada. Doug Ford Premier of Ontario Ra on a platform of building highways and not tearing down highway and he removed the yearly government fee for car registration and he won the election. Since the Majority of people own cars in Ontario it was an easy platform for him since the people who don't own cars are a minority and he doesn't need them to win elections

[@KyrilPG]

@@Xenomorph-hb4zf That's why I mentioned Toronto and Canada. The Ford swinebros... they surely never set foot on a bike and resemble the humans in Wall-E, those like manatees on floating beds. (That's being mean to manatees, which are charming creatures). I'm pretty sure most local Torontonians are OK with the bike lanes, it's the other people in Ontario which drive there who are not. Removing the bike lanes will not improve traffic, it will only further increase induced traffic. The drivers will feel like their beloved cars are "respected", because it's more important to them than the life of others. It's terrible that the province can force the city to remove something that would improve the life of those living there in order to favor those that don't and just drive through, and thus transform the streets back into car sewers.... Toronto should do like Paris and hasten the connection of all bits of bike lanes into complete corridors to create de facto bicycle traffic. A 3 car-lane street has less throughput capacity than a 2 car-lane and 1 double or 2 single bike lane street. Thinking that the throughput of a street must be counted in number of cars is so 20th century. What matters is the number of people and a bike lane allows more people to pass than a car lane. These politicians are not doing what they should, which is preparing the future and being longsighted, by giving people what they aspire to instead of what they shortsightedly want or think they want in the short-term. Why should local inhabitants have to suffer from heavy car through-traffic from elsewhere all day long while being deprived of bike lanes for their own mobility and better air?

[@KuruGDI]

@@KyrilPG My point was more if it's taken to the extreme. There certainly is an of traffic reduction that drivers are willing to accept. But trying to reduce traffic flow of cars down to a level that they are as slow as public transport (without improving public transport) will not make people want to switch, but rather to just get rid of those who have pushed it so far. I'm not saying that traffic reduction is not necessary or that it's not a good idea. However, the car still _is_ a very important mode of transportation for many people.

[@victorchen9170]

@@KyrilPG I think the point is that specific streets should not have bike lanes, University, Bloor etc.

[@Marconius6]

Making transit free also improves usability: no need to spend minutes at a time lining up for a bus at the front door, waiting for someone to fumble with a card or change; no need to build train stations with a walled off area so you can have ticket gates; no need to mess about with convoluted systems when transferring, or having separate transfer gates.

[@theamici]

In Norway in high traffic urban areas you often don't have to bother with showing tickets. Instead, they have a team of ticket inspectors who will go from bus to bus and from metro line to metro line and randomly check people's tickets. I maybe get checked for tickets once a month only.

[@LawrencePetzer]

I live in Dresden and I think our public transport system is pretty good. Still, when I have a distant from one end to another, by car it's 15min, by tram it's 50min. I think for time reduction, there is no solution, cause they need to stop for people to go in and out. A real time info in the DVB-App would be amazing! Thank you for the video!^^

[@DWPlanetA]

Hey Lawrence! Thanks for sharing your experience and glad you liked our video. Would love to see you subscribe - we publish new videos every week ✨

[@stevef1160]

Safety and security is not mentioned here. The last mile for commuters includes walking from minibus stop to home, which is not safe in South Africa as an example.

[@Walfischzahn]

But it has been mentioned multiple times, starting from the need pyramid and car safety and also explicitly mentioning the approach in Jakarta with personnel on board the busses and special care for woman security. It's a complex topic though and that is just one aspect. And I think they did a great job in showing us the broader aspects (which safety and security is one of, but also things like comfort and social status). Actually changed some of my views on the topic.

[@wl4446]

As a person who has a business that requires driving into the city, I can tell you the decision to make it difficult to drive into the city feels like a kick in the stomach. All the businesses in a city get deliveries. Restaurants, shops etc have their products and supplies brought to them in vehicles.

[@Guigui_82]

Agreed. That's why we must nudge people who don't absolutely need to use a car, to use other means. So that professionals, emergencies and such can have free room to move smoothly on the car lanes. Another benefit of this policy, is that it creates different businesses, while not eleminating the other ones. For example, in my town, since space for car has been reduced (not removed) and secure space for bikes has been increased (when it was almost inexistent before), many bike delivery company have emerged (not talking food delivery Uber style). They have big cargo bikes to tensport big crates. Some even have big electric bike trailer to carry a pallet. Some professionals who need equipment use cargo bikes : doctors, or even plumbers. Yes, plumbers! They don't have to install a hot water tank everyday. And when they have to, they use a big electric bike trailer on top of their electric cargo bike. Of course, many professionals can't do that. If they have to drive long trips out of town or have a very big amount of equipment, like building construction workers. They do need a truck. That's for them we need to clear the streets. So they can move and work efficiently.

[@jonnyblamey]

Making it dangerous and unhealthy for everybody else. A good city design would solve delivery problems which didn’t make walking around a health hazard.

