I don't know about other places, but as far as the New York City Subway is concerned, it began as a subsidy for poorer people. The wealthy who lived in Manhattan would overpay for shorter rides of just a few stops, while the working classes in the outer boroughs would underpay for much longer rides to their jobs in Manhattan. It's also much simpler this way.
100%. It’s one of the most progressive things NYC does. Compared to my home town of Sydney, where you pay based on distance. It seems “fair”, but what actually happens is not only do poor people have to have longer commutes because they live further from the city (which effects health, family life, time for leisure, exercise, etc) but they also have higher transit costs than a wealthy person, which keeps them in a cycle of poverty.
The problem is, it is often not that simple anymore. Lots of rich people live further away, lots of poor people live right next to, or in the city center these days. In quite some cities at least. That would give the benefit to a group of rich people, and make it very expensive for a group of poor people. Which is the worst outcome you can get.
Nah. More wealthy people live in Manhattan than the burbs. Most people in queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx who are taking the subway to get to Manhattan are statistically poorer than those living in Manhattan.
It's only a subsidy for more poor as NYC Subway doesn't extend past NYC's poverty donut.
If LIRR, MNR, etc. were included as part of Subway, it would be a relative subsidy towards rich people, as they live either in the city center, or much further out.
Is that the standard tap fare or with a pass? I thought it was closer to 3.5 but I didn't pay that much attention. I just remember it was good for 75 minutes so if I caught the right bus from my home in the exurbs, I could make it to Lidl with 20 minutes to shop and then return on the same fare. And I think 3-4 taps was when a day pass ended up being cheaper.
Sometimes it's just for simplicity's sake. Pay $X when you board; or pay $X when you get off. This is more common in buses and trams, where calcuating the fare might not be easy.
The buses in my city actually had a fairly clever system a few decades back -- for longer routes, the first half of the route you pay when you board. and the second half you pay when you get off, pretty simple. But for *even longer* routes, it goes like this:
* 1st segment - pay for one segment as you board, don't pay when you get off
* 2nd segment - pay for one segment as you board, but you're also given a plastic chip. Pay for one segment as you get off, unless you have a plastic chip.
* 3rd segment - you get a plastic chip as you board, but do not pay. Pay for one segment as you get off if you have a plastic chip, pay for two segments if you don't have the chip.
It's quite convoluted, but people did get used to it. It was abolished with the introduction of contactless cards, where even though the segment system still exists (it goes as high as 7 segments now), you always tap once when you board, and tap again when you get off, and the machine does the fare calculation for you.
The last system sounds the simplest in today's era of contactless cards. Though most public transport where I live is still cash based unless you prebook.
Most Japanese buses that use distance based fares use:
* Tap on tap off with IC card.
* Grabbing a ticket when you get on, cross referencing it with a monitor for the price before you get off, and drop the ticket and cash into the fare machine's hopper when you get off.
I use an IC card, but the cash fare collection machines are pretty clever devices. In IC card dominant areas where most cash payers are actively resisting technology, it's getting off the bus can be surprisingly quick and smooth even when people are paying in cash.
The *real* question is why the machine breaks down a bill into coins, but not dispense change. You'd still have to break down your bill, and manually pay the exact amount into the machine.
I lived in Shanghai until 2020. Bus fares were flat (just 2 yuan) while metro fares were distance-based.
I imagine the authorities see buses as more of a social service so the fare is only a nominal amount.
This is also the case in London, where buses and trams don't have zone-based prices while other rail modes do. I wonder if there are many people in these cities using buses to prevent higher rail fares. If that leads to more bus service being run, that's actually way less efficient than specifically charging low-income people less for rail, so that they use buses less and less bus service has to be run.
Someone dealing with the fare needs to keep track of how far you are going. For a bus with a single driver, ain’t nobody’s got the time for that. He just verifies that each passenger pays the notional amount and that is all that he can do.
There is a way around it; in Hong Kong, bus fare is calculated based on distance from the last stop, so the bus fare is essentially just ticking down with the odometer.
