Almost 50 cities in France have already done away with paid tickets...
-
@Infoseepage @GeofCox You've provided the refutation of your own argument there.
And we can see that in practice in, for example, Tallinn. When passenger transport was made free at the point of use, usage increased, but car use didn't reduce. The increased usage came from a mix of reduced active travel and increased journeys overall.
So, yes, you do have to show it directly.
@plock @GeofCox If your argument against this is "Rich people didn't actually give up their cars, it is just that tired poor people on foot and bicycles prefer to use a (shared) vehicle..." than that is a non-starter of an argument for me. Free transit is a social good. Please don't come back at me with "Well, if they don't bike they'll be fat."
-
Equally, of course, traffic might have increased far more without free public transport.
@GeofCox @plock My city (Seattle) is finally getting some light rail. A lot of people that are for mass transit were actually against the proposals because they weren't comprehensive enough and weren't heavy rail. Light rail simply doesn't move enough people and the projections were that population increases were going to result in far greater traffic by the time the system was in place. I'm not big on half measures. Go big or go home.
-
Equally, of course, traffic might have increased far more without free public transport.
It is, of course, possible that at the exact moment that passenger transport became free at the point of use, the underlying levels of car use suddenly and drastically increased for completely unconnected reasons, precisely cancelling out a simultaneous reduction in underlying car use driven by the change in approach to passenger transport.
Possible, but not particularly plausible.
-
@plock @GeofCox If your argument against this is "Rich people didn't actually give up their cars, it is just that tired poor people on foot and bicycles prefer to use a (shared) vehicle..." than that is a non-starter of an argument for me. Free transit is a social good. Please don't come back at me with "Well, if they don't bike they'll be fat."
Lovely straw man there!
-
It is, of course, possible that at the exact moment that passenger transport became free at the point of use, the underlying levels of car use suddenly and drastically increased for completely unconnected reasons, precisely cancelling out a simultaneous reduction in underlying car use driven by the change in approach to passenger transport.
Possible, but not particularly plausible.
@plock @GeofCox Are there any sorts of graphs of historical data on car use in this particular city over time? A lot of cities systematically gather data on roadway use to assist in their planning efforts. At least in the past this was measured by cords run across major roads, which would log whenever a vehicle drove over them. Because different types of vehicles have different wheel bases, you can discriminate between a car and a truck for instance.
-
It is, of course, possible that at the exact moment that passenger transport became free at the point of use, the underlying levels of car use suddenly and drastically increased for completely unconnected reasons, precisely cancelling out a simultaneous reduction in underlying car use driven by the change in approach to passenger transport.
Possible, but not particularly plausible.
Now that really doesn't make sense - if the measure of car use (and the measure of public transit use) was merely immediate, not over a much longer period, there may have been many specific time-limited factors involved.
-
@plock @GeofCox Are there any sorts of graphs of historical data on car use in this particular city over time? A lot of cities systematically gather data on roadway use to assist in their planning efforts. At least in the past this was measured by cords run across major roads, which would log whenever a vehicle drove over them. Because different types of vehicles have different wheel bases, you can discriminate between a car and a truck for instance.
@plock @GeofCox Bill Gates and Paul Allen actually started a company prior to Microsoft to process this data using computers. Prior to that enterprise, the data had just been recorded on paper tape.
Seems perfectly feasible to me that free transit both alleviated some traffic, but during that same time road usage was on the increase due to increased urbanization or population in that particular city and so that the one thing did not fully offset the other.
-
@plock @GeofCox Are there any sorts of graphs of historical data on car use in this particular city over time? A lot of cities systematically gather data on roadway use to assist in their planning efforts. At least in the past this was measured by cords run across major roads, which would log whenever a vehicle drove over them. Because different types of vehicles have different wheel bases, you can discriminate between a car and a truck for instance.
@Infoseepage@mastodon.socia
Why are you suddenly interested in data?
I thought this was all stuff that you didn't have to show directly!
-
Now that really doesn't make sense - if the measure of car use (and the measure of public transit use) was merely immediate, not over a much longer period, there may have been many specific time-limited factors involved.
"there may have been many specific time-limited factors involved"
The nature of which is left as an exercise for the reader!
-
@plock @GeofCox Bill Gates and Paul Allen actually started a company prior to Microsoft to process this data using computers. Prior to that enterprise, the data had just been recorded on paper tape.
Seems perfectly feasible to me that free transit both alleviated some traffic, but during that same time road usage was on the increase due to increased urbanization or population in that particular city and so that the one thing did not fully offset the other.
