France is testing free public transport(bbc.com)
bbc.com
France is testing free public transport
http://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210519-how-france-is-testing-free-public-transport
271 comments
That is analogous to the argument favouring UBI as a replacement for usage-restricted (food stamps, scholarships, etc.) and means-tested benefits. Leaving aside the debate on whether the universality of UBI is sustainable or not, the simplicity of just giving X amount of money to each individual, no questions asked, saves a huge amount of inefficient bureaucratic overhead.
I remember getting into a debate with someone when Florida wanted to do drug tests for welfare recipients. She just couldn’t understand the simple math and why it is a waste of money. Also the fact the contract went to a company associated with the governor’s wife, which is probably the real reason for the policy.
The kicker? This person herself was on welfare! In her mind, she doesn’t do drugs, so she is morally right in demanding others who do, don’t get any help from government - no matter how small the percentage is. And no matter the cost. Most people (including myself) have very little idea about basic economics.
We need to change our attitude towards work, towards helping others etc. somehow it is drilled into our heads that working insane hours is holy. In my opinion, working more than 35 hours per week solely for money is just plain stupid. While sustainability is the biggest question with ideas like UBI, people’s attitude towards work is also a huge hurdle
The kicker? This person herself was on welfare! In her mind, she doesn’t do drugs, so she is morally right in demanding others who do, don’t get any help from government - no matter how small the percentage is. And no matter the cost. Most people (including myself) have very little idea about basic economics.
We need to change our attitude towards work, towards helping others etc. somehow it is drilled into our heads that working insane hours is holy. In my opinion, working more than 35 hours per week solely for money is just plain stupid. While sustainability is the biggest question with ideas like UBI, people’s attitude towards work is also a huge hurdle
While I agree with the simplicity argument, I think providing a free service is very different from giving everyone free money. UBI is likely to have many unintended consequences. For example, what would be stopping land lords from hiking rent prices? And what would happen to addicts who use their UBI to buy drugs instead of food and shelter?
That last one isn't an issue. If an addict needs help, give them medically-based, compassion-built-in free help. If they don't want help and aren't making others unsafe, it isn't my business any more than it is my business if someone donates 10% because their religious organization requires/suggests tithes.
People are going to spend money in ways you don't approve of. Period, it is part of life. I truly believe that we, as a society, shouldn't let that take away something that can help a bunch of people.
People are going to spend money in ways you don't approve of. Period, it is part of life. I truly believe that we, as a society, shouldn't let that take away something that can help a bunch of people.
The concern many have with UBI is that society will still have to provide all the other social benefits anyway, food stamps, housing, etc, because many people who need UBI likely are not going to spend the money wisely.
> While I agree with the simplicity argument, I think providing a free service is very different from giving everyone free money.
Free public transport is the tragedy of the commons in inverse. Free roads mean public transport can barely compete against cars. The convenience of a car simply cannot be compared to a bus but the real question is, why is it so cheap to drive yourself? Shouldn't it be far more expensive? If people abuse free public transport that is actually a good thing.
>For example, what would be stopping land lords from hiking rent prices?
Nothing, nobody guarantees that you get to live in the most expensive locations on earth. Please move to a place where your UBI is enough instead of trying to drag down the most productive members of society (indicated by their ability to pay high rents) and by productive I just mean economically (nobody gets to tell how to live your life), which means they are the source of the UBI income in the first place so it is in your best interest to make sure they succeed.
>And what would happen to addicts who use their UBI to buy drugs instead of food and shelter?
They will rob less stores and houses to fund their drugs.
Free public transport is the tragedy of the commons in inverse. Free roads mean public transport can barely compete against cars. The convenience of a car simply cannot be compared to a bus but the real question is, why is it so cheap to drive yourself? Shouldn't it be far more expensive? If people abuse free public transport that is actually a good thing.
>For example, what would be stopping land lords from hiking rent prices?
Nothing, nobody guarantees that you get to live in the most expensive locations on earth. Please move to a place where your UBI is enough instead of trying to drag down the most productive members of society (indicated by their ability to pay high rents) and by productive I just mean economically (nobody gets to tell how to live your life), which means they are the source of the UBI income in the first place so it is in your best interest to make sure they succeed.
>And what would happen to addicts who use their UBI to buy drugs instead of food and shelter?
They will rob less stores and houses to fund their drugs.
> why is it so cheap to drive yourself? Shouldn't it be far more expensive? If people abuse free public transport that is actually a good thing.
Yearly taxes on my car are higher than a yearly public transport pass, yet I still have a car. Public transport could be free, they could even pay me for each trip and I would still have a car, simply because my car takes me to places/times that public transport doesn't.
I'm all for public transport, and I use it regularly, but it is not a complete replacement for a car. In fact if you make it free people might even use the savings to buy a bigger car.
Yearly taxes on my car are higher than a yearly public transport pass, yet I still have a car. Public transport could be free, they could even pay me for each trip and I would still have a car, simply because my car takes me to places/times that public transport doesn't.
I'm all for public transport, and I use it regularly, but it is not a complete replacement for a car. In fact if you make it free people might even use the savings to buy a bigger car.
The second question: asking this question about UBI is as wrong as asking it for salary. It's none of anyone's business. (Well – it's everyone's business in that society should offer addiction help for those who feel they need it, but that's not unique to UBI).
> For example, what would be stopping land lords from hiking rent prices?
Exactly the same things that are stopping/not stopping them now?
UBI won't magically make everybody non-poor, no matter how you tweak the numbers. But it creates a gentle slope where everything means-tested creates harsh cut-offs full of bad incentives. It prevents many things (even if not all things) that make up the trap-like nature of poverty.
Exactly the same things that are stopping/not stopping them now?
UBI won't magically make everybody non-poor, no matter how you tweak the numbers. But it creates a gentle slope where everything means-tested creates harsh cut-offs full of bad incentives. It prevents many things (even if not all things) that make up the trap-like nature of poverty.
What is stopping them now exactly? If they know that your family all of a sudden had, for example, $500 more per month, they will simply raise the rent for $500. Similarly, your hairdresser knows you have more money so he will charge more, your mechanic knows you have more money so he will charge more etc. ad infinitum.
By this logic, people would be scared of buying a good looking car or dressing well.
Nope. Just because someone has a good car, doesn't mean he has the money. Actually, I would argue that most of the people don't have the money, i.e. they're driving better car then they can afford. And you're assuming that your landlord or hairdresser suddenly know which car you drive, but that is very long assumption.
In this case (UBI) literally everybody knows 100% that you have more money than before.
In this case (UBI) literally everybody knows 100% that you have more money than before.
> what would be stopping land lords from hiking rent prices?
This argument doesn't seem specific to UBI, but could be raised towards giving anybody money for anything.
Maybe some landlords would initially raise prices, but presumably competition or alternative housing options would push the prices down again.
This argument doesn't seem specific to UBI, but could be raised towards giving anybody money for anything.
Maybe some landlords would initially raise prices, but presumably competition or alternative housing options would push the prices down again.
[deleted]
There will always be edge cases to every public measure.
Except, of course, you cannot leave aside the issue of affordability and sustainability, which is by far the main issue of UBI in terms of public finance.
If you do then, considering the overall cost of actual UBI, the claim that this saves on bureaucracy is like claiming that spending 100 to save 1 (both on a recurring basis to make it worse) is sensible since it saves 1. This 1 in potential savings is simply irrelevant (and in reality would be replaced by another bureaucracy anyway) because it is dwarfed by the overall additional cost. Or, what you call 'UBI' is just a single benefit to replace a number of existing benefits, like the UK did with "universal credit".
If you do then, considering the overall cost of actual UBI, the claim that this saves on bureaucracy is like claiming that spending 100 to save 1 (both on a recurring basis to make it worse) is sensible since it saves 1. This 1 in potential savings is simply irrelevant (and in reality would be replaced by another bureaucracy anyway) because it is dwarfed by the overall additional cost. Or, what you call 'UBI' is just a single benefit to replace a number of existing benefits, like the UK did with "universal credit".
I don’t think anyone is saying that the savings in bureaucracy are so great that UBI wouldn’t be a net cost, but that the cost may be less than one would expect.
Also having gotten clued into modern monetary theory from The Deficit Myth lately I’ve come to question all the hand-wringing about cost. If the government can just print however much money it costs to pay out a UBI, then it’s more about controlling inflation with a significant increase in deficit spending, not about if a (monetarily independent) state can “afford” it. Taxes may be a part of that to drain money from the general supply and incentivize work, but it’s not necessary to pay for it.
Also having gotten clued into modern monetary theory from The Deficit Myth lately I’ve come to question all the hand-wringing about cost. If the government can just print however much money it costs to pay out a UBI, then it’s more about controlling inflation with a significant increase in deficit spending, not about if a (monetarily independent) state can “afford” it. Taxes may be a part of that to drain money from the general supply and incentivize work, but it’s not necessary to pay for it.
I'm suspicious of the downvotes your comment has attracted - I suppose I'd like to challenge whoever is feeling so negative to explain why they think UBI gets pushback, if not the sustainability aspect?
I think everyone agrees that if we all got infinite amounts of free stuff that would be great. Failing that, finite amount of free stuff is good. There are good reasons that despite that we have a pay-as-you-use economy.
People keep trying to come up with financial perpetual motion machines where everyone gets lots of free stuff. Much like perpetual motion machines, there are broad principles the limit what is possible - people on average just don't do things if there isn't a reward for doing it, and we need people to first produce the stuff before it can be given away.
There are grave questions about whether a UBI can be simultaneously effective (ie, a meaningful amount of money) and also sustainable (ie, not catastrophically dis-incentivise working). It may be possible to do both at once, but that is really the only aspect of the debate worth talking about - otherwise it is a bit of a no brainier for everyone to get free stuff.
I think everyone agrees that if we all got infinite amounts of free stuff that would be great. Failing that, finite amount of free stuff is good. There are good reasons that despite that we have a pay-as-you-use economy.
People keep trying to come up with financial perpetual motion machines where everyone gets lots of free stuff. Much like perpetual motion machines, there are broad principles the limit what is possible - people on average just don't do things if there isn't a reward for doing it, and we need people to first produce the stuff before it can be given away.
There are grave questions about whether a UBI can be simultaneously effective (ie, a meaningful amount of money) and also sustainable (ie, not catastrophically dis-incentivise working). It may be possible to do both at once, but that is really the only aspect of the debate worth talking about - otherwise it is a bit of a no brainier for everyone to get free stuff.
The characterization of UBI as "free stuff" is a non-starter. It's an emotionally-laden term which also fails to consider how UBI proponents frame the benefits in terms of establishing a baseline quality of life (food, shelter, clothing). To conflate that with "free stuff" as if we're discussing free government-provided Playstations won't move the debate forward.
What standard of living is considered baseline quality? Would an internet connection be included in baseline quality of living? I know this is HN, and everyone is microoptimizing their day schedule to fit in time for their side projects, but you'd be surprised how many people would be completely comfortable with living a basic life with basic food, shelter and some internet access.
Now there's nothing wrong with that, but someone still has to work for the UBI to work.
Now there's nothing wrong with that, but someone still has to work for the UBI to work.
You're mistaking me for a proponent of UBI because I gave a clear definition that didn't involve trivializing the needs of the poor. I actually don't think it would work.
Yeah, I'm not sure I wouldn't just switch to this lifestyle and devote all my time to those side project.
> how UBI proponents frame the benefits in terms of establishing a baseline quality of life (food, shelter, clothing).
As always the first question is: Why do you mean by UBI? It seems that everyone has their own idea.
If that means a benefit to ensure everyone has a minimum income to buy basic things then this is nothing new and exists in most Western European countries. In that case 'UBI' is just a new term for an old thing used purely within the US political debate (perhaps to avoid stating that this is what those 'socialist' Europeans have, I don't know).
On the other hand if UBI means what it is supposed to mean, i.e. "is a theoretical governmental public program for a periodic payment delivered to all citizens of a given population without a means test or work requirement" [1] then you can immediately see that the main issue is indeed feasibility and sustainability because unconditionally giving a meaningful amount of money to every person in a country is extremely expensive and the money still has to come from somewhere.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income
As always the first question is: Why do you mean by UBI? It seems that everyone has their own idea.
If that means a benefit to ensure everyone has a minimum income to buy basic things then this is nothing new and exists in most Western European countries. In that case 'UBI' is just a new term for an old thing used purely within the US political debate (perhaps to avoid stating that this is what those 'socialist' Europeans have, I don't know).
On the other hand if UBI means what it is supposed to mean, i.e. "is a theoretical governmental public program for a periodic payment delivered to all citizens of a given population without a means test or work requirement" [1] then you can immediately see that the main issue is indeed feasibility and sustainability because unconditionally giving a meaningful amount of money to every person in a country is extremely expensive and the money still has to come from somewhere.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income
> The characterization of UBI as "free stuff" is a non-starter...
