
Estonia plans to become a free public transport nation - doener
https://popupcity.net/estonia-to-become-the-worlds-first-free-public-transport-nation/
======
IkmoIkmo
Makes sense and I'm a big fan. The only worry I have are a lack of market
forces. How do five bussing companies compete if there's no revenue model. I
wonder how they tackled that.

For example it may make sense to charge more for luxurious buses, or for a
buses that drive on a dedicated lane for which they pay a more expensive
license but are faster, or buses that offer wifi, or buses that come by every
five minutes, or buses that drive at 3am. These all have fundamentally
different cost components. Does the government pay for it all, allowing bus
companies to inflate prices? Are there caps? If so, on what basis? And how
does pricing work in a low-competition area like a subway operator with a 30y
license, and government paying for it all?

Again, I'm a big fan and we need to move this forward. But I'm interested in
what system they (and other cities that experiment with this) put in place to
manage it all.

Either way, can't wait to see this arrive in my city. Working remotely, strong
local walkable communities, ubiquitous public transport and automated
ridesharing are strong candidates for the future, all of it electric and low-
sound. That should increase traffic density, clean up cities from sound and
pollution, make traffic safer and cheaper.

edit: another issue that comes up is demand-control. For example I currently
have a 60-70% discount subscription but only if I travel outside of peak
hours. That absolutely induces me to travel differently, e.g. leave home
earlier or stay a bit longer at work or uni until I get my discount. Free
public transport removes that instrument. There's a lot of talk nowadays about
trying to change the 9 to 5 model to one that's spread out more. e.g.
universities having an 11 to 7 model, some companies going 10 to 6. Part of
that story is traffic management, and free public traffic throws out this
instrument. It may also disincentivize cycling, to a small extent walking, and
perhaps most importantly, wanting to live as close to the 'rest of the day'
(work, school, friends) as possible to reduce costs.

~~~
jdietrich
Buses are a hard problem.

In the UK, most of the bus network was in public ownership until the 1980s.
The Thatcher government deregulated the bus industry, allowing any operator to
run bus services and set their own routes and timetables. This greatly
increased the level of competition on popular and profitable routes, but it
also created the problem of cherry-picking.

The new private operators didn't bother with unprofitable but socially-
valuable routes, which local governments felt obliged to serve or subsidise.
The most profitable routes often became massively oversaturated, with
competing operators engaging in "bus wars" in an attempt to dominate that
route and force out the other operators.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_deregulation_in_Great_Brit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_deregulation_in_Great_Britain)

~~~
Tuna-Fish
> The new private operators didn't bother with unprofitable but socially-
> valuable routes, which local governments felt obliged to serve or subsidise.

That's exactly how it should be. A lot of people have the idea that bus
operators should be forced to drive the unprofitable routes in order to be
allowed to drive the profitable ones. This would work if buses were literally
the only way to get around. Since they are not, what it does is drive up the
cost of public transport and make it less appealing. In Finland, it eventually
caused the prices to rise so high, that it was generally cheaper to drive.
This is socially disastrous.

If there is a route that is not profitable to run, you should not expect a
company to run it. The free market should manage the profitable routes, and
drive down the prices as low as they can go. Any socially valuable routes on
top of those should be subsidized out of the taxes of the people they provide
value to.

~~~
marksbrown
1\. Bus passengers are not rational actors in the free market. They'll get on
the first available. In routes with multiple services consumers will prefer to
just buy a ticket like 'system one' in Manchester. 2\. Frequency and
reliability of service on a long term encourages take up. London has
Overground trains run every 15 minutes regardless of user take up. Bus
companies can't or won't offer service like that. 3\. Bus users are poorer.
Those of us who can afford to opt out of the market do so. That encourages
decline. Externalities like air pollution, community access for the elderly
are left to local government despite lack of political will or capital.

Essentially I believe public transport should be encouraged as a common good
that pays dividends in society as a whole.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
> 1\. Bus passengers are not rational actors in the free market. They'll get
> on the first available.

Strongly disagree. That may be true if there is no good way of getting
information, but once there is a website/app that lets you enter your source,
destination and departure time, and which clearly lists all the options with
their prices, people do effectively shop around and make rational choices
about their routes. This has been shown to work pretty well in Finland.

