[saithound]

> You're cherry-picking your own examples. It worked in Iowa City.

Indeed, it worked in Brisbane (a metro area comparable to Baltimore in the U.S.) and Lanzhou (comparable to Boston-Cambridge-Newton): congestion was reduced, the environment benefited, and usage increased in many cities that dislodged from that equilibrium and switched to a free-of-charge or symbolic-charge model.

I don't think GP's claim stands, for transit cities big or small.

[denkmoon]

Further cherry picking. Brisbane's free buses are only the "city loop". The rest of the transit system is fare based. It also has not stood the test of time yet.

[saithound]

> Brisbane's free buses are only the "city loop". The rest of the transit system is fare based

With all due respect, I expect more effort than Googling "are buses really free in Brisbane", then copy-pastig the AI summary. Symbolic charges were mentioned for a reason, both cities have a fixed "fare" of about 30 US cents on their networks.

If you think there are examples of GP's claim that "every major city that tries free transit at scale will eventually snap back to it", feel free to substantiate it by naming major cities which tried the Brisbane-Lanzhou model and snapped back.

[AnthonyMouse]

> both cities have a fixed "fare" of about 30 US cents on their networks.

What form of corruption-induced lobbying is this now? A sizable advantage of making it actually free is to remove the huge cost of the fare collections infrastructure.

[saithound]

If you remove the fare collection infrastructure, you remove beneficial usage tracking infrastructure too.

There might also be other "social engineering" benefits to having a fixed symbolic charge, as some people argued in this thread. I don't know about that, but I don't think it's _just_ lobbying.

[AnthonyMouse]

> If you remove the fare collection infrastructure, you remove beneficial usage tracking infrastructure too.

Most of the cost of collecting fares is actually the money. You need machines that can process currency, which are expensive and often requires network infrastructure and middlemen and contractors, and then they have to be secured against theft or card skimming etc., and you need customer service and billing and tech support when the machines break and all the rest of it.

If all you want is to track usage you can just put a simple pedestrian counter at the door and you're not actually disrupting anything if it's offline for a week because you're just looking for statistical sampling anyway.

> There might also be other "social engineering" benefits to having a fixed symbolic charge, as some people argued in this thread. I don't know about that, but I don't think it's _just_ lobbying.

Ambiguous "social engineering benefits" are the sort of thing that implies it is lobbying, because there is no good way to prove or disprove it but it gives someone something to claim is their reason when the real ones are less sympathetic, i.e. they're trying to get the collections contract (or have read a study funded by someone who does) or they just don't like spending money on transit but know that won't be a convincing argument to someone who does.

[invig]

That's not quite true, what they can measure with the "tap on tap off devices" is people's movement patterns (point to point). That is valuable data that you can't really get just by counting people on and off or taking cash.

[aldonius]

In Brisbane I think our ticketing system cost overhead is maybe 10%?

The cost of the programme rolling out new ticketing infra (the first major ticketing system upgrade in ~15 years since we first got integrated ticketing, going from a stored-value smart card to also being able to tap your credit card) is roughly the same amount of money as the annual revenue from fares.

[AnthonyMouse]

So hundreds of millions of dollars to be saved then, and that's just for the periodic upgrades, which are an up-front cost and therefore cost you even more in terms of time value of money.

Then as long as the system is in place you need to pay ongoing costs to repair and maintain the equipment, enforcement against anyone who skips the fare, payment network fees, customer service for anyone with payment issues or damaged cards, connectivity service for anything that needs to be networked, etc.

And the overhead percentage depends on the fares. If it was ~10% when the fare was $5, what is it when the fare is $0.50? Well:

> If fare revenue is now only about $20 million per year, does it even cover the cost of fare collection? The current ticketing system rollout was expected to cost $371m, but ended up at $434m – which appears to cover operations for 17 years from 2018… so $25.5m per year. [0]

[0] https://danielbowen.com/2025/07/11/brisbane-pt-patronage-gro...

And then what is it when that number hasn't included the time value of money or accounting for any of the operating costs?

[batiudrami]

The fare is a flat au 50c, though. It is basically free.

[ncruces]

Basically free is not free.

The point of buses is to replace cars, not short walks.

If you make it so that everybody who could walk 5min takes a bus, the bus will have to stop more often - and for longer - which makes it worse for the people who can't just walk 5min.

The trick is to balance the system so that buses (and other forms of transit) are cheaper - and approximately as convenient - as cars, without making them cheaper and more convenient than walking (for those who can still walk).

Fares don't necessarily need to be about financing the system. They can be about setting the correct incentives, and ensuring people value the service they're getting.

[mckn1ght]

Another solution that’s already used to help mitigate increased stop frequency is express routes that connect farther endpoints together.

[sudosysgen]

It's very unlikely people are actually going to take the bus for a 5 minute walk : the wait time for the bus is going to be on that order of magnitude and you'd need your route to be perfectly aligned and have perfect stop placement for that to happen.

Most likely, you will have extra trips because people won't feel the need to justify the fare.

[ncruces]

That's not true on a major avenue that serves 10 different routes, which combined have a frequency of one every couple of minutes.