There isn't any negative emotion associated with free stuff. Free stuff is great.
The issue is that there is pretty solid social ... I don't want to say understanding, perhaps suspicion is the right word ... that giving out free stuff hasn't ever worked well.
So the political faction that likes the idea of free stuff comes up with a reason that this scheme will work - trying very hard to come up with a framework where people get to consume stuff without necessarily having to do the work to produce an equivalent amount of stuff.
Much like a perpetual motion scheme, the system gets more complicated to the point where eventually nobody can explain why this specific system can't work ... but there is a core relationship here that needs to be broken, and the debate needs to centre around whether it has been broken this time. It cannot be hand-waved away. The enormous costs associated with a UBI are an important factor and there are questions about whether it can be sustained long term.
There isn't any negative emotion associated with free stuff. Free stuff is great.
The issue is that there is pretty solid social ... I don't want to say understanding, perhaps suspicion is the right word ... that giving out free stuff hasn't ever worked well.
So the political faction that likes the idea of free stuff comes up with a reason that this scheme will work - trying very hard to come up with a framework where people get to consume stuff without necessarily having to do the work to produce an equivalent amount of stuff.
Much like a perpetual motion scheme, the system gets more complicated to the point where eventually nobody can explain why this specific system can't work ... but there is a core relationship here that needs to be broken, and the debate needs to centre around whether it has been broken this time. It cannot be hand-waved away. The enormous costs associated with a UBI are an important factor and there are questions about whether it can be sustained long term.
My workplace's monthly coffee mug giveaway is "free stuff". An impoverished family's housing allowance is not "free stuff". Can you see the difference?
How about if you need $x money for UBI you raise the taxes by $x. Then what you've done is just redistributing some money from those earning most to those earning the least.
If you want a higher income gap between those working and those not working, you can make the income tax negative at the bottom.
If you want a higher income gap between those working and those not working, you can make the income tax negative at the bottom.
Posted this on another comment but:
Having gotten clued into modern monetary theory from The Deficit Myth lately I’ve come to question all the hand-wringing about cost. If the government can just print however much money it costs to pay out a UBI, then it’s more about controlling inflation with a significant increase in deficit spending, not about if a (monetarily independent) state can “afford” it. Taxes may be a part of that to drain money from the general supply and incentivize work, but it’s not necessary to pay for it.
Having gotten clued into modern monetary theory from The Deficit Myth lately I’ve come to question all the hand-wringing about cost. If the government can just print however much money it costs to pay out a UBI, then it’s more about controlling inflation with a significant increase in deficit spending, not about if a (monetarily independent) state can “afford” it. Taxes may be a part of that to drain money from the general supply and incentivize work, but it’s not necessary to pay for it.
[deleted]
> ... but it’s not necessary to pay for it.
Your point seems rather close to:
* There would be high spending
* There would be high taxes
* The high taxes and the high spending would be linked
Those three things link together into paying for the spending with taxes. "Controlling inflation" is a series of measures that have all the properties of taxes, it is just a euphemism. Much like how the term is "quantitative easing" rather than the more easily followed "money creation".
Your point seems rather close to:
* There would be high spending
* There would be high taxes
* The high taxes and the high spending would be linked
Those three things link together into paying for the spending with taxes. "Controlling inflation" is a series of measures that have all the properties of taxes, it is just a euphemism. Much like how the term is "quantitative easing" rather than the more easily followed "money creation".
MMT says that if you have unused capacity in the society, the government might as well use it (by printing money). As long as it doesn't compete for resources it won't create I inflation but simply grow the economy.
It's a pretty distinct issue from redistribution.
It's a pretty distinct issue from redistribution.
Distinct? It seems to just be a rephrasing. How will we create unused capacity? We'll take money from some people so it can't be spent on whatever capacity they want and so spend it on the capacity we want.
On that level MMT isn't particularly troubling to me. The thing I don't like about it is when the proponents start implicitly talking about having politicians directly control the money supply. The status quo has the Fed - which ultimately is a creature of congress but there's at least a bit of inertia for congress to enact its will and the Fed has room to do things outside of that will.
On that level MMT isn't particularly troubling to me. The thing I don't like about it is when the proponents start implicitly talking about having politicians directly control the money supply. The status quo has the Fed - which ultimately is a creature of congress but there's at least a bit of inertia for congress to enact its will and the Fed has room to do things outside of that will.
The concept of "free stuff" is also rather artificial: it comes from the idea that we MUST pay for things.
Imagine we build self-sustained machines capable of producing and distributing enough food for twice the Earth's population. Does it still make sense for people to have to PAY for their food?
As a reminder, many of our ancestors gathered fruits that grew on trees or hunted animals -- they did not need to PAY anyone for food.
The idea of paying for food makes sense in a world where food is scarce and great effort is required to produce it. As the difficulty in producing in volume decreases, so should this artificial price we put on it.
We still don't have such food-producing machines. But that's a direction in which we're going, and we should shape our society with this kind of thing in mind.
Imagine we build self-sustained machines capable of producing and distributing enough food for twice the Earth's population. Does it still make sense for people to have to PAY for their food?
As a reminder, many of our ancestors gathered fruits that grew on trees or hunted animals -- they did not need to PAY anyone for food.
The idea of paying for food makes sense in a world where food is scarce and great effort is required to produce it. As the difficulty in producing in volume decreases, so should this artificial price we put on it.
We still don't have such food-producing machines. But that's a direction in which we're going, and we should shape our society with this kind of thing in mind.
They may not have PAID for food but they did WORK to get that food. With UBI no work required.
I agree with you on the distinction but violently disagree on the conclusion. With UBI you still pay for things and the capitalist system still functions; it just lifts a baseline for all of society.
Food these days isn’t just literally apples picked from a tree though. Putting aside the labor for harvesting and transporting the raw ingredients to you so that you didn’t have to do it, someone put labor into cooking something nice at a restaurant - I think that labor should be rewarded in some form, and I also think electing for a luxury over, say, just making the food yourself.
But putting even all that aside, I disagree that payment isn’t necessary in a world of abundance. It’s not just a means of rationing limited supplies; a main point of capitalism is to incentivize people to do things (well) in the first place, and to coordinate action between different actors in society that may not be communicating with one another. Prices do that. I don’t think we as a society have worked it out how to coordinate and incentivize labor if payment isn’t part of the process.
But putting even all that aside, I disagree that payment isn’t necessary in a world of abundance. It’s not just a means of rationing limited supplies; a main point of capitalism is to incentivize people to do things (well) in the first place, and to coordinate action between different actors in society that may not be communicating with one another. Prices do that. I don’t think we as a society have worked it out how to coordinate and incentivize labor if payment isn’t part of the process.
I honestly do not believe that a UBI is necessary nor can it solve problems that we face. The only appeal is in the simplicity and naivety that politicians will not add clauses and complexity (they will).
It's also a funding nightmare, not because of inflation or free stuff or dis-incentivising working, it's because the sheer amount of money would rival the GDP but the vast majority of people will just get most of it taxed away so that it has a net zero effect.
If you are going to throw around money it would make more sense to just give people meaningful employment and if nobody employs these people they can get a temporary job from the government. After all, a minimum wage is completely worthless if you can't get a job because of it.
It's also a funding nightmare, not because of inflation or free stuff or dis-incentivising working, it's because the sheer amount of money would rival the GDP but the vast majority of people will just get most of it taxed away so that it has a net zero effect.
If you are going to throw around money it would make more sense to just give people meaningful employment and if nobody employs these people they can get a temporary job from the government. After all, a minimum wage is completely worthless if you can't get a job because of it.
> If you are going to throw around money it would make more sense to just give people meaningful employment and if nobody employs these people they can get a temporary job from the government. After all, a minimum wage is completely worthless if you can't get a job because of it.
The purpose of minimum wage is (or ought to be) to ensure that no one who is working is unable to afford the necessities of life.
UBI establishes that floor without requiring a job, which inverts the meaning of the phrase "every wage is a living wage".
Therefore, UBI can eliminate the need for a minimum wage. In practice, transactional costs establish a floor below which it is impractical to pay for work (even piecework, ala MTurk), and UBI establishes a (probably higher) floor below which people won't put up with crap jobs, but both of those are probably lower than minimum wage.
The purpose of minimum wage is (or ought to be) to ensure that no one who is working is unable to afford the necessities of life.
UBI establishes that floor without requiring a job, which inverts the meaning of the phrase "every wage is a living wage".
Therefore, UBI can eliminate the need for a minimum wage. In practice, transactional costs establish a floor below which it is impractical to pay for work (even piecework, ala MTurk), and UBI establishes a (probably higher) floor below which people won't put up with crap jobs, but both of those are probably lower than minimum wage.
Regarding the sustainability argument, there is actually pretty solid evidence from previous trials that it it does not dis-incentivise work. It's worthwhile reading Rutger Bregman's "Utopia for Realists", many people do not now that it was Nixon of all people who wanted to implement a UBI, in the initial voting the democrats rejected it because they thought it was too low (and likely also because they did not want to give Nixon a "win", yay for a 2 party adverserial system).
It's also telling how the opposition against UBI formed (largely driven by one of his advisors). The argument were framed largely around lazyness, i.e. people become lazy. A significant motivation for the opposition is that some of the studies found that divorces increased (likely because women didn't feel tied to a relationship because of financial dependencies), which was ideologically incompatible with conservatives.
Another interesting point is that similar arguments to the "UBI is paying for itself" is used by conservatives when it comes to tax breaks. They are always assumed to pay for themselves because of increased economic activity. Both of these are likely wrong (well actually the tax one has been shown to be wrong many times).
It's also telling how the opposition against UBI formed (largely driven by one of his advisors). The argument were framed largely around lazyness, i.e. people become lazy. A significant motivation for the opposition is that some of the studies found that divorces increased (likely because women didn't feel tied to a relationship because of financial dependencies), which was ideologically incompatible with conservatives.
Another interesting point is that similar arguments to the "UBI is paying for itself" is used by conservatives when it comes to tax breaks. They are always assumed to pay for themselves because of increased economic activity. Both of these are likely wrong (well actually the tax one has been shown to be wrong many times).
The cost of a system where you decide if someone should receive benefits or not is one thing - how to distribute the budget to those that most benefit. The extra cost in ensuring hose benefits are in specific vouchers for specific things tends not to be necessary from a saving money point of view.
But government benefits for poor people are not about providing poor people with the ability to live, it's about controling them - be it company towns or church poor-houses which gave free housing but banned people from say drinking or dancing, to a healthcare system which bans people from leaving their job because they won't get healthcare.
(Government benefits for rich people of course are completely different)
But government benefits for poor people are not about providing poor people with the ability to live, it's about controling them - be it company towns or church poor-houses which gave free housing but banned people from say drinking or dancing, to a healthcare system which bans people from leaving their job because they won't get healthcare.
(Government benefits for rich people of course are completely different)
That seems to be an exceptionally mis-managed case - for instance London’s Oyster card cost approximately 10% of that about 10 years earlier.
Depreciated over 10 years, that system was responsible for c2% of costs and presumably had some benefits, so although it’s definitely a crazy waste of money it might not be a huge cost-driver.
I suspect there are much more costs than the system for fare collection more generally though to your wider point, such as inspectors, workers assisting people at the ticketing gates, longer bus stop turnaround time as people clock into the system etc
Depreciated over 10 years, that system was responsible for c2% of costs and presumably had some benefits, so although it’s definitely a crazy waste of money it might not be a huge cost-driver.
I suspect there are much more costs than the system for fare collection more generally though to your wider point, such as inspectors, workers assisting people at the ticketing gates, longer bus stop turnaround time as people clock into the system etc
Holland introduced a nationwide RFID based public transport pass ~13 years ago.
It had similar problems, probably mostly caused by incompetence, e.g. it was all based on an expensive, obsolete and insecure "Mifare Classic" RFID chip because the transport minister went to visit Oyster and that was what used there. Leaving aside that that system was fully deployed a decade earlier. The chip was obsolete and cracked before it was fully rolled out.
It had similar problems, probably mostly caused by incompetence, e.g. it was all based on an expensive, obsolete and insecure "Mifare Classic" RFID chip because the transport minister went to visit Oyster and that was what used there. Leaving aside that that system was fully deployed a decade earlier. The chip was obsolete and cracked before it was fully rolled out.
I have direct experience of that specific implementation and you are correct in that it was exceptionally mis-managed.
Even in its inception, it was stupid, some company sells to Melbourne and outsources the business logic to Switzerland and outsources the rest of the app to a UK firm.