[@putuananta4445]

I live in Jakarta, every day I use BRT to work. Luckily for me because I get a special elevated corridor that allows my BRT to pass through the lane without obstacles from private vehicles. But I can imagine how tiring it is for BRT users who still have to share the lane with other private vehicles and have to travel during rush hour which will eventually be stuck in traffic jams. That is the most unpleasant feeling when using BRT. So, I think the use of public transportation cannot be fully used as a solution to reduce congestion in a city, because in fact with the increasing number of BRT users every year in Jakarta, at the same time the purchase and use of private vehicles also continues to increase, and this will make not only private vehicles stuck in traffic jams, but also BRT will be stuck in traffic jams. This is not what BRT users are looking for, and I will not be surprised if one day, if this condition does not change, then BRT users will return to using their private vehicles. But high appreciation to the government and all stakeholders involved, this is not an easy task.

[@andre22ism]

ciledug lane comrade right here 🫡

[@ngoclong2k5-hust]

@@putuananta4445 That's literally the failure of the Vietnamese BRT, when all kinds of motorbikes has to go in BRT lanes to escape traffic jams. Hope your city won't be like that! I'm devoting for the metro though.

[@thenasiudk1337]

​@@ngoclong2k5-hust its also common here in Jakarta, difference is that it's high risk high rewards situations to drive on the BRT lanes because police usually guarding the entrance and exit of the lanes

[@dittoprae3863]

@@ngoclong2k5-hust Also a common occurence in Jakarta. The fine is hefty, though. Prepare to loose you lunch money for a week just to pay the fines.

[@spinnersesq]

I lived without a car until I was 40. Always said I don't need it, then I had a son so felt I had to get one. As soon as I had one I realised I always needed it. It's nothing to do with how I look, it's just more convenient and comfortable.

[@wendylcs4283]

So much! Easily change your schedule on a whim, give a friend a ride, bring home a weeks' worth of groceries, etc.

[@spinnersesq]

@wendylcs4283 exactly, used to do a daily shop, those were the days LMAO

[@brookvisser]

I live in The Netherlands and they have figured it out. The public transportation is easy, comfortable and it works. In the neighborhoods in the cities, everything is about 20 minute walk or an easy bike ride away. We have a car, but it is easier to take a train to the airport, to bike or take a tram to various parts of the city because it is faster than driving. In the rural areas it is harder to rely on public transport, but they ALWAYS have bike paths that link up the cities and countryside perfectly.

[@bltzcstrnx]

Some of these example have different situation and climate. Greater Jakarta for example need to service 32 million people, totally different situation compared to typical european cities with 5 million people. Other than that there's the climate. Biking or walking in 35 degrees celcius at 90% humidity is not a fun thing to do.

[@SandroAntonucci87]

​@@bltzcstrnxsome will say the same for cold and yet the Netherlands is far from a Mediterranean climate...

[@cheshirster]

​@@SandroAntonucci87Netherlands climate is perfect to be outside.

​@@cheshirster Exactly, though summers can be humid. But also the constant wind makes the air cleaner/fresher too. (but the smell from the barge engines still remains near big shipping canals)

[@kaipeterson]

Vienna has a yearly ticket for 365,- which you can use all modes of public transport with: bus, tram, train, subway. Runs reliable and frequently and 24 hours on Friday and Saturday and holidays.

[@DWPlanetA]

Hey Kai! Thanks for sharing 😎 How do you find that price? Is this a fair fare for Austria?

[@kaipeterson]

@DWPlanetA definitely is a fair price!

[@theamici]

That is very decently priced. After a recent price cut, my price for a similar yearly ticket in Oslo was roughly 650 euros.

[@danielmalinen6337]

In Finland, we have a problem with public transport that machines, routes and stops are constantly being reduced in order to increase cost efficiency and profits as well as reduce travel time, but as a result the practicality and functionality of public transport deteriorates and the number of customers falls. In addition, the high ticket prices cut off the poorest and lowest-income passengers, while those who could afford and have the income to travel regularly on public transport also have enough money and income to buy their own car, which is more functional and flexible than public transport. And this leads to the need to once again reduce machines, routes and stops and raise prices in order for public transport to remain profitable and generate some profit instead of losses and expenses. Another problem is that too many Finns are too fixated to criticize and mock countries, such as Estonia and Spain, where local public transport in cities is free for the poorest citizens, because it is somehow considered to be passivating for the poor and increases unemployment when passengers don't have to pay for transportation, which prevents and hinders the adoption of a similar system in Finland if it is even possible to adapt such a system to Finland under the current attitude atmosphere.

[@Xenomorph-hb4zf]

Reducing bus stops is good as the more bus stops the Longer the bus trip.

[@weldonyoung1013]

​@@Xenomorph-hb4zf you should meet my city's planners. Appearently neithor of you have heard of the disabled, seniors, people who get grocries or mothers with children!

[@redminute6605]

“If not money then what?” If it was about money from the beginning, people wouldn’t be driving cars in the first place: why would you spend months/years worth of your saving on a metal box, that you need to park (the parking ticket costs more than the bus ticket btw.), you need to maintain, insure and then rely on, because the alternative is now free. The point is that making it free doesn’t make it any less bad (not fundamentally: rather the specific instance of public transportation), the reason why it “didn’t work” is because it never was about the money, and cities are still fundamentally constructed for cars (even in Europe).

[@maguffyn]

Integrated ticketing is key. You need to be able to change from bus to metro to bus and it all be considered as a single journey, because to you as a passenger it is. The fact that it’s using multiple modes is just a consequence of the complexity of travel in a large city

[@alessandrositopu]

I am really happy about public transportation in Jakarta. It's frequent, reliable, cheap, punctual, accessible, and reaches the densely populated areas which are organically formed decades ago without city planning (the kampung). KRL, MRT, LRT, BRT, TransJakarta medium buses, and MicroTrans, all can be accessed using only an e-money card issued by various banks in Indonesia. you only need a card to access all of them, and it's really cheap. The service providers are doing a great job. I hope the numbers can really grow sixfold by 2030. Thank you, Deutsche-Welle, for this well-researched video. Looking for more educating contents.