And I'm sure you could find a way to convince yourself that increased urbanization or population in the city was the reason for a 40 percent reduction in journeys made on foot.
But, to reach conclusions which are meaningful, data has to be analysed sensibly, rather than desperately contorted to fit a contradictory predetermined conclusion.
-
And I'm sure you could find a way to convince yourself that increased urbanization or population in the city was the reason for a 40 percent reduction in journeys made on foot.
But, to reach conclusions which are meaningful, data has to be analysed sensibly, rather than desperately contorted to fit a contradictory predetermined conclusion.
-
@plock @GeofCox My personal experience with it from my perspective of a tourist in a foreign land is it it really, really great and convenient. The system has had obviously high ridership in the cities I've been and that is a good thing, whether it is keeping cars off the road or just helping people with tired feet.
-
@plock @GeofCox My personal experience with it from my perspective of a tourist in a foreign land is it it really, really great and convenient. The system has had obviously high ridership in the cities I've been and that is a good thing, whether it is keeping cars off the road or just helping people with tired feet.
@plock @GeofCox The buses and trams spend less time at stops and more time moving, because nobody is fishing for change, cards, etc. and all the doors are available for use as entrances, exits, since there are no fares to collect. Getting on and off a bus is easy as efficient and there are knock on effects all throughout the system. The system MOVES rather than ACCOUNTS.
-
"there may have been many specific time-limited factors involved"
The nature of which is left as an exercise for the reader!
Not a difficult exercise - eg. a special event such as a conference, or a car show ! But the point is that only measures over time can really evidence the sustained effects of free public transport on traffic, etc...
-
No, I asked you if you have data relative to a country you are currently in, for which you asserted there is "Very high ridership/utilization, which keeps a lot of cars off the roads."
Your response has consisted thus far of an assertion that data is unnecessary and a series of straw men trying to restate my question as a different argument and stating other benefits from making passenger transport free at the point of use unrelated to car use.
-
@plock @GeofCox The buses and trams spend less time at stops and more time moving, because nobody is fishing for change, cards, etc. and all the doors are available for use as entrances, exits, since there are no fares to collect. Getting on and off a bus is easy as efficient and there are knock on effects all throughout the system. The system MOVES rather than ACCOUNTS.
As I highlighted before, a complete straw man.
Again, you've gone to great lengths to state benefits from making passenger transport free at the point of use which have nothing to do with the original question, which was around your assertion that in a specific case it had kept a lot of cars off the roads.
-
No, I asked you if you have data relative to a country you are currently in, for which you asserted there is "Very high ridership/utilization, which keeps a lot of cars off the roads."
Your response has consisted thus far of an assertion that data is unnecessary and a series of straw men trying to restate my question as a different argument and stating other benefits from making passenger transport free at the point of use unrelated to car use.
@plock @GeofCox From a brief search, Belgrade implemented their free transit at the beginning of 2025. They're the largest city to try this, so far. They've had a net increase of about 250,000 vehicles in the area in the last decade. I guess only time and data gathering will tell if this works for them as a method of reducing cars on the road relative to population, but imo that isn't the only measure of such a system's success.
-
@plock @GeofCox From a brief search, Belgrade implemented their free transit at the beginning of 2025. They're the largest city to try this, so far. They've had a net increase of about 250,000 vehicles in the area in the last decade. I guess only time and data gathering will tell if this works for them as a method of reducing cars on the road relative to population, but imo that isn't the only measure of such a system's success.
-
Not a difficult exercise - eg. a special event such as a conference, or a car show ! But the point is that only measures over time can really evidence the sustained effects of free public transport on traffic, etc...
"a special event such as a conference, or a car show"
Which is it? What was the event in Tallinn in 2013 which completely skewed the data and which researchers have all failed to allow for in their analysis?
-
@GeofCox Why don’t people walk or cycle instead? It is already free. The answer is that authorities don’t want to restrict the speed of motor traffic. Instead they make cyclists wear helmets and hi-viz vests.
You can research the safety issue if you like. The short version is that personal protective equipment is a dead end. It is a distraction from safe cycling infrastructure. As are many things…
Équipements obligatoires à vélo
Pour circuler à vélo, certains accessoires sont obligatoires et d'autres simplement recommandés : casque, gilet, phares, sonnette…
(www.service-public.gouv.fr)
It is very dangerous unfortunately to ride a bike. The infrasyructure is car-friendly and definitely not bike-friendly... and/or walk-friendly