Idk if you've ever worked on embedded but having to deal with an opaque third party component that is doing all the "business logic" and hogging resources (SqlCe makes this _really_ bad) really sucks on an embedded device that has been stripped down to its bare-bones to reduce the cost because the owners want to sell the business to some conglomerate ASAP. We couldn't even share resources with the opaque third party app so we couldn't use SqlCe ourselves because it blew the memory budget to have two connections open and we couldn't use Sqlite because of old visual basic architects that are stupid and are terrified of anything that isn't microsoft.
Also none of that matters because the architecture was so insane anyway and was never going to work because the devs didn't understand the limitations of the Compact Framework and used XmlDocument as a key part of the architecture. One transition from one screen to another would load (at a minimum) two very large Xml files and the Compact Framework and the hardware just wasn't good enough to do that all the time. The entire project was built around the hope that the hardware and framework could lift a lot more than it could in practice.
As an aside, I was brought in to help fix some of the debris and work on the next project (which they were going to do before the Melbourne money showed up). This was after they finally removed the "must have a degree" requirement which had bounced me the years previous. Having a degree or not wasn't the problem, the problem was the devs they employed didn't have enough embedded experience and they (like most people at the time) drastically underestimated the complexity of embedded as well as overestimated how effective the compact framework was (it kinda sucked ass tbh).
Thankfully most of this doesn't matter anymore because the company I'm talking about got sold to some big firm who lost the market to an up and comer some decade later.
Even in its inception, it was stupid, some company sells to Melbourne and outsources the business logic to Switzerland and outsources the rest of the app to a UK firm.
Idk if you've ever worked on embedded but having to deal with an opaque third party component that is doing all the "business logic" and hogging resources (SqlCe makes this _really_ bad) really sucks on an embedded device that has been stripped down to its bare-bones to reduce the cost because the owners want to sell the business to some conglomerate ASAP. We couldn't even share resources with the opaque third party app so we couldn't use SqlCe ourselves because it blew the memory budget to have two connections open and we couldn't use Sqlite because of old visual basic architects that are stupid and are terrified of anything that isn't microsoft.
Also none of that matters because the architecture was so insane anyway and was never going to work because the devs didn't understand the limitations of the Compact Framework and used XmlDocument as a key part of the architecture. One transition from one screen to another would load (at a minimum) two very large Xml files and the Compact Framework and the hardware just wasn't good enough to do that all the time. The entire project was built around the hope that the hardware and framework could lift a lot more than it could in practice.
As an aside, I was brought in to help fix some of the debris and work on the next project (which they were going to do before the Melbourne money showed up). This was after they finally removed the "must have a degree" requirement which had bounced me the years previous. Having a degree or not wasn't the problem, the problem was the devs they employed didn't have enough embedded experience and they (like most people at the time) drastically underestimated the complexity of embedded as well as overestimated how effective the compact framework was (it kinda sucked ass tbh).
Thankfully most of this doesn't matter anymore because the company I'm talking about got sold to some big firm who lost the market to an up and comer some decade later.
Drivers also face violence for enforcing fares (however many agencies now ask them not to because of this).
Handling cash adds a huge cost as well in addition to the electronic systems.
Lots of friction across the board
Handling cash adds a huge cost as well in addition to the electronic systems.
Lots of friction across the board
In the town I live (Nice, FR) the drivers don't enforce fares. You can completely bypass them and they won't look twice at you.
However, there are "control" squads, basically a large group of +6 feet guys in uniform that will randomly hop on tramways, trains, buses and do ticket checks.
However, there are "control" squads, basically a large group of +6 feet guys in uniform that will randomly hop on tramways, trains, buses and do ticket checks.
> +6 feet guys in uniform that will randomly hop on tramways
I know I'm adding nothing to the discussion, but I couldn't stop myself from giggling at alternative interpretations of this fragment.
I know I'm adding nothing to the discussion, but I couldn't stop myself from giggling at alternative interpretations of this fragment.
I'm not familiar at all with the imperial system (as you can guess), but I tried to make it more accessible to HN
Edit: Ohhh now I get it :D
Edit: Ohhh now I get it :D
It took me a while too :-P
No no, they don't have extra legs, just more feet randomly on their body.
Exactly the same in Lyon but the control squads are more around 5'6.
Edit: a ticket is around 2€ and can be used for an hour as much as you want, and then you can finish the last "trip" you started in the hour. The fine for not having a ticket validated is 60€.
Edit: a ticket is around 2€ and can be used for an hour as much as you want, and then you can finish the last "trip" you started in the hour. The fine for not having a ticket validated is 60€.
Must be the mediterranean weather /s
At least where I am, they don't accept cash (you must pay for credit before boarding) and they don't enforce tickets. Separate ticket inspectors go around checking tickets.
In germany there is minimal payment infra, but civil dressed cops will make you pay randomly a heavy fine if they catch you.
It's worth mentioning it is a criminal offense but there is a scale for repeat offenders. The first time the fine is not that much but by repeatedly evading fares you can eventually end up with community service or jail time. There is talk of decriminalizing it due to the overhead of this too and the fact that it hasn't really worked and mostly targets vulnerable people.
> civil dressed cops
They are not cops. The only reason they can demand showing the ticket is because of the terms of service.
They are not cops. The only reason they can demand showing the ticket is because of the terms of service.
I think the fine is same as in France (60 Euros for Schwarzfahren) or at least in Munich it's 60 Euros.
They found out that this is cheaper and more efficient than turnstiles. I saw the paper a long time ago, because I couldn't believe it.
Cops or people employed by the transportation provider? I only saw civil employees in my life so far.
Are those cops really?
Anyway, those people always act like thugs. I wish there was no need for them.
Anyway, those people always act like thugs. I wish there was no need for them.
I took an interview at the NYC MTA about 10 years ago to build a credit card system instead of the ridiculous ticket system. It was pretty cool. They had very simple and cheap solutions available, even some self-built prototypes, but ... politics. Everybody needs to make some money off of everything to pass each stage of approval. From then I started thinking always about the many revenue systems we employ that cost far more than they collect. Public transit is a big one because the cost of a customer not buying a ticket is not just the ticket price, but traffic time and road expansion and emissions and parking structures etc. It’s hard even for government agencies to capture those externalities across department budgets and mandates.
> Melbourne for example implementation of their chip card system ran much over budget and was 1.5 billion AUD in the end [1].
...
This is a lot! How in the world they managed to spend so much? I myself worked on a turnstile project once, and with such money you can buy 5823187.5 most feature loaded, RFID+QR reading turnstiles.
...
This is a lot! How in the world they managed to spend so much? I myself worked on a turnstile project once, and with such money you can buy 5823187.5 most feature loaded, RFID+QR reading turnstiles.
Corruption. It's rampant in infrastructure projects in Australia. They could have just not charged anyone for public transport and they'd have SAVED money. The enforcement outweighs the revenue.
Australia has a history of corruption in infrastructure and politics, it's only really started to bubble to the surface in the past 5-10 years.. But still, nothing has really been done and it's just accepted.
Australia has a history of corruption in infrastructure and politics, it's only really started to bubble to the surface in the past 5-10 years.. But still, nothing has really been done and it's just accepted.
Let's not even get started on the private-public partnerships in Australia. Anyone want to read on a real horror-story have a look at the Sydney airport link.
TLDR: (from memory so some details might be slightly off) they build a train link to the airport in a public private partnership, but estimated passenger numbers wrong. The private owner of the train stations (essentially the airport and one other one) upped the fares, so nobody would use the train and took taxi's to the airport. So what they did was add fees for taxis at the airport, so they become more expensive. That still wasn't enough, so at the end the government at to bail the private partner out with several hundred million IIRC (and the fares are still ridiculously high for going to the airport).
TLDR: (from memory so some details might be slightly off) they build a train link to the airport in a public private partnership, but estimated passenger numbers wrong. The private owner of the train stations (essentially the airport and one other one) upped the fares, so nobody would use the train and took taxi's to the airport. So what they did was add fees for taxis at the airport, so they become more expensive. That still wasn't enough, so at the end the government at to bail the private partner out with several hundred million IIRC (and the fares are still ridiculously high for going to the airport).
> ticketing systems make up a non trivial fraction of the overall cost
I once read that fare revenue just about covers the cost of fare collection. If true, why even bother?
I once read that fare revenue just about covers the cost of fare collection. If true, why even bother?
Rent seekers? Presumably the vendor gave a ticketing system in exchange for payment, so not sure how that's "rent seeking"? Are there rules that they can be the only provider?
> Presumably the vendor gave a ticketing system in exchange for payment
Normally yes. And then there are the semi-democratic countries, like Hungary, where things happen a bit differently: https://dailynewshungary.com/further-delay-in-the-introducti...
The article is from 2018, needless to say that in 2021 that system is still not in place...
Normally yes. And then there are the semi-democratic countries, like Hungary, where things happen a bit differently: https://dailynewshungary.com/further-delay-in-the-introducti...
The article is from 2018, needless to say that in 2021 that system is still not in place...
The definition of a rent seeker is someone who seeks to extract payment without adding value, so I'd say fare collection systems fall in that bucket. The value is added by the actual transport system, not the fare collection system. I suppose that's just "rent" though, not "rent seeking" unless the company that makes the system is actively trying to inflate their prices, which it sounds like this one is.
Some more context: In France, public transport fees are 50% subsidized by your employer.
Also if you're a student, low-income, elderly, it becomes extremely cheap to get a monthly/yearly subscription.
The employer's contribution to public transport costs is compulsory.
The employer (under private or public law) must pay 50% of the price of season tickets subscribed by his employees for the entire journey between their usual residence and their place of work accomplished by means of public transport services. even if several subscriptions are necessary for this trip (train + bus for example). Public bicycle rental services are also concerned.
Also if you're a student, low-income, elderly, it becomes extremely cheap to get a monthly/yearly subscription.
It was ~300€ per annum for students when I was there. Great deal
Belgium implemented partial free public transport for the elder. It mostly works, but there were some perverse incentives.
Specifically, some elder people are so bored they climb on the coastal tramway early in the morning, then go up and down and up and down the line for the whole day. There were problems with some elder people starting fights because someone else took 'their' seat, even in an almost empty tram.
One thing they did as mitigation was force everybody off the tram at the end of the line, which causes much moaning up to this day.
Specifically, some elder people are so bored they climb on the coastal tramway early in the morning, then go up and down and up and down the line for the whole day. There were problems with some elder people starting fights because someone else took 'their' seat, even in an almost empty tram.
One thing they did as mitigation was force everybody off the tram at the end of the line, which causes much moaning up to this day.
In Philadelphia, people do this on the subway. They pay a token to get on (or they ask someone for a token if they can't afford it) and then once they are on no one will ask them to leave. They can just keep riding all day.
I think this points to another problem that needs to be addressed. It is a helluva thing if the best thing you can do with your day is ride the subway all day long, and some homeless people just feel safer on the subway (and I can't blame them).
I think this points to another problem that needs to be addressed. It is a helluva thing if the best thing you can do with your day is ride the subway all day long, and some homeless people just feel safer on the subway (and I can't blame them).
Different problems, as in Philadelphia these are not retirees but people trying to escape the street.
How bad is the street in Philadelphia?
So bad that drive-through videos of Kensington are their own _genre_ on YouTube.
How bad is the street in Philadelphia?
So bad that drive-through videos of Kensington are their own _genre_ on YouTube.
>Specifically, some elder people are so bored
This sounds like a problem on its own. We should avoid having people bored with nothing to do. Letting them sit on a train all day might actually be a very cheap way to entertain them and improve their lives.
This sounds like a problem on its own. We should avoid having people bored with nothing to do. Letting them sit on a train all day might actually be a very cheap way to entertain them and improve their lives.
In a way, maybe this really is one of the ways of fixing that boredom. You give them empty seats which wouldn't be filled and they are less bored. In any case, I feel like in eastern Europe 95% of retired people are bored every day for the rest of their life. If they aren't doing gardening or people watching there is nothing else they know how to do except watch TV.
In Eastern Europe most of the old people get out at 6 going to the park benches and talking all day (in warmer months; if living in towns/cities)
The other spend almost all day gardening/field work and, like you said, watch TV.
However, I am concerned for the working-age people, as noone really seems to have a hobby. Most people just scroll Facebook and watching TV. In most circles, you might even be looked at funny for spending money on a hobby that isn't fishing or hunting (like playing around with electronics, without making money off of it)
The other spend almost all day gardening/field work and, like you said, watch TV.
However, I am concerned for the working-age people, as noone really seems to have a hobby. Most people just scroll Facebook and watching TV. In most circles, you might even be looked at funny for spending money on a hobby that isn't fishing or hunting (like playing around with electronics, without making money off of it)
Talking to whom? At 75 half your friends and family are dead. At 80+ you are pretty much alone except for children and grandchildren if you have them
Lol just a thought but I’m imagining being one of those people you mentioned and I would feel like a sim!
I wonder what is the cost of accelerating 60kg to 40km/h every 2 minutes for a day.