~~~
amaccuish
Not anywhere else I know, and I've lived in many places. 99% of the time
people get on the first bus that arrives. Only if it's their commute bus might
they look at times and prices. The free market really doesn't work well with
public transport, as shown by the mess that is our train system (UK).

~~~
ChrisSD
The UK train system isn't exactly a free market. The trains and tracks are all
owned by the government. The government also decides who gets the contract to
operate trains.

~~~
amaccuish
True, but I don't see how you can have a "free market" on a train track
otherwise. You've got to schedule trains, you can't have them coming and going
as the market reorganises. And there's little possibility of choice, there's
usually only one reasonable route to get somewhere, people don't want to add 6
hours of their journey time, to go via an alternative route.

~~~
gsnedders
There are competing operators in various places in Europe, the UK included.

The clearest example is probably Hamburg-Köln-Express in Germany, which
operates trains that take around the same time as the state-owned incumbent
(DB Fernverkehr), but on older rolling stock for a lower price.

The hard part is "how do you divide up the capacity on the infrastructure",
but this is a problem that has clearly existed throughout the EU since 2007
(when there's been open access freight operators), though has in reality
existed much longer (most international services, for example) hence track
access and allocation being the subject of an EU directive all the way back in
1995.

------
albertgoeswoof
In London I get the tube/bus everyday. Each bus idles for 2-3 minutes at every
stop, and there are stops every 100-200m, for a 2km bus ride roughly half of
the time, and fuel, is spent waiting for people to get on and off the bus,
with the bottleneck at the front of the bus where you have to tap in your RFID
card.

The bus system is not generally used by wealthy people (house/rents are way
higher near a tube station) I would guess that at least 60-70% of the people
on a given bus in London are either over 60 (so not paying), under 18 (paying
a reduced rate) or on benefits already (so the government is already paying
indirectly).

So what is the point in charging? I think you could remove the requirement to
pay / tap in on the bus and cut the number of buses running in half, without
reducing profitabliity or service significantly. And you'd get better air
quality in London as well.

~~~
stevekemp
> there are stops every 100-200m

This is true, but it's actually fascinating that this is required for the
elderly and immobile. If the stops are too far apart then people have to walk
too far to get the bus, and so in practice they don't.

I used to feel the same when I lived in Edinburgh, that the stops were too
frequent, but despite the stopping/starting it was useful for others.

Edinburgh has (had?) a fantastic local bus-service. Definitely the best I've
experienced in the UK, cheap, reliable, and an unusually friendly set of
drivers.

~~~
failedartifact
I hope you're just referring to the bus routes in Edinburgh!

The payment system stinks: cash-wise, they only accept exact change only. You
can pay a £1.70 single with £2, you just don't get change.

You can pay with the bus app, but this is a hideous payment app that is
seriously flawed. Firstly, you have to top up minimum of £10, so no automatic
integration to your bank account or PayPal. Secondly, you have to 'purchase' a
ticket on the app just before the bus arrives, and it has a time limit. Within
this time-limit of 2 minutes, you have to show the driver the ticket. The
driver does nothing other than Yay/Nay it. No scanning or anything. Makes it
infuriating to use. This is not just Edinburgh, but other parts of Scotland,
like Dundee.

~~~
stevekemp
Exact-change-only is certainly an annoyance, but the routes, promptness, and
decent busses were always a plus-point.

If you pay too much you can get a form from the driver to claim your refund -
alhtough I know almost nobody does it, and I never did the few times I was
caught short of change.

