
Maybe buses should be free - mblakele
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2013/06/fares
======
relix
I live in a city where this has recently been implemented. In Tallinn,
population 400K, public transportation is free since January 2013, for all
residents (not tourists or people living in other cities). You need to have a
valid ID and a valid RFID card that is connected with your ID.

I see a lot of people in this thread state unjustified assumptions as if they
are proven facts. I'll try and comment on a few of these, judging from my
experience with how things transpired here.

* This will make it a shelter for the homeless *

There have always been homeless people on the busses, and I didn't notice a
markedly increase. The fact that you still need a legitimate ID card and a
fare card might help this point.

* This will multiply users of the buses, and lead to frustration and long queue lines *

Utilisation of public transportation increased by 15% since becoming free. I
noticed somewhat more people, but nothing annoyingly so. On the other hand,
the main goal as I could see was to get cars off the road. A drop in traffic
of 14% was observed.

Because this is a low-wage country, the €12 million in lost revenue this cost
is quite low in absolute terms, compared to what it would be in more western,
bigger cities, but it's still a large chunk of money relative to GDP here. Due
to the requirement that you need to be a resident of this city, 10000 more
people have "migrated" to Tallinn from other cities, now paying taxes here,
and adding a predicted €9 million in tax revenue for Tallinn.

Personally I love it of course. I use it in ways that others might deem
"uneconomically" i.e. take the tram for 2 stops instead of walking 15 minutes,
but I also notice I travel further distance more often, exploring the city,
because I don't feel annoyed with having to either find parking space, or pay
a taxi, or pay a bus fare.

~~~
rossjudson
Great story. Did the increase in tax revenue offset the loss of fare revenue?

~~~
tomp
No: -12 million + 9 million = -3 million.

~~~
vkou
What's the dollar value of getting 14% of the city's cars off the roads?

~~~
sliverstorm
That would be difficult to compute, but probably less than you might figure. A
15% increase in bus ridership is going to increase either bus weight or bus
frequency, and a bus is harder on the road than a passenger car. Not 15%
harder, of course, but not 0% harder either.

~~~
yread
yes, but a person in the bus weighs (person's weight) but a person in a car
weighs (person's weight)+(weight of the car) which is about 10 times more. And
since road damage is proportional to (at least) the 4th power [1] of weight
you get 10.000 times less damage from person travelling by bus. And that
doesn't even count the worse effects - pollution, parking places, streets
necessary for the cars to get to downtown, ...

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating)

~~~
danielweber
If wear is really weight to the 4th power, than buses are _horrible_ ideas.

A 20 ton bus starts out 160,000 times worse than a 1 ton car.

If you get 13.3 people off the road, and people weigh 150 pounds, then you
have taken off 13.3 units of car wear, but added 34,000 units of bus-wear
(going from 20-to-the-4th to 21-to-the-4th).

If the argument is "reduce road wear" and damage is proportional to weight to
the 4th power, you want lots and lots of smaller units over bigger units.

 _EDIT_ : I did some more math. Assuming a very light 5-ton bus, adding a
90-pound person to it is the same road wear as adding a 2.18 ton vehicle to
the road. O(n^4) is nasty.

~~~
ars
Yes, wear really is to the 4th power, and yread got his conclusion exactly
backward.

(Someone once evoked it like this: Would you rather have 300 1lb kittens walk
on you, or one 300lb human?)

But the wear is per tire, not per vehicle. So you have to divide the bus
weight by the ratio of number of wheels compared to a car.

~~~
yread
Weren't we talking about an almost empty bus with fare versus almost full bus
without fare? Of course buses damage road much more than cars, just look at an
asphalt bus stop - sometimes it looks like tracks in the mud (that's why they
are sometimes made with concrete surface)

~~~
ars
They would for sure end up havingb to add more buses.

------
nostromo
Seattle used to have an area of downtown where you could ride the bus for
free. (You could ride within the area free, but paid if you rode out of the
area or started your ride outside of the area.)

Busses became makeshift homeless shelters, which probably ended up driving
away actual commuters.

Seattle also bought fancy self-cleaning toilets many years ago in order to
give tourists a place to go and to reduce public urination by the homeless.

They ended up selling those toilets on eBay a few years later because the
toilets had become a place for addicts to shoot up and for prostitutes to take
their customers.

Free is probably a bad idea...

~~~
specialist
Public spaces, aka the commons, is where all of society's problems manifest.

Homeless people sleeping on buses is caused by, wait for it, homelessness. Not
free buses.

Sex workers turning tricks in public bathrooms is caused by, wait for it,
prostitution being illegal.

Crazy stinky people accosting people in public are caused by, wait for it,
kicking mentally ill people to curb to fend for themselves.

Freeride zones and public toilets are currently impractical. Because they're
being sabotaged by larger issues. But they're still good ideas, both
empirically and morally.

~~~
CaveTech
I don't think the issues are as cut and dry as you make them seem. I'd be
willing to bet many of the prostitutes who are providing their services
illegally would never be able to do so legally - as much more desirable people
would begin to offer competing services. Believe it or not, many people also
choose to be homeless; whether or not this is a result of another issue like
drugs or mental illness is irrelevant. Many mentally ill people would rather
deal with the disease than the treatment.

No doubt we could do more to aid societies issues, but it's unlikely that
we'll ever fully resolve many of them.

~~~
cstavish
I am by no means an expert on prostitution, but I don't think it's the
_illegality_ of prostitution that keeps many women from entering the market.

~~~
bmelton
Illegality also leads to a potentially unsafe operation. Without legalizing
something, there can't be any regulation of the industry. Prostitutes are
obviously wary of calling the cops in the event that they are abused,
mistreated, robbed, or whatever else.

Legalizing prostitution allows its workers to fall under police protection.

Illegality also leads to money hiding endeavors and tax fraud. Illegal sex
workers are wary of setting up a real shop where they could implement security
methods, or a guard to stand at the door in a brothel type operation.

Legalizing prostitution allows for better taxation, and less in the way of
illicit venues.

I'm sure you're right in that every woman wouldn't turn to prostitution just
because it became legal, but at least part of that should be attributed to the
inherent danger of working in an illegal market with zero marketplace or
police protections. We (hopefully) wouldn't see a huge spike in legitimate
prostitution if it were legalized, but we would almost certainly see an
uptick.