Given m = 60 kg and v = 40 km/h, the kinetic energy is
(Also note that my estimations are intentionally pessimistic to map out the worst-case scenario. Energy efficiency is probably better than my assumptions, and trains may have some sort of regenerative braking.)
K = 1/2 * m * v^2 = 3.703 kJ
(Also note that my estimations are intentionally pessimistic to map out the worst-case scenario. Energy efficiency is probably better than my assumptions, and trains may have some sort of regenerative braking.)
Probably less than many other forms of entertainment.
I'd say its almost free compared to the alternatives like community programs/activities. It doesn't sound as fulfilling but if someone can entertain themselves by sitting on their own on a train, let them go at it.
Approximately 0.03% of the cost of accelerating the locomotive by itself.
In large cities, there are many many things that elders can do, and many elder groups/clubs doing many different things. Sitting on train and taking space away from people who actually need to get somewhere is a bad solution.
Those clubs cost money to run if they are funded by the government. The per seat cost of public transport is pretty low comparatively.
Old people get free bus travel in the UK (availability outside your local area varies but is usually fairly complete), there's the occasional story of someone travelling the length and breadth of the country for free
I don't recall any reports of a paying passenger being unable to board a bus because of it though, so if the bus is going to run anyway, simply tax wealthy pensioners a little more and use that to subdise any loss in revenue
(of course the government would never put a tax on wealthy pensioners, that's what working people are for!)
I don't recall any reports of a paying passenger being unable to board a bus because of it though, so if the bus is going to run anyway, simply tax wealthy pensioners a little more and use that to subdise any loss in revenue
(of course the government would never put a tax on wealthy pensioners, that's what working people are for!)
I was going to say, another reason why public transit isn't free is because of abuse. Some people are bored - I know I went on the tourist tour buses just to pass the time or get around, pretty decent deal that way. Others because they have nowhere else to go. But those factors are mere symptoms of different problems that should be addressed as well.
I'm all for free public transport, it's great, it allows social mobility, it allows people to get to work, to not be bound to their location and transportation, and it reduces congestion and pollution - assuming it's electric and has enough capacity, of course.
I'm all for free public transport, it's great, it allows social mobility, it allows people to get to work, to not be bound to their location and transportation, and it reduces congestion and pollution - assuming it's electric and has enough capacity, of course.
I can totally imagine myself doing this when I'm old. I just love taking the train along the coastal line.
A different but similar issue is that it disincentivizes trips by foot or bicycle, at the expense of a bigger load factor for public transport.
What’s the problem with getting back on at the last stop
It often requires a 10-30 minute wait outside, since the return journey doesn't normally start immediately — to allow the driver a toilet break, or provide some slack in case of delays.
I really like free entry to public things. Like the museums in the UK. Not so much for the savings, but the reduced friction is nice, makes one feel more welcome. I remember Los Alamos in the US having free buses, that was also quite nice.
I would like there to be a funding scheme for most public services similar to the UK student loan system. Where you pay out of your own pocket, ultimately, but only as a fraction of your income and above a certain very livable minimum, and only for the services that you personally use.
I would like there to be a funding scheme for most public services similar to the UK student loan system. Where you pay out of your own pocket, ultimately, but only as a fraction of your income and above a certain very livable minimum, and only for the services that you personally use.
> I would like there to be a funding scheme for most public services similar to the UK student loan system. Where you pay out of your own pocket, ultimately, but only as a fraction of your income and above a certain very livable minimum, and only for the services that you personally use.
If you do that you disincentivise the rich (who tend to also be the powerful) from using those services, and encourage a two-tier system. The British public commits to the NHS or museums because rich and poor alike can use them without fear of one day being charged; furthermore the benefits are shared by everyone even if they aren't direct users (and this is especially true for public transit, which frees up space for others, and increases the labour supply in the cities, pushing down the prices of everything). Funding from general taxation that's paid by everyone is far better than charging individual users (the flip side is that benefits should not be means-tested, for the same reasons).
If you do that you disincentivise the rich (who tend to also be the powerful) from using those services, and encourage a two-tier system. The British public commits to the NHS or museums because rich and poor alike can use them without fear of one day being charged; furthermore the benefits are shared by everyone even if they aren't direct users (and this is especially true for public transit, which frees up space for others, and increases the labour supply in the cities, pushing down the prices of everything). Funding from general taxation that's paid by everyone is far better than charging individual users (the flip side is that benefits should not be means-tested, for the same reasons).
> If you do that you disincentivise the rich (who tend to also be the powerful) from using those services, and encourage a two-tier system.
The total payment would be capped at the actual cost (slightly above to cover for those who earn below the minimum), like the student loan. That would mitigate the issue somewhat, although admittedly not entirely.
The issue with general taxation is that it leaves so many people feeling disenfranchised and apathetic with regards to their taxes due to no real idea or impact on where their money goes. It also incentivises inefficiency.
The total payment would be capped at the actual cost (slightly above to cover for those who earn below the minimum), like the student loan. That would mitigate the issue somewhat, although admittedly not entirely.
The issue with general taxation is that it leaves so many people feeling disenfranchised and apathetic with regards to their taxes due to no real idea or impact on where their money goes. It also incentivises inefficiency.
> The total payment would be capped at the actual cost (slightly above to cover for those who earn below the minimum), like the student loan. That would mitigate the issue somewhat, although admittedly not entirely.
If you charge more than the actual cost, why would anyone in the chargeable bracket not pursue a private alternative?
> The issue with general taxation is that it leaves so many people feeling disenfranchised and apathetic with regards to their taxes due to no real idea or impact on where their money goes. It also incentivises inefficiency.
Society is complex and barely understood, it's best to be honest with ourselves about that. I don't think "incentivises inefficiency" is true; an agency that charges users is encouraged to maximise its number of users, maybe, but that's not going to be a good proxy for the public good - for many agencies the goal should be making sure users never need that agency again.
If you charge more than the actual cost, why would anyone in the chargeable bracket not pursue a private alternative?
> The issue with general taxation is that it leaves so many people feeling disenfranchised and apathetic with regards to their taxes due to no real idea or impact on where their money goes. It also incentivises inefficiency.
Society is complex and barely understood, it's best to be honest with ourselves about that. I don't think "incentivises inefficiency" is true; an agency that charges users is encouraged to maximise its number of users, maybe, but that's not going to be a good proxy for the public good - for many agencies the goal should be making sure users never need that agency again.
The marginal cost of a passenger on public transport is much less than the cost of a taxi. Even if the ceiling is double this cost it's still a good deal.
The marginal cost of an entry to a public museum is typically much less than the price of entry to a private museum. When you compare the relative quality of the museums it is much much less.
The marginal cost of an entry to a public museum is typically much less than the price of entry to a private museum. When you compare the relative quality of the museums it is much much less.
> The marginal cost of a passenger on public transport is much less than the cost of a taxi. Even if the ceiling is double this cost it's still a good deal.
Until private industry starts doing things like the Google buses.
> The marginal cost of an entry to a public museum is typically much less than the price of entry to a private museum.
Public museums may charge but they're still heavily subsidized.
Until private industry starts doing things like the Google buses.
> The marginal cost of an entry to a public museum is typically much less than the price of entry to a private museum.
Public museums may charge but they're still heavily subsidized.
>If you charge more than the actual cost, why would anyone in the chargeable bracket not pursue a private alternative?
1) "cost" is not equivalent to a value gained by studying there. Even in extremely costly US universities, on average it's advantageous to pursue education.
2) If you charge over "actual cost" in Europe, it's still way less than US prices, inflated among others by byzantine administration.
3) In most of Europe, private universities are complete joke.
1) "cost" is not equivalent to a value gained by studying there. Even in extremely costly US universities, on average it's advantageous to pursue education.
2) If you charge over "actual cost" in Europe, it's still way less than US prices, inflated among others by byzantine administration.
3) In most of Europe, private universities are complete joke.
In practice many very rich people in the UK have some form of private healthcare. The NHS has historically relied on rationing by queuing - since most demand for healthcase is very inelastic you need a lot of queuing to reduce demand by much. There's also a lot of rationing by bureacracy, or rationing by telling you you can't have something and then you having to repeatedly beg for treatment that you or your child badly needs.
I support universal healthcare but I think the British system is not the best. It is the best at one thing - providing near-First World quality care at near-Third World total cost. The rhetoric around the generosity of the system and how lucky we are to have it is the same thing which allows it to be degraded. Lots of (mainly poorer and less educated) people put up with substandard care, simply because they feel it would be ungrateful or entitled to ask for basic things. Lots of wealthier and better educated people, who would pay for top-up coverage in the French system, get a better standard of treatment for free simply by demanding it. And 'going private' is an either-or - once you get private coverage you opt out of the public system and no longer have any stake in it.
I support universal healthcare but I think the British system is not the best. It is the best at one thing - providing near-First World quality care at near-Third World total cost. The rhetoric around the generosity of the system and how lucky we are to have it is the same thing which allows it to be degraded. Lots of (mainly poorer and less educated) people put up with substandard care, simply because they feel it would be ungrateful or entitled to ask for basic things. Lots of wealthier and better educated people, who would pay for top-up coverage in the French system, get a better standard of treatment for free simply by demanding it. And 'going private' is an either-or - once you get private coverage you opt out of the public system and no longer have any stake in it.
>I support universal healthcare but I think the British system is not the best. It is the best at one thing - providing near-First World quality care at near-Third World total cost. The rhetoric around the generosity of the system and how lucky we are to have it is the same thing which allows it to be degraded.
The NHS's 100% government-run structure also makes it the perennial #1 cudgel to beat one's political opponents with. Private Eye on "24 Hours to Save the NHS" (https://twitter.com/KulganofCrydee/status/833654730849136641)
The NHS's 100% government-run structure also makes it the perennial #1 cudgel to beat one's political opponents with. Private Eye on "24 Hours to Save the NHS" (https://twitter.com/KulganofCrydee/status/833654730849136641)
I've never encountered a queue for any urgent care. Last time I made a GP appointment I did have to wait until the afternoon though.
But you're right, just pay £40 a month and get bupa if you want faster care for non urgent cases.
But you're right, just pay £40 a month and get bupa if you want faster care for non urgent cases.
Did I say urgent care?
The existence of NHS waiting lists is a well telegraphed problem. Typically these are for medically necessary procedures which are not critical (in the sense that catching cancer fast is critical) but which when delayed cause long periods of deterioration and reduced quality of life.
The existence of NHS waiting lists is a well telegraphed problem. Typically these are for medically necessary procedures which are not critical (in the sense that catching cancer fast is critical) but which when delayed cause long periods of deterioration and reduced quality of life.
Do you have a specific example?
You live in the UK and use the NHS and you're not aware of the issue of waiting lists for operations and other procedures?
It's been a highly talked about political issue for at least the last 40 years.
It's been a highly talked about political issue for at least the last 40 years.
I haven't had any issues with particularly long waiting times when I've needed the NHS. Indeed the one time I've used american healthcare I was waiting far longer than I was in the UK, but that was for an acute problem.
Clearly if you have not personally experienced something it doesn't exist.
In terms of reduced friction, I'm a big fan of the swiss transport system: you can hop in any bus or train without validating your ticket anywhere, and you get controlled from time to time. And the fine are big.
So you get:
- not much friction (+ the app is great)
- you use transports more -> you pay more (and not everyone)
- fraud is low because the fines are big enough to dissuade people, and increase every time you get caught
So you get:
- not much friction (+ the app is great)
- you use transports more -> you pay more (and not everyone)
- fraud is low because the fines are big enough to dissuade people, and increase every time you get caught
Germany has the same. I once had to pay a 80 euro fine because the driver opened just the middle door at the bus stop as he had nearly skipped the stop, and I hopped in without thinking, and the ticket controlled who stopped me (as I was going to the front to get a ticket) argued that I had to enter from the front door if I didn't already have a ticket. Still infuriates me when I think about it.
This is just an anecdote, of course. I don't actually disagree with you.
This is just an anecdote, of course. I don't actually disagree with you.
In Vienna, the airport is situated in such a way with respect to the ticketing zones as to trick visitors into not getting the right ticket. I don't remember the details, unfortunately, but judging by extremely unusual frequency of checks on that route, it appears intentionally set up that way to extract fines from tourists.
Just see the first results at https://www.google.com/search?q=vienna+airport+transport+fin...
Just see the first results at https://www.google.com/search?q=vienna+airport+transport+fin...
In some parts of Southern Europe, a bemused looking tourist who offered even the mildest defense that they didn't understand the zoning system would be surrounded by locals taking their side and rebuking the official.
"Why are you doing this to them? They have a ticket!"
"Let them go, they are just trying to get to the city!"
"Don't pay it! He is a thief! All the train company people are thieves!"
Same in Berlin as well, the Schonefeld/BER airport is just outside of A+B zone, which requires a more expensive ticket.