(I remember before it was a flat-far, when I moved to Edinburgh in 1994 there
was a sliding scale to pay for bus-journeys. Something like 50p for 1-3 stops,
60p for 1-5, etc. I remember when that changed and it became 80p for any
journey and gradually crept up to £1, £1.10, £1.20, etc.)

------
chiefalchemist
I hate to mince words but...instead of free, I'd prefer if we used publicly
funded, or similar.

1) Usage might be "free" but ultimately someone somewhere is paying for it.

2) More accurate wording would actually better reflect the priorities of that
particular culture, often in contrast to others of different priorities.

Free here sounds like "oh, a ride doesn't have to pay a buck. How nice." But
the accomplishment is much bigger (and requires a larger financial commitment)
than that.

p.s. As a side note, I hope someone is going to study the health related side
effects. That is, for example, will riding more mean walking less? Will that
add up to an unintended consequence?

~~~
imtringued
>1) Usage might be "free" but ultimately someone somewhere is paying for it.

That is the definition of free.

Free always means that someone is paying for it. If I give you a book for free
I still had to pay for it. The purpose of the word is that the receiver of the
good didn't have to pay.

~~~
chiefalchemist
The point is, those using the service are paying (in taxes, or similar). They
just don't pay at the time of being served. Pre or post paying doesn't make it
free.

Let's not be so naive.

------
petecox
Well we all pay taxes, so why not?

A study a number of years ago for my city suggested that the costs of a
ticketing system from maintenance of machines to employing station staff and
ticket inspectors was higher than the revenue that was collected from fares.

~~~
failedartifact
Can you tell us which city?

~~~
petecox
Melbourne, with trams, trains and buses.

That was before they went $AU1billion over budget designing Myki, a smart
ticket system.

Tickets are more expensive than most international cities I've visited and
even then they still run at a loss, having to compensate private operators.

------
ethagknight
So great. In Memphis, TN, I have tried for years to convince our transit
authority MATA and our downtown commission DMC to make our light rail (ahem,
historic trolley) free, on the following basis: MATA covers 1/7th of its
overall opex from fare boxes revenue. The trolleys bring in approximately
$700k in a good year. Why even bother with funds control and ticketing
services at that point? The direct benefit of increased visitor and resident
mobility far exceed the cost and could _easily_ be made up for from hotel
occupancy tax or myriad other sources. Instead, the city focuses on a
convoluted and expensive parking garage scheme that is mainly an inhibitor,
while still losing money on the mass transit.

My lobbying is always met with "heh, how are you planning to pay for that
plan!" and all the mechanisms I point to will take some amount of work and
political will to shift around, notwithstanding the same sources that
currently pay for the remaining 6/7ths of opex. if anyone has constructive new
ideas for me to sell the idea, I can be in the mayor's, MATA GM's, and DMC's
Pres' office next week to pitch it. end rant.

~~~
mmt
When the revenue is that small a percentage of the operating expense, I have
to wonder what the incremental cost is of that revenue.

Do you happen to know?

Modern fare collection systems can be expensive boondoggles in their own
right. That likely doesn't apply to a historic trolley, but you mentioned
ticketing services, and even one annual salary is a hefty proportion of that
$700k.

~~~
ethagknight
I’m an armchair transit specialist, and I do not know specifically, but
generally, it would seem the cost for each additional passenger on a transit
system follows a step function such that n + 1 < $0.01 until you hit
‘capacity’, a loosely defined term at which point the next passenger causes
losses (congestion and delay boarding and disembarking). In a properly running
system, the fixed costs dramatically outweigh the additional burden of each
passenger, in the same way that the bus engine hardly noticed the additional
weight of another 170 lb passenger relative to the 40,000 lb bus. Even with
consumables like ticketing, the whole revenue system far outweighs the
increment.

------
317070
That is amazingly good news! The small payments for tickets in many places in
the eu are already barely covering the cost of the transport. Just get rid of
this bureaucratic process and go for a flat and easy approach to ticketing.

