I don't I like busses

I like boat

I like flying cars 🚗

I like blimps

@@darkhawk6398 9/11

What change it from a fair to taxes. Which means the rich would have to pay more than the poor. Which is more fr the the current system where the poor has to pay a higher % to used the same public trasport

this is a common misconception, the cost of fare enforcement is very little, and having a ticketing system gives them a lot of very valuable usage data that they would have to pay to collect otherwise

@@Larwood. Ok, so let's add, we have : the lost fare from people not paying, the cost and maintenance of machines and doors, the salary of controler. I dare to say those will likely add up to a nice amount in the end. As for Data collection : you just get the information of how many people (and eventually the identity of said people for subscriptions) enter at a station, and ... that's all. You don't even know when they exit cause most system are free exit. I SERIOUSLY Doubt this information is of any value considering you could get more in a multitude of other way (by using a simple camera counting people coming in and out). So yeah, considering that cities that made the switch from fare to local tax in france saved money (i mean, they measured the saving, its real) i'll say you're wrong on this one

Homeless people living on buses and trains.

@@dorianodet8064 since when were most systems free exit? Most systems require you to tap off at the exit and at any transfers you make. Counting people entering train stations is a tiny part of the picture, it doesn't tell you where people go, how long it takes, what route they take, how regularly they make that journey. It also pretends buses and trams don't exist.

Thank you for sharing. My anecdote is when i was homeless and going through legal issues, i still had to make it to my probation appointments. I remember getting up even in the winter early in the morning so that since i couldn't bus that i had to walk 15 kilometers, and be there for my appointment. Being able to afford public transit was a rare treat, usually given to me by a kind stranger or a bus ticket from a shelter.

Exactly

Good for you. But someone else is paying for that "free" public transport. Transport authorities are not selfish giant, who refuse children an entry in his garden.

Sure it is convenient for broke people. The goal isn’t merely to give poor people a ride. The goal is to reduce car use and pollution. Those primary goals all fail. The poor don’t drive so they don’t affect the goals. The only solution is to make cars so difficult to make public transport more attractive. This would probably reduce standards of living but that’s not the goal of public transport advocates.

@@saralittman573 cant u have applied for reduced fair

I would hate to do shopping by bus. I certainly don't want to have to carry all those bags on the bus on my way home not to mention the risk of being robbed. In a car I can simply put the bags in the trunk and drive.

@@Jon_Nadeau_ really pitty on poor western people then you live in bad area... lawless jungle area...no rule of law...no law and order ..then Leave your area that's bad to live as said in Hindu Sanskrit that we must leave the village where robbers are there... That's why India is number one country

@@Jon_Nadeau_Just buy what you need for the night or a few days.

How bad are your public busses? 😨😨

What they said 👆seriously, maintaining a bus as a collective would probably be easier than an individual maintaining a car

How do you go from leaving the airport to having a free trave pass?

@@MuzzaHukka Over there, they have a train to the airport.

Not needing to think about bus tickets is so nice.

Luxembourg is the richest country on earth. Why would you care for a few bucks per day when your salary is 6000€ / month? As a person working in a rich country, I can say for sure that saving 30 minutes of my time every day is much more important to me than a few bucks per days. Quality and convenience is more important than price, by a lot!

@@JCdu7426 you are certainly right for some part of society but even if luxembourg is a rich country, not everybody is rich and thinks that way

Now think about what will happen when everyone does the same thing. All of a sudden public is being dismantled to make space and budget for more private infrastructure, and after a few years you're stuck with paying a mandatory tax out of your hard earned wage to big auto and big petro. It'll take generations after that to go back to the correct system. Never let them make that first step. Edit: I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying the blame is on you individually, but that it's a structural and political issue; society as a whole is responsible to stand against it

I think hongkong is the only place in the world where public transport actually makes a profit. Mostly because of the incredibly high density, which makes real estate such as shops within stations incredibly valuable. But other examples with a very high use of public transport are switzerland and japan. Again places that are very high quality, clean, safe, punctual. But at least here in switzerland its quite expensive, but still worth it.

u really compare a multimilion metropolitan area to the whole world? You know that a lot of people live on countryside also? XD

Only Hongkong not Singapura. And is because all pople live in small place

Hong kong when building their metro built skyscrapers on top. They then rented them out and used the money to subsidise fares.