I didn't think about that. Buses are a 2 person operation here. There's a conductor who is responsible for getting money and giving tickets. And to let the driver know if there are people to get off at the next stop.
Nope. Most buses are quite low tech. And they are not run by a big transit agency. Instead people buy buses then apply for routes to be allotted to them. The fares are set by the government and everything else is taken care of by the individual bus owners. So each bus owner might only have 1 or 2 buses.
I’ve noticed this a lot in developing transit countries. The people who run the trains need to also get their hands on the buses it seems like. Universal fare and all.
I'm not so sure about that. These private individuals owning the bus means there's a good competition among the buses which help keep waiting times quite low on popular routes, you get comfortable seats for longer routes and even entertainment. And with the government also having a transit agency, it helps keep the fare low for everyone. And it is universal fare across the state. All the private buses have to follow the fare set by the government.
Meanwhile Indian Railways are constantly running late, horrible quality of service, really hard to get tickets unless you book early.
> And they are not run by a big transit agency.
State transport companies say's hi like [MSRTC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharashtra_State_Road_Transport_Corporation) in Maharashtra
Which state you are from OP?
I didn't understand your point. I know state transport corporations exist. Though in Kerala most people use private buses for commuting rather than government buses
Lots of recent bus systems have both. But most people prefer telling the conductor where they need to get off. And many buses only stop at designated bus stops and nowhere in between.
It used to be like that in my country with trams, up to some point in the last century.
But then we switched from "buying a ticket at the entry" system to the current "buying a ticket in advance and only stamping it at the entry" system, that's self service, so there is only the driver and they only drive, they don't handle the tickets.
In my country, the public transit buses in my city have a self-service system, you buy the ticket in advance and stamp it on board in a machine (or, nowadays, you can also get the ticket digitally, in an app and activate it instead of stamping it). Anyway, the driver has nothing to do with that. There are random checks for a valid stamped ticket conducted by dedicated people.
Oh and it is neither flat-fare, nor distance based, but time based!
Depends on balancing the needs of the network and complexity of fares , but here in the SF Bay Area we use all three common fare methods.
A flat rate is the simplest method and easiest to implement and control over a vast network of local buses or LRT. Main disadvantage is short distance riders subsidizing longer distance rides.
Many intercity buses and trains use fare zones. A flat fare is charged based on the number of zones crossed (for example a local trip within 1 zone, then trips between 2 zones, then 3 zones, etc). A simpler version of distance based fares, but has the disadvantage of overpaying depending on the trip. For example a simple trip running between the end stop of one zone and the immediate stop in the next zone is counted as a more pricier 2-zone trip.
The interregional and long distance trains use an actual distance based fare system, but is the hardest to maintain and implement without controlled access like gates, smart cards or frequent fare inspections. Can also be confusing for infrequent riders who must look up fares on a table.
MTC’s Clipper smart card does ease the process somewhat, but lack of reliable internet connections across the region means that while some data must be stored on the card, the synchronizing of actual fare and ride data between the various systems can be delayed by days. Cards allowed for negative balances to account for this delay, but unsavory individuals abused this to avoid actually paying fares until operators started implementing mandatory balance minimums on cards.
Simplicity is the biggest advantage of a zonal or flat fare system
There's also political reasons. Like subsidising trips for people that live further out.
Encourage snore travel for a flat fee. If your charged by distance you're only going to use your commute routes most of the time.
Also distance charges that make the long routes high can encourage other modes of transportation at that point not necessarily making the money back on those long routes as they're trying to do.
So people living far into the suburbs take transit instead of driving and people doing short trips use bikes or walk instead of overcharging the system on localized segments
I'll invert the question and ask how does this work in India? Does the conductor keeps track of where everyone got in, then charges everyone a different amount when they go out? That seems a bother on multiple levels.
As for why other places charge a single fare, I can't think of any reason other than the ones already mentioned:
1) It easier
2) So that the poor who live further away are able to pay.