------
jacquesm
For some reason they _still_ can't get rid of the tracking and ID requirements
though.

Estonia is interesting, small enough to make risky moves, large enough to make
them meaningful. I wished NL was half as progressive.

~~~
danbruc
I guess that is only because it was at first limited to Tallinn and even after
the extension to all of Estonia you still have foreigners not covering the
costs with their tax payments. I have no idea what fraction of the people
would fall into the respective categories but I would guess that after the
extension to the entire nation it is not really worth the effort and costs to
make foreigners pay because they are a small fraction compared to the costs of
maintaining a payment system.

~~~
jacquesm
Also, tourists tend to pay 'tourist tax' in one way or another so they're
already covered to some extent.

------
yani
Thailand has free buses since like forever ago. There are different tiers
here, free, cheap, normal price, luxurios. I would love to see free medical
than free transportation.

------
swebs
>To ride Tallinn’s network of trams, buses and trains for free, you must be
registered as a resident, which makes the municipality profit €1,000 from your
income tax every year. All you need to do then is getting a €2 green card and
carrying your ID on public transport

So that's more like €83 per month public transit. In comparison, a 30 day pass
in Tallinn costs €23, or €8.50 for students. Seems like you could simply not
register as a resident and come out ahead. Does anyone know if being a
registered resident of Tallinn comes with any other benefits, or is this just
a case of people willing to lose €60 to get something for "free"? The
following quote from the article makes it seem like clever marketing.

>There’s no doubt that we not only cover the costs, but also come out with a
surplus. We earned double as much as we have lost since introducing free
public transport. We’re happy to see that so many people are motivated to
register as residents in Tallinn to make use of free public transport

~~~
martinald
I think it means that if you are registered as a resident in Tallinn, the
national government gives the Tallinn municipality €1,000 a year from your
income tax. I don't think you notice it yourself, your tax doesn't change
(assuming you were already paying estonian income tax).

~~~
Noos
you'll notice it by reduced services since that 1000 euros is being moved to
public transportation from what it used to be. My guess is that soon you'll
see tax rates rise to match the shortfall.

And this is all assuming the public transport will be useful and efficient,
instead of being the bare minimum of what is available and chronically
underfunded and underrepaired. That stuff is capital intensive and expensive,
which bureaucrats will soon find out to their chagrin.

~~~
martinald
I doubt they are spending €1000/resident on public transit...

------
Simulacra
I wish this would happen in DC. The D.C. subway is grossly overpriced. All of
the federal employees who take it everyday get subsidized fares. That leaves
tourists and poor people to shoulder the burden of exorbitant rates. If I
drive to work it costs me about $12 to park, and twenty minutes to get there.
If I take the subway it costs $5 to park, and $10 round trip, plus a journey
that can take up to an hour. If you live further out, it's even worse.

------
Tomminn
Damn this is a good idea.

The general problem with "free" is that, without the price signal, overuse
occurs. But public transport is orders of magnitude more efficient at moving
people than cars, so _even if people use public transport to travel 10x more
than they would use a car_ \-- which is a ridiculous assumption-- this would
still make cities like 6x less congested if those people stopped using their
cars.

------
snvzz
This makes sense. What's usually true with public transport is that:

1\. High % of the cost of running it is due to the fare system.

2\. The infrastructure is paid with tax money and yet only rich people (as in,
able to pay the fare) can benefit from it.

So, it should really be free to use.

~~~
opk
One big advantage is that you get much more use out of public transport. I'm
well served by trams where I live but there are many times when it would be
convenient to travel just one or two stops. It is too expensive to even
consider it for short journeys.

From the article. it looks like Tallinn requires residence permits or
something. So perhaps they still need a fare system. I'd make all local public
transport free for anyone.

May even avoid the need for the diesel car bans being mooted in my city (and
some other German cities).

