Free tram + bus travel to cut emissions?

[Cyril Haearn]

Several months after the election, the new German government may be in action soon

To cut emissions there is a suggestion that urban transport could be --free-- in some towns including Bonn

Looks like one for the law of unintended consequences

Seems to me many more vehicles would be needed, people would take the tram instead of walking

So, what would you do? Cycle or walk or tram or bus or car? (In Bonn there are even boats plying from A to B)
Carrot or stick?

[reohn2]

I would stop private cars entering the city,totally if possible other than special needs.I would at the same time operate bus travel in the city on non a profit basis or subsidised rate,and free for children,OAP,and unwaged/in receipt of benefits.

[mercalia]

already do in London with my freedom pass - The tubes mean you have to walk quite a bit ( I know that to my cost I have never walked so much before ) My m/c has been sorned. I some times take my bike on the trains also. I doubt London could cope with free transport for every one, would be hell on earth during the rush hour ( is already) , but would be nice to have the empty roads. The mayor wants to extend the emission exclusion zone to the South Circular that covers much of London which would mean any one in a car that isnt just 3 years or so old paying to drive there:

[Cyril Haearn]

already do in London with my freedom pass - The tubes mean you have to walk quite a bit ( I know that to my cost I have never walked so much before ) My m/c has been sorned. I some times take my bike on the trains also. I doubt London could cope with free transport for every one, would be hell on earth during the rush hour ( is already) , but would be nice to have the empty roads

Plus plus, you walk more
But do you make more trips because it is free? Would you travel less if you had to pay?

[mercalia]

already do in London with my freedom pass - The tubes mean you have to walk quite a bit ( I know that to my cost I have never walked so much before ) My m/c has been sorned. I some times take my bike on the trains also. I doubt London could cope with free transport for every one, would be hell on earth during the rush hour ( is already) , but would be nice to have the empty roads

Plus plus, you walk more
But do you make more trips because it is free? Would you travel less if you had to pay?

Yes I have been all over London now its free, but I did use to use my m/c a lot before as I wouldnt pay to use the trains or tubes or buses: One big difference is that I dont get so dirty or come home with itchy skin due to the pollution being rammed onto my face, riding my m/c. Before the m/c I used to ride a lot on my bike but again thats a sweaty dirty thing to do - dirty ruined shirt collars.

[thirdcrank]

One unintended but predictable effect of more people using public transport would be that car travel would be easier because of the reduced congestion and easier parking unless quite strong restrictions were imposed on motor traffic. I suspect that financial controls such as congestion charging and higher prices for parking discourage those unable to pay but are just one more overhead for the better off. Exemptions have to be robustly controlled or they are exploited. IIRC, in the early days of Red Ken's congestion charge an LWB Land Rover - eight seats - was exempt. Physical restrictions like bus-priority traffic lights are politically unpopular, especially if there are frequent buses. It's as though a sole occupant of a motor car is not only taking up relatively more road space than each of the 80-90 passengers in a full bus, they also have that much more political influence. Barmy.

I've had free bus travel for much of my adult life and I'd use the bus every time in preference to driving, so long as there was a bus going to my destination and at a convenient time. That's a lot less often the case than it used to be, and getting worse.

[francovendee]

Didn't Red Ken do this in London years ago?

[Mick F]

................... I'd use the bus every time in preference to driving, so long as there was a bus going to my destination and at a convenient time. That's a lot less often the case than it used to be, and getting worse.

That's the main issue.

Not particularly free busses, but ANY busses going where you want to go, and when you want to go.

[661-Pete]

There are up- and downsides to this.

We visited Budapest in 1990, in the dying days of the old communist regime. Public transport was heavily subsidised and so cheap that it was virtually, but not quite, free. At least, to us with our Western pockets!

It was quite commonplace, if one found oneself at one end of a bridge spanning the Danube (about as wide there, as the Thames is in London), to board a tram and ride across the bridge, disembarking at the far end. We did so, many times - despite being perfectly able-bodied. How many would do that here, instead of employing Shanks's Pony for a leisurely stroll across the river?

I'd make it free or almost free to those who have most need of public transport - but not others.

[thirdcrank]

With any policy, you have to be clear about your aims. Here, the thread title is " ... to cut emissions."

[Vorpal]

There was a report a few years ago that showed we subsidise motor transport to £600 per annum per person.

If that was instead used to subsidise public transport, we could easily provide free and efficient public transport to every resident of the UK.

Here, the wider costs of transport for England are shown. Looking at it, it is clear that the vast majority of those costs are due to our addiction to private motor transport.

So what if people use it when they don't strictly need to? They do that every day with their cars, now!

[reohn2]

There was a report a few years ago that showed we subsidise motor transport to £600 per annum per person.

If that was instead used to subsidise public transport, we could easily provide free and efficient public transport to every resident of the UK.

Here, the wider costs of transport for England are shown. Looking at it, it is clear that the vast majority of those costs are due to our addiction to private motor transport.

Quite right!

So what if people use it when they don't strictly need to? They do that every day with their cars, now!

Exactly! and public transport would would run on more routes for longer each day if more people used it.

[Cyril Haearn]

It was tried in Koethen Germany, a small town
Ridership increased fivefold

[661-Pete]

One other thing I recall about Budapest public transport, 1990-style (remember: this is nearly 30 years ago). All the electrically-powered means of public transport: trams, metro, trolleybuses, battery-powered buses, operated a shared-ticket system and were cheaper to ride on.

The diesel-powered buses in the city cost slightly more. Partly because they covered the outskirts of the city, not reached by the electric infrastructure - but also partly on the grounds of emissions and pollution.

Clearly these were on people's minds even back then.

[irc]

There was a report a few years ago that showed we subsidise motor transport to £600 per annum per person.

If that was instead used to subsidise public transport, we could easily provide free and efficient public transport to every resident of the UK.[

You can't re-allocate something that nobody is paying. Nobody is handing £600 per person over to drivers. From memory that report allocated costs to things like noise and lack of exercise which while they may effect quality of life would not result in any cash to allocate if cars vanished tomorrow.

In fact to some extent noise is a price paid voluntarily for convenience. I once lived in a flat 50m from a major road. There was some traffic noise. That minor inconvenience was outweighed by the fact I was within 5 minutes walk of local shops, pubs, and bus routes and underground stations.