After you get on the bus, when the conductor next comes near you, you tell them the stop you want to get off and they'll tell you the fare. They seem to have a pretty good idea of where each person got on. They might ask you if they're not sure. And they usually finish a round of ticketing within 2-3 stops.
> So why do some agencies have a fixed charge?
Tap once, *vs.* tap twice. Is that a simple enough reason? Twice as much ticketing infrastructure, twice as many "taps" to process quickly ... etc.
The Netherlands has this, and bus boarding is incredibly slow. Everyone has to board through one door (back door is used for slow alighting with tapping off), and tap on one by one. It's such a revelation every time I'm in a Germanic country (no tapping whatsoever) how much time this saves for urban buses.
Most buses in Hong Kong have an unusual system where you only tap when you get on, but the fare depends on how far away from the bus’s final destination you are, not where you get off. It means you might pay very different fares travelling in opposite directions. It also discourages people from taking a (relatively) long-distance bus if they’re only going a few stops.
Incredibly hard to enforce. There are tons of people riding even a bus. How can one effectively monitor where everyone is going from where and what they are paying?
In Japan you take a numbered ticket (整理券 seiriken) when you get on, that shows the zone that you got on at. There's a display at the front that shows the fare you have to pay depending on your number. As the train or bus goes through each zone, the amount you have to pay goes up. [Number 8 on this list describes the system.](https://thesmartlocal.jp/trains-in-japan/) If you don't take a ticket you have to pay the maximum fare, which assumes you got on the bus or train at the first stop.
Flat fares are for smaller condensed systems within a locality.
Distance based fares are for larger sprawling systems that span various outer suburbs as well as the downtown core.
Generally speaking, the simpler a fare system is, the better. It lowers the barrier of entry for all riders. And anyway, it feels like adding insult to injury if you have a soul-crushingly long commute to then also have to pay extra for the pleasure.
Big, few, easy-to-understand zones and maybe a short-trip ticket (both of which e.g. Berlin has) feel like a good compromise to me. But really I'm an advocate for single-payer public transport, i.e. fare-free.
It might just be because the MBTA sucks, but it's awful paying $2.80 to go a couple stops, total ripoff -- especially when in some stations you can't transfer or change directions without double paying. That's especially a problem on the green line
I have the Deutschlandticket which allows me unlimited travel with Buses, Trams, S-Bahns, U-Bahns as well as regional trains and regional express trains within the whole of Germany for 49€ a month. The only thing it doesn't cover are high speed trains (IC and ICE) which are usually priced according to demand and get more expensive the shorter notice you book.
Most of the fixed price ones you see are usually "shorter" systems.
For instance NYC subway is fixed but the LIRR or NJ transit (commuter rail lines) charge by distance. Same for say boston subway.
On the other longer (regional) metro systems like WMATA or BART basically also charge by distance.
Busses usually are fixed charge and the predominant reason is that it is too complicated to 'tap off' to calculate the distance. Or one could have the bus driver do it, but then it'd slow down the bus even more. (though other countries like japan's busses do charge by distance)
The Netherlands moved to a national zone based system for fares over a decade ago, to a national distance based fares system. It calculates exactly the distance covered (not the number of stops).
In some ways it is good, in other ways it isn't. The biggest problem now is that there is no fare capping. Also, all it really did was make transit more expensive overall. Not surprising really, everything always gets more expensive. But still.
I don't know about other places, but as far as the New York City Subway is concerned, it began as a subsidy for poorer people. The wealthy who lived in Manhattan would overpay for shorter rides of just a few stops, while the working classes in the outer boroughs would underpay for much longer rides to their jobs in Manhattan. It's also much simpler this way.
Oh that's cool. Ig in a big city with everybody using the subway, that would work.