[@DWPlanetA]

Hey there! Very glad to hear that you liked our reporting. Thanks for sharing your experiences. To not miss any of our upcoming videos, subscribe to us ✨

[@lacdirk]

Nice to see Jakarta taking the lead on solving the urban nightmare.

[@GiorgiVardi]

2:45 I like when they talk about car pollution and showing Bangladesh

[@farhanyudaputra6422]

Free Parking? In Jakarta? Where? Jokes aside though, it's much appreciated the spotlight shown to Jakarta's public transport. On another note, illegal parking has been a big issue in Jakarta. Less than savory methods done by certain organizations are done to intimidate business owners to submit to having their "parking lot" "managed" by these equally unsavory fellows. And personally a specific route of mine that i take took approx 2 hrs and 45 mins by bus where by motorcycle i can arrive in 45 mins, and by car in 1 hr 30 mins. So there's also that to put into consideration. Love the vid tho mate

[@DWPlanetA]

Hey there! Thanks for sharing your experience and glad you like the video! We post new videos like this one every week by the way. Would love to see you subscribe ✨

[@mvptech5073]

I am in Chennai, India, where metro trains are in the construction stages and have also been completed in some parts. When it completed it will be helpful to all people and also become affordable to many.

[@kakorotskywalker]

Metro have been just so convenient here in Delhi!!! Growing up, after a while, my parents stopped having a van for us to travel to school, instead, me and my little brother started using metro. It got even better with time as they finally finished making metro stations a lot more closer to our house. With the new rapid metro especially, the future for the trattic problem in India is looking brighter everyday.

[@jezzarisky]

@1:07 *I'm thinking this was General Motors and not General Electric?

[@DWPlanetA]

Hey there! The film is from General Electric. You can find the full film here archive.org/details/GoingPlaces and at the end you can see the producer.

[@Hyblocker]

as a maltese resident i feel like im required to get a car to get from point a to b, as its actually going to make sure im punctual, i dont have to deal with the inconsistent quality of service i find on busses, and the inconsistent arrival times and frequency of busses

[@thatguyfaiq7161]

Indonesian here, and thank you for showcasing our public transit infrastructure. Although its great and it reaches many areas, its not perfect and has a few drawbacks, mainly surrounding the buses. The brt line often gets stuck in traffic by impatient drivers using the brt lane, and not just that, once a week i caught a governor using the brt lane

[@joseb1054]

This video failed to mention that in London, traffic came back to pre-congestion pricing levels after some years.

[@juliuspeters1]

Public transport should not be free. Or at least it should never be the main focus or goal to make it free. The goal should be: quick, comfortable and reliable transportation. If the city or government has redundant funds to sponsor public transport- that's fine. But my big concern is: if public transport becomes free, it will sooner or later become worse in terms of quality/reliability.

[@eiden3]

That's just not true. Some countries have free public healthcare systems that are way better than their private counterparts. Same goes for education. Why should it not be the same for transportation? Being free does not force you to be worse than a paid service in any way. What's your assumption based on?

[@juliuspeters1]

@eiden3 1) you just read my first sentence and completely ignored the rest of the message. "Or at least it should not be the main goal to make it free". I will repeat it again: primary focus should be on making it comfortable (new buses/trams, spread network, frequency, connections etc). Only when all of that is perfect, and a city can afford it, we can start discussing if it can become free. 2) You are confusing "public" and "free". Those are not related things. Public transport can be run by a public (government owned) company, and not be free. In fact, that is how it works in most places. And I actually completely agree that transportation should be run by public companies, not private ones. 3) My "assumptions" are based on simple facts. There are barely any examples of good transport systems that are free off charge (yeah, I know Luxemburg). Accept for rich gulf monarchies, no other countries or cities can afford it nowadays. The sad reality is that 99% of the countries in the world cannot afford to make it free (and comfortable).

[@eiden3]

@@juliuspeters1 1) No, I read your first statement and I disagree with it. Then read your train of thought and how you reached a conclusion that is false. But hopefully you will also read beyond my first sentence here; I get your point and agree that being free cannot be the top priority or the first measure to be implemented. BUT it must be a goal, just like being reliable must also be a goal. 2) Cool that we agree on this. I just want to point out that I did not confuse terms, I was merely comparing free public systems with private (obviously) paid systems. If public free systems surpass private paid ones, obviously paid public services can surpass private ones too. 3) Here I think it goes back again to the word "goal". We aim a goal. We head towards a goal. We don't reach a goal immediately. I understand most countries can't afford a public and free transportation system, but the measures implemented should be directed to have a reliable, efficient, safe... service -as you mentioned-that will eventually be free.

[@abiancodesalsabina9554]

I live in Valladolid, Spain, and the city hall has a deal with Google. This permits that, when you choose to use public transport to travel anywhere, Google shows you where the next bus is, if it is delayed, and the exact time of arrival to the stop. This integration is the best, never feel lost when taking a public bus within the city.