~~~
DrStalker
> I'm sure you're right in that every woman wouldn't turn to prostitution just
> because it became legal

Prostitution is legal where I live (Australia) and I can confirm that not
every woman has turned to prostitution.

~~~
obtino
> Prostitution is legal where I live (Australia) and I can confirm that not
> every woman has turned to prostitution.

Indeed! It's the same in New Zealand.

As attractive as it may be (in terms of income) there are always inherent
risks that come with every occupation.

~~~
noloqy
And here in Holland.

It even stimulates tourism. I wonder what would happen to the Amsterdam
economy if legalization of softdrugs and prostitution becomes the global norm.

------
VLM
Basically the same idea as giving up on detailed long distance billing and
going to flat rate. Where in this case the flat rate is about $5 on your
property tax bill.

The good news is locally the bus service is approx 75% subsidized anyway, so
they'd only "lose" 25% of revenue but the substantial gain of no more cash
handling etc would help.

The other problem is you can tell the author lives in California. Where I
live, the weather outdoors is at least somewhat foul about 10 months out of
the year, so they would become rolling homeless shelters at least 10 months
out of the year, maybe more by habit. That leads to even more expensive
systems for what amounts to loitering ticketing, enforcement of no sleeping on
the bus, etc.

The problem is this might even lead to politically sensitive ideas, like
having enough homeless shelters to hold our homeless, or even having mental
health treatment so our nuts are not just tossed out on the street as human
debris until they die, instead we might try actually treating them. The
criminal justice-industrial system would protest at the lack of revenue. It
would be a little disruptive.

~~~
sopooneo
Free buses would likely attract more riders, so the cost of providing the
service would increase at the same time the 25% fare revenue disappeared.

This does not counter your point, it just strikes me as a confounding issue.

~~~
VLM
The std deviation of utilization is pretty spectacular. You could play games
with pricing where its free at 2pm when the bus usually only has 2 people, but
it costs money at 5pm rush hour, or if there's an open seat its free but if
you have to stand it costs, or something like that.

Now that I think about it, I'm not a big drinker so I don't pay much
attention, but a local brewer pays the fares on new years eve to keep the
drunks off the roads, and despite claims that free fare = 20 times
utilization, I'm just not seeing it.

~~~
danielweber
_its free at 2pm when the bus usually only has 2 people, but it costs money at
5pm rush hour_

If the goal is to pull people off the roads, you want to charge people a lot
to be on the bus at 2pm, and nothing at 5pm.

And a bus with 2 people probably shouldn't even be running. Get them two
taxis.

~~~
lmm
The bus is already paid for and needed at rush hour; the driver needs a full-
time job not two three-hour shifts at opposite ends of the day. It's probably
better to run the bus.

Longer-term what we need is more flexible working to spread out the rush
hours, but for some reason that's a hard sell to american businesses.

------
morsch
Axiom: Public transportation is a more efficient (in terms of many basic
resources valuable to society: first and foremost among them energy and space)
way to get around, so it's in society's interest to shift as much mileage as
possible towards it.

The central question is two-fold: How much of a shift would result from a
given decrease in price? And how do we relate the (primarily:) monetary cost
of making it free-to-ride with the (primarily:) non-monetary benefits of any
given shift? The result of this question could give you an answer if making it
free would be worthwhile.

Some thoughts:

I think decreasing the price per ride from e.g. 1 USD to 0 USD would make for
a bigger shift in uptake than decreasing it from 2 USD to 1 USD. Not having to
think about whether each single tour is worth the price of admission makes it
a viable default way of getting around. This is just the usual flat rate
argument that also applies to things like internet usage.

Making public transport free would invariably result not just in a shift
towards it from other modes of transportation, it would also lead to an
overall increase in mobility, which in terms of some resources reduced the
gains in efficiency.

There's a valid argument that the efficiency of public transport is highly
dependant on the amount of utilization: big buses and trains carrying single
digit amounts of passengers can use up more energy than individual
transportation. An increase in overall uptake would tend to reduce such
problems since you'd get a small bus load full of people in cases where you'd
have only a few now.

Obviously, free to ride public transportation is a particularly huge potential
improvement for people who otherwise could not afford to get around. And since
mobility is such an important part of life in modern society (minus us nerds
who manage to leave the house only once per week), free-to-ride public
transport has a massive impact in terms of social equalization.

~~~
danielweber
Prices also help keep the foul-smelling derelicts off the bus.

Maybe you think "well, foul-smelling derelicts deserve to ride the bus." And
you could well be right.

But other people won't ride the bus with the foul-smelling derelicts.

If your goal is have a bus system you can feel happy about, this isn't a
problem. If your goal is to have a bus system that people actually use, this
is a big problem.

~~~
mullingitover
So in a nutshell, your argument is that if the public transportation were
free, nobody would use it because it's too crowded?

~~~
Shivetya
when it becomes free how do you keep people from living on it?

~~~
ben0x539
Give them a better option?

~~~
paulhauggis
I feel like you would like this, to punish society for not "giving them a
better option".

------
lquist
Hmm...interesting article.

In SF, BART is pay-per-ride throughout the system, while MUNI is proof-of-
payment in many locations. One thing that I've noticed is that there are
significantly more homeless people on MUNI than on BART. As a rider, this
negatively influences my experience and desire to ride (mostly because of
potential for screaming/attacking).

Especially if public transportation is free, I can imagine that the homeless
would take shelter there in case of inclement weather. Not a huge issue in SF,
but comes into play in other cities.

~~~
a-priori
No doubt they would use buses as makeshift shelters. But that's a silly reason
to not do a no-payment system. The solution is to improve the city's welfare
system (e.g. shelters) since apparently it's inadequate.

The homeless population already exists: changing the metro to proof-of-payment
or no-payment just concentrates them into the buses and subways.

~~~
baddox
It's not a silly reason to not do a no-payment system. It's unfortunate,
perhaps, but it's pragmatic. Unless you could somehow organize a massive
simultaneous restructure of the city's welfare system and its public transit
system, you'll have to concede these problems.

~~~
newbie12
Indeed, many of the "homeless" may have access to shelter-- it is more of a
vagrancy problem. Vagrancy is an issue with any free public service or public
space, from parks to libraries to train stations to free buses. You'd have to
enforce limits to time on the buses and rules against sleeping and eating and
that sort of thing.

------
rb2k_
As somebody from Germany, it's slightly entertaining to see that most comments
in this thread have something to do with homeless people seeking shelter on
public transport.

