Bring us your rich, your energetic, your masses of cyclists

Heaven forbid some energetic child should jump on a fare-free bus. Or a rich person. Horrors!

Trolls are now pushing this line:

"Free transit doesn't work because new riders are mostly pedestrians and cyclists"

Who cares? They are welcome. They can change habits quickly. But gradually, car owners will change their habits... then this is what happens.

A city of 1 million in the US spends $3.6 million per day on gasoline. A 1% increase in weekday ridership on public transit would save the city dwellers $5 million/year. A 10% increase would save $50 million a year.

This is why the trolls are out in force.

Oil trolls provide lies to balance with truth

Here are some troll lies embedded in an NBC story about free public transit.

"But some experts warn that free rides wouldn't solve the issues besetting many public transit systems, including crumbling infrastructure, infrequent and unreliable service, and routes that take workers nowhere near their jobs."

Whataboutism. What about the crumbling infrastructure? What does that have to do with fares? If anything, it shows that charging fares has done nothing for infrastructure.

"For that reason, city leaders should not look at eliminating fares as a "panacea" for transit problems, said Hayley Richardson, a spokeswoman for TransitCenter, a nonprofit group based in New York City that works to improve public transit around the country."

Who is claiming a panacea? Name one.

Instead of eliminating fares, Richardson said, cities need to prioritize creating transit systems that actually serve their customers. The best scenario would be cities where buses arrive every five minutes in dedicated lanes and a country where most Americans can walk to transit.

Here are 15 cases of free public transit where service was expanded and/or improved after fares were removed: https://fptsuccess.blogspot.com/search/label/%23expand 

Reform or revolution?

If we try to reform transportation in cities, we will be dragged into a mire of detail and conflicting interests. The public will soon be bored and discouraged.

Instead, let us stop trying to plan our way out of the auto system mess. Let's take a revolutionary step and make the buses fare-free, and respond to demand. Let the people then, by their choices, show us where the trams, connectors, and network nodes should be.

#freepublictransit in Tallinn spread to 11 counties in Estonia with 32% ridership increase

The success of the scheme in Tallinn led to a demand for free public transport elsewhere in Estonia, and legislation was introduced to allow it to be introduced on a county by county basis. When the legislation came into force on in July last year, 11 out of 15 counties opted to provide free transport. In those counties, public transport trips increased by an average of 32% in the second half of 2018.

https://balticword.eu/tallinn-provides-free-public-transport-for-420000-people/

This is why free public transit is so scary to the banksters who have bet too much on oil and sprawl. Free public transit leads to more efficient cities, which leads to more public transit, and so on. They can't stop it.

Trolls say we have to have better public transport before we can make it fare-free

Congratulations to @MattHaneySF and the city for this achievement. But if it takes decades to get one car-free street, you can imagine how long it will take to get free public transit.

https://twitter.com/MattHaneySF/status/1222631536542937088

Right now, one of the favorite troll attacks on free public transit is to say -- 

"the system needs to be improved before it can be free"

They disguise themselves as "planners" and "cycle advocates" and pretend that free public transit is just a matter of city planning. It is not. It is a struggle against the oil-auto-sprawl profiteers. A mass movement for free transit will unite us, and then we will have the power to make improvements.

What if our buses and trains are already crowded?

Fair question. How can we make public transit fare-free when the buses and trains are already crowded.

Here is the answer. Why are we in this situation? The government can see clearly that more service is needed, yet they continue to subsidize sprawl and cars.

A look at history shows that people have lobbied and voted for better transit for over 100 years. And compared to the increase in cars and sprawl, it has not come close to keeping up.

If we continue this for the next 100 years we will continue to fail. Asking for another bus here, a bike lane there, will keep us divided and weak.

We need a single, simple policy that can unite us.

That issue is fare-free [meaning no fares] public transit. #freepublictransit #freepublictransport

When we are united, we will have the power to add more buses where needed.

Thorough debunking of fares, means-testing, and #racism

Given that the pay-per-ride system for public transit is regressive, unjust, and cuts against the benefits of having mass transit even in a simplistic Econ 101 universe, there are shockingly few American cities that offer free and universal transit. Even internationally, pay-per-ride is the norm. What’s happening here? The answer is that cities around the world have been convinced that making public transit free invites only “undesirable” riders. This is disappointing to put it mildly, but I think it offers us a valuable lesson in how to approach our arguments for universalizing services.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/01/why-free-stuff-is-good 

You can have fare-free AND expand service

Making buses fare-free is the quicker route to better service. If we wait for better service first, we will wait another 100 years, because it took us 100 years to get to this mess, and many people have been fighting for better service all that time.