------
iamben
Always thought this would be an amazing idea for housing in places like
London. Make transport free and regular (as in runs all night) between the
centre and the far cheaper to live satellite towns and cities and (young)
people (especially) are far more likely to live elsewhere and be happier doing
so.

~~~
martinald
There's just not the capacity to do that. Nearly (probably all) railways into
the centre at at 100-200% capacity in the morning and evening peaks. It isn't
possible to make the trains run any more frequently (incremental capacity
improvement is possible at extreme expense, but nothing that would allow a
step change in housing trends).

------
himom
Very cool!!!

I would explore more of the city here if this were possible... work from
different parks and establishments. Instead, seniors and the disabled get hit
with another $1 price-hike and have more of an inconvenient, expensive bus
system without additional value being delivered.

------
nopcode
I thought this wasn't allowed by EU? Completely defeats any chance of a
competitive transportation market cross-border.

That said - I wish they would do it in my eu country too. It would be cheaper
on the taxpayer - even if he/she doesn't use public transportation.

------
baybal2
>Estonia to Become the World’s First Free Public Transport Nation

Wait a minute... What about USSR?

~~~
ddon
USSR we paid to use public transport, and I even remember when my father was
caught for not paying and he had to pay a fine...

------
techrich
Its a great way to track who travels where, and how often. They wont make it
so people can wander on and off as they see fit. No tap required or anything.

------
omarforgotpwd
I predict this will be one of the worst public transit systems you could ever
ride within a few years. Absent market forces the only way for the city to
improve their financial position is to make a service so bad nobody wants to
use it. If tickets had prices there would be an incentive for them to meet
customer demands and improve their financial position.

If I were in charge of this I would make public transit free for the lowest
income levels and very cheap for others.

~~~
sleavey
Not every country has incompetent local government, and not every service
requires market forces to operate effectively. As long as the Estonian
government (or whichever organisation is looking after the network) prepares
for the short and medium future, and keeps collecting and spending tax money
effectively, then there's no reason why this can't flourish.

~~~
ropeadopepope
> not every service requires market forces to operate effectively

Can you name a service and a city/country that operates effectively in the
manner you state?

~~~
sleavey
Swiss Federal Railways: "88.8% of all passengers reached their destination -
measured from departure station including any necessary changes - with less
than 3 minutes of delay" [1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Railways](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Railways)

~~~
ropeadopepope
From wikipedia

> The company is headquartered in Bern. Formerly a government institution,
> since 1999 it has been a special stock corporation with all shares held by
> the Swiss Confederation or the Swiss cantons.

That certainly sounds like market forces to me.

~~~
sleavey
Not sure what it is about that quote that tells you that. It's still 100%
owned by Swiss government, just split between regional and national
governments.

------
gpvos
It would be nice if they invested a bit more in their railway system, which is
pretty minimal.

------
severine
Does anyone know if the initiative is tied to the educational system?

------
tejasmanohar
Funny how I saw a Lyft “Become a Driver” ad beneath the article.

------
m0skit0
So then not everything was bad back in the Evil Empire?

------
VLM
I am impressed by whoever in Estonia's government has been doing PR; I've
never seen a national government manipulate so much positive free press
coverage, between E-residency in recent years and now the free transport
initiative. Note that just like E-residency this "free transport" never has to
amount to anything, yet by sheer qty of press coverage you'd think Estonia is
the eighth continent.

Much like E-Residency the commentary here on and on most tech blogs pretends
it'll be implemented to change the world and vast engineering-think
discussions of how to implement, whereas in a couple of years it'll be yet
another "New Coke/Classic Coke" and Estonia will have moved on to getting
massive positive press over... I donno, changing all national laws using grep
and tr to have gender neutral pronouns, or free 3-d printing as a
constitutional human right, or ban freedom of association to eliminate racism,
or legally mandating drone transport corridors in the national building code
and planning commission documents, or ...

