[saithound]

> You're cherry-picking your own examples. It worked in Iowa City.

Indeed, it worked in Brisbane (a metro area comparable to Baltimore in the U.S.) and Lanzhou (comparable to Boston-Cambridge-Newton): congestion was reduced, the environment benefited, and usage increased in many cities that dislodged from that equilibrium and switched to a free-of-charge or symbolic-charge model.

I don't think GP's claim stands, for transit cities big or small.

[denkmoon]

Further cherry picking. Brisbane's free buses are only the "city loop". The rest of the transit system is fare based. It also has not stood the test of time yet.

[saithound]

> Brisbane's free buses are only the "city loop". The rest of the transit system is fare based

With all due respect, I expect more effort than Googling "are buses really free in Brisbane", then copy-pastig the AI summary. Symbolic charges were mentioned for a reason, both cities have a fixed "fare" of about 30 US cents on their networks.

If you think there are examples of GP's claim that "every major city that tries free transit at scale will eventually snap back to it", feel free to substantiate it by naming major cities which tried the Brisbane-Lanzhou model and snapped back.

[batiudrami]

The fare is a flat au 50c, though. It is basically free.

[panick21_]

It also hasnt worked in other places. Like Estonia. The data for "invest in capacity and speed" is much better then the for "reduce fares". So if you have extra money, the evidence on what to do is 100% clear.

[ndsipa_pomu]

If you're looking for return on investment, then cycle infrastructure is the way forwards. Each mile travelled by bike actually benefits society (less illness etc) whereas each mile travelled by car costs society.

> For every £1 invested, walking and cycling return an average of around £5-6

> A study of New York concluded that, in terms of health: “Investments in bike lanes are more cost-effective than the majority of preventive approaches used today.”

From https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/case-cycling-economy

[benatkin]

> a metro area comparable to Baltimore in the U.S.

That doesn't make it a serious transit city

[saithound]

Odd hill to die on, but if you wish to argue that Iowa City is a serious transit city, but Brisbane and Lanzhou are not, feel free to state your definition of serious transit city. These cities are bigger than Iowa City and their public transport share of journeys to work is higher than any similarly-sized U.S. metro area.

Beware: if there are no true Scotsmen left, and your definition of serious transit city excludes everything apart from ~10 European cities, the conclusions that one can draw from the policies of serious transit cities will be so limited that they will in fact be useless.

[skylurk]

It's an order of magnitude larger than Iowa City, though.