The trolls are saying that once the system is fare-free there is no money for expansion. The facts do not support this claim. Here are some examples to the contrary:

Nine cases of fare-free service leading to expanded service:
https://fptsuccess.blogspot.com/search/label/%23expand

Here is a list of troll arguments and links to refutations:
https://farefreeeu.blogspot.com/p/anti.html

Fix it first, or rather, go back to begging for a fix -- latest oil-troll gambit

"If transit is free, but it doesn't take you where you need to go (or on time), it isn't an alternative to driving. We must expand + complete our transit network, and we need higher frequencies and much higher reliability (esp. on bus routes) to make it an option for more people." -- Jennifer Keesmaat on Twitter

https://twitter.com/jen_keesmaat/status/1204933981193375744

This is the latest and greatest from oil-auto-sprawl trolls. They want us to forget history. History shows that in spite of 100 years of fighting for better public transit it has only gotten worse compared to the growth of cars and sprawl. And how could it do otherwise, given the billions in subsidy to sprawl.

These trolls hope we will go back to spending 20 years fighting to stop a parking lot and put in bus shelters. 

We will not go back to begging. Free transit is coming and the idea is spreading and will continue.

Having more riders makes public transit better

Prompted by concerns over congestion and pollution, the European countries of Estonia and Luxembourg already offer it, and Germany is considering it. Removing fares clearly makes transit more desirable; when Talinn, Estonia’s capital, adopted free public transportation in 2013, ridership immediately spiked 10 percent. Such ridership gains would certainly be welcome in the United States, where 31 of the 35 largest transit agencies saw passenger counts dip in 2017. Unlike most goods, transit gets better with heavier usage because more frequent bus and train service will reduce wait times.

https://www.citylab.com/perspective/2019/02/washington-fare-evasion-free-public-transport-train-ticket/582160/ 

There aren't any good arguments against fare-free #publictransit, so,.. out come the trolls

The oil industry, gas industry, and lesser sprawl profiteers don't have any good arguments against making urban buses and trams fare-free. We list the arguments they have tried to use here. With this list we include links to refutations.

Arguments against free public transport with links to refutations

Lately they have unleashed the "city planners" and "urbanists" who write complicated analyses that purport to show that free transit does not work. Mostly they provide assertions without evidence. While we can shows dozens of examples of free transit that works just fine.

Examples of places where free transit is working

The most common attack is that free transit is too expensive. But we showed that it actually saves money.

Explanation and spreadsheet on how your town saves money by eliminating fares

Now they send out the trolls -- disguised as bicycle advocates or urban experts. Here is one:

https://twitter.com/NashvilleSpokes/status/1189006251025408000

We expect many more.

48% percent of new [free] bus users say they use the car less

The free bus service started in September of 2018. Since then, there has been an increase in ridership, rising 57% during the week and 115% on weekends. In 2019, the figures that were available to Ubris were a 65% increase on weekdays and 125% on weekends from January through May. 

From February through May, which coincided with Carnival, the figures rose even higher: a 72% increase during the week and 144% on the weekends. 48% of new bus users have indicated they use their cars less. In other words, they chose the free bus over driving their cars. Project Manager, Claire-Marine Javary of VIGS, also pointed out that, “When compared to the total number of users surveyed, 24% make bus journeys they used to make by car.”

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/10/07/a-french-city-introduces-free-public-transportation/ 

Does free public transportation lead to less walking? [No].

Some "planners" are saying that fare-free public transit will lead to less walking and cycling. Here is a study from VTPI that show that public transit increases physical activity. Some excerpts:

...
Since active transport (walking and cycling) and public transit are complements, transit travel tends to increase public fitness and health.
...
The 2004 American Community Survey found that consumers place a high value on urban amenities such as shorter commute time and neighborhood walkability: 60% of prospective homebuyers surveyed reported that they prefer a neighborhood that offered a shorter commute, sidewalks and amenities like local shops, restaurants, libraries, schools and public transport over a more automobile-dependent community
...
Described differently, high quality transit requires an integrated system that includes attractive stops and stations surrounded by compact and mixed development, good walking and bicycling conditions, reduced parking supply, and more social acceptance of non-auto travel;
...
Residents of transit-oriented developments tend to own about half as many vehicles, generate half as many vehicle trips, and rely on walking, cycling and public transit much more than in automobile-dependent communities (Arrington and Sloop 2009).
...
Similarly, Wedderburn (2013) found that in New Zealand urban areas, each additional daily transit trip by driving age (18+ years) residents is associated with 0.95 more walking trips and 1.21 kilometers (in addition to the walking trips to access transit), and reductions of two daily car driver trips and 45 vehicle-kms, approximately 5 kilometers of reduced vehicle travel for each additional transit passenger-km.
...
Inadequate physical activity contributes to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, osteoporosis and some cancers. Many experts consider increased walking and cycling for daily transport one of the most practical ways to increase public fitness and health (AJHP 2003). Most transit trips include walking or cycling links, so transit travel tends to increase physical activity (Devries, et al. 2018; Edwards 2008; Frank, et al. 2010; Litman 2010b). Public transit users average about three times as much walking as people who rely on automobile transport, nearly achieving the 22 daily minutes of moderate physical activity considered necessary for health (Besser and Dannenberg 2005; Weinstein and Schimek 2005; Wener and Evans 2007). Lachapelle, et al. (2011) found that transit commuters average 5 to 10 more daily minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity, and walked more to local services

Free is cheaper

Some of the arguments against fare-free public transportation:

• Homeless will take over
• Buses will be too crowded
• Pedestrians will ride instead of walk
• Bikers will ride instead of bike

We address most of these here.