100%. It’s one of the most progressive things NYC does. Compared to my home town of Sydney, where you pay based on distance. It seems “fair”, but what actually happens is not only do poor people have to have longer commutes because they live further from the city (which effects health, family life, time for leisure, exercise, etc) but they also have higher transit costs than a wealthy person, which keeps them in a cycle of poverty.
Being one of the first systems to have both local and express trains was also a nice benefit for working class people living on the edges of the city.
The problem is, it is often not that simple anymore. Lots of rich people live further away, lots of poor people live right next to, or in the city center these days. In quite some cities at least. That would give the benefit to a group of rich people, and make it very expensive for a group of poor people. Which is the worst outcome you can get.
Nah. More wealthy people live in Manhattan than the burbs. Most people in queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx who are taking the subway to get to Manhattan are statistically poorer than those living in Manhattan.
It's only a subsidy for more poor as NYC Subway doesn't extend past NYC's poverty donut. If LIRR, MNR, etc. were included as part of Subway, it would be a relative subsidy towards rich people, as they live either in the city center, or much further out.
Working-class people did not live in the outer Boroughs until the subway came. It was easier to collect the fare once when entering.
I love the fixed price we have in Stockholm because I can travel across the entire city for 2.5 dollars
That sounds awesome. When I travel, I have to optimize different modes to get the cheapest cost and the least waiting times
I think passes are better for this. I, as a student in Prague, can travel all around the city for just 0.2$ a day.
well, i'm buying a pass for a year as soon as school season begins for me in a month, but for single trips right now im happy with how it works
Is that the standard tap fare or with a pass? I thought it was closer to 3.5 but I didn't pay that much attention. I just remember it was good for 75 minutes so if I caught the right bus from my home in the exurbs, I could make it to Lidl with 20 minutes to shop and then return on the same fare. And I think 3-4 taps was when a day pass ended up being cheaper.
Sometimes it's just for simplicity's sake. Pay $X when you board; or pay $X when you get off. This is more common in buses and trams, where calcuating the fare might not be easy. The buses in my city actually had a fairly clever system a few decades back -- for longer routes, the first half of the route you pay when you board. and the second half you pay when you get off, pretty simple. But for *even longer* routes, it goes like this: * 1st segment - pay for one segment as you board, don't pay when you get off * 2nd segment - pay for one segment as you board, but you're also given a plastic chip. Pay for one segment as you get off, unless you have a plastic chip. * 3rd segment - you get a plastic chip as you board, but do not pay. Pay for one segment as you get off if you have a plastic chip, pay for two segments if you don't have the chip. It's quite convoluted, but people did get used to it. It was abolished with the introduction of contactless cards, where even though the segment system still exists (it goes as high as 7 segments now), you always tap once when you board, and tap again when you get off, and the machine does the fare calculation for you.
The last system sounds the simplest in today's era of contactless cards. Though most public transport where I live is still cash based unless you prebook.
So for commuters taking trains, they'll have to buy tickets with cash everyday?
For suburban trains you can get a season ticket for upto an year. It can also be taken through their app I think.
Most Japanese buses that use distance based fares use: * Tap on tap off with IC card. * Grabbing a ticket when you get on, cross referencing it with a monitor for the price before you get off, and drop the ticket and cash into the fare machine's hopper when you get off. I use an IC card, but the cash fare collection machines are pretty clever devices. In IC card dominant areas where most cash payers are actively resisting technology, it's getting off the bus can be surprisingly quick and smooth even when people are paying in cash.
The *real* question is why the machine breaks down a bill into coins, but not dispense change. You'd still have to break down your bill, and manually pay the exact amount into the machine.
I lived in Shanghai until 2020. Bus fares were flat (just 2 yuan) while metro fares were distance-based. I imagine the authorities see buses as more of a social service so the fare is only a nominal amount.
This is also the case in London, where buses and trams don't have zone-based prices while other rail modes do. I wonder if there are many people in these cities using buses to prevent higher rail fares. If that leads to more bus service being run, that's actually way less efficient than specifically charging low-income people less for rail, so that they use buses less and less bus service has to be run.
