> Agreed, but the question is whether people would be more wasteful with 100% free buses, taking more trips and negating that benefit.
Generally this isn't how bus systems operate. Bus lines will run for a dedicated period of time and constantly run the line. The only way for more buses to be introduced is to expand the hours of operation or introduce more lines. That then becomes a question of capacity and how many people are using those lines. As bus lines become saturated and need to be expanded, we already have an idea of how many riders are using that system and we can directly measure that against changes in density of other forms of transit (car, rail, pedestrian, etc.). To that end, the buses are least wasteful when saturated, so its simply about measuring against cars to determine if there is more resources spent on bus systems compared to the number of cars that would exist without said bus system. We know that buses carry many more people per trip than cars do reducing car volume in favor of bus volume means we are being more efficient per vehicle, which is a bonus for things like more environmentally friendly bus tech while avoiding the externality cost that individual people and families pay when having to purchase and operate/maintain a car.
> Sorry, I don't have the citations right now, but much has been written about cities especially in Latin America where new subway systems were built that showed a strong negative impact on efficiency and expenses.
It is totally possible that a mass transit system will fail to provide any benefit. Its up to each city and locality to determine what transit will for that area. However, in the US we do know that car transit wasn't really considered this way and was expanded without a lot of thought going into density issues.
> All I'm saying is that we have to be careful with subsidies. Subsidies are MONEY and as a general rule spending more money causes more energy use and waste. Saying "We'll save energy by spending money" is always a tenuous argument that needs to made with care.
Owners and drivers of cars are spending money already to obtain and maintain those vehicles. Those drivers are also subsidized in a variety of ways. Spending money in general doesn't guarantee an increase in energy use w.r.t. transit, certain forms of transit are much more energy efficient in comparison to other forms.
Generally this isn't how bus systems operate. Bus lines will run for a dedicated period of time and constantly run the line. The only way for more buses to be introduced is to expand the hours of operation or introduce more lines. That then becomes a question of capacity and how many people are using those lines. As bus lines become saturated and need to be expanded, we already have an idea of how many riders are using that system and we can directly measure that against changes in density of other forms of transit (car, rail, pedestrian, etc.). To that end, the buses are least wasteful when saturated, so its simply about measuring against cars to determine if there is more resources spent on bus systems compared to the number of cars that would exist without said bus system. We know that buses carry many more people per trip than cars do reducing car volume in favor of bus volume means we are being more efficient per vehicle, which is a bonus for things like more environmentally friendly bus tech while avoiding the externality cost that individual people and families pay when having to purchase and operate/maintain a car.
> Sorry, I don't have the citations right now, but much has been written about cities especially in Latin America where new subway systems were built that showed a strong negative impact on efficiency and expenses.
It is totally possible that a mass transit system will fail to provide any benefit. Its up to each city and locality to determine what transit will for that area. However, in the US we do know that car transit wasn't really considered this way and was expanded without a lot of thought going into density issues.
> All I'm saying is that we have to be careful with subsidies. Subsidies are MONEY and as a general rule spending more money causes more energy use and waste. Saying "We'll save energy by spending money" is always a tenuous argument that needs to made with care.
Owners and drivers of cars are spending money already to obtain and maintain those vehicles. Those drivers are also subsidized in a variety of ways. Spending money in general doesn't guarantee an increase in energy use w.r.t. transit, certain forms of transit are much more energy efficient in comparison to other forms.