​@@anthonycubadugosz109not that many anymore...

Im a BIG advocate for public transport, however vehicles and fuels are fairly heavily taxed, so cars PARTLY pay for themselves. Public transport has to be good, private transport bad and public will be used more

there is consumption tax on fuel, so use of vehicle pays for itself in this regard. Not to mention, that even this tax is again taxed for VAT. We could discuss, just how much this tax should be and whether proceeds from that tax should be strictly allocated to car infrastructure projects, but to say, that street also needs maintenance, which needs to be paid is dumb, cause it is being already paid twice, in nations, where on street parking is allowed only for those, who've paid, three times.

​@@hugoslav843Private pays for itself if you're running your government like a company that is. You're looking at profit when you should be looking at cost. Private simply costs more

Exactly, if you make the public transport free, you would just decrease the safety because it would make much easier for harassers and pickpockets to get inside public transports

@@JCdu7426 Those people use public transport for free anyways

In japan there is women only places in public transport.

@@Redlights111 it would be more complex to set up separate women vs men transportation lines (and it would also open another can of worms if one cultural community has a higher crime rates than another, as the "but we did the separation for the sexes, so why not for cummunities as well?" ) on top of that, even tho it is less frequent, there are cases where some women where physically assaulted by other women, so, while decreasing risk for women, it would not magically give adequate safety (especially since after train the passengers will disembarq, so men and women will be mixed back anyway, unless you go torugh the expenditures of making separates exit in train station as well, but then you increase the first problems i cited above ) increasing overall safety of public transport by, for exemple, placing guards regularly (and allowing thoose guards the use of force against individuals who pose a threat for other passengers) would be a much better solution since it would: - be cheaper to put in place (no big infrastructure overhaul required) - increase demand for extra personnal (so, creation of jobs where people don't need an insane diploma levels, and where required qualities are a sense of order, a will to protect the people and sufficient physical might, so, something that is much more aivable to people of lower socio-economic background) -cause real noticeable safety increase for everyone -avoid the whole social issues that would come from segregating groups of people from tohers

@@gamecubekingdevon3 I obviously agree that public transportation should be made safer in general and I responded really for the part where u talked about harassment. There is already women only spaces like in gyms. I don't think it would increase division. I don't think men need their own ones just for women because women are more likely to experience these things solely for being a woman. In japan it works amazing, when there is lets say 5 sections in a train one of them is women only and it is colored and marked so everyone know.

public trasport is practical. have3 you heard of a bus.

Not sure where you live but it’s just poor American underfunded public transit. My city public transit is okay even outside downtown you are within a 5 minute walk from a bus stop. I live close to toronto and downtown u are within 3 minutes or less walk from a bus train station or street car. Street cars come every 5-8 min and same with trains

To also note my city has a population density of 465 people per square mile

Convenience is solved by technology - in my city they installed in all busses a ticket machine - you select the ticket type and just tap your credit card. No shops or anything like that.

So your City didn't had a good public transportation... A good public transportation doesn't take 50% more time than traveling by car. It's faster in many routes and about the same in most routes.

he literally said that the way to reduce the problem is aiming quality, not price and thats is actually quite obvious if you stop to think for 2 minutes if you think about opportunity costs: cars in general are ALREADY more expensive than public transport and people keep prefering them than the public transport - maybe because price is not the only issue that comes to peoples mind?

Not exactly true. I favor private roads and highways, I don't see any reason why should the govt use my tax money to build a road to nowhere. For example, let's say I live in city (A), and the central planner in the govt somehow think that area (B), which is some distance away from city (A) has great potential. Therefore the govt build a road network to area (B), and not only that, they basically build a new town with a park and town square and also couple residential buildings with our tax money. For me, this is outrageous, especially when after ~12 years, barely anybody moved there. Nobody held responsible nor accountable for this total waste of money. IMO we must curtail government's ability to spend taxpayers' money. The govt should remain as regulator, they should regulate and enforce the law, but should stay away from actually planning and paying for new development, including new roads and/or free public transport. If we have surplus we should instead reduce the tax rather than spend it in such wasteful manner.