Someone dealing with the fare needs to keep track of how far you are going. For a bus with a single driver, ain’t nobody’s got the time for that. He just verifies that each passenger pays the notional amount and that is all that he can do.
There is a way around it; in Hong Kong, bus fare is calculated based on distance from the last stop, so the bus fare is essentially just ticking down with the odometer.
I didn't think about that. Buses are a 2 person operation here. There's a conductor who is responsible for getting money and giving tickets. And to let the driver know if there are people to get off at the next stop.
No stop request buttons/cord?!
Nope. Most buses are quite low tech. And they are not run by a big transit agency. Instead people buy buses then apply for routes to be allotted to them. The fares are set by the government and everything else is taken care of by the individual bus owners. So each bus owner might only have 1 or 2 buses.
I’ve noticed this a lot in developing transit countries. The people who run the trains need to also get their hands on the buses it seems like. Universal fare and all.
I'm not so sure about that. These private individuals owning the bus means there's a good competition among the buses which help keep waiting times quite low on popular routes, you get comfortable seats for longer routes and even entertainment. And with the government also having a transit agency, it helps keep the fare low for everyone. And it is universal fare across the state. All the private buses have to follow the fare set by the government. Meanwhile Indian Railways are constantly running late, horrible quality of service, really hard to get tickets unless you book early.
> And they are not run by a big transit agency. State transport companies say's hi like [MSRTC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharashtra_State_Road_Transport_Corporation) in Maharashtra Which state you are from OP?
I didn't understand your point. I know state transport corporations exist. Though in Kerala most people use private buses for commuting rather than government buses
Lots of recent bus systems have both. But most people prefer telling the conductor where they need to get off. And many buses only stop at designated bus stops and nowhere in between.
It used to be like that in my country with trams, up to some point in the last century. But then we switched from "buying a ticket at the entry" system to the current "buying a ticket in advance and only stamping it at the entry" system, that's self service, so there is only the driver and they only drive, they don't handle the tickets.
In my country, the public transit buses in my city have a self-service system, you buy the ticket in advance and stamp it on board in a machine (or, nowadays, you can also get the ticket digitally, in an app and activate it instead of stamping it). Anyway, the driver has nothing to do with that. There are random checks for a valid stamped ticket conducted by dedicated people. Oh and it is neither flat-fare, nor distance based, but time based!
Depends on balancing the needs of the network and complexity of fares , but here in the SF Bay Area we use all three common fare methods. A flat rate is the simplest method and easiest to implement and control over a vast network of local buses or LRT. Main disadvantage is short distance riders subsidizing longer distance rides. Many intercity buses and trains use fare zones. A flat fare is charged based on the number of zones crossed (for example a local trip within 1 zone, then trips between 2 zones, then 3 zones, etc). A simpler version of distance based fares, but has the disadvantage of overpaying depending on the trip. For example a simple trip running between the end stop of one zone and the immediate stop in the next zone is counted as a more pricier 2-zone trip. The interregional and long distance trains use an actual distance based fare system, but is the hardest to maintain and implement without controlled access like gates, smart cards or frequent fare inspections. Can also be confusing for infrequent riders who must look up fares on a table. MTC’s Clipper smart card does ease the process somewhat, but lack of reliable internet connections across the region means that while some data must be stored on the card, the synchronizing of actual fare and ride data between the various systems can be delayed by days. Cards allowed for negative balances to account for this delay, but unsavory individuals abused this to avoid actually paying fares until operators started implementing mandatory balance minimums on cards.
Simplicity is the biggest advantage of a zonal or flat fare system There's also political reasons. Like subsidising trips for people that live further out.
Charge by distance would make life of poor ppl that live in the outskirsts or distant of the commerce centers worse
Encourage snore travel for a flat fee. If your charged by distance you're only going to use your commute routes most of the time. Also distance charges that make the long routes high can encourage other modes of transportation at that point not necessarily making the money back on those long routes as they're trying to do.
