Remove the fares, remove the traffic chaos

Houston Considering Community-Supported Transportation

Posted by Laura Walsh in transportation. Tagged: cars, community-supported transportation, public transportation, transformation. Leave a Comment

America’s traditional response in our ongoing war against traffic has been to build more roads and build more highways.

When those become too crowded, we widen those roads and widen those highways and when those become too crowded, we build more roads and build more highways and when those become too crowded, we again widen those roads and widen those highways.

It never ends, the roads keep being built, the cars keep coming.

The rush hour only gets longer and longer and our approach has stayed the same for decade upon traffic-snarled decade.

Houston’s new mayor Annise Parker is considering a different tactic in her car-dominated city where 70% of residents drive alone to work.

Welcome to Houston! (Photo by aloofdork, courtesy of flickr)

Parker has been mayor for just over a month and is already making major waves by suggesting that Houston’s Metropolitan Transit Authority explore the possibility of free service.

Only 20% of the operating costs of the MTA are derived from fares and by subsidizing the entire system, the city would be able to offer mobility to all, including those that are too young or too old to drive, as well as those unable to afford a car. Parker wants to shift the focus of the MTA to ensure that those “who depend on public transportation should receive priority in Metro’s planning.”

We offer free public education to our citizens, why not offer free transit to get them to work and school? Many cities offer trash and recycling services, employment and career assistance, police and fire response, parks, pools, and community centers.

Why not offer community-supported transportation?

Removing the upfront cost of transit makes it more efficient as buses and trains will not have to wait for people to pay their fare before continuing on their route. Removing the upfront cost of transit has been shown to greatly increase ridership, inevitably removing cars from the road and reducing congestion and pollution.

The town of Hasselt, Belgium was profiled by Dave Olsen after city officials introduced free public buses with the principal aim in making it “the natural option for getting around. And it did — immediately.” On the first day, ridership increased by nearly 800%. The first full year showed a constant increase of 900% over the previous year and by the second year was up by 1,223 %. A major motivation for officials in Hasselt was to “to guarantee the right to mobility for all residents in Hasselt… that an improved public transport system simply means a better use of the public space that will not only improve the quality of traffic, but the quality of life in general.”

Of course it wouldn’t be as easy as removing the fare box. Additional bus lines and stops need to be added, bus shelters need to be improved or installed, and service needs to be consistently fast and reliable.

It must to be more convenient and cheaper to take transit then to drive. By removing the fare, the cost equation disappears for many people. When transportation is actually public, when it is actually a service, people will use it because it will save them money. More people on transit means less people driving alone.

When 40 people elect to take the bus instead of driving alone, that takes 40 cars off the road and makes travel faster, more convenient, and more efficient for everyone.

Let’s take this solution to our own communities.

From 'reimagine an urban space' blogsite.

Broadway now permanently car-free

Can big cities be transformed into people-friendly spaces? Look what's happening in New York. Mayor Bloomberg has also suggested introducing free public transport.

Check out this report from Pittsburgh-based blogsite 'reimagine an urban space' - which also advocates for free and accessible public transport.

FareFreeNZ editor

Yesterday Mayor Bloomberg of New York City made an historic announcement that will have wide-reaching implications for street design and public space transformation around the country.

Broadway in Times Square (42nd St. to 47th St) and Herald Square (33rd St. to 35th St) will now be permanently closed to traffic. What initially started as an experiment to improve public safety and traffic flow in May 2009 is being widely touted as an outstanding success.

The result? Traffic speeds are up on diverted routes, pedestrian and motorist injuries have plummeted (down 63%), businesses are benefiting from increased foot traffic, noise pollution is down and the area is dominated by people rather than modes of transportation.

The move to make these stretches of Broadway permanently car-free is supported by 74% of people who work in the area, according to a survey conducted by the Times Square Alliance.

Take a look at the stark difference in the Before and After pictures of Times Square:

Times Square Before, photo by NYC DOT

Times Square After, photo by NYC DOT

The transformation has widespread support from the business community as well and was called “a 21st century idea” by Dan Biederman, director of the 34th Street Partnership (thanks to Streetsblog).

Last October I argued that temporary transformation is a more effective and legitimate way to gauge public opinion:

“People are used to roads and streets and public space being devoted to cars. That’s why it is essential to make the changes initially and give people the opportunity to feel and experience the delight of a public plaza and then to vote. New York and San Francisco are making temporary changes to demonstrate the value of returning space to people and have promised to return them to business as usual if that’s what people want.”

I’ll repeat: If you build cities for cars, you get cars. If you build cities for people, you get people.