Indeed, public transport shouldn't try to bring in a profit, it's public service ffs

@@Biditchoun Why should people who seldom use public transport pay for it? Like why should I pay for you bus fare with my tax money? IMO the govt should not dabble in social engineering (e.g. shaping public behavior to favor public transport with subsidy). Politicians and bureaucrats, as any other citizens, are ofc free to promote whatever they deem as good or necessary, but they should *NOT* use public money/resources to further their own goals/idealism. They are free to talk about it in public, but they should not use taxpayers' money to fund it. IMO the govt should focus only on 2 things: 1. Maintain internal order thru law enforcement and justice system, and 2. Protect the society from external threat thru the military. That's all, no "public services", occupational licensing & permits (that limit the freedom of the citizens), wealth redistribution, social engineering, etc.

"public roads don’t generate a profit" Are you sure? Have you ever heard of vehicle tax? Have you ever heard of fuel tax? Governments make a lot of money from drivers. Public transport users should pay tickets that are as expensive or as cheap as it takes to maintain the system. Notice I am not even saying to make a profit. Just to operate. Pay what you use.

Because even if you don't drive, you still benefit from the roads. If you don't take public transit, you don't benefit from public transit. A life goal of any sane person is to never take public transit again.

Can you share the data that confirms this?

*First things first: The notion that it's "free" is a willful exaggeration. In this economic example, there is no such thing as a "free lunch." Expenditures for "public transportation" are financed with TAXES. That is an irrefutable empirical fact.* Second, your statement suffers from a fallacious error ; a hasty generalization, which is an informal fallacy. Your faulty generalization and poor deductive reasoning takes one example and incorrectly extends it to the population as a whole. Here is your faulty reasoning: 1. X is true for A 2. Therefore, X is true for B, C, D, E, F, etc. Furthermore, the elimination of fares for public transport in Tallinn Estonia has NOT been a "smashing success." *In Tallinn, dropping or eliminating fares only accounted for a marginal increase of 1.2% in ridership -- per an article written by "Fast Company" online. And if you care for honesty and intellectual integrity, you can further look into the matter by reviewing numerous articles ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE published by The Atlantic Magazine, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, and others >> See article: "Why the World's Largest Experiment in [Free] Public Transportation Failed" by FastCompany. Cheers.

This video is💩

does it run like 5 am to 12 pm 7 days a week

@@idk-ol2it why would it need to?

Out of curiosity, have you ever suffered poverty or been poor? I ask for clarification due to your tone 😊

@@saralittman573 My family was dead center middle class and I am currently near the top end of poor. I lived in a million dollar house in the late 90's and on the street in the 2k's. In my comment, I'm only referencing my personal feelings, and I should point out that I'm somebody who strictly prefers a suburban or rural lifestyle. I avoid cities at all costs, and this def factors in to my opinion. Also, I'm actually a big fan of expanding public transit service and decreasing it's cost for those in need. I'm only speaking of the factors that effect my personal transportation decision making. Thanks

are you Murican?

Encourages natural selection.

Another thing to consider, when you drive you not only spend on gas but also on car maintenance and repair, insurance, tax, pay occasional speeding or parking ticket, possibility of crash costs (insurance often have deductible) cost of purchasing vehicle in the first place, and the less distance you drive the more percentage these other costs make compared to fuel, but most often it's more than gas itself.

Unlike free parking, the demand for public transportation is all ways lacking. Induced demand doesn’t work for public transportation. Demand drives supply , supply does not drives demand. Supply drives prices, if you are giving it away you have to much supply. Parking or public transportation.

@@stanhry you have to design cities sanely like in europe

The socalist (sv), the communust (rødt), Labour Party (AP) and Centrist Party (SP) voted (and passed) for free public transport in the region of Stavanger, Norway. a oil and gas rich region, with twice the average salary of Sarpsborg and Fredrikstad. We also have a law that says rich regions need to give some money to poorer region such as sarpsborg and fredrikstad, which Stavanger havent done. The right are currently trying to force them to answer ous where they found enough money to fund this, but they wont tell, because they know they stole it by ignore the law of fair share between the poorer regions.

If you do that you give no incentive to improve public transport. It can be a terrible service, but it will have the clients locked up, because there will be no competition.