I can see how this would be an implementational detail, but I don't think that
should be the primary argument.

~~~
GauntletWizard
As someone from the USA, you clearly haven't encountered America's
homelessness culture. I'd call it a problem, but that would imply that there's
a solution - What we actually have is a large population that chooses to be
homeless, actively avoiding the social programs that exist. Homelessness isn't
an affliction, it is a way of life for them.

~~~
Svip
In their defence, a lot of the social programmes in the USA are rather
demeaning. Food stamps comes to mind.

But that being said; even in a country like mine, where there is larger
'social security net' (as I hear Americans term it) for homeless people, there
are still those who _choose_ to be homeless. But they are few and far in
between, that I would not consider them a problem here (for public
transportation, that is).

~~~
drstewart
I don't see how food stamps are in any way demeaning, compared to, say,
visiting an NHS hospital or living in council housing or any other social
program?

~~~
laurencerowe
Visiting an NHS hospital is no different than sending your kids to a public
(state) school - the NHS is used by almost everyone, it's not Medicaid.

Food stamps are demeaning because they send the message that those receiving
them cannot be trusted to choose how to spend that money wisely. They deny any
flexibility to recipients, what if you need to buy new shoes for your kid one
week?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _Food stamps are demeaning because they send the message that those
> receiving them cannot be trusted to choose how to spend that money wisely._
> //

So your starving and need food, the community has a whip-round [an impromptu
collection] someone takes you to the supermarket and buys your shopping.

Your response is what, gratitude or "that's so demeaning".

If one feels embarrassed that one is getting more out of society than they're
providing in benefit - I assume that's the source of feeling demeaned by
charity - then one can work to improve that position. I don't think I need to
start listing things you can do for free that are public goods, do I.

~~~
laurencerowe
No, benefits should be paid in cash as they are in other developed countries.

------
wisty
It's time to post up the Theory of the Second Best
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_second_best](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_second_best))

It's a radical old theory (from 1956), which is still ignored by most of the
people who talk about economics. It states, in HN terms, that economic systems
can have local optima; and that if the global optimum can't be reached then
doing _stupid things_ can actually be smart.

In theory a free market is best. But if a market can't be made completely free
(for whatever reason) then making the market freer may actually make things
worse, because you're moving away from the local optimal point into a trough.

When you consider any aspect of the system, you can make it more like a free
market, or less like a free market. Maybe the internet libertarians are
usually right, when they say "make it more like a free market". Or maybe real
systems have been optimised towards that local optimum point, then driven away
from it by free market advice, and the internet libertarians are usually
wrong. But I don't think there's a hard and fast rule.

Whatever the case, imperfect economic systems are a little bit complicated,
and there's not always a simple answer.

So it's not a free market. Cities subsidise buses. They subsidise cars.
Payments for buses are so annoying that they may outweigh the amount of money
changing hands. Unions want to protect their turf. Poor people like buses,
while rich people like cars. And buses are much more useful when they are
full. Its complicated, so figuring out what the locally optimal solution is
isn't really easy.

------
drcode
I guess I'm one of the few here who disagrees with this article.

Maintaining a bus and subway system is extremely expensive in terms of
resources, both in terms of equipment expenses, salaries (for employees who
could be providing other benefits to society instead of operating a bus) fuel,
and use of land.

There is no 100% certainty that buses/subways are more efficient than cars.
Luckily however, we have a way to tell which is more efficient: The free
market! The free market is not perfect, but it is likely that a person who
pays a fare to ride a bus is getting significant value from that bus ride, and
if the fare CAN COVER THE EXPENSES of running the buses, then we can be
confident that buses are an efficient mode of transportation.

If you just make the buses free, people may take more roundabout trips to get
to where they need to go, just to be able to make use of the free bus, causing
inefficiency and waste. Or, it may cause people to take more inefficient taxi
trips (because the bus doesn't take them to their precise destination like a
personal car would) or they may do a million other things that are damaging to
the environment and wasteful (like eating out more because they can take free
bus trips to restaurants.) These scenarios may sound silly, but the fact is
that removing price signals from public transportation is a terrible idea
because it can have a multitude of unexpected consequences.

If you read this post and think I'm crazy and say to yourself "What an idiot,
cars are obviously guaranteed to be less efficient than buses" I would argue
you don't understand how incentives behave in a complex system.

If you think cars are so horrible, you should work to stop subsidies to oil
companies so that gas prices reflect the true cost of energy. But in my view
there is absolutely no way making public buses free is going to make cities
more efficient and/or help the environment.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not saying we should get rid of all public
transport subsidies (this is a harder argument to make, I'm not sure where I
stand on it.) I'm just saying we shouldn't make them 100% free because price
signals are valuable.

~~~
rayiner
The free market doesn't, at least theoretically, work very well for transit.
Transit creates a tremendous positive externality and it doesn't make sense to
try and capture all the cost of providing transit at the point of the user.[1]

I think the way to go would be to have all transit be funded by a combination
of user fees and tax increment districts in the areas served by transit. After
all, it's not just the subway rider that benefits from the existence of a
subway line, but all the businesses and residential developments near a subway
stop too.

But the same would have to apply for road construction. Those segments of
state highways snaking through suburbia should be entirely paid for by those
who live along the route, not from the general tax revenues of the state. And
gas taxes should be raised so they cover the capital costs of the interstate
system, not just ongoing maintenance.

And while we're at it, the Army Corps of Engineers should stop subsidizing the
west coast by damming up the rivers of the United States. If you want water
move to somewhere that has water.

[1] That's without even reaching all the theoretical implications of the use
of eminent domain authority, state rights of way, etc--you can't discount from
the value equation the opportunity cost of using an existing state right of
way for a highway versus a rail line.

~~~
jwallaceparker
> The free market doesn't, at least theoretically, work very well for transit.

We actually have some historical record to examine in this area, though you
have to look pretty far back in US history to find a time when the government
wasn't directly involved in the transit business.

James J. Hill built the Great Northern railroad in the late 1800's without
taking any subsidies. He competed directly with subsidized railroads in the
mid- and far west, consistently delivering lower prices and superior service
to his customers.

As for highways, thousands of miles were created by private for-profit
companies during the first half of the 19th century before highways and
railways began to be taken over by government beginning with the Lincoln
administration.

