Theres a lot of attention right now on the idea of making public transport free.
In the first instance, you might think its a no-brainer.
it’s possible for you to ride public trains, trams, buses, and ferries at no charge.
That sounds too good to be true, but theyre a reality in many parts of the world.
What do they achieve when it comes to economic, infrastructural, and environmental impact?
For now, lets take a look at the different models, and their pros and cons.
40% off TNW Conference!
Economics/Infrastructural
Pros:Theoretically, free buses should increase usage.
Higher usage acts as an impetus to fund more fleets and expand routes.
Further, most cities use ticketing as a way to measure usage.
That might be difficult to procure when cities have lost revenue by providing free buses.
Cons:Getting people out of cars relies on a population living close to bus stops.
However, they also require people living close to bus stops with routes that serve their needs.
Kansas City has structural problems, that make transit an impossible choice.
How can you run effective transit when all you have is suburbia?
Its kind of laughable.
Pros:A free bus can be an effective way of targeting heavy pollution areas.
Pros:its a great strategy if it targets routes that service underserved people.
The city of Boston initiative boosted Route 28 ridership by more than 20%.
Cons:However, only about a third of commuters who participated saved money in Boston.
Two-thirds ended up paying for a fare upon transferring to another route or via a monthly pass.
The UK has a similar scheme that grants people over 65a free bus pass.
Pros:Financially, the impact of free tickets for the aged varies depending on location.
Cons:Only30% of people over 60take a bus at least once a week in the UK.
Their most significant reason is that the service does not go where they want it to go.
66% of older people cannot reach a hospital within 30 minutes by public transport.
Further, older people are more likely to have physical disabilities or limitations.
Such efforts, however, while necessary (and should already be in place!
), can be costly for cities.
Pros:Fewer people driving is good.
But what about places like Israel, where older people are already using public transport frequently?
This wont do much to change the overall carbon emissions of people in their cars.
Further, older people are less likely to utilizemicromobilityprograms likeescootersand ebikes.
Frequent publictransportusage relies on having close, accessible transport, which is not always the reality.
It also wants to increase car occupancy from 1.2 people per car to 1.5.
Buses can run faster as passengers can board at any gate.
Further, free public transport may result in higher tourist numbers and greater cross-country travel.
Cons:Accordingto city officials, the decision costs 40 million euros a year.
Thats the amount of money generated annually by tickets.
This represents no more than 8% of the cost of running public transport.
So the country needs to meet the loss through a redistribution of funds or additional taxes in the future.
Pros:No research has been done yet on the environmental outcomes of Luxembourgs free public transport.
However, the government hopes it will reduce the number of cars on the road.
Cons:Usage relies on convenient access to public transport, including accessible infrastructure.
Will free public transport get people out of their cars, considering the numbers are already pretty low?
Or just those who walk or bike?
I look forward to the research.
Story byCate Lawrence
Cate Lawrence is an Australian tech journo living in Berlin.