Also, it doesn't help to make bus stops more spaced, and you may not want a bunch of express routes that skip most stops, because another purpose of buses is to help people with difficulty moving (like the elderly), for whom it's not a 5min walk.

You just want to make the service available, and as good as possible, without incentivising people who could just walk to use it.

Because the actual goal is to displace cars (not walkers, or cyclists, or…)

[rsynnott]

> If you make it so that everybody who could walk 5min takes a bus, the bus will have to stop more often - and for longer - which makes it worse for the people who can't just walk 5min.

... Eh?

I often hit the leap card weekly cap (24 eur) in Dublin. This absolutely does not lead me to take a bus instead of walking for five minutes, because that would be _insane_. Like, maybe there are a few people who despise walking to an unreasonable extent and do this, but it would not be common. If it was, you'd see people doing it anywhere which has a fare cap (ie. most cities, these days).

[panick21_]

It also hasnt worked in other places. Like Estonia. The data for "invest in capacity and speed" is much better then the for "reduce fares". So if you have extra money, the evidence on what to do is 100% clear.

[ndsipa_pomu]

If you're looking for return on investment, then cycle infrastructure is the way forwards. Each mile travelled by bike actually benefits society (less illness etc) whereas each mile travelled by car costs society.

> For every £1 invested, walking and cycling return an average of around £5-6

> A study of New York concluded that, in terms of health: “Investments in bike lanes are more cost-effective than the majority of preventive approaches used today.”

From https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/case-cycling-economy

[Dr4kn]

People that walk or bike are also more likely to do small shopping locally. This benefits the local economy and gets less money to international big box retailers, which generally pay less taxes.

If you drive by a small market you often won't park your car to go there. Cars and trucks destroy streets fast. Having less of them keeps repairs less frequent. Infrastructure for walking and biking can exist for multiple decades or even millennia

[rangestransform]

So you’re saying that people should do shopping locally, spend more, and waste more time to prop up inefficient businesses who don’t benefit from economies of scale? Tell that to voters and then try to win an election. Society exists to make our lives easier, not to prop up as many businesses and employees as possible as a make-work make-taxes program.

[panick21_]

Oh my god the obsession with 'economics of scale' is such narrow minded nonsense.

Shopping locally is more efficient, because the distribution network distributes things locally much more efficiently then a bunch of housewives in their SUVs.

Sure its cheaper for the shop providing the food, but for the society its more expensive. What you are completely missing is the massive cost of all the infrastructure and the massive subsidizes therein to create these centralized stores. And then the massive cost in time and capital investment for every users to buy a car to pick that stuff up.

You are also ignoring the massive waste this creates because people only go shopping every 1-2 weeks. And you are ignore the lack of fresh foods in the food system because of this behavior. That of course Americans eventually pay in their medical systems.

If you actually do some research you will see the systematic bias that is in the zoning code, infrastructure cost calculation and services. Walmart often consumer more in just police services then they pay in taxes. Walmart is systematically gaming the property rights system to pay almost no taxes. And yet Walmart uses a huge amount of land and requires a huge amount of public infrastructure to sustain itself.

If you really need to do some massive pickup of stuff for a party or something there are still larger stores you can go to as well, just not for everyday stuff.

Actually having a shop where I can locally pick up fresh food every day or every other day is actually much more convenient and saves far more time. And I know this is crazy for Americans to consider, but as a society it would be nice if people without a car could also buy food sometimes. This video points this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHTzqHIngk

[rangestransform]

Cities only exist because of economies of scale! Public transit, road maintenance, utilities delivery, public recreation facilities, and the plethora of small and large businesses are more efficient in a city because of economies of scale.

What people don’t benefit from is laws to artificially benefit small businesses at the expense of the consumer. Here in New York, we have this stupid law that one corporate entity can only have one liquor retail license. This law was created at the “behest” of the lobby of liquor store owners. The end result of this is that liquor is more expensive than my hometown of Vancouver, despite NYS collecting a significantly lower tax rate than BC province. That money all flew into private coffers, and the consumer still gets bent over in the end.

I also take issue with the implication that Walmart incurring policing costs is bad for society. The implication is that Walmart should either have private police or be a shoplifting free for all. The former is a bad idea because Walmart police don’t have the same responsibility or accountability to the public as public police. The latter is a bad idea because society will collapse without property rights.

[graemep]

What you quote is for "walking or cycling".

I would favour walking. Its far easier to get people to do it and most people can do it. A lot of infrastructure already exists and its cheaper and easier to improve.

If you provide reasonably public transport its far easier to walk. I drive into town, then park and walk, where I currently live because busses are infrequent. I never even owned a car in London because it has good public transport (to be fair, I probably would have if I lived in a suburb and had kids).

[mmooss]

It's not XOR; you can do both. Most people who cycle also walk at times.

Why exclude cycling? You're range is ~5x walking - in the time and effort required to walk a mile, you could easily cycle 5 miles.

It doesn't have to be a universal panacea to be valuable. Walking isn't possible for everyone, including some who can cycle, and it's not useful for longer distances like 5 miles, ~2.5 hrs walking or 30 min cycling slowly.