~~~
rayiner
The point isn't that you can't have private railroads or highways. The point
is that the free market creates less than an efficient amount of transit if
you put the burden of paying for that infrastructure entirely on people who
travel instead of all the people who benefit thereby.

~~~
jwallaceparker
> The point is that the free market creates less than an efficient amount of
> transit

I understand your point, but am providing a real world example in the form of
a privately run railroad that was more efficient than its subsidized
competitors.

> put the burden of paying for that infrastructure entirely on people who
> travel instead of all the people who benefit thereby

I agree with this part of the statement, but it's false to assume the free
market can't utilize this payment model.

The bulk of the railways and roads that I cited were paid for not only with
user fees but investments by businesses or entrepreneurs who rightly assumed
that they'd reap benefits from railways and roads being constraucted in their
districts.

~~~
chipsy
Needs a discussion on "efficiency." Transit can be profitable without being
socially beneficial - simply cut out everything but the sure wins from your
routes. The population of low-volume regions will be under-served, but your
company will have a good balance sheet.

~~~
jwallaceparker
I mean "efficient" as it's generally defined: maximum productivity with
minimal wasted effort or expense.

In the case of the Great Northern railroad, the efficiencies were passed on to
the customer in terms of ever falling costs and an expanding network of
service.

> The population of low-volume regions will be under-served

No, it's the opposite! Low-volume regions are underserved with centrally
planned government transportation. The planner has limited resources that must
be "democratically" administered.

In a free market, any underserved area provides an opportunity for an
entrepreneur to serve that need in the market! It's an elegant system that
serves the needs of the people faster with less waste.

------
dkarl
In case anyone is wondering why this hasn't already been implemented
everywhere if it's such a great idea, I have an anecdote illustrating the
political and cultural obstacles it faces. I worked with a guy who helped
create a proposal to make buses free in Austin in the 1990s. The goal was
basically the same as described in the article, based on the observation that
collecting fares was surprisingly expensive in both time and money. Little net
income would be lost, the buses would run faster and cause slightly less
congestion because boarding would be faster, and numbers from experiments in
other cities showed ridership going up significantly. It was very simple:
voters and taxpayers chose to support the bus program because of the benefits
the city gets, and eliminating fares was a straightforward way to increase
ridership per dollar, thus deriving more benefit for the tax money being spent
[1]. Everybody wins.

As my friend told it, the proposal was made internally inside Capital Metro
(the transit agency; my friend was on some kind of committee) and the response
from higher up was very simple: not gonna happen, not ever, and please don't
ever mention this in public unless you really want to hurt the future of bus
transit in this city. The symbolism of fares, he was told, is very important
in two ways. First, the public image of bus riders is that they are people who
aren't willing or capable of taking care of themselves (why don't they have a
car?) The symbolism of giving somebody something for nothing is very different
from making them pay to ride. Bus fare is a symbolic way of teaching them that
they have to work for what they get, and they can't freeload off of other
people. If we're forced to take care of them, we can at least make them play-
act like they're responsible people paying their own way, and the lesson might
sink in eventually. Second, people tend to incorrectly assume that the
operating expenses of the bus system are covered by fares. Many people hate
buses and hate the complicated urban society they represent, and the more of
those people who became aware that buses run largely on their tax dollars, the
harder it is for city bus programs to get the money and political support they
need. Charging fares makes it easy for them to make the wrong assumption and
prevents them from becoming vocal enemies of public transit.

Those attitudes are from 10-20 years ago, and one hopes they have changed
since then. The idea seems fundamentally sound, so I imagine it will keep
resurfacing until pragmatism overcomes the bias and stereotypes surrounding
mass transit.

[1] As you can see here, passenger fares cover only a small fraction of
expenses:
[http://www.capmetro.org/transparency/](http://www.capmetro.org/transparency/)

~~~
mpyne
To this day in D.C., the Metrorail system doesn't even come close to meeting
its operating budget using fares. And it's already more expensive to ride
Metrorail than to drive in a surprising number of situations.

~~~
e2e8
I can't find a good reference right now but I remember that in DC the rail
fares cover 90% of rail operating costs and bus fares cover 30% of bus
operating cost.

Public Records Here:
[http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/public_rr.cfm](http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/public_rr.cfm)?

The best I could find on page 21 (numbered 15) of pdf "Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended 6/30/12" does not seperate bus from
rail.

~~~
mpyne
That's not what WaPo's free Metro Express newspaper put out when they were
talking about the fare increase last year. I'll see if I can find one of the
mentions.

Edit: An example straight from the horse's mouth (the WMATA proposed FY13
budget). Revenue makes up 80% or so of the MetroRail budget, the remaining 20%
to be made up by local jurisdictions.

So it does appear indeed that Metrobus is much more subsidized (27% of the
budget from fares). Page 67 of the PDF is probably the best overview.

So definitely not as bad as I thought, but $183 million is no small chunk of
change either.

PDF at
[http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/ProposedFY2013Budget.p...](http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/ProposedFY2013Budget.pdf)

------
benjohnson
In Seattle, the inner-city busses have zero fare. The trouble is that some of
our more fragrant hobos use the bus as a rolling shelter to the detriment of
those that appreciate bathing.

~~~
blackjack48
They discontinued the free ride zone:
[http://metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/bus/ride-free-
area/index.ht...](http://metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/bus/ride-free-
area/index.html)

~~~
mratzloff
Specifically because of the problem mentioned, in fact.

~~~
saraid216
That's not actually true. The Free-Ride Zone was discontinued due to budget
problems.

------
yalogin
That would increase the traffic on these buses by some multiples and will
increase wait times, frustration and overall dissatisfaction among the public.
Then some one will do some napkin math saying the amount of "money" wasted by
all these people waiting is not worth the free rides. I guess my point is,
free rides probably would have made sense in 1965 when the population was a
fraction of what it is in NYC today. Add all the tourists to that and free
rides are not sustainable.

~~~
frenchy
You would have to increase the number of buses and their frequency on the
routes. The consequence of this is that there will be fewer cars (and maybe
bikes) on the roads, which mean that buses can go faster, which means you
don't need to add quite so many.

Probably the net result would be to increase the number of buses, decrease the
overall traffic, and increase everyone's mobility. It may increase the number
of tourists (could be good or bad), and will probably cost everyone a little
more than expected.

~~~
VLM
"will probably cost everyone a little more than expected."

A little less on a large enough system wide scale. Hard to find a cheaper way
to move people around, quickly, on land, in any weather, than a properly
applied bus.

Tourists in taxis is definitely not cheaper and rentals are even worse.

I admit trains/subways are cheaper if the utilization level is high enough,
but it has to be Really high. If "your" subway stop has 50,000 potential
riders that'll work. But where I live a subway stop by my house would have
about 50 potential riders, which is a bit of a financial problem.

------
PencilAndPaper
I think "free" is the wrong word for it. Howabout "fare free"? _Someone_ is
going to have to pay.

I like the idea of pushing the costs more onto the community as a whole, not
just users. Make it kind of like most school systems: everyone pays through
taxes whether or not they have kids or if they send their kids to private
school.