[@garethley66]

Public transport needs to be integrated, nationwide and relatively low cost. In the UK for example, decades of cuts to public transport networks have left many people, especially those in rural areas, either dependent on cars or practically isolated.

[@efimmuratov6613]

Here in Canada, it's municipal business, so forget getting to a city by bus on time/at all.

[@mark99k]

Whoever thought making transit free _without_ improving its performance would be a winning strategy.

[@aaronr.9644]

I think I heard in Finland they were trying this idea of on demand bus routes. The routes would get automatically generated as people entered in an app where they needed to be picked up and where they wanted to go. I think that's a great idea. I guess it is a bit like uber but for public transit.

[@jamesneilsongrahamloveinth1301]

This exists in Baden-Wurttemberg in Germany where I live. Some less popular rural routes have 'Rufbussen' (call buses) where you ring up an hour in advance . . .

[@SandroAntonucci87]

Imagine with self-driving buses...

[@hachchicken]

I aggre, knowing where the arriving bus will come is crucial. Not knowing of you are waiting for a ghost is terrible. In Tokyo, they have maps of the train arriving, showing what carts are more empty, so you can stand at the best door to get a better wagon. Also, as a newcomer, they have colorsystems which is very easy navigable first time using it.

[@MrRhix]

I have no stigma against public, i think it should be the norm. But at least where i live (Lisbon diatrict) you'll never get me into opting for buses/metro when it takes me 1h40min while feeling like canned sardine to reach a place 20min away with a motorcycle ride. The biggest problem i find is that: no space at all inside the bus on rush hour 🤷🏻‍♂️ that won't cut it for me. Throw all the taxes you want

[@chrisamies2141]

The crowded buses are true of London also. Yes, there are buses everywhere and people use them but the result is no space at all. Where I live now (in the West of England) most people drive which paradoxically means bus travel is far more pleasant. I've never been harassed or attacked on a bus here but I have in London.

[@afterrecession]

love this video so much. coming from a country with poor transport system, you are more or less forced to own a car once you can afford not simply for comfort but more for relief from stress of using a bad transport infrastructure.

[@TwoNote]

Many comments that stated the things that are necessary for people to give up cars for public transport, chiefly reliability, frequency and well developed network. Otherwise, it is unusable. I was in Kansas City this year, the trams were nice, but they only cover mostly one main street. The buses go far, but for a ride that took 10 minutes on a Uber, took upwards of an hour to get there... not counting how long the wait times were.

[@weldonyoung1013]

Always though the extra time spent on transit was for the "love of transit" - isn't that somewhere in the "planning rules". Yeah, I'm in North America too 😢

[@nilsp9426]

I think the major hurdle is to not only think about individual measures but to redesign the whole transport system with a clear vision of what the goals are and how they can be met for all citizens in a sustainable way. A fool-proof step-by-step plan on how to get from the status quo to the desired state is still missing. But such a plan could convince a lot of people that the intermediate steps, which might not feel great at first, are useful and worth supporting.

[@tbgrandprixengineering]

What Jakarta needs to reduce congestion is congestion charge zone just like in London. The questions are, are the people ready with the policy that force them to leave their cars and motorbikes? Can a new governor implement this type of policy? That's the real implementation of win win solution for public transport usage.

[@lontongstroong]

No, just make public transportation *mandatory* and free of charge at rush hours for students, civil servants, and formal workers.

[@tbgrandprixengineering]

@lontongstroong yeah, that's a good option. Just add more buses to reduce headway interval from 5 minutes to 2-3 minutes during rush hour.

[@lontongstroong]

@@tbgrandprixengineering I think it could also unlocked one high-capacity mode that is currently infeasible - articulated streetcar/tram, which may be made possible due to drastically reduced congestion on the road. Such trams could also replace multiple buses to reduce congestion and bus queue at key interchanges.

[@iallso1]

I live at the end of a public bus route, and while it runs every 30 minutes for most of the day with a few extra services at peak time in the morning it still provides too few options. It may work more favourably if the service user has flexible start/finish times, but it about 1.75 hours to each working day. It also worked out more expensive to ride the bus than to ride a motorcycle, for which free all day parking was available close to work. I have used public transport in Melbourne and more recently in Brisbane and found both to be great options when visiting for holidays, and the dedicated bus lanes in Brisbane were fantastic. Christchurch had an opportunity to improve the public transport system after the 2012 earthquakes but failed to make the jump.

[@spacemonk26]

One thing that wasn't discussed much is the danger of public transportation, at least the perceived danger. I am from NYC and I can see why people become afraid of taking public transportation because of the amount of homeless people that end up on the trains and defecate in their pants right next to you, maybe they have a rampant infestation of bedbugs or scabies that you might get on you, or they will take off their pants and urinate right in front of you, also there are cases of people who bring weapons onto the bus or train every once in a while, or the possibility of terrorist attacks, and once I saw an old Chinese guy get beat up by a group of kids from the street, back in the old days people would get pickpocketed or robbed, the only reason that doesn't happen so much now is because the city is more wealthy and welfare systems are better and also because of security cameras but I don't think those are actually much of a deterrent

[@pixelmaster98]

that's a USA problem

[@spacemonk26]

@@pixelmaster98 That is a problem which has the potential to happen anywhere, people should look at the USA as an example of a country which has been doing public transportation for a very long time and take lessons from our experience

[@pixelmaster98]

@@spacemonk26 "USA as an example of a country which has been doing public transportation for a very long time" mate the US public transit is notoriously shit compared to other countries. And the same goes for the US' homelessness problem.

