1) It will have an enormous cost. TfL in London collects £5bn/yr in fare revenue. While fares are lower in Berlin and it's a less busy system, it will still probably cost €500mn/yr for Berlin alone.
2) Most people driving are not doing it because they cannot afford public transit fares. They are either wanting a more 'luxurious' environment, can't get where they are going easily on public transit, etc. I'm not convinced it would actually induce much demand on the system from car drivers.
3) It may induce a load of demand from non-car drivers, who can now do a load more trips, longer commutes, etc.
4) Most public transit systems are at peak capacity in rush hour. In London if you switched everyone who was driving to public transit you'd need to double the capacity to do so. Considering crossrail is being built for ~£20bn to increase capacity 10%, you'd probably be needing to spend hundreds of billions of euro on capacity upgrades.
Much better to actually tax the diesel cars properly for the externality cost rather than do some other policy which doesn't directly address the issue.
4 and 2 are in direct opposition. If making it free would not make a dramatic difference then they would not need to dramatically increase capacity.
As to cost, 5bn/yr for significant increases in air quality and lower personal costs as people drive less is necessarily a bad deal. Much like how public healthcare is nominally expensive, but if tax is less than insurance costs that's a net savings not a cost.
PS: Some of that 5bn/yr also goes to collecting fairs. Avoid that effort and you would see significant reductions in operating expenses.
I'm saying that people who currently don't drive cars are likely to use the service a lot more.
People who drive cars are likely to continue driving cars even if it was free.
You get worst of both worlds: loads more demand and no real reduction in driving.
Why not just tax the actual cars instead of losing 5bn/yr of revenue? If the goal is actually to reduce pollution. Stick a €5000/yr tax on bad diesel cars (and maybe transfer that money directly to a EV subsidy fund). They will vanish tomorrow.
Without the bad diesel tax, a lot of people choose to commute to work by car because they would end up spending roughly the same as with public transport. The marginal cost of using a car for a 10km five days a week, let's say 60EUR/month, would now compete with 0EUR. For people making 1k/month this is money.
4 and 2 are not in opposition when ticket pricing is used for load distribution. Which actually happens, monthly tickets are much cheaper here if you take the option that excludes rush hour. With free tickets, that would be lost.
I'm all for allocating more tax money to transit (and I think it's pretty cool that "we"/"they" are actually consisting it), but I'm really afraid that quality would suffer a lot of tickets were abandoned. Turning businesses (even heavily subsidized businesses) into charities will absolutely change how they are run.
Money is not the only cost. If going at 5pm hypothetically takes 1h and 6pm take 5 minutes then people will wait to 6pm until this balances out.
Subway's don't operate as independent businesses. They can't raise fair prices arbitrarily and often receive far more money from the government than from their nominal customers.
> It will have an enormous cost. […] it will still probably cost €500mn/yr for Berlin alone.
That it's costly doesn't mean it ain't worth the price. Universal healthcare is costly.
Also as other commenters note, if it succeeds and lowers air pollution significantly it might save more than it costs in fines and respiratory disease treatment & lost productivity costs.
> Most people driving are not doing it because they cannot afford public transit fares. They are either wanting a more 'luxurious' environment, can't get where they are going easily on public transit, etc. I'm not convinced it would actually induce much demand on the system from car drivers.
Affordance is one thing, convenience is another. I can well afford to buy a ticket, but not having to? Not needing to plan for queuing at the vending machine for an individual ticket, or seeing my bus/train leave because I was a bit short and had to make a stop? Not suffering the hassle of finding my passcard and seeing NFC fail because it's too hot, too cold or Tuesday? Not being caged in/out of the public transport system?
That's invaluable.
Hell, just the latest is my fondest memories of Lyon's metro, not sure about now but 20 years back there were no porticos anywhere, you could walk/run from the station's entrance to the train without having to stop anywhere. Paris's gates were both less friendly and less convenient.
> 3) It may induce a load of demand from non-car drivers, who can now do a load more trips, longer commutes, etc.
Oh no, people without cars being allowed to move around, what horror.
> Most public transit systems are at peak capacity in rush hour.
People who have to take public transports during rush hours won't take it even more, and people who don't have to avoid it regardless of price. Off-peak though…
> In London
The article is about Germany, not London.
> Much better to actually tax the diesel cars properly for the externality cost rather than do some other policy which doesn't directly address the issue.