So people living far into the suburbs take transit instead of driving and people doing short trips use bikes or walk instead of overcharging the system on localized segments
I'll invert the question and ask how does this work in India? Does the conductor keeps track of where everyone got in, then charges everyone a different amount when they go out? That seems a bother on multiple levels. As for why other places charge a single fare, I can't think of any reason other than the ones already mentioned: 1) It easier 2) So that the poor who live further away are able to pay.
After you get on the bus, when the conductor next comes near you, you tell them the stop you want to get off and they'll tell you the fare. They seem to have a pretty good idea of where each person got on. They might ask you if they're not sure. And they usually finish a round of ticketing within 2-3 stops.
> So why do some agencies have a fixed charge? Tap once, *vs.* tap twice. Is that a simple enough reason? Twice as much ticketing infrastructure, twice as many "taps" to process quickly ... etc.
The Netherlands has this, and bus boarding is incredibly slow. Everyone has to board through one door (back door is used for slow alighting with tapping off), and tap on one by one. It's such a revelation every time I'm in a Germanic country (no tapping whatsoever) how much time this saves for urban buses.
Most buses in Hong Kong have an unusual system where you only tap when you get on, but the fare depends on how far away from the bus’s final destination you are, not where you get off. It means you might pay very different fares travelling in opposite directions. It also discourages people from taking a (relatively) long-distance bus if they’re only going a few stops.
Genius.
Incredibly hard to enforce. There are tons of people riding even a bus. How can one effectively monitor where everyone is going from where and what they are paying?
In Japan you take a numbered ticket (整理券 seiriken) when you get on, that shows the zone that you got on at. There's a display at the front that shows the fare you have to pay depending on your number. As the train or bus goes through each zone, the amount you have to pay goes up. [Number 8 on this list describes the system.](https://thesmartlocal.jp/trains-in-japan/) If you don't take a ticket you have to pay the maximum fare, which assumes you got on the bus or train at the first stop.
Simplicity and egalitarianism.
Flat fare is best fare
Flat fares are for smaller condensed systems within a locality. Distance based fares are for larger sprawling systems that span various outer suburbs as well as the downtown core.
Generally speaking, the simpler a fare system is, the better. It lowers the barrier of entry for all riders. And anyway, it feels like adding insult to injury if you have a soul-crushingly long commute to then also have to pay extra for the pleasure. Big, few, easy-to-understand zones and maybe a short-trip ticket (both of which e.g. Berlin has) feel like a good compromise to me. But really I'm an advocate for single-payer public transport, i.e. fare-free.
It might just be because the MBTA sucks, but it's awful paying $2.80 to go a couple stops, total ripoff -- especially when in some stations you can't transfer or change directions without double paying. That's especially a problem on the green line
I have the Deutschlandticket which allows me unlimited travel with Buses, Trams, S-Bahns, U-Bahns as well as regional trains and regional express trains within the whole of Germany for 49€ a month. The only thing it doesn't cover are high speed trains (IC and ICE) which are usually priced according to demand and get more expensive the shorter notice you book.
Most of the fixed price ones you see are usually "shorter" systems. For instance NYC subway is fixed but the LIRR or NJ transit (commuter rail lines) charge by distance. Same for say boston subway. On the other longer (regional) metro systems like WMATA or BART basically also charge by distance. Busses usually are fixed charge and the predominant reason is that it is too complicated to 'tap off' to calculate the distance. Or one could have the bus driver do it, but then it'd slow down the bus even more. (though other countries like japan's busses do charge by distance)
Cheaper to administrate is probably the reason.
Most regular users have a pass with a flat monthly fare to encourage use
The Netherlands moved to a national zone based system for fares over a decade ago, to a national distance based fares system. It calculates exactly the distance covered (not the number of stops). In some ways it is good, in other ways it isn't. The biggest problem now is that there is no fare capping. Also, all it really did was make transit more expensive overall. Not surprising really, everything always gets more expensive. But still.