Should Cities Offer Free Public Transportation?

Tallin, Estonia Already Does! 

While it might seem crazy to think of the idea of riding around on a bus or subway for free, this concept could actually provide a tangible boost to urban economies. In January 2013, Tallin, the capital of Estonia, launched such a system; any resident of the city now has free access to public transportation. Tourists still need to pay. For many years the American cities of Portland and Seattle had similar systems, but perhaps it is time that we bring free transit to the forefront of public debate.

The Pros

One of the most immediate effects of public transportation becoming free would likely be a sharp drop in vehicle traffic. Since 2013 Tallin has reported a 15% drop in car traffic! Trips taken with public transportation would increase and carbon emissions would fall. Poor residents of cities would have a sudden increase in upward social mobility; if the cost of transit were no longer a barrier to mobility, it could be easier for the urban poor to find and maintain jobs. Land values around transit stops would likely rise and ultimately cities could become more efficient and fair to all residents.

The Cons

One possible problem could be a rise in the number of homeless people who use subways and buses as semi-permanent resting places. Transit ridership could increase so much that system could become overwhelmed and there is a possibility that costs could prohibit cities from funding such programs.

Is it Worth It?

I think it likely would be, particularly in large American cities. In dense cities like Boston, New York, and San Francisco, such programs would likely be expensive, but not prohibitively so. This is because in these cities transit systems are somewhat compact relative to the population size and as a result operational costs would be lower than a city such as say Los Angeles. Additionally, American transit systems receive only about 30% of funding from fares; the more funding comes from fares, the more a free system could cost a city. 

In a city like Tallin with about 450,000 residents, the system cost the city about $3 million per year, not a small sum, but certainly not an unmanageable amount. Boston has an estimated revenue of about $2.7 billion for FY 2015; it could likely find a way to fund a relatively meager $5 million dollar or so system. Not to mention that the boost in development and tourism that would likely result would pay for the costs of such a system over the long term. 

Fixing Boston's Subway

I have been trying to upload this video for several days and just figured out how to do it the correct way. I apologize for any confusion during previous posts!

Why Do Commuters Choose Cars?

Driving Through Traffic: The Car Effect

Everyone that I know hates driving in traffic. Most people claim that they wish that there were ways to avoid traffic, but everyday we get into our cars and drive the same familiar clogged routes to and from work. It may seem that this is the only option, but in many cases this is not true. A study has recently uncovered the "car effect" which shows that people tend to take cars over public transit even when it is less efficient and more expensive to do so. 

This chart may at first seem difficult to understand, but it is the result of a car vs. metro decision study. The graph oh the left shows the percentage of commuters who chose a car each day. The two lines through the graph represent different levels of traffic. Traffic becomes "annoying" at the lower line and "unbearable" at the upper dotted line, depending on how many people are in their cars. The chart on the left shows the cost each day of taking the car vs. taking the metro. In general, cars were more expensive due to traffic gas costs.

Applying this to Boston

I am not familiar with the public transportation options available in all cities across the country, but I can speak to Boston. If you ever need to get into the city at rush hour, you will notice that no matter what highway you are on, I-90, I-93, I-95 or I-495, you will be stuck in traffic unless you leave your house before 6 A.M. Here is a map so you can visualize the structure of the highways in and around the city. As you can see, only I-90 and I-93 even head directly into the city, but all four of the routes that I mentioned are extremely congested.

The second map that I have added is a map of current traffic in the city; by now rush hour is over and you will see that there is still extreme congestion. Without traffic it would take me 45 minutes to get downtown, but if I were to leave at 7:30 it would take me until 9:00.

So why do Boston commuters put up with this rush every day? They don't need to. The reason that I wanted to focus on Boston is that the city has an impressive network of subway stops and commuter rail stations. This following map shows the entire commuter rail and subway network together; you will see that the stops listed stretch even beyond I-495 all the way to Worcester and Providence, typically accepted as the furthest typical daily commute locations.

Coming to and from Boston, commuters in almost any town have the option of taking the train to and from work. A recent study on Boston indicated that a 1% decrease in road traffic would lead to an 18% decrease in traffic congestion time in the city. This is huge, if there were just a 1% increase in train traffic, commutes for those who did choose to drive would become much more manageable. Not to mention that when you choose to take a train, you will usually save money; no need to worry about tolls, gas or parking costs in the city. Some people even can start their day early and work on the train. To me, this seems like the perfect solution.