~~~
wutbrodo
I don't think there's any other way to interpret free. Nobody assumes that the
cost of operation of bus routes will drop to zero.

------
chris_mahan
I think for me, the opportunity cost of the bus is too high. My travel time in
the car is generally half of the bus time. I consider that time lost. Since I
am able to use that time to make money, I would have to be compensated for
that money in order for me to want to take the bus. At my hourly rate, a bus
ride of 1 hour that wasted 30 minutes of my time would cost me $25.

(for those thinking that I would waste the time anyway, I would counter that
time not spent working is time spent with my wife and son, or learning, or
sleeping, and I'd much, much rather do those things than be in a bus.)

I live in Los Angeles.

~~~
emc
What about working on the bus? I've only taken the greyhound but being able to
catch up on email or quickly code out so stuff vs having to drive is always
nice.

~~~
danielweber
Working on the bus is great, but you really really need to make sure that it's
a comfortable place to work.

------
mapgrep
>Fares bring in a lot of money, but they cost money to collect—6% of the MTA's
budget

"A lot of money" is awfully vague. Especially for a publication called The
Economist.

Turns out farebox revenue is 41% of the MTA's operating revenue. That is
indeed a lot of money to be giving up. Here is a breakdown, via
[http://www.mta.info/mta/budget/pdf/Adopted_Budget_Feb_Financ...](http://www.mta.info/mta/budget/pdf/Adopted_Budget_Feb_Financial_Plan2013-16.pdf#page=11)

    
    
      Operating revenue, 2013, projected
      -Farebox revenue 41%
      -Dedicated taxes 35%
      -Toll revenue 12%
      -State and local subsidies 7%
    

Total operating revenue is $13.5 billion. Budget (expenditures) is basically
the same according to the above link.

So dropping fares will cost about $4.7 billion after accounting for fare
collection savings but before accounting for any extra costs associated with
increased ridership (35% of 13.5b). The total NYC city budget is about $69
billion, in
comparison([http://www.nyc.gov/html/omb/downloads/pdf/fp6_12.pdf](http://www.nyc.gov/html/omb/downloads/pdf/fp6_12.pdf)),
so maybe it's possible, but I'd hate to be the financial planner asked to come
up with ways to cover the shortfall.

------
conanbatt
This is an interesting idea, but it has its unseen challenges.

The very first issue is regulatory. Because the addition of passangers does
present a real cost to bus companies, no tracking device on how many
passengers it has has difficulties from a regulatory standpoint. This may
sound silly, but its a reality of life, such as when you give a free trial
product to people owning a creditcard.

Currently, buses in buenos aires are ridicolously cheaper than cars, yet by
culture, people really love buying cars. An hour's parking lot fee in the
center of the city costs more than a week of bus fare. Making it free would
not be a change of paradigm.

Buses are packed, and so are trains and subways. If subsidizing increased not
only to cover fares, but to improve infrastructure and service, you are also
servicing people with cars, making those more interesting. (less traffic ->
also better to go around in cars).

Although this could help a lot, i dont think its a paradigm shift unless
people with cars are paying the public transportation.

But that of course, present the other challenges, which is, what about people
not having public transportation coverage from one point to another, and how
would you administer such a route in a way that you dont charge him penalties.

I honestly believe that in big cities, cars are an expensive hinderance. Using
a cab every single time you go out is still cheaper than buying one.

~~~
markbao
Are the buses in Buenos Aires cheap for those who live there? I remember it
was around 1.70 pesos (about $0.40 at the official exchange rate) which, to
me, is _ridiculously_ cheap, but I wasn't sure if it was seen as cheap by the
locals due to disparity of income.

On another note, I loved the buses in Buenos Aires. They were cheap and went
everywhere, though I could never figure out the Guia T. The 39 was my regular
line and I took that thing everywhere.

~~~
conanbatt
It is still 1.70 pesos. Just getting on a cab is 10 pesos, parking is between
15-20 pesos the hour.

Buses have their ups and downs here. They are too irregular and unpredictable
(you can wait up to 1h for a bus that exists its station every 15 mins). There
are many ill maintained ones.

1.70 is ridicolously low in relative terms to other expenditures. A liter of
gas is almost 10 pesos. Compared to the base salary with is around 2k, is
still a very low part of the wage.

Long time ago, differential buses were common. They cost 3x, but you would
always travel seated, with AC and mostly on time.

Bottom line is that for mobility, people LOVE the subway, although it has its
issues as well.

------
singular
Public transport is an enormous problem in the UK outside of London - the
prices are very high, and the service is often dreadful.

In my home town for instance the local operator regularly cancelled buses
without notification, ran late _all the time_ and repeatedly made hugely over
the top above-inflation/fuel price fluctuation price rises every year. On more
than one occasion they cancelled last buses stranding people.

The company would cheat the monitoring of punctuality by having buses wait at
certain points along the route (notably the points at which punctuality
measures were made) for sometimes 10 - 15 minutes, whereas wherever you
actually wanted to catch a bus from you'd often be left waiting 20-30 minutes
for a bus to turn up.

The bottom line is, if you want to live there + have any kind of quality of
life, you have to own + run a car. Full stop. This is pretty well true for
anywhere outside of London (not sure about other major cities, however.)