Car tax doesn't just affect cities with good public transport infrastructure. In fact it mostly affects people not in that situation.
> Also as other commenters note, if it succeeds and lowers air pollution significantly it might save more than it costs in fines and respiratory disease treatment & lost productivity costs.
I have not seen these calculations.
> Affordance is one thing, convenience is another. I can well afford to buy a ticket, but not having to? Not needing to plan for queuing at the vending machine for an individual ticket, or seeing my bus/train leave because I was a bit short and had to make a stop? Not suffering the hassle of finding my passcard and seeing NFC fail because it's too hot, too cold or Tuesday? Not being caged in/out of the public transport system?
That's all non-problems for most people. Here in Hamburg many people have month or year cards. Buying tickets via mobile phones is easy and common now. There is also no NFC involved. If I'm moving in Hamburg, I usually get a day ticket on my mobile phone - which is cheaper than two normal trip tickets. The ticket is valid for local trains, bus, ferry, ...
> bus/train leave because I was a bit short and had to make a stop
The public transport system is really really dense. If your bus leaves without you, the next one comes in a few minutes.
> 20 years back there were no porticos anywhere, you could walk/run from the station's entrance to the train without having to stop anywhere
standard in the whole of Germany.
> People who have to take public transports during rush hours won't take it even more
Sure they would. Demand would go up over much of the day, which means infrastructure investments.
> Car tax doesn't just affect cities with good public transport infrastructure.
Why not? Even German cities with extensive public transport systems have lots of car traffic.
(1) Almost impossible to say at this moment. There are so many externalities: current waste of land, time wasted in traffic jams, environmental damage, ...
(2) Partially true, I guess. However, public transport would get a lot better due to higher frequencies, etc. There will also be a lot of people who would actually enjoy time for reading (instead of traffic jams) and don’t quite understand their current costs of running a car
(3) Yes. And also demand by people who can’t afford mobility today but would love to be mobile
(4) Yes, not sure if that’s a con?
Diesel tax: Nice complement to free public transport
A lot (most?) transit systems in europe are completely at capacity at peak hours. In London and Paris they are at the physical limits of what you can do, say a train every 90 seconds. You cannot physically increase frequencies above that.
I also don't think you're doing a lot of reading in crush loaded trains, but whatever. I take the train every day but it's not like a nice relaxing intercity journey, in London rush hour it can be complete hell and is completely not productive when you have 4 people in a sqm.
You can increase frequency in London on many lines (e.g. the Northern) by resignalling, and TfL has been looking at doing so. But it ain’t cheap. See London Reconnections passim.
But the bigger wins are more active travel (by providing segregated cycle routes) and moving more Tube journeys to the shoulder peak.
> In London if you switched everyone who was driving to public transit you'd need to double the capacity to do so
I sincerely doubt that. With trains every 2-3 minutes and 500-1000 people per train, each tube line transports probably at least 2-3 people per second in each direction. The road traffic above the surface is a fraction of that. Removing all cars from the road (most of which aren't private cars anyway) during peak time would maybe increase demand by some 5-10%.
That's different for trains, obviously. To replace the M1 North of London you'd need to increase train service significantly.
> Removing all cars from the road (most of which aren't private cars anyway) during peak time would maybe increase demand by some 5-10%
Transportation demand is devious. People might travel more and further if it’s free. This could also affect where people move and to where they are willing to commute.
I don't think people spend more time than necessary on any London tube line during rush hour because it's cheap. Any extra time spent is trying to squeeze into an already packed train or waiting at barriers when the station closes due to overcrowding.
But that's still faster than taking the car, just cycling tends to be a bit faster door2door.
I don't mean that though. In Greater London (M25) 50% of journeys are by private car. For commuting to and from work transit use is a lot higher, but car usage is still 50% of all journeys.
There are so many areas really badly served in outer london by transit that cars are used a lot.
Your nr 2 isn't a real argument. A lot of people drive because it's not _much_ cheaper than taking public transportation. If a monthly pass costs 100€, that's ~70l of gasoline, or 40km of driving 20 days a month in a car that does 8l/100km. If you're carpooling with someone, that doubles.
> Most people driving are not doing it because they cannot afford public transit fares
If New York made the subway free, I'd ride it more. Less about cost than hassle: Fishing out a Metrocard, (dropping it, picking it up); swiping; learning it's five cents short; standing in line, negotiating the machine; waiting for it to return your card while your train arrives and leaves.