[tasuki]

Are you walking on hands? 5 miles is 8 km, that's 80 minutes of fast walk. I routinely walk 5 miles for transportation: I consider it time well-spent.

[phil21]

16 minutes per mile (3.75mph) (5 miles in 80 minutes) is basically my 'fast walk' time in the city. My wife who is shorter has a hard time keeping up with that.

Unfortunately stop lights/etc. will also make this longer. My "best" pace where I actually do get tired is about 15 minutes per mile. Few can keep up a 4mph pace even on a dedicated walking trail with no elevation changes for any material length of time.

Most folks average probably greater than 20 minutes per mile, especially for longer walks. 2.5 hours is definitely on the extreme end, but close to 2 hours is probably more realistic for most.

[graemep]

> It's not XOR; you can do both.

The quote I was replying to was about return on investment. Money spent on cycling infrastructure is money not spent on walking and public transport. Spending money is definitely XOR.

I am arguing that walking for shorter distances and providing public transport for longer distances is a better use of money in most places.

> Why exclude cycling? You're range is ~5x walking

Your range for walking plus public transport is far greater.

One big problem I see with cycling is low uptake in most places - in most (not all, to be fair) places I know cycles lanes are mostly empty.

> Walking isn't possible for everyone, including some who can cycle

People can cycle who cannot walk or use a bus?

[panick21_]

A few point.

You are right that money is XOR. But cycling takes people of roads and improves the overall system while being very cheap. Also, you don't need dedicated super dutch style infrastructure to encurrage cycling. Making it safe for walking and cars to interact, ALSO makes it much, much better for cycling. Its a mistake in thinking that 'cycling' infrastructure is only dedicated cycling lanes. Encuriging cycling almost always pays off, in pretty every systematic measurment ever done on the topic. And if you reach Dutch level it pays of a gigantic amount. Its really low investment high return.

Cycle lanes actually look empty often because they are so much more efficent. They have done some studies on paths that were always empty and the threwput is usually not as bad as people think. To be sure the place you are refering to could be totally empty, it happens, but its not the norm even in the US.

Also, of course in a lot of places, specially in the US where they are really bad at cycling infratructure, they believe that all it takes is for one road to have a cycle lane and then magically people on bikes show up. They just want to get in on the 'hype' and were pressured to 'do something'. You need to actually be able to reasonably safely go from A to B between places that are vaguly useful. Dedicate cycling lanes make sense in places where there is no alterantive and you need cars to go resonably fast. But generally its more about your car infrastructure and how fast and dangerous your cars are. Improving cycling always goes hand in hand with making cars less dangerous, and that always pays off.

It takes some up front investment and actual planning, but its not like that infrastructure is worthless after a few years. Cycle lanes once built basically never get destroyed, so putting it in speculatively while having a long term plan makes a lot of sense.

[robocat]

Your summary is incorrect. From link from link:

  while the majority of [the savings] consists of traditional transport decongestion benefits, around a fifth are arising from e.g. health, journey quality and safety.

Cycling doesn't replace cars, it just reduces the cost of cars!

Once you're too old, the health benefits are less clear e.g. my mother dangerously broke bones after falling off her bike (I think cause was overloading herself with a grubber in a backpack).

[mmooss]

> Cycling doesn't replace cars, it just reduces the cost of cars!

The quote doesn't support that. It says decongestion is most of the savings, and decongestion is fewer cars, implying bikes replace cars.

Is there something else in the article that supports it?

Someone on a bike isn't driving - it seems like a clear substitute, though it also substitutes for public transit.

[panick21_]

Yes I know. I'm a huge, huge fan of cycling infrastructure. And I agree that it is the highest value.

But even if you have that you still need high quality public transport. Its not either or. And if you are going to invest in public transport, investing in capacity, speed and convenience. Is a better investment then not making people pay.

[benatkin]

> a metro area comparable to Baltimore in the U.S.

That doesn't make it a serious transit city

[saithound]

Odd hill to die on, but if you wish to argue that Iowa City is a serious transit city, but Brisbane and Lanzhou are not, feel free to state your definition of serious transit city. These cities are bigger than Iowa City and their public transport share of journeys to work is higher than any similarly-sized U.S. metro area.

Beware: if there are no true Scotsmen left, and your definition of serious transit city excludes everything apart from ~10 European cities, the conclusions that one can draw from the policies of serious transit cities will be so limited that they will in fact be useless.

[benatkin]

I was just pointing that out from the post you replied to, I don't agree with the author.

However, I think that Iowa City isn't doing the symbolic fare, and that Brisbane's 50 cent fare would make some kind of a difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translink_(Queensland)#Fares

[saithound]

Thanks.

> However, I think that Iowa City isn't doing the symbolic fare, and that Brisbane's 50 cent fare would make some kind of a difference

A reasonable point. That very well might be the case, and if everybody thinks symbolic-fare is better than no-fare, I won't be the one to oppose it.

[skylurk]

It's an order of magnitude larger than Iowa City, though.