A lot of the issue is the monopolistic nature of any bus service, and the lack
of teeth of the government regulator. Personally I think it ought to be run as
a public service with some means of ensuring quality (ok so that's a tough
problem :) or at least improve the regulator's ability to fine companies that
fail to provide a decent service + have some oversight over (already
subsidised!) fares.

~~~
noss
The local operator does not seem to be taking enough responsibility for the
work they are supposed to do.

In Stockholm you can get your taxi fare paid for up to 400 SEK (~40 EUR) if
you are running more than 20 minutes late because of schedule problems.
(Details might have changed, was a long time ago since I used it.) You submit
the bill and have your own money on the line until/if it is reimbursed.

Monitoring a bus by having a "tamper proof" GPS logger on the bus seem more
reasonable than having points where punctionality is measured. The local
operator themselves would obviously not be the ones verifying reimbursement
requests against these GPS logs.

------
pmb
If they are a public good worthy of subsidizing, then yes!

For NYC, it has been estimated that every car driving in lower Manhattan
incurs ... goddammit I can't find a reference so I'm going with memory here
... at least ~$3 in social costs due to increased pollution, congestion, road
wear, etc.. That's in addition to the costs paid by the driver (car
depreciation, gas, insurance, opportunity costs, etc.). If that memory is
really true, then subsidizing transit to eliminate these social costs ends up
being a huge net win!

If we want people to do something, we should subsidize it and (in the case of
transit) make it free[1]. If we don't want people to do something, we should
tax it (Pigouvian taxes FTW!).

[1] - Transit will never be as fast as driving due to the extra stops and walk
required at either end, so we need to keep it free to minimise the total cost
of fare + extra_time_wasted*salary, which corresponds to opportunity cost to
riders. Riders whose total cost is too high will not ride, and riding transit
is a social good (or is at least much less of a social bad then driving).

~~~
bmmayer1
If something is "Free" people will hoard it which will reduce its value and
increase its cost to everyone. There will be massive shortages of available
bus space. With a paid system, people are forced to economize--do I really
need to pay to take the bus in winter 5 blocks to buy groceries, or can I
walk? But if it's "Free," then people will not economize. The people who need
the bus the most, to go to work or hospital or whatever, will have to compete
for limited space with people who don't need to be taking the bus. In
addition, alternative transit options that could relieve excess demand would
be driven out of business (because who can compete with free?). So, the city
will be forced to massively increase the cost of the program to meet demand,
which would lead to higher taxes anyway, likely offsetting the nominal bus
fees that were eliminated.

~~~
lmm
>If something is "Free" people will hoard it which will reduce its value and
increase its cost to everyone. There will be massive shortages of available
bus space. With a paid system, people are forced to economize--do I really
need to pay to take the bus in winter 5 blocks to buy groceries, or can I
walk? But if it's "Free," then people will not economize. The people who need
the bus the most, to go to work or hospital or whatever, will have to compete
for limited space with people who don't need to be taking the bus.

This is a popular theory with certain economists but has not been borne out by
experiment. E.g. my country introduced pricing for prescription drugs
(previously free) based on exactly that reasoning. Turns out overall usage
barely changed (the very poorest stopped taking their prescriptions because
they couldn't afford them, but they're a relatively small proportion of
society) and administering the payment system cost far more than the money
saved in reduced usage or collected in fees.

~~~
bmmayer1
What's your country? It would be good to know more context here.

------
Aloisius
The cost of the bus is not keeping me off the bus; the speed and comfort are
keeping me off.

While not collecting fares would decrease the stop times, it isn't going to
get anywhere near what I would need to ride the bus more often.

To go about 7.5 miles on one bus in San Francisco (basically from the bay to
the ocean) takes 56 minutes on a bus. There are marathon runners who can
literally run the route and arrive nearly 20 minutes before the bus!

The light rail is considerably better at 42 minutes for roughly the same route
(the more your trip is underground, the more it makes sense to take). In fact,
the only time I take public transit is when heading downtown in the subway
since it is actually fast.

The same trip takes 28 minutes in a car (less if you know where the timed
lights are).

Now, if we had Personal Rapid Transit* instead of buses, then at least the
comfort level and speed might be high enough for me to switch over.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit)

------
EarthLaunch
The Economist is worthless when it comes to the science of economics, so it's
expected but still amusing to see a sloppily incorrect use of "free" next to a
site called "economist.com". What makes it truly great is seeing it on the top
of HN, where everyone's straining to evade this meaning.

~~~
Thrymr
It's a perfectly correct and generally understood use of the word "free": no
cost to the end user. Ultimately, somebody paid for your free beer, too, but
that doesn't mean it wasn't free to you.

------
tzs
If people own cars, they are going to tend to use them even if public transit
is available. Long term, we need public transit that is good enough that
people will decide they don't need to own a car.

The thing that has stopped me from ever reaching that point is not the cost of
public transit, but the long term reliability. When I buy a house or rent an
apartment, I need to be able to base that decision partly on the mass transit
options, and then rely on those options not changing out from under me--no
bean counter deciding that the bus that comes by my house does not have enough
riders and canceling it. That bus needs to keep running, even if it has few
riders. Even if it is often completely empty. Bean counting has to be done at
the level of the complete system, not the individual bus line.

------
codereflection
I'd love to see how this would work in the greater Seattle area, where year
after year, the King County Metro system has to beg for money to continue
operating at their current capacity. For the past two years, the threat has
been that Metro will have to cut their service by 17%, which is huge.

From their site: "annual revenue will fall $75 million short of what is
necessary to maintain current service after temporary funding runs out in
mid-2014"
[http://www.kingcounty.gov/transportation/kcdot/Future.aspx](http://www.kingcounty.gov/transportation/kcdot/Future.aspx)

Serious changes would have to occur for something like completely free public
transit to become a reality.

~~~
johnbellone
I have only been in the D.C. area for a little over a year and there is
definitely budget problems here as well.

The problem may actually be that the people, and by extension the government,
do not believe that mass transportation is a replacement for cars (yet - maybe
ever) in a metropolitan area. There may also be a whole hell of a lot of other
political reasons (oil and car lobbies, etc). But the end result is the same.

When I was in New Jersey I heavily took advantage of the NJ Transit Light Rail
system in Newark, and between Hoboken and Jersey City. That was absolutely
amazing, and the price point was a hell of a lot cheaper than it is to ride
the NYC subway or D.C. metro systems.

I really think that the northeast just has had a lot more experience and
failures here. The main arteries for traffic, at least that I see, come from
Amtrak (which again, is amazing in northeast) and local rail systems such as
NJT and PATH.

In contrast it seems that there are a lot less people in the NOVA and Maryland
area that use D.C. metro and the VRE. Some of that may because of the
distance, the belt way, but I think a lot of it has to do with the reliability
of the systems (at the very least for D.C. metro).

------
Joeri
I don't think making it free is a good idea, because people have no respect
for something provided for free, so you'll end up making the service more
expensive to maintain and at a lower quality than by charging a nominal
amount.

However, you can use pricing to discourage paying to the driver. Where I live
(belgium) I can pay 2 euro per ride to the driver, or 80 euro for unlimited
travel during a whole year (partially subsidized by my employer, which they're
legally required to do), or any of a range of payment options in between.
Paying cash to the driver is so much more expensive than the alternatives that
almost nobody does it.