I doubt this is specifically to "trick" visitors, but to gain revenue to pay for the cost of the line to the airport — which is otherwise not especially popular.
A+B correspond to the city limits of Berlin, and BER is outside of the city limits.
I'm not saying that this is set in stone. They could probably include BER in B if they wanted, but the most benign explanation is that it just started out this way because of how the fare zones were defined, and now they keep it that way because few companies hate extra revenue.
I'm not saying that this is set in stone. They could probably include BER in B if they wanted, but the most benign explanation is that it just started out this way because of how the fare zones were defined, and now they keep it that way because few companies hate extra revenue.
80 euro might be a reasonable price for having grasped an important truth about how Germany works.
I understand that this came across as rude, but I'm not trying to say that Germany is a Kafkaesque hellhole. I love Germany. Simply this - there is no 'good faith' defense when breaking rules in Germany. If you have the wrong ticket, it doesn't matter that you tried to buy the right ticket and were sold the wrong ticket. It's your responsibility to have the right ticket, regardless of the actions of others, even other employees of the same organization. If you didn't know the rules, that's your problem, even if the rules are hard to understand.
In Italy, I have seen the 'good faith' defense taken to extremes. "If you didn't want me to do (this clearly illegal and unapproved thing), why did (some other person in any official capacity) do (this very benign and pro-social thing which could be tortuously misinterpreted as an endorsement of the first thing)??" In Germany this doesn't exist. In some cases like the middle door of the bus, it will almost seem like entrapment. (The correct behavior would have been to go to the front door of the bus and require the driver to open it.) In many cases, it is only a pain to those who don't understand the system. Often, it is fairer since 'let this one slide officer' leads to discrimination by the officer.
In Italy, I have seen the 'good faith' defense taken to extremes. "If you didn't want me to do (this clearly illegal and unapproved thing), why did (some other person in any official capacity) do (this very benign and pro-social thing which could be tortuously misinterpreted as an endorsement of the first thing)??" In Germany this doesn't exist. In some cases like the middle door of the bus, it will almost seem like entrapment. (The correct behavior would have been to go to the front door of the bus and require the driver to open it.) In many cases, it is only a pain to those who don't understand the system. Often, it is fairer since 'let this one slide officer' leads to discrimination by the officer.
>I understand that this came across as rude, but I'm not trying to say that Germany is a Kafkaesque hellhole. I love Germany. Simply this - there is no 'good faith' defense when breaking rules in Germany.
It's thought that Franklin Roosevelt's view of Germany and Germans' nature was affected by his being, as a young visitor, arrested four times in one day in the Black Forest (https://archive.org/details/rooseveltinretro00gunt/page/170/...).
It's thought that Franklin Roosevelt's view of Germany and Germans' nature was affected by his being, as a young visitor, arrested four times in one day in the Black Forest (https://archive.org/details/rooseveltinretro00gunt/page/170/...).
A big change in the Netherlands in the past decade or so has been the introduction of a chip / card based checkin, instead of tickets or whatever. They were able to effectively seal off train and tram stations everywhere unless you had a valid ticket, changing the whole system from "you need a ticket to get on board" to "you need a ticket to go onto the station". It's improved safety by a lot as well - less belligerent travelers without a ticket getting aggressive when their ticket is validated.
What are "tram stations"?
In Poland, most tram stops are not isolated from streets, and look like that:
https://www.transport-publiczny.pl/img/20170721121933StareMi...
https://www.ztm.poznan.pl/assets/Uploads/Przystanek-tramwajo...
Seems like "isolating" them would increase friction. It makes a lot of sense in case of trains or metro but don't see it for trams.
In Poland, most tram stops are not isolated from streets, and look like that:
https://www.transport-publiczny.pl/img/20170721121933StareMi...
https://www.ztm.poznan.pl/assets/Uploads/Przystanek-tramwajo...
Seems like "isolating" them would increase friction. It makes a lot of sense in case of trains or metro but don't see it for trams.
> Seems like "isolating" them would increase friction. It makes a lot of sense in case of trains or metro but don't see it for trams.
The bus rapid transit system in Curitiba Brazil uses enclosed stops:
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,288...
The bus rapid transit system in Curitiba Brazil uses enclosed stops:
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,288...
I can't think of anything like a tram station in Amsterdam, at least for most stops (maybe Centraal?).
Some cities have raised tram platforms - Manchester UK and Stuttgart DE come to mind. Not sure if you need a ticket to be on them, doesn't make sense as the ticket machine is on the platform.
Some cities have raised tram platforms - Manchester UK and Stuttgart DE come to mind. Not sure if you need a ticket to be on them, doesn't make sense as the ticket machine is on the platform.
It only increases if you don't pay the 100 CHF fine on the spot. If you do, they don't take your details.
Something that isn't emphasized enough in these discussions is that public transit is one of those things that wealthy business owners actually benefit from a proportionately greater amount compared to the individuals who use it; transit brings in cheaper workers and more customers to high CoL areas where they otherwise could not get to. With that in mind, it's never made much sense for it to be funded by individual fares rather than a progressive tax. The fact that this particular implementation is funded by business taxes actually makes a ton of sense.
While I agree with your point, in the particlar case of Paris, France, this kind of argument might not be particularly persuasive.
There are already laws in place for the employers to pay at least half of the monthly / yearly card of their employees (of course, this is considered income and taxed as such) [0]. As these cars allow unlimited journeys over the whole network (with two exceptions, one is a local train at Orly airport and the second I can't remember), it could be argued that transit is already fairly cheap for most "cheaper workers".
Of course, this also applies to "expensive workers" (a software engineer friend of mine has his transit paid to 100%). There's also reductions for the elderly and a bunch of other categories.
In the end, aside from tourists and occasional users, I think a good chunk of the population already has some kind of subscription, so the cost of maintenance argument might make more sense.
I can't find the source, but I remember reading in a local paper that ticket sales were around 1/3 of the Paris' transit authority income. I don't remember whether the cost of the ticket systems was discussed.
This was in the context of the regional elections (which more or less control the TA) that are happening right now, with one candidate wanting to push for free transit.
---
[0] https://www.urssaf.fr/portail/home/employeur/calculer-les-co...
There are already laws in place for the employers to pay at least half of the monthly / yearly card of their employees (of course, this is considered income and taxed as such) [0]. As these cars allow unlimited journeys over the whole network (with two exceptions, one is a local train at Orly airport and the second I can't remember), it could be argued that transit is already fairly cheap for most "cheaper workers".
Of course, this also applies to "expensive workers" (a software engineer friend of mine has his transit paid to 100%). There's also reductions for the elderly and a bunch of other categories.
In the end, aside from tourists and occasional users, I think a good chunk of the population already has some kind of subscription, so the cost of maintenance argument might make more sense.
I can't find the source, but I remember reading in a local paper that ticket sales were around 1/3 of the Paris' transit authority income. I don't remember whether the cost of the ticket systems was discussed.
This was in the context of the regional elections (which more or less control the TA) that are happening right now, with one candidate wanting to push for free transit.
---
[0] https://www.urssaf.fr/portail/home/employeur/calculer-les-co...
> There are already laws in place for the employers to pay at least half of the monthly / yearly card of their employees (of course, this is considered income and taxed as such) [0]. As these cars allow unlimited journeys over the whole network (with two exceptions, one is a local train at Orly airport and the second I can't remember), it could be argued that transit is already fairly cheap for most "cheaper workers".
Do they actually pay you money, and you're free to buy or not to buy the ticket? Or do you actually have to buy the ticket and/or get it provided by the employer?
In slovenia, the employer has to pay for the cheapest available transport for a worker (basically cheapest public transport or some percentage of a price of a liter of gasoline per km), but that money is given directly to the worker - which means a lot of people get money for a bus/train ticket but use their cars, because it's faster.
Do they actually pay you money, and you're free to buy or not to buy the ticket? Or do you actually have to buy the ticket and/or get it provided by the employer?
In slovenia, the employer has to pay for the cheapest available transport for a worker (basically cheapest public transport or some percentage of a price of a liter of gasoline per km), but that money is given directly to the worker - which means a lot of people get money for a bus/train ticket but use their cars, because it's faster.
> Do they actually pay you money, and you're free to buy or not to buy the ticket? Or do you actually have to buy the ticket and/or get it provided by the employer?
You either pay for it yourself and show the proof to the employer who then pays you (kind of like an expense) or the employer does everything for you. I was in the first situation, a friend is in the second.
You never get the cash upfront to do as you please though, and on the payslip it has a dedicated line.
You either pay for it yourself and show the proof to the employer who then pays you (kind of like an expense) or the employer does everything for you. I was in the first situation, a friend is in the second.
You never get the cash upfront to do as you please though, and on the payslip it has a dedicated line.
> Do they actually pay you money, and you're free to buy or not to buy the ticket?
I'd say it depends. Where I work, it's automatically paid and I can do whatever I want. In other cases I remember people having to keep the used train ticket in order to get reimbursed.
I'd say it depends. Where I work, it's automatically paid and I can do whatever I want. In other cases I remember people having to keep the used train ticket in order to get reimbursed.
> of course, this is considered income and taxed as such
It is not, it is an expense and therefore, it is not taxed. There are some subtleties though. If you don't detail your expenses when doing your taxes, the 50% your employer has to pay is not considered revenue (but whatever extra you get is). However, if you explicitly declare public transport as an expense, then it becomes revenue, because otherwise, you'd be deducting it twice.
It is not, it is an expense and therefore, it is not taxed. There are some subtleties though. If you don't detail your expenses when doing your taxes, the 50% your employer has to pay is not considered revenue (but whatever extra you get is). However, if you explicitly declare public transport as an expense, then it becomes revenue, because otherwise, you'd be deducting it twice.
You seem to be correct. I think I was confused because I was getting reimbursed 100%.
They had a moratorium on parking tickets in Sydney during 2020 for a similar reason. They didn't want to discourage people from visiting businesses in the city if they had to, since it was already a ghost town.
Good. I'm excited to see the results from this. Public transport should be considered infrastructure in the same way roads are, with taxes on private vehicles to offset it. It leads to less cars on the road, less polution, less traffic, and a city designed around the public transportation once usage reaches critical mass.
I think one flip-side argument is that this will predominantly benefit people in cities, which have much better transport infrastructure than suburban areas.
Hopefully the money this costs is matched on a per-capita basis by region across the country to ensure that regions with less-developed public transport can also benefit.
Hopefully the money this costs is matched on a per-capita basis by region across the country to ensure that regions with less-developed public transport can also benefit.
In France (like SV, I guess), the equivalent of America’s “inner city” is the French suburb and vice-versa, so if we take what you said as true then this is unfortunately not empowering those that need it the most.
That's true, but in the particular case of Paris, the worst thing related to transit is there are next to no "across" lines. Say you're in some suburb and need to get 20 km away in another suburb, you're likely SoL. You'll have to get all the way to Paris center and then back again. Or maybe change 5 buses for an even longer journey time. I had this exact issue when I was in college, 30 km away from my parents'. 25-30 minutes car ride or 1.5 h train ride.
I'm really hopeful for the creation and extension of some metro lines, some of which will circle around Paris, helping with this suburb-to-suburb situation.
I'm really hopeful for the creation and extension of some metro lines, some of which will circle around Paris, helping with this suburb-to-suburb situation.
Your information is a tad outdated. There are a bunch of trams ( Lines 1-12 are in operation and only 3 is in Paris, and runs along its border, the rest are across different suburbs) which are being built/expanded to cover just that, and then there's the biggest infrastructure project in Europe, the Grand Paris Express, a 200km+ ( iirc) system of 4 metro lines, linking suburbs to suburbs ( like the line 15, which will be a circle line in the suburbs). Fascinating stuff, and the first stage is expected for 2024-2025, while the latest around 2030.
The Grand Paris Express is the project I was talking about with the new metro lines and extensions of some older ones.
I will have to look at the tram situation more closely, I'm not very familiar with them, and in my mind the lines were pretty short. I see the T1 covers quite some distance though.
I will have to look at the tram situation more closely, I'm not very familiar with them, and in my mind the lines were pretty short. I see the T1 covers quite some distance though.
I don’t see this as a bad thing. Suburbs have large negative externalities, disincentivizing people from living in them as opposed to dense urban centers seems like a fine policy to me.
How fast we forget about the lock-downs enacted during the current pandemic. Public transportation and dense urban centers: the best to spread virus and then "enjoy" your quarantine.
Despite your opinion, viruses do not penetrate walls. Density has nothing to do with spread of viruses.
Also, it does not make sense to design cities around events like this.
Also, it does not make sense to design cities around events like this.
> Despite your opinion, viruses do not penetrate walls.
Despite your research, public transport vehicles don't tend to have walls.
Despite your research, public transport vehicles don't tend to have walls.
