the primary consideration for public transit funding should be private transit
if one wants their own private transit, they must subsidize public transit
tax cars, tax gas
@lachesis the fun thing is that private transit is also subsidized (roads, parking lots, lack of carbon tax, etc), and its subsidies are much higher than of public transit
Interesting idea. Open question:
I can believe that making public transport free increases use. But I don't see the link between that and a reduction in driving, for two reasons. First, people who take the bus tend not to be those who own cars. Second, experts say you can't build your way out of congestion — building more roads just increases car mileage. So, if you make more transport available, why wouldn't it be in addition to car use, rather than instead of it?
In places with good and affordable public transit systems, people are just much less likely to own cars.
Less than half of Dutch people have a driving license.
I let my license expire when I moved to London.
But even people who have cars here don't often drive them because the transport is more accessible. You don't need to find a parking place. You can go to the pub and have a couple of pints and not worry about moving your car.
The US is super classist about buses, but that's an american thing, especially in the 'burbs.
If your biggest barrier to using public transport is fear, I'd say you should give it a shot. If it's money, then the original toot was for you! If it's frequency, inconvenient routes or weird timing, that's a different issue which should also be solved. And, indeed, is also placing an unfair burden on poor people.
@celesteh @IngaLovinde @lachesis I'm sold on the benefits of public transport, both for the individual and for society, and I use it routinely when I'm in big cities. Unfortunately, there's no way to walk safely to a bus stop from my home.
You raise an important point about frequency: in many parts of the UK outside London, you can easily wait an hour for a bus, sometimes longer.
Fewer people have licences in the UK than in NL.
Getting a license in the UK is super expensive, time consuming and difficult. It's also hard in NL, but I'm under the impression it's less hard.
I don't have figures comparing how much driving happens in both countries. I think it's fair to say that Dutch people do a lot more cycling, enabled by much better cycling provision.
UK transit provision is patchy and uneven, but it's worth recalling that before the rail line closures in the 60s, most people used it to get it around and car ownership was rare.
Also worth noting that the tube is outrageously expensive and this is a big problem. It's also carrying like ten times more people than it was designed for and the high barrier to entry is masking how inadequate it is compared to the number of people who would like to ride it. Some transport prices are to punish poor people, some are to make the service seem more respectable and I think some are actually meant to reduce ridership.
Agreed, cycling provision in the UK is rotten. You take your life in your hands every time.
Also agreed, the Tube is expensive and crowded. But "to punish poor people"? That's a provocative statement.
@celesteh @IngaLovinde @lachesis Many decades ago, I grew up close to one of the big London football grounds. On a Saturday afternoon when there was a match on, I was effectively trapped indoors: there were too many aggressive and drunken football hooligans for a child to go out safely. That doesn't mean that football matches were put on to punish me: merely that sport imposed a cost on nearby residents. And so it is with the London marathon.
(I’ve literally seen active campaigning against expansion of rail lines - not even on the basis of cost, but on the basis of “crime”. This is, of course, a dogwhistle that means black and poor people.)