------
roin
The key point that is likely tip the scale in one direction or another is the
positive externalities of converting a driver to a rider. This externality
will differ by city, line, time of day, etc, and it would include external
costs of traffic, parking, car accidents, among others. Economists can
approximate this sort of thing. We are often really bad at accounting for
externalities because they aren't immediate dollars in or out of our pockets
and lack certainty (pollution controls, infrastructure improvements, etc), but
this case may be a bit more straight forward.

------
ianb
I've been riding and thinking and griping about buses lately. While this
notion has seemed very appealing to me in the past, I'm less sure.

Even right now, I feel like a major problem with buses is that they really
don't need or even want customers. Customers are a liability. Fares don't
cover expenses. Political capital is useful, but indirect, and bus systems
have lost most customers that might provide political capital.

My bus system isn't particularly bad. The drivers are okay, but mostly they
just don't want any trouble. The bureaucracy has smoothed out certain edges.
The buses are clean. But the crowded bus lines stay crowded, until they get
further out then they become empty and useless. Lines don't evolve, they
aren't adjusted, there's no attempt to maximize ridership. They can't
experiment with pricing; really they can't do much of anything without
approval from a political structure that doesn't much care about buses.
Customers don't fit into any equation.

Oh, and did I mention they are slow? Buses are so terribly painfully
incredible slow that only people who place very little value in their own time
can justify being on a bus. Door-to-door times on a bus range from 2x a car to
6x, often walking speed, almost never faster than biking. But as time goes on
the buses just get slower.

Making buses free maybe could help. It might draw customers who actually have
a way of effecting positive operational change through the political process.
It might diversify the ridership in a way that positively effects social
standards of civility on buses. I certainly wouldn't fight it, but it's a long
shot.

------
raldi
What's the largest city in the world that does this?

~~~
nathell
According to Wikipedia [1], it's Tallinn.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport)

~~~
brunnsbe
Juzt a small note: It's free only for citizens of Tallinn, not for e.g.
tourists.

~~~
saalweachter
I wonder if that was a rational decision. Is the cost of authenticating higher
or lower than the revenue gained from tourists? If the revenue difference is
actually that large, they probably could have just rolled it into the typical
"hotel taxes" most places have.

~~~
jnsaff2
The revenue gained is not from tourists but from people living in neighboring
municipalities (but working in Tallinn) registering them as citizen of Tallinn
and therefore bringing their tax money.

------
wallio
This article makes it sound like free public transportation is a new idea. It
pops up in Toronto every so often as if it was the first time it was every
thought up(1).

In fact this has been tried numerous (perhaps hundreds) of times, both in the
past and ongoing(2,3). You would think that the pluses and minuses would be
well understood by now. Why is it so hard for transportation systems to learn
from each other?

(1) - [http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-transformation-of-urban-
lif...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-transformation-of-urban-life-and-the-
social-structure-free-and-accessible-transit-in-toronto/5316887)

(2) -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport#List_of_t...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport#List_of_towns_and_cities_with_area-
wide_zero-fare_transport)

(3) -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_public_transport_r...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_public_transport_routes)

------
tomjen3
I take the bus to work everyday I wouldn't want it to be free, since right now
those who have a need to take the bus can, whereas if it was free so many
people would take the buses that there wouldn't be enough space _and_ the bus
company would have no reason to serve any routes.

~~~
alberich
Here in Brazil (at least in some cities) we have the worst of both worlds...
you pay for it, and there is not enough space... it is a complete crap. No
wonder so many people are on the streets manifesting against it.

~~~
mvalle
Here in the Faroes (at least in the capital), we have the best of both worlds.
Free, and plenty of space.

In 2007, the fare for municipal busses was removes, and at the same time, more
frequent trips were introduced (by 50% at day time).

The routes and schedule are managed by the City Council, the operated by the
lowest bidding bus company.

So far, it has been successfull, but it had a bit of a bumpy start. The sudden
increase in demand for busses, meant that there weren't enough busses to go
around and some cheap, old ones were used. But the success has meant that
there was a business case to upgrade the busses.

It's payed by tax payers via the Council. The Council is funded via income
tax, currently at around 20%.

[http://www.torshavn.fo/Default.aspx?pageid=822](http://www.torshavn.fo/Default.aspx?pageid=822)

------
bdcravens
Buses can legally only hold so many. Fares are a backstop against uneconomical
use (why wouldn't I take the bus to go four blocks? my feet hurt) and
overcrowding. If usage increases, and buses can't hold anymore, then what? No
stops? Most bus stops aren't proper lines, but people hanging out until the
bus comes. I'm certain a free system would be most disadvantageous for those
who can't get in line fast enough when the bus does come.

I'm certain people can come up with ideas, but usually when I hear these sorts
of discussions, it's not from those who rely on public transportation. I think
the answers would be different if those having discussions had their licenses
revoked until a decision was made :-)

------
spikels
Most transit systems have either a fixed or minimum fee. So it usually does
not make sense to pay for public transit if you are just going a short
distance. If it were free, more people would use public transit for these
short trips instead of walking or bicycling.

Wouldn't this more sedentary life have a significant negative impact on public
health? Studies seem to show that an additional 150-299 minutes of walking
each week (20-40 minutes a day) can increase lifespan by 3.5 years [1].

[1] [http://www.gizmag.com/physical-activity-live-
longer/24972/](http://www.gizmag.com/physical-activity-live-longer/24972/)

------
unsignedint
It's somewhat of a negative spiral, and IMHO, it's nothing to do with price.

If your area has a service where buses are coming in every 15 minutes at
least, then there's a benefit to it. I live good sized city in the Seattle
area, and to get to my work, 20 minute commute becomes 90 minute commute.

Particularly in the Seattle area, what making whole issues nasty is that the
lack of transit backbone -- the problem is that are people commuting between
the city of Seattle and neighboring city often separated by the lake.

I don't know if this is the case for other cities, but as far as my
observation goes, making buses free doesn't solve much problem at least where
I live.

------
llamataboot
Basically, this just needs to be sold as beneficial to the region as a whole:
less congestion on the roads for people that choose to drive, less air
pollution for everyone, more of an ability for businesses to hire people that
don't have cars but need a way to work, etc. As long as it is framed as
"public transit riders getting something for free" it will never work,
especially given the racialized face of poverty in most US cities. But if it
as framed as creating a cleaner, less congested, more equitable metro area
where people can get around safely, effectively,and freely, it might fly.