~~~
scrollaway
I'm used to cynicism on HN, but never have I seen such _mindless_ cynicism.
You used two whole paragraphs of noise to basically say "I don't care".

Depressing.

~~~
VLM
Oh come on. Every government in the world would like tech startups and has a
bus system, but Estonia consistently has the best PR dept I've ever seen,
including countries many times larger and better funded. That kind of
compliment is hardly a "I don't care".

------
tzahola
What license are they using? LGPL? MIT?

------
finphil
Expect taxes to increase.

------
illuminati1911
Free*

*Terms and conditions apply.

------
Dowwie
World's First _Entirely Tax-Funded_ Public Transport Nation

not free.

~~~
liberal_098
> World's First Entirely Tax-Funded Public Transport Nation

World's First Entirely _EU_ -Tax-Funded Public Transport Nation

Estonia gets quite significant subsidies, subventions, grants and whatever
other aid from EU so they can afford such experiments.

Interestingly, EU officials are also happy because they see the impact as
opposed to having money simply disappeared - which is not an exception. Only
EU tax payers and donor countries might not be happy because they have to pay
for this fun and for their own transportation too - but who asks them :(

~~~
yani
Do you have any proof that links EU funds being used for this?

~~~
liberal_098
You ask as if it were some criminal activity. Actually, I find using external
funds not bad at all whether they are used directly or indirectly (feasibility
studies, investments in infrastructure like roads etc.)

I just wanted to say that without having significant financial support from EU
Estonia would hardly be able to carry out such experiments with "free"
services.

~~~
yani
I think you are mistaken. That is why I ask. Every euro from EU is given to a
country for a specific thing. Regional development, building roads, public
parks etc. I am wondering what EU grants can be converted to cover public
transportation.

------
kpil
I think this is bullshit - from a psychological perspective.

We need to foster our children that our actions take a toll out of our shared
resources.

It's clear that "free" sometimes is valued as "worthless" \- The Swedish city
Uppsala introduced free bus rides for teenagers a couple (20?) years ago, and
the experiment was cancelled after short period due to extensive vandalism -
buss seats where destroyed, etc.

If you look closely enough, a lot of "free" resources that are actually funded
or subsidised are overused or misused, or just plain vandalised - probably due
to that it's not obvious how the resource is being paid for in the
"background".

~~~
emodendroket
I don't think it's bullshit. I think it makes a lot of sense. In the US
driving is free (excluding the cost of maintaining your own car, but if you
own one you're already committed to most of these costs) despite the
substantial cost of maintaining the roads, while riding the train costs money.
This is pretty much backwards when we consider the relative effect of riding
the train versus driving.

~~~
icebraining
Gas is free in the US?

~~~
yread
Are roads free or not?

~~~
swebs
Some are private and paid with tolls. Others are public and paid through
gasoline taxes.

~~~
emodendroket
In most places most roads aren't toll roads. Furthermore, the gas tax is very
low and doesn't come close to paying the cost of maintaining the roads.

Are you just nitpicking for the sake of it?

------
John_KZ
I disagree with a completely free public transport. Paying creates an entry
barrier that suppresses traffic surges and misuse. Instead you can offer free
tickets to those who actually need them and subsidize it enough to be a
competitive choice regardless of free tickets.

An example of what I mean: one time I was returning home from the airport with
the bus after a long flight. The bus was already packed at the airport, but as
it crossed the city, a bunch of youngsters started entering without tickets,
turning a mild inconvenience into a 90 minutes of living hell.

Many of them used the bus for a mere 1-2 stops, others took this (more
expensive) express bus instead of the regular one, and some were just joining
for fun (I think this was after a football match or something). Point being:
having to pay optimizes usage.

~~~
tinus_hn
Your point is that if you have to pay you don’t have to share the bus with the
poor people.

The real solution for the problem of crowded buses is to have more of them.