[@aformist]

If you invest in a thing, and make it work right and make it affordable to ALL, then more people will use it and the increased traffic will both decrease space and opportunity for bad actors to monopolize the space, but you also save money on more extreme measures to protect it. Such savings can be reinvested into the social safety net, which results in fewer unhoused and hungry people, which reduces crime, which reduces bad actors using the space, etc etc.

[@ChristiaanHW]

@@spacemonk26 the only lesson other places have to learn from public transit in the US, is how not to do it. it's often old stock (looks like something from the last century), way to infrequent, barely any dedicated transit lanes so they get stuck between the cars, etc.

[@gertjh5u64u]

Great plan. Make life for drivers a hell to "convince" them to use public transport. What kind and caring advice! You are great people.

[@cardboardpig]

What reduced me using my car every day was working from home. Rather than trying to make people travel from A to B in a different way, why not work to remove the need to travel altogether for as many people as possible? Frankly most white collar workers don't need to go to an office.

[@ricktownend9144]

Thanks for this excellent video. I live in the UK, where travel by tranist is less than 10%. At last we hve a national government which is talking about integration of modes! It should be a quick, easy and inexpensive win, as many of the 90% of journeys by other modes are not possible or practicable by transit at present! We'll have to see how this develops ... Good interchanges are very important. Main issues: Place - make changing easy and quick; Times - if not high-frequency, then timed to connect; Ticketing: make through-tickets simple and cheap; Publicity - clear and big, from way-finding signs to timetables and advertising; Staff - with knowledge of all services and able to help by holding a connection which might be missed and advising re alternative routes. Many city metros already do much of this well - London Underground for over 100 years! - so there are examples to follow. Look forward to your next production

[@franz3333]

I'm from Switzerland and where I live the public transport is great. I just recently had a discussion with a friend if good public infrastructure is scalable up to gigantic multi-million-cities and countries. The system in Jakarta seems very promising and well thought out.

[@rhv3201]

I live in a well known touristic city in Mexico, here the mobility problem keeps growing, not only is the nunber of particular cars and bikes growing but the public transport(mostly private) is crappy and also kind of expensive comparing it to other cities. Nowadays, pollution is visible and the government doesn't seem to care much about it. The most recent improvement so far has been a government managed public transport that is a bit cheaper that the regular one, but still there's a lot of corruption surrounding the public trasport bussiness, that makes it difficult to update completely this service.

[@bitelogger]

2:15 autos are “relatively safe” if air planes has the same accidents average no plain will have flight ever again

[@TTTonyTurbo]

Cars are safer than bikes. Thats for sure

[@rich8037]

Long-term Londoner here. Apart from the congestion charge mentioned in this video, we have had many changes to the roads in recent years which make it simply unattractive to try to drive around the centre of town. Some of it has been done without public fuss while some of it caused protests, but the undeniable result is less motor vehicles on the streets. I have been cycling in the city for over 40 years. At the start I was part of a small minority: now on many roads at busy times there are more bikes than motors.

[@lakhdeepsingh1983]

Public transport in UK is expensive... It's more a case of "pick your poison."

[@Maxonepiece]

Amazing video! Mexico City is a great example as well… the metrobus is helping many, but the city stills gets into awful traffic jam

[@skapur]

Free public transport is meaningless if you waste time waiting for it or walking to it. You could be working that time and making money rather than getting tired waiting or tired walking to it. People will happily pay a lot for public transport if it is close by and available at the time they need it and if it is clean and safe. There is no reason why taxpayers should subsidize public transport! Subsidies mean that it is inefficient. Inefficiency is the biggest sign that overall it is contributing more CO2 than private cars.

[@harrytheprince6951]

I live in a rural area in Austria and last year they changed the bus schedule from 8 buses a day to an hourly schedule from 5:30 am to 09:00 pm - even on weekends. The route has seen an 130% increase in passengers. So for rural areas, availability is an even greater issue compared to comfort and reliability. Although there's probably a mix of those factors to be considered. No one wants to drive in a broken down, smelling bus even if it goes hourly.

[@carlosdanielsaezmartinez7392]

BRT has its limits, Bogota is a great example of that. It should be one of many tools for public transport but not the main one.

[@Happi-HD]

yeah you can see in the video too that the brt already looks pretty overloaded.

[@jillfizzard1018]

BRT seems like a decent stopgap, which can easily be replaced with light rail later once funding for that is in place (mostly because it has dedicated lanes and personnel already).

[@JohnnoWaldmann]

Toronto didn’t have free public transport when I was there in 2020. But it was priced at 1/4 of minimum wage, was bicycle friendly, and provided 24/7 service every 10 to 20 minutes across the whole of Toronto. Thus most people used public transport. The transport system was extremely well connected. It was also fast. I could achieve a 32 kilometres journey from the beaches to The old Danforth airforce base. Comprising a 2m bike ride, a 7 min tram ride, a minute dash to a connecting tram, 3min, a 2 minute foot dash through an underpass and stairs to a train, 8min on the train then a 5min dash on the bike to my destination to work. It was a convoluted journey that could not have been done faster in a car. Also the lack of fare boundaries (stages) for any journey towards a compass quieter made public transit use dangerously easy and convenient. Why dangerous? Well because as a kiwi from NZ where fare boundaries and an expensive ticket for every discrete bus or train it took me months to get my head around how easy it was to use the interconnected one fare system in use in Toronto. There is a reason why bicycle couriers in Toronto are every where and required to have. Monthly public transit to get the job. Mixed mode bicycle public transport allows fast efficient reach of every urban space. And time is money when your a bicycle courier. Public transport cn be the solution if all of the above criteria are achieved. Ohh, Torronto also only had a brief 1.5 hour early morning rush defined as “peak”. This had no effect on fares, but bicycles were not permitted on transit during peak. But that was ok, at peak times it was faster to push pedals. 70Kph down Yonge street, and pissing off the redneck drivers caught in traffic. lol.

