A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Brilliant idea.
Not sure how financially viable it is (would love to see the sums though) but fingers crossed, if it works in cities, it can be expanded to the country too.
I can only speak from a UK perspective but I can only hope the fuckwits don't use it to abuse it. It's a genuinely progressive move and probably the best way of bridging the gap between combustion vehicles and EV's, or even bypassing them entirely.
It probably never have been financially viable, and that's alright, it's a public service
I'd argue it absolutely is financially viable to society, and moreso than the status quo. It's just less financially profitable for certain commercial interests than the status quo.
The trouble is with government, when you spend money somewhere you generally save it somewhere else, or earn it back elsehwere, and it becomes difficult to associate the spending with the cost savings or profits, such that the spending gets cut. In this case, allowing residents to use public transport for free encourages more people and more business to move to the area, which increases income through taxation. However, after a point someone will look at it and say "Why are we spending so much?" and try to cut it, without acknowledging the subsequent decline after the incentive is removed.
Spend more on trains, spend less on road maintenance, have less traffic then spend less on cops patrolling it.
You hit the nail on the head. The savings would be too distributed between different parts of the government to arrive at a specific number.
I think you're conflating 'financially viable' with 'profitable.'
Something that isn't 'financially viable' doesn't have the funding to stay in business.
It is, and again I'm speaking from a UK-centric viewpoint, where the public services are privatised to the point where financial viability does have an impact on it, which is unfortunate as it waters the service down for everybody.
The article doesn't make it clear if the transport operation is state owned or privately operated, hopefully it's the former because I agree with the notion that it should be seen as a service with a net benefit rather than a cost on the accounting books.
The article says that 90% of 39 million euros in public transport revenue came from locals, so the cost should be around 35 million, perhaps with some savings on staff or infrastructure since fewer people have to buy tickets (as well as possibly less road maintenance if fewer people use cars as a result). And the city is financing it through a new tax on companies with more than 11 employees.
It's not a world ending amount of money, so I don't see why it shouldn't be viable. Germany's 49€-ticket, while currently having some financing trouble, is similar too in that it is extremely cheap, and is nationwide, and it happened in a nation with an extremely strong car lobby.
It's not free, but it should be possible anywhere with enough political will.
A small correction. The article says:
Last year city residents accounted for 90% of the 39 million euros in public transport ticket sales.
So 90% of the tickets were bought by locals, not that 90% of the total revenue of that public transport service came from the tickets that locals bought. In fact this number is wildly overestimated. A lot of PT services operate based on taxes (same as this policy) and in many cases the revenue from tickets can be as low as 10%.
Honestly considering that only 10% of the tickets are coming from non residents I am surprised that it’s not free for everyone. For sure the loss of revenue there will be very small compared to the increased efficiency in operations, either from less maintenance/employees required but also to make onboarding faster/easier.
I was also not aware of these numbers until recently, when I heard thr Freakonomics episode on free public transportation.
i get the equvalent of a 49€-Ticket for 25€ at my company. that's a great deal. unfortunately public transport is extremely unreliable in my part of the city, so i can't really use it to get to work. plus i save an hour of my time every day i drive to work.
Yeah, I get it for effectively 32€ through my employer due to the payment being pre-tax and a slight discount on top. Sucks that public transport is so poor for you, I only use it when it's really cold but going by bus takes maybe 5 minutes longer than cycling for me, and I'd guess maybe 10 minutes longer than if I had a car and used that.
For me the ticket is worth it just for the occasional regional train, though. Visiting family for christmas over 2 days already pays for it for an entire month, since the train ticket itself would be 20€ one way.
i still have it because i need it for school. which is is the middle of the city, and we regularly have multiple people who are late. often more than 20 minutes. it seems to be shit everywhere i my area.
Quite a few companies here cover the cost of the 49€ ticket so lots of people effectively get it for free.
It's not the first city/town in europe that's done this. Many medium-sized towns in my country have free public transportation. It works very well and means less cars.
People don't abuse it, because how would you even abuse something like that?
Because unfortunately, they do.
In Scotland, multiple local authorities signed up to a scheme to allow young persons to use cards to get free travel. Fantastic idea and one that would be awesome to see spread to all age bands, but the problem was that antisocial behaviour increased in and around transport hubs, largely because of the increased mobility of people.
It'll be interesting to see if any lessons learned are integrated into other city planning where these schemes are rolled out.
I think this isn't really free transport's fault, this is a problem with youths being antisocial, it has different causes. The free bus just helps to make it more concentrated in certain places, but the solution isnt to make the bus paid but to help the youth find better things to do.
Also to quote the first article
Despite its success, First Bus, Scotland’s largest bus operator, confirmed to The Herald it has experienced “a slight increase” in youth disorder on its network of routes since the scheme was launched, although it added that the rise “cannot be directly attributed” to the roll-out of the scheme.
I remember reading about a free bus scheme in London. If you were found being antisocial you lost your free bus pass. So there was an incentive to keep the buses clean.
That's not absuing it, that's it being successfully used.
We want young people to use public transport, oh no, the young people are using public transport, the horror.
This is actually how you really combat global warming. Making public transportation affordable and convenient.
I mean, first you need functional public transit, and then...
I lived here, it's amazing. It was already free for -25yo but making it free for everyone is a good thing. It should be free for tourist too imo.
It's 10euro for 10 travel in Montpellier, where I am in Canada it's 4 ~~euro~~ cad each, so I bike more.
Where do you live that it's $5.84?
Wrong currency my bad it's $4.25 So 3 euro
Still a lot, where's that?
Yes it's a lot. I don't want to dox myself but with a quick search I found out that Vancouver go up to $6.20 for 18-65yo depending on the area.
https://www.translink.ca/transit-fares/pricing-and-fare-zones.
But I would expect most trip to cost less
Look I know it's really close to the border with Quebec but calling the Vermonters Fr*nch over it is just being mean!
/s
The one on Vermont only is spelled Montpelier, with only one L, whereas the original one in France is spelled Montpellier with 2 Ls.
I guess the French guy who named it couldn't remember how many Ls it took.
Also a thing here in Kansas City.
Most of the transit users in my city commute in from the burbs, so free transit just for residents wouldn't decrease car traffic all that much. It would have to be for everyone.
I live in Montpellier. It’s free for the whole metropole, meaning Montpellier and the 30 cities around it
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The French city of Montpellier in southern France became the latest European metropolis to allow all its residents to ride public transport for free.
From Thursday evening, Montpellier residents with a special pass were able to ride trams and buses free of charge in the southern city.
Michael Delafosse, the Socialist mayor of the city of 500,000 people, promised free public transport when he was elected in 2020.
Before the initiative to make public transport free in Montpellier, just 86,000 people had paid subscriptions to use it, according to figures obtained by AFP.
But that figure has tripled to 260,000 subscribers in recent days running up to the launch of the free pass, either in card or smartphone app form.
Last year city residents accounted for 90% of the 39 million euros in public transport ticket sales.
The original article contains 292 words, the summary contains 137 words. Saved 53%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!