Then, you should support more public transport, so that people can sit out in the sunshine and fresh air on their way to work and avoid spreading the virus.
Also, what is better about riding to work than about walking to work? The latter also does not spread the virus as much.
Also, what is better about riding to work than about walking to work? The latter also does not spread the virus as much.
Public transport in France is cheap and, as mentioned by another commenter, employers must subsidise 50% of their employees' season ticket. In the Paris area it is extremely developed and used.
I don't think that people who drive now would suddenly use public transport instead if that was free instead of costing 50 euros a month (random example).
My personal take is that making public transport free won't change things much in France, and may not be the best way to spend public money right now.
I don't think that people who drive now would suddenly use public transport instead if that was free instead of costing 50 euros a month (random example).
My personal take is that making public transport free won't change things much in France, and may not be the best way to spend public money right now.
> It leads to less cars on the road
It also leads to fewer pedestrians and cyclists unfortunately.
It also leads to fewer pedestrians and cyclists unfortunately.
Public transport system in France is already pretty cheap. A customer only pay around 30% of the real price, all the rest is subsided by personal or company taxes.
What are they trying to accomplish with this? They want more people to abandon their car and move to the public transport system? If you already made the trade off between 200euros / months for your car (don't forget to include initial price, gas, maintenance, etc) and a 40euros/months for the train, making the train free will not make a difference (or a negligible one).
People prefer their car not because of economical reasons, but because it's damn more practical, especially if you don't live in the hyper-center of a european city.
If you want people to abandon their car you will have to increase your QoS. Densify your network in the time and spatial dimension. I would be willing to pay 10x more to have a subway station 10 minutes walk from my home. But have a free bus every 20 minutes that take me to a train station on strike 50% of the time? Cool...
Actually, what they are going to catch with this are all the people who were walking or taking their bike suddenly overcrowding the buses and make their service degrade due to overcrowding.
The problem with all this is priority. What do we want to prioritize? Public transport? No. We should prioritize the only mode of transportation that is truly green: Walking. Rethink how cities are organized so that anybody can find a decent home at a decent price from a 20 minutes walk of their office. Give incentives to employers to allow telework, subsidies home close to work, etc. Don't force everyone to live inside a city that is as big as it used to be 300 years ago and surrounded by a super highway.
For the public transport system, make people pay depending on their income. It should be free for poor people or students. As an engineer, I should pay through my nose if the service is really great. If it's not, I'll keep using my car whatever the price, thank you.
What are they trying to accomplish with this? They want more people to abandon their car and move to the public transport system? If you already made the trade off between 200euros / months for your car (don't forget to include initial price, gas, maintenance, etc) and a 40euros/months for the train, making the train free will not make a difference (or a negligible one).
People prefer their car not because of economical reasons, but because it's damn more practical, especially if you don't live in the hyper-center of a european city.
If you want people to abandon their car you will have to increase your QoS. Densify your network in the time and spatial dimension. I would be willing to pay 10x more to have a subway station 10 minutes walk from my home. But have a free bus every 20 minutes that take me to a train station on strike 50% of the time? Cool...
Actually, what they are going to catch with this are all the people who were walking or taking their bike suddenly overcrowding the buses and make their service degrade due to overcrowding.
The problem with all this is priority. What do we want to prioritize? Public transport? No. We should prioritize the only mode of transportation that is truly green: Walking. Rethink how cities are organized so that anybody can find a decent home at a decent price from a 20 minutes walk of their office. Give incentives to employers to allow telework, subsidies home close to work, etc. Don't force everyone to live inside a city that is as big as it used to be 300 years ago and surrounded by a super highway.
For the public transport system, make people pay depending on their income. It should be free for poor people or students. As an engineer, I should pay through my nose if the service is really great. If it's not, I'll keep using my car whatever the price, thank you.
That's great, another idea we'd need is more priority to bicycles on the roads, meaning this order:
1. priority vehicles (firemen, police, ambulances, ...)
2. bicycles
3. bus public transports
4. all the rest: cars, motos, ..
I agree with your general sentiment, but not about the traffic lights. The whole reason traffic lights work is because 99.9% of the time, those hulking monstrosities we call cars, can just barrel right through on a green light, and when they can't, it's because something with a big loud siren is making noise. Bikes can't do that.
I think the way forward ultimately involves re-thinking the way we architect transport networks:
- Replacing large non-trunk roads and traffic lights with narrower roads and roundabouts
- Increasing the number, size, and separation of bike lanes
- Having bike lanes that cut through otherwise meandering road sections. This is significant, because roads are often designed to go in a very inefficient path for all sorts of reasons that don't apply to bikes.
- Having mixed bike/car roads where the speed limit is 30 kph.
I think the way forward ultimately involves re-thinking the way we architect transport networks:
- Replacing large non-trunk roads and traffic lights with narrower roads and roundabouts
- Increasing the number, size, and separation of bike lanes
- Having bike lanes that cut through otherwise meandering road sections. This is significant, because roads are often designed to go in a very inefficient path for all sorts of reasons that don't apply to bikes.
- Having mixed bike/car roads where the speed limit is 30 kph.
> - Having mixed bike/car roads where the speed limit is 30 kph.
Yeah, 30kph seems to low (hell, even I feel the 50kph limit in cities here is too low) to be a road limit for a mixed bike/car road. I think isolation is a better strategy and will lead to less accidents due to nervous drivers having their own lane instead of limiting themselves to 30kph behind some biker.
Yeah, 30kph seems to low (hell, even I feel the 50kph limit in cities here is too low) to be a road limit for a mixed bike/car road. I think isolation is a better strategy and will lead to less accidents due to nervous drivers having their own lane instead of limiting themselves to 30kph behind some biker.
Here, 30kph is the default for dense city streets, with 50 for the larger roads where bikes get their separate lanes and 70 or higher for large roads carrying large amounts of car traffic where bikes cannot go.
The best solution is a mix of efficient road design, isolation, and speed limits where they make sense (which is pretty much everywhere except the through-roads). A large amount of 30kph bike/car roads are fine if the road network and city zoning is well-optimized.
The best solution is a mix of efficient road design, isolation, and speed limits where they make sense (which is pretty much everywhere except the through-roads). A large amount of 30kph bike/car roads are fine if the road network and city zoning is well-optimized.
Maybe I'm missing something but bikes passing at traffic lights, or just zipping in the intersections, is such a terrible, horrible idea. Being on a bike on a roundabout is terrifying already.
I agree a bikes-only traffic would be more fluid (even if only for the sheer volume of bikes you can fit in a normal road) but if you have cars, bikes, motorbikes, public transport and ambulances all together in the same space, on a complex web of roads, following a common set of rules is kind of the absolutely minimum prerequisite of a somewhat civil society.
I agree a bikes-only traffic would be more fluid (even if only for the sheer volume of bikes you can fit in a normal road) but if you have cars, bikes, motorbikes, public transport and ambulances all together in the same space, on a complex web of roads, following a common set of rules is kind of the absolutely minimum prerequisite of a somewhat civil society.
I can be loaded with 20kg of fruits (a crate or 2 on the handlebar and in bags), I will go slowly of course, but I don't really want to stop at a red light if the road is empty as it's already difficult enough (other drivers usually understand it and don't get mad at it), I'll also sometimes need to ride at the middle of the road, to avoid some holes on the side. Some drivers don't understand this and get crazy, most also don't anticipate things at all, they'll dangerously pass you just to stop 50m further..
I've been also close to be hit by behind 5 times, where the driver noticed me at the very last moment, and once hit on the side (left handlebar and shoulder broken)
Bikes need a status in-between pedestrian and cars, for many reasons, not just mine, environment, security.
I've been also close to be hit by behind 5 times, where the driver noticed me at the very last moment, and once hit on the side (left handlebar and shoulder broken)
Bikes need a status in-between pedestrian and cars, for many reasons, not just mine, environment, security.
I'd probably get pretty mad at you for crossing at a red light on a bike. I'm sorry for your incident, but to give a perspective on "the other side": if there is a bike lane, I would fully expect you to stay that lane and not cross in the road.
And if you do, do it only after you did take a look behind you if someone is coming (and if that's difficult, because it IS difficult, consider putting a mirror on your bike, as it can save your life).
I'll always think having car-free cities will be the best, but having bikes and cars in the same roads is madness.
And if you do, do it only after you did take a look behind you if someone is coming (and if that's difficult, because it IS difficult, consider putting a mirror on your bike, as it can save your life).
I'll always think having car-free cities will be the best, but having bikes and cars in the same roads is madness.
The only situation where I think letting bikes go through red lights makes sense is allowing them to turn right (in countries which drive on the right).
When I commuted by bike there was one red light that was infuriating. It was a three way cross-section with a tram in the middle. I was going straight in a bike lane and there was no turns to the right. Yet I was stopped by the red light. I asked the local council why I had to stop on the red when there was NO obvious reason for it. The answer was that heavy vehicles like busses turning left onto this road lane couldn't clear the turn without using the bike lane. So instead of expanding the road a meter, they had me stop on a red light, which in 97% of cases was not necessary at all.
(I cycled on red most days)
(I cycled on red most days)
Do you also cross with a red light on a car, when there's no one around anyway?
Also, in most cases expanding the road is far from easy or feasible at all.
Also, in most cases expanding the road is far from easy or feasible at all.
Expanding the usability of the road is very feasible, simply ban vehicles that are larger than say 2 square metres per user from using the road. Suddenly there's more space on the road for more people.
So in the case of the parent's comment, your solution is to ban buses?
What about, instead, respecting road rules when you use a bike?
You forgot the main mode of transportation in there: pedestrians. It would be quite absolutly horrible to have bikes doing whatever they want.
Public transport is already free of charge in some 30 cities in France. One of the pioneers is Compiègne, which introduced the measure in 1975 and has maintained it ever since. The first city with more than 100,000 inhabitants to apply this free travel was Aubagne in 2009, followed by Niort in 2017. The next milestone was reached last year with the introduction of free travel in Dunkirk, which has more than 200,000 inhabitants. It is currently the largest French agglomeration to apply free travel, and it has as many inhabitants as Besançon.
The only one of these cities to have a tramway is Aubagne, but it was built after the introduction of free travel and has only one short line, less than 3 kilometers long.
Free public transport in France is thus not really an experiment.
Source: https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/transports/transports-en-com...
The only one of these cities to have a tramway is Aubagne, but it was built after the introduction of free travel and has only one short line, less than 3 kilometers long.
Free public transport in France is thus not really an experiment.
Source: https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/transports/transports-en-com...
Hopefully this gets more people to switch from their cars! This is “the carrot”. When France tried “the stick” with a fuel duty hike, it triggered mass protests.
In Germany they recently did some experiments – while it has to be said that the comparison was only with a fare reduction and not a full-scale abolishment of fares, they found that service increases were more likely to attract additional users than fare reductions.
So unless service levels are already maxed out and really cannot be increased further without disproportionally large investment, I'd personally rather prefer that that money was spent on funding more frequent services instead.
So unless service levels are already maxed out and really cannot be increased further without disproportionally large investment, I'd personally rather prefer that that money was spent on funding more frequent services instead.
I think it probably depends on the level of service and the price. Especially on whether or not public transport is cheaper than driving. I'd love to take the train more in the UK but it's both way less convenient and far more expensive than driving.
E-scooters might help make it a bit more convenient at least because they make it easier to get too/from the station. But that doesn't help with the price.
E-scooters might help make it a bit more convenient at least because they make it easier to get too/from the station. But that doesn't help with the price.
Don't forget that in France, gas is taxed maybe 80% (to pay for roads, the more you drive the more you use roads, as a good first approximation)
In France taxes on car fuels go to the general budget, they are not earmarked for roads.
I think it would help. My hometown made free public transport and since then my mom does all the trips she can with a bus (she doesn't like driving a car too much, has to do it every day for almost 2hrs due to work).
I think this is great! Let's encourage people to take more efficient transport alternatives in every way we can.
Nickel-and-diming discourages use, complicates UX (a severely underrated issue in government services), and makes people wonder why they are paying taxes for something they still have to pay to use.
Nickel-and-diming discourages use, complicates UX (a severely underrated issue in government services), and makes people wonder why they are paying taxes for something they still have to pay to use.
In the mean time, perhaps France would consider adopting the approach used in many German cities whereby monthly pass holders are permitted to take another adult and 3 children for free during evenings, weekends, and holidays. [1] Many German cities also offer cheaper subscriptions if you only use public transit after 09:00.
This is great if you have a visiting friend, or a partner/family who do not have monthly passes but want to go somewhere outside of business hours.
The RATP still considers weekly passes valid from Monday to Sunday and monthly passes valid from the 1st to the end of the month. They do not sell passes pro rata (e.g. if you buy a monthly pass on the 10th, you pay the same as someone who bought on the 1st), nor do they offer 7d/10d passes. They recently introduced Navigo Easy to replace tickets, but this is limited to trips in zones 1-2. [2]
The fact that RATP are still this inflexible in 2021 does not give me confidence they can become more progressive.