[@grafity1749]

I think its easy. If you have to pay for public transport, you want to use it, that it "pays off".

[@jamesneilsongrahamloveinth1301]

In Germany where I live, you can opt to pay a monthly fee (currently 49 euros) which covers any and all your public transport usage throughout Germany - buses, trams, S-Bahn and regional trains . . .

[@grafity1749]

@@jamesneilsongrahamloveinth1301 Ich weiß. Aber wäre es ganz kostenlos würde keiner es verwenden, weil man Dinge erst wertschätzt wenn man etwas dafür zahlen muss. Natürlich muss dieser Betrag auch so sein, dass er für alle leistbar ist. Also so wie in Deutschland eh perfekt.

[@kakorotskywalker]

Here in India, Delhi, we have Delhi metro which are completely electrical (so not much air pollution either, besides the power factories that do), and are just very convenient. Sadly the prices have gone up over the years but it is still the best option for travel for us here.

[@KyliaSkydancer]

In my opinion, the place where transit often falls apart is in those first/last mile connections. You can have the most robust train system in the world but, unless people can use transit to get to the main lines, it could be nearly useless. Another thig is safety. When I asked my cousin in India what the main thing keepping her from using transit was, she said the safety on buses.

[@foobar9220]

There is no opposite of induced demand. Cutting lanes just makes traffic even worse. For a real life study, take a look at the Gotthard Tunnel. It follows that school of though and is limited to a single lane per direction while being part of a two lane highway. Of course, this causes huge traffic jams basically every weekend and during holidays. But even with 4h delays around the Easter holidays, for example, this still does not prevent people from taking their cars for a short 4 day trip. Of course, this has plenty of other side effects, such as people trying to bypass the highway along small roads. Or people traveling to another destination that do not even use the tunnel, being stuck in that traffic. The Swiss now expend considerable effort trying to manage the traffic by closing on-ramps and even closing off-ramps as far as Erstfeld (20km away). That school of though fail to consider the whole trip. If someone cannot reach their destination without a car, or it is very inconvenient to be there without a car, or if they have trouble leaving home without a car, or they have a lot of luggage, or people will be limited to the time of travel (like only during the day, not in the evening)...people will still drive.

[@simonaarflot4743]

But continuing driving, in this case, is true because it is winteractivites, no? A car is more useful for the comfort of those trip. But in my opinion, induced demand is still very real, and taking the train is always an option and I bet they keep filling the trains up. One more thing, the speed of having only one lane is reduced which drastically decreases car crashes. More lanes wouldn't help Gotthard and not Fehmarn either, for that matter, and in turn Swedish alcohol consumption haha.

[@foobar9220]

@@simonaarflot4743 More lanes definitely would help the Gotthard tunnel. The traffic is flowing freely before and only stopping because of the artificial bottleneck. You do not improve anything by introducing a bottleneck, you need to provide attractive alternatives. They do the heavy lifting and will actually improve things. I for example go to Switzerland for mountaineering. While most places can be reached without a car, it is often a very time consuming process or very limited. For example, the Furka pass can be reached by 3 buses a day from each side. If I am going for an alpine climb, I definitely will not make it back in time. Also, the tunnel, as it is right now, is a safety hazard as both lanes are in the same tube. They are currently building a second tunnel. Not because of that, but because the old tunnel is in dire need of repair but closing the tunnel entirely is not an option. In the far future, they plan on having each direction in its own tunnel, but still artificially limited to a single lane.

[@AnotherDuck]

There are lots of cases brought up about traffic calming that makes traffic better. So the reverse of induced demand does work. Not in every case, but it does. It also depends on how viable alternatives are. But there's also that inside cities or anywhere with frequent intersections the amount of lanes simply don't matter. The capacity of a single lane is higher than an intersection in almost all cases.

[@SandroAntonucci87]

I don't think a bypass to no particular destination can be used for a induced traffic study

[@foobar9220]

@@SandroAntonucci87 You obviously have no clue what the Gotthard tunnel is about. It is one of the major north-south routes across the alps, with Switzerland having only the San Bernardino as an alternative. It is not just a bypass. But we can extend the comparison to other cases as well. For example, Switzerland has some places where you load your car onto a train and travel through a tunnel (e.g. because the pass is closed in winter). Capacity is obviously very limited, still we see people queuing up for many hours on such train ferries. It is the lack of suitable alternatives that causes people to wait 2-4h

[@lucianogomes7881]

In Rio we recently had two kinds of experience. One is that privatized train service raised prices but it became very irregular so people stopped using. On the other hand, BRT was expanded, it is cheaper and much more regular than train, normal bus, to implement BRT the city took space from the cars, and there was a bunch of complain because of that who uses cars but the great majority that uses public transports loved and this was the main reason why the maire was reelected

[@Talon5516-tx3ih]

If Jakarta put trams in those busways then they'd be able to carry more people, more people would want to use them as a tram is a nicer experience, and it'd be nicer for the environment - I imagine the pollution is pretty awful there.