But the biggest lie is that fare-free costs too much.

In the US, it would cost about $100 per household per year. Nationwide it would cost about $30 billion. That is not a lot of money compared to what is spent on subsidizing autos, fossil fuel, and sprawl, all of which could be reduced if vehicle miles are reduced.

When your city makes the buses fare-free, here are some the the areas you will save money.

• police costs
• pedestrian infrastructure
• collisions
• health
• congestion
• parking
• noise
• road rage
• bureaucracy
• fare collection and security
• many more....

A family [in the US] would save about $100 per week if they could reduce their household by one car. They can also save on petrol and healthcare costs. They will get more exercise by walking to bus stops.

The benefits far outweigh the amount of the lost fares.

for more:
https://frepubtra.blogspot.com/p/free-is-cheaper.html
https://frepubtra.blogspot.com/p/100-reasons.html
https://farefreeeu.blogspot.com/p/anti.html

More on planners and fare-free first

City planners have to keep their careers in the face of overwhelming power of the oil industry. They cannot, and will not, advocate for fare-free public transit.

They will say that even if it is to be fare-free, it must be upgraded first.

Why?

Because while there is a large majority in favor of better public transit, when it gets to actually improving, it is easy to get bogged down in divisive detail. Which bus line should get more buses first? Where should we put rail?

To avoid this, build a mass movement for fare-free public transportation. After it is free, it will become obvious where to spend money for better service.

#farefreefirst

Fare-free first

Should we wait for expansion of service before making public transportation fare-free?

No.

Here is why.

No company would build an additional production facility without having customer orders for their product.

If a city invests in more buses without sufficient rider demand, cost-per-rider will rise sharply. The city will then be vulnerable to political attack for wasting tax money.

Urban buses should be fare-free first. Rail should be taken case by case.

When the buses are crowded, it will be obvious what the people want and there will be more people demanding better service... more political constituency for public transportation in general.

Fix and expand or remove fares right away, which path?

There are public transit advocates and city planners who say that public transit must first be fixed and expanded before it can be made fare-free.

Why?

People have fought for 100 years for better public transit.

It has only gotten worse relative to need, and in some places absolutely worse.

The idea of fare-free is to force the issue. It will show that people want public transit, because ridership will go up. Then we will have the constituency to fix and expand.

City planners and urbanists must oppose #freepublictransit or lose their jobs

According to Vincent Kauffmann, a professor at University of Lausanne and one of key figures in sustainable mobility, “free public transport does not make any sense.” Getting rid of tickets in mass transit is judged “irrational,” “uneconomical” and “unsustainable.” 

However, if we turn to commentators from outside the field of transport, the perspective on fare abolition changes radically. Social scientists, activists, journalists and public officials—often speaking from cities where fare abolition has actually been put to the test—fervently defend the measure.

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/08/public-transport-can-be-free 

City planners must oppose fare-free urban transit

People looking for solutions to climate and energy can be easily attracted to radical-sounding proposals or comments from city planners.

The actual path back from the brink of biosphere meltdown is public transit, and the fastest way to go is by making it fare-free.

But public transit is a threat to growth and profits. These profits are not real though, they are backed by massive subsidy, not the least of which is the sacrifice of the biosphere.

Anyone in the business of city planning will lose their job if they do not actively oppose fare-free public transit.

Which should come first, #freetransit or better service

Some are arguing that fares cannot be removed because bus service will be overburdened, so we must achieve better service first and attract riders that way.

This is a recipe for failure for several reasons:

• Autosprawl generates profits. Sprawl means that each home has its own set of tools, toys, and appliances. These profits are threatened by public transit.
• The auto and sprawl system (#autosprawl) has critical mass. Car costs are seen as necessary and buses are seen as an extra expense.
• The forces behind autos and sprawl are very strong. They even get governments to invade countries to secure sources of oil. 

In every community there is a marginal amount of people for whom the bus is a close option. Fare-free buses would immediately attract them. This would start a process where more riders mean that buses have more political backers. Only then can service improve.

Here is a list of locations that have fare-free public transit. In most cases ridership increased, sometimes dramatically, and in many cases service was subsequently expanded.

https://fptsuccess.blogspot.com/