[1] https://www.bvg.de/de/abo-online
[2] https://parisbytrain.com/navigo-easy/
This is great if you have a visiting friend, or a partner/family who do not have monthly passes but want to go somewhere outside of business hours.
The RATP still considers weekly passes valid from Monday to Sunday and monthly passes valid from the 1st to the end of the month. They do not sell passes pro rata (e.g. if you buy a monthly pass on the 10th, you pay the same as someone who bought on the 1st), nor do they offer 7d/10d passes. They recently introduced Navigo Easy to replace tickets, but this is limited to trips in zones 1-2. [2]
The fact that RATP are still this inflexible in 2021 does not give me confidence they can become more progressive.
[1] https://www.bvg.de/de/abo-online
[2] https://parisbytrain.com/navigo-easy/
German cities public transport ticket systems are so complicated and burocratic that even locals often don’t understand it. You have dozens of zones, extra-bike and dog tickets, time restricted and number of station restricted tickets, tickets for groups and/or families, weekend tickets for groups of families and what not. Ticket machines in Germany have more buttons than you find in an aircraft cockpit. If the public transportation would be free, all this nonsense would not be necessary anymore. That alone is a good reason to introduce free public transport in Germany.
Not sure what you're talking about. Here in Berlin I can buy a monthly ticket to go anywhere in the city limits. If I want to also travel in the small part of the network which is outside the official city limits, that costs a bit extra.
Since Covid, it seems like everyone bought a car.
Our busses have always been partially full, but since Covid; it seemed like every bus I saw has 1, or 0 people riding.
Traffic in my county (Marin County) is more congested than pre-Covid.
If anyone from Marin Transit reads this, how about free fares on busses, and the ferry? You might gain some customers?
Your agency has always had problems convincing commuters your service makes sence on any level.
Why not offer free service for a year?
(The high tolls from the Golden Gate Bridge, and state/federal funds have supported our busses for decades now.)
This is the time to offer free rides.
Oh ya, put that Marin-Sonoma train to rest. We all passed the proposition. We had no idea there would be no where reasonable to park, and those salaries for management would be so high. Take the fences, and tracks down. It was good idea, but it didn't work out. Nix it.
Or, try free rides for a year? I'm tired of seeing two coupled trains with 0 people riding.
Our busses have always been partially full, but since Covid; it seemed like every bus I saw has 1, or 0 people riding.
Traffic in my county (Marin County) is more congested than pre-Covid.
If anyone from Marin Transit reads this, how about free fares on busses, and the ferry? You might gain some customers?
Your agency has always had problems convincing commuters your service makes sence on any level.
Why not offer free service for a year?
(The high tolls from the Golden Gate Bridge, and state/federal funds have supported our busses for decades now.)
This is the time to offer free rides.
Oh ya, put that Marin-Sonoma train to rest. We all passed the proposition. We had no idea there would be no where reasonable to park, and those salaries for management would be so high. Take the fences, and tracks down. It was good idea, but it didn't work out. Nix it.
Or, try free rides for a year? I'm tired of seeing two coupled trains with 0 people riding.
Counter-example: Netherlands has had crammed trains again, despite there being a pandemic. Trains here operate more like trams / subways though, they're very frequent and the railways are occupied to capacity.
The title is misleading. It's not a national policy, it's something the Mayor of Paris was considering, and the regional council before that.
"Free" has become a synonym to "payed by someone else". Google is "free", Facebook is "free", public transport in Paris is "free". "Free" means I give you someone with no obligation from you whatsoever. In this case the citizens and businesses of Paris are paying for it, so calling it is "free" is disingenuous.
These types of comments are so overdone. Free just means free of charge. It means you, the customer or user do not have to pay for the service. It never meant that nobody pays for it, that's an internet boogeyman/meme that is circulating. Yes, taxed citizens are paying for it, but they are not paying for the service.
Everything that is free still has to be provided by someone, it has always been that way since the existence of the universe.
Dirt is free and you can turn it into bricks to build a house but you are relying on the existence of the earth and therefore the existence of the universe.
If these comments were followed to their logical conclusion the word free shouldn't exist because nothing can be free. Thanks, now we have to come up with another word for "user doesn't get charged".
Everything that is free still has to be provided by someone, it has always been that way since the existence of the universe.
Dirt is free and you can turn it into bricks to build a house but you are relying on the existence of the earth and therefore the existence of the universe.
If these comments were followed to their logical conclusion the word free shouldn't exist because nothing can be free. Thanks, now we have to come up with another word for "user doesn't get charged".
You're jumping to conclusions. I didn't disagree with the measure, I didn't start a thread on "taxation is theft" nothing like that. I just dislike the word "free" because it hides something and it does that with intent.
People tend to value something more when they pay for it if they work for it. This is why IKEA works. In this line, I think an announcement like "This Saturday your ride is sponsored from your taxes, please enjoy it" would be more fair and would probably do more good in the long term.
People tend to value something more when they pay for it if they work for it. This is why IKEA works. In this line, I think an announcement like "This Saturday your ride is sponsored from your taxes, please enjoy it" would be more fair and would probably do more good in the long term.
Well, free does mean that you don't get to pay to use. Where the money comes from is a different question, albeit the most important one.
Perhaps it would make sense to tackle overly dependence on cars by slapping a tax which is directly used to fund public transport. So the more cars you have registered, the more money goes into public transport so that it can compete better, without getting left behind.
Perhaps it would make sense to tackle overly dependence on cars by slapping a tax which is directly used to fund public transport. So the more cars you have registered, the more money goes into public transport so that it can compete better, without getting left behind.
What would be an example use of the word free that you would find appropriate?
no fee, tax-funded I guess ^^
tax-funded fee free public transport.
We haven't gotten rid of the word free though. We are now merely fee free.
We haven't gotten rid of the word free though. We are now merely fee free.
Free as in libre, then
Dunkirk ( France) has been testing it since 2018. So i guess they liked the results ( https://www.eltis.org/in-brief/news/free-public-transport-du... )
LA county is looking to implementing this. Fares only cover like 5% of the operating budget. Piles of money comes in through the half cent sales tax, metro is building new rail non stop since the measure was passed and coming out of the pandemic with a huge budget.
London has this for children and OAPs (I think kids pay a token amount if they use trains...).
For OAPs it's limited to after 930am (post rush hour).
I think its good, but you have to be careful. London pay for this via Londons taxes. If whatever government you have isn't prepared to make up the lost revenue (and to do so indefinitely, under all economic/political conditions) you're dooming your transport system.
For OAPs it's limited to after 930am (post rush hour).
I think its good, but you have to be careful. London pay for this via Londons taxes. If whatever government you have isn't prepared to make up the lost revenue (and to do so indefinitely, under all economic/political conditions) you're dooming your transport system.
The link is broken for me. Here is the Internet Archive version:
http://web.archive.org/web/20210525045931/https://www.bbc.co...
http://web.archive.org/web/20210525045931/https://www.bbc.co...
Very good thing, also because in Paris a lot of people are already using private companies for moving around the city like Lime or F2M, etc... so the public authorities must keep the public services available for all.
The real trouble is with the tax and if and how the public transports are sustainable in the long term.
The real trouble is with the tax and if and how the public transports are sustainable in the long term.
To me this makes absolute total sense.
I'm a bit baffled that this is coming now, where a good part of the population is probably still working from home and not leaving the house much.
If they want any kind of meaningful data, wouldn't this invalidate basically everything they measure?
If they want any kind of meaningful data, wouldn't this invalidate basically everything they measure?
Make sense - almost like a UBI light in a way. Plus not exactly easy to abuse since driving up & down the city isn't exactly exciting unless you're 5 years old.
Look no further than Baltimore. We have a free bus system called Circulator. It's not perfect, of course, but a good start.
Or Luxembourg, neighbouring country of France, with completely free public transport (bus + tram + train)
Luxembourg per capita GDP 114,704.59 USD
US per capita GDP 65,297.52 USD
This could be interpreted as: Luxembourg policies work. We should copy them.
I also believe the US should become tax haven, like Luxembourg.
> the US should become tax haven
I’ve got good news for you [1].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_as_a_tax_haven
I’ve got good news for you [1].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_as_a_tax_haven
unlike Luxembourg the American government has bills to pay and an army to maintain and being a glorified storage deposit box doesn't work for a country of 300 million people
Luxembourg is also a tax haven, AND extremely small compared to France. The costs of free public transport in Luxembourg is tiny both in actual numbers, and as a fraction of their GDP.
For more information in English, see their public transport website:
https://luxembourg.public.lu/en/living/mobility/public-trans...
https://luxembourg.public.lu/en/living/mobility/public-trans...
For other US examples, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport#United_S... .
(That page, and the original BBC article, also describe a number of no-fare areas in Europe, but I assume by "Look no further" you are speaking from a US perspective.)
(That page, and the original BBC article, also describe a number of no-fare areas in Europe, but I assume by "Look no further" you are speaking from a US perspective.)
I’d worry that “free” creates some weird incentives that don’t exist at €0.50, but it’ll be interesting to see how it pans out
The commons inevitably becomes the dumping ground for all of society's unsolved problems.
I hope France has solved most of their problems; this can't work in the US until we fix a great deal of social injustice and lack of safety nets.
I hope France has solved most of their problems; this can't work in the US until we fix a great deal of social injustice and lack of safety nets.
Like what?
When I was a student and literally only had 5 pounds I got on the London Tube and slept there for a few hours as it was super cold outside. It only happened once and it was my fault for being in that situation but that is an example.
On the other hand now I give homeless ppl money for hostels. It was an interesting experience in hindsight.
On the other hand now I give homeless ppl money for hostels. It was an interesting experience in hindsight.
OK, so making it free rather than 50 cents raises the barrier to people with 50 cents?
People sleeping on public transport, reduced walking/cycling for short distances, kids using buses to hang out on
A lot of public transit riders have unmetered usage due to monthly passes. It doesn’t seem to be a problem. Although that is still a class of people who can cough up $75 or whatever for the pass.
[deleted]
They were already testing it for years since they almost never enforced fining people who never purchased anything.
It's not free. There's a reason why France has such high taxes. They changed from a model where people pay per fare to everyone has to pay and it's done via taxation.
This model may make a lot of sense, but I'd hope we could skip the kinder garden level headlines.
This model may make a lot of sense, but I'd hope we could skip the kinder garden level headlines.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. Anyone who followed the various public debates in France or is slightly familiar with the country knows that will be paid via a high tax.
The parent is downvoted because they are making an obvious statement that is not productive to the discussion and doing so in a condescending tone.
Free public transport in the title clearly means that using public transport will incur no cost, not that the entirety of the public transport network would require zero funding.
Free public transport in the title clearly means that using public transport will incur no cost, not that the entirety of the public transport network would require zero funding.
Funding a system by introducing new taxes is a choice, not necessarily the obvious one. There are other solutions. But it's very likely to be a high tax on local citizens in this specific case, because that's how France work, generally speaking, and what involved politicians suggested in public interviews.
Funding a system by introducing new taxes is a choice, not necessarily the obvious one. There are other solutions. But it's very likely to be a high tax in this specific case, because that's how France work, generally speaking, and what involved politicians suggested in public interviews.
It's condescending because I look down on these types of articles.
Journalists should stick to the truth.
I realize you are able to interpret what is says so that "free" means "using public transport will incur no [additional] cost, but people shouldn't have to do that.
Journalists should stick to the truth.
I realize you are able to interpret what is says so that "free" means "using public transport will incur no [additional] cost, but people shouldn't have to do that.
Because it's obvious that "free" doesn't mean "funded by magic".
Obviously. But there are more solutions than "magic" or creating new taxes.
Enough people believe exactly that to make such statements problematic. If we expand this beyond economist, there are literally people who believe in magic. If we expand magic to include religion, a vast majority believe in magic. Journalism should inform.
Sure, a lot of people have irrational beliefs. But I doubt that a significant share of (adult) people isn't aware that free things still have to be funded somehow. Do you know of any research about that question?
The thing is, for a lot of people it is really free.
Poor people pay very little tax, rich people (admitting they wanted to use public transport for whatever reason) use offshore tricks to pay very little tax.
So you have a vocal poor majority of people telling a minority of marginally richer middle class to foot the bill and a handful of rich people who pay the government to make sure things stay the same and they don't need to start paying.
Poor people pay very little tax, rich people (admitting they wanted to use public transport for whatever reason) use offshore tricks to pay very little tax.
So you have a vocal poor majority of people telling a minority of marginally richer middle class to foot the bill and a handful of rich people who pay the government to make sure things stay the same and they don't need to start paying.