[@driss3946]

Not necessarily. There might need to be conducted a study in order to determine which form of public transport is suited best for that specific corridor. In Bogotá the mayor wanted to build a tram across an important avenue, but after studies considering factors such as street width, frequency of intersections, stops and interconnectivity, BRT was favored and allowed to move more people than with the tram. The discussion doesn't have to be necessary as to which mode of transit is best, but rather what system is suited best for that specific corridor.

[@stephenspackman5573]

Buses that run in dedicated lanes, in particular, can be pretty big, and they can be electrified (again, spending most or all of their time in dedicated lanes simplifies this). They're less disrupted by construction than trams and are more easily able to fan out at the ends of routes to provide varied service. I say all this in the interest of balance, I'm actually a rail person myself, but I'm increasingly persuaded that BRT makes all kinds of sense in some contexts, and certainly as a bootstrap.

[@szymex22]

You can also use 24-meter double articulated electric busses which have the same effect but don’t need expensive investment into rails

[@ianhomerpura8937]

Jakarta actually built a brand new metro underneath the TransJakarta busway, it opened back in 2019, and expansion is still ongoing.

[@ngoclong2k5-hust]

​@@stephenspackman5573 Well... for us Vietnamese though, we need metro lines for most of the city though, BRT is very inefficient here. In 2016, the first BRT line in Hanoi (Giảng Võ - Láng Hạ - Lê Văn Lương - Tố Hữu) was opened. And as soon as 2 - 3 years later, Hanoi realized that this line is a massive failure. The BRT line itself has a capacity of a few thousand dwellers per day, which is ABYSMAL compare to the tens of thousands of dwellers going through this route. And the BRT does have a separate lane, which is good... until you realize that it's not elevated. And since this is a very important road to go to other district like Nam Từ Liêm and Hà Đông, combine with the very bad land use here (Lê Văn Lương road has 33 high-rise apartment complex with just 2 lanes for traffic, without BRT), this goes onto a very bad situation every single day. Motorbikes have to run into the BRT lanes to escape the f**king immense traffic jam here, making BRT absolutely dysfunctional. And so no one use that BRT lane often, because it's generally faster to go on a motorbike (to escape traffic jam) than to go on that line. And it makes Hanoi government losing a massive amount of money, up till this day. This will be removed in 2026 (I guess, because that was an project with ODA capital for 10-years long). We'll need metro for such a densely populated, but also very spread out city like Hanoi. And considering that metro lines here were plagued with slow construction speed (because of all the massive capital and land we have to get for this), I won't think that BRT will ever solve the traffic problem in Hanoi. In recent years though, metro lines have been building faster, and there's a significant down in car and motorbike usage ratio after the Nhổn - Cầu Giấy line was opened in August, so I'd think the situation can be better for the next years. But with that much population that we have to transport, we'll use ARTs, not BRTs anyway.

[@EngrUsmanx]

❤ Thanks DW. I am planning to conduct a research on Transportaion Planning & Policy Making.

[@b52747]

they can hire Not Just Bikes as consultant

[@kopexgaming]

high tax for cars, high gas price for cars, high parking ticket for cars, low ticket for public transport, make good transit like tokyo and barcelona.. problem solved

[@herreach6955]

Jakarta's residence here. As Indonesia is not a high income country, most people cannot afford a private car. As you see in the statistic, 3 million cars and 17 million motorcycle, the population of the metropolitan Jakarta is 32 million. The challenge is to increase the capacity of public transport first before making people ride on it.

[@aprisurya9431]

public transport is cheap, how come they cant afford?

[@anindariskaaprilia7034]

Pls😂 if transjakarta only cost rp 3500 wdym its more expensive than car?

[@efimmuratov6613]

​@@anindariskaaprilia7034 You are not thinking total costs at the end of the month. Consider just these 3: food along the ride, suitable clothing, stress.

[@herreach6955]

@@aprisurya9431 sorry, it was supposed to be private car, wrong writing

[@herreach6955]

@@anindariskaaprilia7034 sorry, wrong writing, I was supposed to say private car

[@x64hitcombo]

I live in Kansas City which has had free public transport for a long time. But the city itself is a tangle of massive freeways and sprawled to the extreme. Our tram has coverage of about 2 miles tops (they're expanding it now). The fabric for transit use just isn't there. However, transit being free enables mobility for many underprivileged citizens, and lots with limited mobility. Transit should 100% be free, but decisions needs to be made about how to pay for meaningful expansion.

[@grafity1749]

5:21 remindes me of a very dark time of history in the US and South Africa 😮😢

[@zapster1543]

As a Jakartan who has been using public transport almost every day for 8 years (I cannot drive), there's one thing worth mentioning aside from reliability and comfort, which is the duration of travel. Even with all the traffic jams and such, motorbikes are still the most favored mode of transport because they are swift compared to buses/trains. When taking bus, you need to mind for waiting time, the travel time which still disrupted by traffic jam (yeah the dedicated bus lane is not universally sterile), and the first/last mile. For example, for me to go to work, I need to walk for around 5 minutes to nearest bus station, then waiting for 5-10 minutes for the bus, take the bus travel for about 40 minute up to 60 on the rush hour, then ride some motorbike taxi to saves time for about 20 minute until I reached the office, with the total time of travel around one and a half hour in light traffic. The journey home gonna take way longer than that around two hours because I usually take MikroTrans to reach the Bus Station rather than motorbike taxi to saves money. Compared to ride motorbikes directly from home to office, it'll just take around 45 minutes of travel time already counted for traffics. It's just so much faster.