New York did this and people love it. The rest of the country should begin following suit immediately.

UK report warns of the end of cheap oil.

The Green Party responds to the UK study with a call for an end to road building and to improve public transport, which we endorse.

But to be really effective in putting a halt to car and oil dependency we urgently need to switch the government money allotted to more motorways, to fund an efficient network of publically-owned quality transit services in the cities - and make it free to ride anywhere, anytime.

FareFreeNZ editor

Green Party statement 16/02/2010

Industry leaders warn of imminent oil crunch

The Green Party is calling on our Government to prepare for a significant oil crunch, in light of an industry led report warning the UK Government about the threat of rising oil prices.

The UK’s Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security has released its second in-depth analysis of the risks to the economy from the end of cheap oil.

“Our Government needs to listen to industry leaders such as Richard Branson and Brian Souter. Unlike the financial crisis, we cannot say we weren’t warned,” Dr Russel Norman, Green Party Co-Leader said today.

The Taskforce states that the impact of Peak Oil will include sharp increases in the cost of travel, food, heating and retail goods. It finds that the transport sector will be particularly hard hit, with more vulnerable members of society the first to feel the impact.

“John Key’s Government must stop and reflect on the wisdom of building more roads instead of improving public transport,” Dr Norman said.

“A key finding of the Taskforce is that oil prices will be extremely volatile and will threaten economic and social stability.

“Domestic gas, petrol and electricity prices will also be affected as people reach for alternatives. Our agriculture sector is particularly vulnerable because of its dependence on fossil fuels for fertilizer, irrigation and mechanical power.

“John Key is now on notice from the world’s industry leaders that one of the biggest threats facing New Zealand today is our dependence on oil.

“I call on the Government to convene its own taskforce and prepare New Zealand for the imminent oil crunch,” Dr Norman said.

The Industry Taskforce Report can be downloaded here:

http://peakoiltaskforce.net/download-the-report/2010-peak-oil-report/

We are everywhere!

A new Canadian website advocates for free public transport

The move towards free transit is global. Here is an item from the new Toronto website "Peoples' Transit" - check out the list of fare-free transit websites around the world in the right hand column of this site.

FareFreeNZ editor

"What if we built a green, expansive public transit? What if it were free?"

Did you know that the government has set aside $125-billion of your money to fund banks? Did you know that auto companies received $4-billion of your money in funding? that the government has created a $12-billion fund of your money to encourage car-buying to keep these companies afloat?

These banks are making massive profits. The car companies are producing cars no one wants to buy, and that additionally are big polluters and clog up our roads. These subsidies may preserve some jobs in the short-term, but thousands have already lost their auto-producing jobs and more cuts will be on the way.

Why is the government propping up the rich with the money of working people instead of reinvesting it in their interests? Why do we get fare hikes, when the rich get bailouts?

Did you know that the TTC shortfall for this year to be covered by fare hikes is just $50-million? In comparison to the big bailouts, that’s peanuts. But for working people, already paying some of the highest transit fares in North America, paying more is not an option.

What if the government spent that money on building the kind of public transit infrastructure necessary for the City of Toronto, and spent that money on keeping it operating so that more jobs were created, more people started sustainable, local businesses, and people in any part of Toronto could access any other part of Toronto?

What if we built a green, expansive, public transit?

What if it were free?

It’s doable. It would be a true People’s Transit.

Read more about People’s Transit. Tell us what you think: peoples.transit [at] gmail.com

"A commonsense approach" for late night public safety

Public transport should be fare-free and frequent 24/7.

A major concern for all parents in cities everywhere is the safety of their kids getting home after a night on the town: Will they be stranded downtown and get into strife? Will they be tempted to get into a car driven by a driver under the influence of drugs or drink?

As this recent Sydney Morning Herald report suggests - a quality free public transport service available around the clock would get everyone home safely.

FareFreeNZ editor.

• Clubs call for public transport boost

February 5, 2010

AAP

Providing free public transport for people leaving clubs late at night could help prevent alcohol-related violence, an inquiry has heard.

A Queensland parliamentary committee is on Friday taking evidence in its inquiry into ways to tackle alcohol-related violence.

Clubs Queensland chief executive Doug Flockhart said a common sense approach was needed to stem violence, not new regulations and laws.

Mr Flockhart said governments and councils needed to treat each night of operation in entertainment precincts as a special event.

He said special events such as football matches involved free transport and other amenities.

"Complimentary transport solutions at exit times and adequate amenities in the vicinity of entertainment venues would go a long way toward improving public safety," Mr Flockhart said.