I'm a fan of paying for stuff. I understand that some people can't, and they need to be accommodated. But I think things are better when people who can pay, pay. Subsidies can be fine, but free is often a bad idea.
When you pay money, it's a vote to invest more in and maintain what you are using. It also gives you some stake in it to use it appropriately, and not do absurd things just because there's no cost.
Community college (in the US) is a great example. It works well, and it's cheap and subsidized (generally the cost doesn't stop lower-middle class people from attending). People go there to learn, teachers are there to teach. If we make it free, it will ruin it.
When you pay money, it's a vote to invest more in and maintain what you are using. It also gives you some stake in it to use it appropriately, and not do absurd things just because there's no cost.
Community college (in the US) is a great example. It works well, and it's cheap and subsidized (generally the cost doesn't stop lower-middle class people from attending). People go there to learn, teachers are there to teach. If we make it free, it will ruin it.
I prefer cooperative ownership. It’s a nice mix of public sector and private sector benefits, keeping the competition without extracting as much of the profit as possible for investors.
For things like waterworks, internet, power and trains I never really understood the privatisation. I mean, I sort of understand I on paper. Public procurement is supposed to keep things great and cheap because there is some competition as different companies can bid to win the temporary monopoly every X years. The result is almost always both poorer quality and often also higher expenses in the Danish public sector however. A good example is how we privatised elderly care, which made a ton of small businesses flourish, but because it’s a required care it also caused a looooot of extra cost when these small companies went bankrupt, which happened to be extremely often. You could have 5 companies going bankrupt on a Friday, but that doesn’t mean the elderly citizens they take care of no longer needed medicine, so the public sector would need to find immediate replacements until a new regular company could be contracted. Getting people “right now” is extremely expensive.
Anyway, public transportation in Europe is already extremely public, even if there are private companies involved, it’s still the government paying them to operate and not the other way around. So ticket price is really just a matter of deciding what you want it to be.
Making it feee will cost the government very little in terms of tickets. It’s biggest loss might actually be from lower fuel taxes because people drive less.
For things like waterworks, internet, power and trains I never really understood the privatisation. I mean, I sort of understand I on paper. Public procurement is supposed to keep things great and cheap because there is some competition as different companies can bid to win the temporary monopoly every X years. The result is almost always both poorer quality and often also higher expenses in the Danish public sector however. A good example is how we privatised elderly care, which made a ton of small businesses flourish, but because it’s a required care it also caused a looooot of extra cost when these small companies went bankrupt, which happened to be extremely often. You could have 5 companies going bankrupt on a Friday, but that doesn’t mean the elderly citizens they take care of no longer needed medicine, so the public sector would need to find immediate replacements until a new regular company could be contracted. Getting people “right now” is extremely expensive.
Anyway, public transportation in Europe is already extremely public, even if there are private companies involved, it’s still the government paying them to operate and not the other way around. So ticket price is really just a matter of deciding what you want it to be.
Making it feee will cost the government very little in terms of tickets. It’s biggest loss might actually be from lower fuel taxes because people drive less.
You pay more (in the US) per person for medicare and medicaid than Canada does per person for the entirety of our socialized health care system. $11,500(USD) per person vs $7000(CAD) per person.
People will pay, just indirectly.
Pricing is a great signal for economic optimisation but if there is really nothing to be optimised as these services essentially run as monopolies then maybe this approach on balance comes out better for all.
Pricing is a great signal for economic optimisation but if there is really nothing to be optimised as these services essentially run as monopolies then maybe this approach on balance comes out better for all.
"People will pay, just indirectly."
Exactly, but indirect payment doesn't add friction. It depends on what you want to achieve, but limitless use of public transport isn't all good. For example, in many cities public transport operates at full capacity, at least in some hours. If free unlimited use results in even more passengers, it depends on where these additional passengers are coming from. If most of them were previously driving a car, you are reducing the number of cars. But if most didn't travel at all before, you may actually increase the number of cars, because some people won't like the crowds and switch to using cars.
Exactly, but indirect payment doesn't add friction. It depends on what you want to achieve, but limitless use of public transport isn't all good. For example, in many cities public transport operates at full capacity, at least in some hours. If free unlimited use results in even more passengers, it depends on where these additional passengers are coming from. If most of them were previously driving a car, you are reducing the number of cars. But if most didn't travel at all before, you may actually increase the number of cars, because some people won't like the crowds and switch to using cars.
Right. There might be saturation at peak times, but the rest of the time; just make the system free. It might even improve the peak time situations, reducing the need for more expensive investments to improve them.
But we have also seen countries with free higher education and that has not be ruined, has it?
[deleted]
Remember that there is non-monetary cost to transport systems.
People perhaps commit an hour of their time or more to planning and taking a journey. For most people, that cost is far more than the $3.50 ticket price.
People perhaps commit an hour of their time or more to planning and taking a journey. For most people, that cost is far more than the $3.50 ticket price.
What you're advocating, without realizing it, is a two-tier society where rich people get all the good things, and poor people have to make do with the leftovers.
In my opinion, that's a terrible way to run a society.
I believe it's better for everyone if those who can pay make sure that *everyone* has decent or good things, instead of a few having excellent things and the many having mediocre or bad things.
In my opinion, that's a terrible way to run a society.
I believe it's better for everyone if those who can pay make sure that *everyone* has decent or good things, instead of a few having excellent things and the many having mediocre or bad things.
I think one of the main arguments for free public transit is that it has large positive externalities, that is, it benefits those who do not use the system.
Whenever people switch from using cars to using public transit, you get
- a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions
- increase in local air quality
- reduced noise
- less congestion, smoother traffic for those who still travel by car (and this indirectly also reduces emissions)
- fewer accidents
So it might be a worthwhile goal to strongly encourage people to use public transit, even if you don't use it yourself.
Whenever people switch from using cars to using public transit, you get
- a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions
- increase in local air quality
- reduced noise
- less congestion, smoother traffic for those who still travel by car (and this indirectly also reduces emissions)
- fewer accidents
So it might be a worthwhile goal to strongly encourage people to use public transit, even if you don't use it yourself.
People who did not witness how dangerous such schemes are, will probably not understand until they live through it. It's a popular scheme (heck, even wealthy software dev in HN like it) and very easy to pass, democratically speaking.
Price voting is the difference between communist and capitalist societies. If you offer free public transportation, you kill any potential initiative to create alternate transportation and even can hurt individual transport; making the state a de-facto monopoly over transporting people.
The natural evolution of such bureaucratic systems, is that they'll target something else next time (free healthcare, free books, free whatever...) as it expands their sphere of power and influence further. Soon, you have a huge bureaucracy that controls large parts of your economy which is impossible to change since the leaders of such bureaucracy are now running the country. They are also demanding higher pay, more benefits, and less working time.
Your economy stagnates, the service gets worse as there is no competition, tax revenue is down and a large deficit/debt starts growing; and it's only a matter of time before the whole system collapses. Sounds familiar?
Price voting is the difference between communist and capitalist societies. If you offer free public transportation, you kill any potential initiative to create alternate transportation and even can hurt individual transport; making the state a de-facto monopoly over transporting people.
The natural evolution of such bureaucratic systems, is that they'll target something else next time (free healthcare, free books, free whatever...) as it expands their sphere of power and influence further. Soon, you have a huge bureaucracy that controls large parts of your economy which is impossible to change since the leaders of such bureaucracy are now running the country. They are also demanding higher pay, more benefits, and less working time.
Your economy stagnates, the service gets worse as there is no competition, tax revenue is down and a large deficit/debt starts growing; and it's only a matter of time before the whole system collapses. Sounds familiar?
I've taken public transport in Paris. Legit feared for my life one time. No thanks. Will gladly pay to take the taxi next time.
I've spent a good deal of time on Parisian public transport and have no idea what you are talking about. This includes many trips to less desirable neighbourhoods. The worst I saw was constant pickpockets. Do you care to elaborate?
Sure, had a transfer between buses at night. Some sort of gang warfare was going down. People chasing after each other, throwing bottles and fighting. I'm going to assume was some sort street gang clashing, because thats exactly what it looked like.
> Some sort of gang warfare was going down. People chasing after each other, throwing bottles and fighting.
This sounds like a drunken brawl more than a gang fight.
This sounds like a drunken brawl more than a gang fight.
I don't see how that's a problem with the transportation system.
You remind me of this tired old joke. The doctor proclaims, "The surgery was success, but unfortunately the patient is dead!"
From my perspective, I only care about getting from paint A to point B in a safe way that doesn't kill me. Avoiding ware zone bus stops in-between counts, since the bus stops are part of the transportation system.
From my perspective, I only care about getting from paint A to point B in a safe way that doesn't kill me. Avoiding ware zone bus stops in-between counts, since the bus stops are part of the transportation system.
After reading your comment I found a report on the relative safety of public transport and individual cars [1]. It concludes that in the USA there are up to 60x fewer fatalities per billion passenger miles on public transport (20x for commuter rail, 30x for urban rail, 60x for bus). It also claims that crime rates on public transport are decreasing despite increasing passenger numbers and are lower than for individual cars (crimes include road rage, car theft etc). The results of crimes to individual drivers are apparently also more costly (e.g. a stolen car rather than a stolen phone).
Obviously I've only seen one report, but it may be that the perception of cars as being safer is incorrect.
[1] - https://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/JPT17.4_...
Obviously I've only seen one report, but it may be that the perception of cars as being safer is incorrect.
[1] - https://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/JPT17.4_...
That's probably true that its safer to be in a bus than in a car. But I can point out two things that this study did not take into account, that does not provide a complete picture.
1) The people that die running to get the bus. Or people getting run over after exiting.
2) The increased chance of getting transmittable diseases like the Flu, or now COVID.
1) The people that die running to get the bus. Or people getting run over after exiting.
2) The increased chance of getting transmittable diseases like the Flu, or now COVID.
I think the point is that your perception and reality are maybe divergent. You're not in danger if you watch a gang fight unless you are caught in crossfire which is exceedingly rare in France due to lack of guns. It's unpleasant yes (I've been there with rubber bullets from riot cops) and will get your adrenaline pumping but it's not really dangerous.
[deleted]
In France for work for a week, I paid for an unlimited tourist public transport pass and had a wonderful time after work traveling into Paris from an suburb, then around in the city.
Did you take a bus at night?
Your anecdote is weird.
I've been paying my Navigo pass and equivalent for ~20 years and rode thousands of times in the metro, bus, tram, Noctilien, Citadin and RER, and I have never encountered such situation. I've lived intramuros (mostly on line 13) and in the suburbs (RER B) which are both renowned as being the worst in Ile de France, I've commuted both as a student and as a worker in almost all directions (Saint Denis, Massy, 13ieme, 18ieme, 20ieme...).
I've been paying my Navigo pass and equivalent for ~20 years and rode thousands of times in the metro, bus, tram, Noctilien, Citadin and RER, and I have never encountered such situation. I've lived intramuros (mostly on line 13) and in the suburbs (RER B) which are both renowned as being the worst in Ile de France, I've commuted both as a student and as a worker in almost all directions (Saint Denis, Massy, 13ieme, 18ieme, 20ieme...).
My company instituted a ban on taxis and ubers to make employees use public transport while abroad because it's good for the environment.
Then our execs visited Paris - it only took one metro ride from the airport to get rid of the whole rule and have folks use taxis again. I always wondered what happened on that metro ride.
Then our execs visited Paris - it only took one metro ride from the airport to get rid of the whole rule and have folks use taxis again. I always wondered what happened on that metro ride.
TBH, Paris’s metro is a national shame. It stinks everywhere, it’s dirty, it’s inaccessible, it’s barely decorated…
I don’t understand how we can tolerate this in the most touristic country of the world. I’ve never seen a network that bad, be it in other France cities or abroad.
I don’t understand how we can tolerate this in the most touristic country of the world. I’ve never seen a network that bad, be it in other France cities or abroad.
Still can't get over the fact it drives on tires. Makes it so bumpy.
it depends on the line, though. Line 1's way better than 13, for example
The one time I fear for my life in Paris was in the back of a cab driven be a particularly aggressive driver.
30cm is a perfectly acceptable distance to keep from the car ahead of you. Anything more is wasted space.
Here in Greece, taxis are quite expensive. Think 5-10 times more expensive. They're faster and more convenient, sure, but not for everyday use.
You are downvoted but I can confirm the only time I was almost assaulted as a tourist was in the Paris metro. Then I came outside and it looked like a Mad Max scenario with somebody casually selling corn baked in a barrel fire.
If you mean Parisian subway, i can understand, some parts are really not pretty
That said, many large hubs have been rebuilt, only some small chunks of the network are still nasty.
That said, many large hubs have been rebuilt, only some small chunks of the network are still nasty.
That doesn't mean making public transport free always makes sense, but it would eliminate some of the large rentseekers from the system.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myki