------
troebr
All right, a lot of people have commented about bad experiences with free
transportation. I had a good one about free buses: I lived for a couple years
in the north of France in Compiegne (where the ww2 armistice was signed).
Buses were free, clean of homeless people, and very enjoyed by the student
population. The line was not running at night, and Sundays and holidays the
fare was 1 euro (pretty damn cheap).

Compiegne is also a fairly rich middle-sized town, so the cases are different,
but it's just to give an example of a place where it was successfully
implemented.

------
lostnet
The US town I last worked in was not at all happy about the traffic
externalities of office space. Their attempt to remedy it were complex and
entailed a lot of overhead for everyone. Surveys, building restrictions,
reimbursement plans, etc.

A tax system could simply charge employers based on the commutes of all
employees and offer free to board public transit. Then it could stop allowing
commute expense to be deducted in the covered areas..

I find tolls to be a little backward since virtually everyone traveling during
the max capacity times can deduct them, while leasure travelers can not.

~~~
nickff
Why should employers be responsible for the transit habits of their employees?
Does this not also increase the cost of employment, thereby decreasing the
employee's income?

From what I can see, this would be a hidden tax on the employee, which
violates the principle that democracy requires maximum possible transparency.

~~~
lostnet
> Why should employers be responsible for the transit habits of their
> employees?

Because an employer is responsible for the transit habits of an employee which
determines the capacity and cost of major arteries.

We have payed for these roads at the federal level first for the defense and
now to allow the DOT to bully everyone. Transparent, eh?

------
rdl
This seems to work really well in high-volume areas, particularly those with a
lot of commercial activity, or for connector buses going from other public
transit to office parks, etc.

The problem is the homeless; I tend to avoid most Muni buses for reasons
including the population of homeless/crazy who seem to live on them already.
If you could figure out a way to avoid becoming mobile homeless shelters, I'd
be happy to increase vehicle registration or (property?) taxes to pay for free
mass transit in some areas.

------
guruz
The German Pirate party wants a similar model. Inhabitants of a city have to
pay a yearly fee and then can ride for free. This should encourage people to
leave their car at home (or not even buy one) and take public transport
instead.

Another advantage that I did not see mentioned: The pricing systems are often
complicated (how long you can ride, how far, are you allowed to change etc.).
With a flat fee more people would be encouraged to just take public transport
without needing to comprehend a complicated pricing system.

------
dajohnson89
As I write this post, I sit on a bus in Baltimore. My fare card was 10 cents
short when I boarded. So, I had to pay $5 cash for a $1.60 ride home (the
machine doesn't give change). This whole transaction took 2 minutes, and the
bus was moving, causing me to almost lose my balance.

There's got to be a better way. Especially considering I pay 4 digits in taxes
every year to the city.

------
treelovinhippie
There's a free shuttle bus route in Wollongong (hour south of Sydney) which is
also starting to be adopted in Sydney. Buses loop the CBD and outskirts, and
arrive every 10-30mins: [http://www.wollongong.com/travel-info/free-shuttle-
bus.aspx](http://www.wollongong.com/travel-info/free-shuttle-bus.aspx)

------
Skalman
I lived in a city where there _were_ free buses for a few months. It didn't
work, since drunks would come sit in the bus for warmth (and drink, despite
the rules).

My conclusion is that, though I like the idea of free buses, there should at
least be a token fee to discourage people taking a ride for the roof.

------
sjtrny
The issues of speed that this article mentions are negated by the latest
electronic ticketing systems such as Oyster, Myki and Opal. As you walk on to
the bus you touch the card against a reader and that's it. Saves a lot of
time.

------
nraynaud
we do have a few cities with free bus services (only Chateauroux comes to mind
now). It's a bit complicated because it shifts social behavior, (people just
loiters in the busses).

But the reasoning is that the bus system is a complete taxpayer money think,
and the fare collection system is just adding more drag than easing the bill.
It's not sure it's always the case, like sometimes the collected fares pays a
bit more than the collection system. There is no hope in paying the whole
system with fares in a medium size city tho, it's always money coming from
somewhere else (mostly taxes).

------
6d0debc071
I wonder how many people don't take the bus because of the cost. I know that,
even if it were free, I'd rather pay £-whatever a year to use my car than
suffer the inconvenience and stress of public transport.

------
tenpoundhammer
How about an NPR style pledge drive, maybe everyone could win. If homeless
people are mucking up the system, we could help them to not be homeless...

------
mikepurvis
What about just drastically cutting the cost of a pass? So a single ride still
costs $2-3, but you can get a monthly unlimited ride pass for $20?

------
tjstankus
The bus system here in Chapel Hill, NC is fare-free.

------
rwhitman
I think this would make much more sense in Los Angeles than NYC. But the
taxpayers there would never go for it, they love cars too much

------
Raticide
We have some free buses but I choose to use the pay buses to avoid the over
crowding. Maybe there's room for both.

------
jcmoscon
Nothing is free. Somebody will have to wake up in the morning and work to pay
for the "free" ticket!

~~~
hawleyal
It could be free to the traveller, provided as a public service.

------
shawndumas
print version
[http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2013/06/fares/print](http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2013/06/fares/print)

------
zwieback
Free busrides for everyone in Corvallis, OR. Not a big city but it's a start.

------
petercooper
_Fares bring in a lot of money, but they cost money to collect [..] Fare boxes
and turnstiles have to be maintained; buses idle while waiting for passengers
to pay up, wasting fuel; and everyone loses time._

A large share of my time at the grocery store is spent scanning and paying for
the groceries too.

------
hawleyal
Maybe food should be free.

------
jstalin
Everyone loves something for free!

------
grimborg
Why not check in with NFC cards?

------
Dewie
I think that bus fares should at the least be cheaper than the average gas
price it would take you to drive the same distance yourself. One could argue
that using the bus also might save you from having to buy and maintain your
own car, saving more money than just gas. But I would say that for many
people, although they could take the bus more often, having their own car is
just too convenient to give up on totally.

------
protomyth
I would expect better of the Economist, but the buses would be fully tax-payer
and advertising subsidized and most definitely not free.

[edit: added advertising]

~~~
rtfeldman
The article clearly used the term "free" to mean "zero fare." This is a
strawman criticism.

~~~
nickff
No, a straw man is when you construct an easy target to shoot down. This
commenter is simply the title for its improper (or possibly vague) use of the
word free.