[@paocut9018]

I live in Geneva, Swizzerland, where most people would take public transport over cars any day. Why? Because buses and trams are 1. Very frequent 2. Quick 3. It can take you practically anywhere in the city 4. It's clean and well maintained and 5. Since it's so frequent, it's very rarely packed with people.

[@RatelHBadger]

My town, has 40,000 people in it. Maybe 10km end to end in all directions (it's almost a perfect square). There are NO public transport options at all. So if you want to go to the shops in the centre of town, you HAVE to drive, or face a 40minute walk. We have a long distance commuter train that stops twice a day, but the nearest connections for that is also at least 30mins in each direction. It's no wonder every house has at least 2 cars outside it.

[@darkmater4tm]

Driving is also heavily subsidized. Roads, traffic lights, city parking are all immensely expensive, but somehow given out for free. By comparison, public transport is already so cheap and efficient, that it is impossible to subsidize it enough.

[@SandroAntonucci87]

You're right, people think that car infra is free for the public funds That's the typical thinking of carbrains.

[@KosmicKitchen]

For free? Take into account: vehicle registration tax, road tax, fuel tax. Drivers contribute heavily to public budget.

[@SandroAntonucci87]

​@@KosmicKitchenEvery single video that "attacks" cars dominance there's someone that thinks that car infra is paid and covered by taxes. There are plenty of studies out there that prove the opposite.

[@KosmicKitchen]

@@SandroAntonucci87 „Car infrastructure” happens to overlap with bus, infrastructure, delivery truck infrastructure, bike infrastructure etc. Roads are not vanity projects, given for „free” to car enthusiasts. It is an essential component of a civilised society.

[@SandroAntonucci87]

@KosmicKitchen this is pure carbrainism. You're saying 1 car used by one person needs the same space or infrastructure (and parking for -every- destination) of a bike, or trucks or transit serving thousands of people (and no parking required to destinations). It's insane to put them at the same level and think that it's financially sustainable because you pay road taxes (it's not). Let's not talk about all the indirect issues: air pollution, road deaths, noise pollution and no physical activity health issues. Are you also offsetting these deaths with road taxes? European countries must be crazy to invest billions yearly to reduce car usage. Must be ideology 🙈 Escaping the city to rural areas (I imagine you escape it because there are too many cars that cause noise and overall mess?) because it's fun *is" vanity. Now I'm not saying it shouldn't exist but please read the data before assuming things just because you can't accept something is wrong and should be addressed. So yes, car infrastructure (for massive private usage) is given out for free almost.

[@michellenugent216]

Luxembourg here, buses still get stuck in car traffic entering and leaving the city: at rush hours it can take 20 min to cover 300m and you can't get off the bus and walk since you're between stops. Progress is being made, but the car is still king

[@stijn2644]

aah yes, pay more to use your stuff, that will turn out great. If cars are so much more expensive and you make the other option literally free and still you don't see a shift, then maybe the problem is not money. Making a bad thing cheap doesn't change the fact that it's bad. Make the alternative better instead of forcing people to change.

[@efimmuratov6613]

Thank you for your healthy common sense and opinion.

[@Australianchessplayer]

Mandurah, CARP. I live alone, don't drive at night, the bus service might run as often as hourly. At Lakelands "connecting buses" leave a minute or so before I can board one. I can't go out a night unless I get a lift both ways.

[@Ajora1]

The biggest problem of public transport are people. Drunk people, security, homeless people (in free or low cost systems), loud and annoying people (music, phone calls, etc). So i rather go by car and have a nice chill ride.

[@DaleShultz-m5e]

Iowa City also has free busses. Ridership increased almost 50% when they became free.

[@k3ssen]

I really dislike arguments like "free public travel doesn't help reduce traffic jams, because people take the bus instead of bike". For the sake of sanity: why not make long distance public travel (like trains) free and short distance cheap, so people still pick bike over bus when they can, but choose train over car. Very few people take the bike for distances over 20km, so making the train free would have little impact on people switching bike to train. You *could* also make the train cheaper, but IMO it'd be a waste to uphold payment systems and keep checking tickets. As it stands now in my own country, people pick car over train for three main reasons: time, convenience and money. The train is more expensive than petrol for a small car, even when you drive alone. That's just insane, because it means the train can only be cheaper when you ditch your car entirely. People might ditch their car when they get used to public travel, but most won't even try public travel because paying for both your car (maintenance, taxes) and public travel is way too costly.

[@carleryk]

As a Tallinner, I was a bit confused about the "cyclers went to buses" argument since we had literally zero bicycle infrastructure in Tallinn before 2020. Only a few kilometers of separate bicycle lines perhaps but that's it. Most people who cycled did it after work as a hobby or sport. Now, as the city is building new bike lanes there are so many more people who choose to commute via cycling. Visually it seems like the number has tripled.