"Safely and efficiently moving people on are matters that are taken into account for a Broncos match or Riverfire, yet the large crowds that are congregating in places like the Valley, or Cavill Avenue on the Gold Coast, are largely ignored."

He said many community clubs were struggling financially and would be burdened by any new regulation.

The inquiry continues.

©

Time for a 'big shake up' in Auckland too?

Houston, Texas, is the fourth largest city in the USA, with a population of 2.2 million.

Just like Auckland, it is afflicted with the sick-city problems of urban sprawl, car dependency, inadequate transit services, an over-abundance of congested motorways, pollution and poor pedestrian-friendly facilities.

The newly-elected Mayor, Annise Parker (Democrat) plans a major revamp of public transport to turn this around - including considering fare-free public transport.

With the advent of the new 'super city', it is time Auckland embarked on a 'big shake-up' too.

Editor: FarefreeNZ

Houston Looks At Reshaping Transit

• Texas
• Free Fare
• Government / Politics
• Houston
• Public Transit
• The Houston Chronicle
• Transportation

Posted by: Nate Berg

11 February 2010 - 11:00am

Houston Mayor Annise Parker is considering a big shake-up of the city's public transportation, including the option of transitioning to a fare-free system.

"Parker has signaled that she is not wedded to conventional wisdom about Metro, even suggesting eliminating fares to increase lagging ridership. While acknowledging that Metro would have to cope with the loss of fare revenues — $66 million in 2009, about 20 percent of its expenses — she said it is a discussion the agency needs to have.

The mayor, who appoints five of the nine members of Metro's board, said she envisions a seamless network of transportation services that move people efficiently throughout the eight-county Houston region."

Reports are due at the end of the months to help guide the region's investment in transit and transit oriented development.

Full Story: Mayor: Metro riders come first

Source: The Houston Chronicle, February 8, 2010

Bus fare increases "short-sighted, self-defeating": Green Party

Further increases to bus fares are short-sighted and will drive more Wellingtonians to use their cars, the Green Party said today.

“If the Regional Council is genuine about wanting to grow bus patronage, increasing fares by as much as 50 per cent will be a disaster,” said Green Party spokesperson Sue Kedgley.

“Lower numbers of people using the buses will lead to further fare rises, and you quickly spiral into a vicious cycle of patronage loss, service cutbacks, and further congestion on our roads as more and more people take cars rather than public transport.”

Increasing fares at a time when actual service levels are falling is another slap in the face for Wellington’s commuters, said Ms Kedgley.

“Buses frequently don’t run on time, and we’re still waiting for real time information at bus stops to tell passengers how long they will have to wait for the next bus. And a single ticket that will cover multiple trips on different modes is still a pipe dream.”

“Passengers will be left scratching their head wondering where the extra value for money is coming from with their increased fares.”

The Green Party is concerned that hidden subsidies for car drivers make driving a comparatively cheaper option over more sustainable commuting alternatives like public transport, walking, and cycling. Until the cost of driving reflects the true costs of pollution, urban sprawl, and land used unproductively for car parking, public transport will struggle to be competitive with driving.

Green’s alternative plan for Wellington’s transport problems:
http://www.greens.org.nz/transport/wellington/plan

Contact:
Sue Kedgley, MP
P 04 817 6728, M 021 270 9088
Robert Ashe, Political & Media Advisor:
P 04 817 6714

---

10/02/2010

"Standing at a crossroad"