This point is especially true for visitors. Each city has its own peculiarities with its subway or bus. So people typically don't make the effort and use Lyft/Uber instead.
The public transit card in the Netherlands will automatically keep itself topped up if you enable it, makes public transit basically worry-free. Unless you're low on funds, of course. There's also a version which will just send a bill to your employer at the end of the month, but IIRC that one's quite pricey in comparison.
At some point they do NFC off your phone. Like UK allows you to tap bank cards. Maybe phone too as it's a year since I did this last. Its a great system.
Half of that seems like poor planning on your part. Can you refill your metrocard online? I can do this for public transport in Atlanta and I have done it a couple times when I visited Europe. In both cases I was able to set it up well in advance.
> Half of that seems like poor planning on your part.
Irrelevant. It's friction. More friction means more complexity and less use. Not having to plan is convenient and freeing. And leaves more headroom for planning genuinely important things.
I have to remember to fill up my gas tank to use my own car or charge my phone to use Uber. Both of these tasks require similar amount of work as reloading a public transport card online.
Not only is charging your average smartphone far easier (one wire or just dropping it onto a pad) but most people find their phone is necessary for other uses as well, so using it for Uber requires no extra work.
> I have to remember to fill up my gas tank to use my own car
By that time you're already in your car, there's friction but there's probably more friction to finding an alternative mode of transportation than to stopping at a gas station.
> or charge my phone to use Uber.
You're likely using your phone for many other things and charging it every night if not more often, you don't have to charge it exclusively for the purpose of using Uber.
Indeed, but I think it's a moot point, anyone dissuaded by the friction of using such a payment system would probably have been unable to contemplate getting out of bed in the morning due to the immense friction of preparing and eating breakfast, or the hideous friction of "getting dressed".
The competition is a rideshare. That’s tap, step out, think about other things until you’re magically at your destination. Being able to walk over, walk on, (stay alert), walk off, walk over is considerably fewer things one has to give a shit about.
If drivers were required to pay a fee for every road they drove on, would you make the same argument for eliminating those fees? Shifting the cost of public transportation fully to the municipal level shifts the cost away from those that can afford it the least and more towards those with higher incomes.
The other dynamic to consider is the shift to ride sharing. Somebody who commutes in their private vehicle every day is unlikely to change to a different mode of transport, but an uber rider is more likely to switch to a different mode.
Also, increasing ridership helps to make public transit better, which actually can convince car drivers to switch. in my town, the bus comes every 30 minutes except during special events like festivals when they get a couple extra buses and it comes every 10 minutes. At a 30min frequency, i take my car or bike. at a 10 minute frequency, i take the bus. If you increase the number of riders by making transit free, that can create a political motivation to increase transit service.
In regards to 4 more than twice as many people take buses trains and the tube than drive cars for commuting. This includes everyone who commutes into the city from outside it too so capacity wouldn't need to be doubled.
https://londondatastore-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/Zho%3Dttw-fl...
Also not every increase of capacity costs £20bn. The northern line has increased capacity by 10% by upgrading signalling. New trains will increase it by 10% again.
Interesting that you mention London; I was there not long ago and was surprised that the bus fare is a flat 1.20, no matter where you go. That's very cheap IMO, and with a low barrier to pay for it too.
On 2), there's a much larger psychological difference between cheap and free than there is between expensive and not so expensive, so I expect it would have a larger impact that you think.
Wrong, I have a company car and use it daily, but would use public transport if free. Public transport I have to pay myself, car is paid for by the company.
1) It will have an enormous cost. TfL in London collects £5bn/yr in fare revenue. While fares are lower in Berlin and it's a less busy system, it will still probably cost €500mn/yr for Berlin alone.
2) Most people driving are not doing it because they cannot afford public transit fares. They are either wanting a more 'luxurious' environment, can't get where they are going easily on public transit, etc. I'm not convinced it would actually induce much demand on the system from car drivers.
3) It may induce a load of demand from non-car drivers, who can now do a load more trips, longer commutes, etc.
4) Most public transit systems are at peak capacity in rush hour. In London if you switched everyone who was driving to public transit you'd need to double the capacity to do so. Considering crossrail is being built for ~£20bn to increase capacity 10%, you'd probably be needing to spend hundreds of billions of euro on capacity upgrades.
Much better to actually tax the diesel cars properly for the externality cost rather than do some other policy which doesn't directly address the issue.