Travel doesn’t have to cost the Earth

“If you were to design the ultimate system, you would have mass transit be free and charge an enormous amount for cars.” Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York.
We are standing at a crossroad: in order to reduce our oil dependency and make our cities climate smart, we have to change our ways of traveling. It is a fact that the future is on a track, and with free public transport everyone can come along for the ride.
Free public transport is a way to reward groups of people who travel in an environmental-friendly way and an economic incentive to choose a mean of transport that, from a social and environmental perspective, is obviously better than driving. The introduction of free public transport would mean more money for practically all commuters, and letting the car drivers chip in and pay for public transport would give them a good incentive to leave their cars at home. It is also a matter of gender equality: today men are over-represented among car drivers and investments in public transport are investments in women’s mobility.
The decline in car-traffic and surge in the demand for public transportation that free public transport would render, would in turn stimulate a much needed capacity and comfort increase in the public transport system. This, combined with the fact that ticket collectors, controllers and guards could be retrained to be bus drivers, train drivers, station hosts and traffic hosts would make the public transport much more attractive than it is today. Also, free public transport would increase the purchasing power of everyone using it, which would support regional economies.
But free public transport shouldn’t be seen as a stand-alone reform, but rather as one part of a bigger package of reforms to make our cities more green, liveable and fair. Free public transport should be combined with infrastructural changes to promote walking and biking, at least for shorter distances, as well as congestion fees and other measures to discourage car driving.
It is great to promote walking and biking as alternatives to driving, and of course these two means of transportation are the most ecological and healthy. But we must acknowledge that not everyone has the luxury of being able to bike or walk to work, school or their leisure activities. Kids, people with disabilities and elderly, people living in suburbs far away from their work and people living in cities where the weather just isn’t suitable for being outside most of the year – for all of them biking or walking is hardly ever an option and this is something that needs to be addressed.
We also have to consider the fact that being able to walk or bike to work is, just like driving, often a question of class. It is seldom working class people who are living in, or close to, the city centre or their work. Free public transport is certainly a reform to promote green alternatives to car-traffic and encourage a modal shift from car to public transport. But one of the most important aspects concerns a better redistribution of wealth in the society. Even though almost everyone would, in one way or another, benefit from free public transport, the biggest winners are people with low incomes living in suburbs far away from the city centre.
“A win-win solution, if I ever saw one” Irwin Kellner, chief economist for MarketWatch (a part of the Wall Street Journal).
In September 2009 Planka.nu released their urban transport planning manifesto Travel doesn’t have to cost the Earth, where they propose five concrete measures to make the transport sector in Stockholm, Sweden, climate-smart and socially fair.
www.planka.nu/rapporter
Success stories
In 1996, the Belgian city Hasselt introduced free public transport under the motto “The city guarantees the right of mobility for everyone”. At the same time the mayor proposed to give absolute primacy on the city’s Green Boulevard to public transport. Since then, bus ridership has increased by over 1,300%.
Ockelbo in Sweden coordinated all their public and semi-public transport such as regular buses, school buses and mobility service into one system and made it free. Since then the ridership has increased by more than 260% and almost half of those were former car drivers. The municipality even saved money from the reform due to a decrease in administrative costs.
Alexander Berthelsen


Editorial - "Carbusters": journal of the carfree movement
carbusters.org

What if?

What if?

"The logic of free public transit is compelling"

Circulator Brings Free Transit To Baltimore

• By Zach Rosenberg
• January 18, 2010 |
• 10:00 am |
• Categories: Mass Transit

The recession has hit public transit hard. Government funding is being slashed at all levels, and rising ridership isn’t bringing in enough revenue to keep systems running at full capacity. That’s got transit agencies cutting services or raising fares even as more people depend upon them. So it seems like an odd time for Baltimore to introduce a free bus system.
Charm City Circulator consists of 21 hybrid electric buses running seven days a week. The first line, the Orange Route, launched Jan. 11 and eventually will be joined by two other lines. When all is said and done, the Circulator will connect landmarks like the Inner Harbor and the Johns Hopkins hospital complex to the city center and surrounding neighborhoods.
Perhaps more significantly, it will provide a link to other forms of transit, including trains, light rail, buses and water taxis.

Some cities, like Seattle, still offer free rides downtown during peak business and commute times, but Baltimore is adding the service when many others are eliminating it. Portland, Oregon let people get around downtown at no cost with the Fareless Square until killing the program after 30 years to save money. And New York let students ride for free until budget cuts killed the program.
The reasoning behind free transit boils down to encouraging economic activity in a specific area — i.e. getting people into the downtown shopping and entertainment districts — or getting people in and out quickly and efficiently. The Charm City Circulator routes suggest that although it will definitely benefit the locals, tourists and commuters are the real targets.
The logic of free public transit is compelling: Despite the high costs and massive subsidies implicit in driving, forking over a relatively small fee to ride a bus or subway is a psychological barrier to getting people out of cars. Even the most efficiently run buses can be crowded and slow, but by running at frequent intervals on dedicated lanes between fixed stops — as the Circulator does — delays can be kept to a minimum. The bus might not stop next to, or even near, every rider’s point of origin or destination, but it ensures a measure of proximity for most riders. Rare indeed is the mass transit system that shoulders its own financial burden, and the free bus systems that last generally have dedicated sources of income aside from direct subsidies. Baltimore’s system is financed by a 16 percent tax on parking, which will raise about $5 million annually.
Yonah Freemark of The Transport Politic worries systems like the Circulator create a two-tiered transit system, but the system — which came online six months behind schedule — generally has been received as a welcome project with strong support from Baltimore’s political and business communities.

Read More http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/01/circulator-brings-free-transit-to-baltimore/#ixzz0eRkXb6vi