There are a number of proponents around the world for the idea that public transport should be free. And if we here at World Streets have some thoughts of our own on 
the subject, we also think it is always very important to check out both sides of the issues. Just below, you will find four short statements setting out arguments against FPT, and we are interested in hearing from our readers and colleagues around the world both (a) their comments on these criticisms and (b) yet other critical views. In later issues we will look at this from more positive sides, but with the intention of developing a range of views and recommendations on this important topic. Today however, we want to hear from you about the downside. Let's have a look at what we have thus far (and please do take the time to review the comments just below which enrich this first draft considerably):
(You will find extensive comments and additional information on this article at http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/why-free-public-transport-is-a-bad-idea/#comments)
The fact that most public transport is not "zero-fare" is evidence that there are arguments against this policy option. Some of these arguments include:
1. Fairness. Some people's transport needs may not be well-served by the public transport network, and yet they (as tax-payers) are forced to contribute to the cost of the service. At least in ideal economic models, user-pays systems lead to the most efficient allocation of scarce resources. Could the cost of paying for the public transport be better spent elsewhere?
2. Financial sustainability. Any extension or improvement to the public transport service must be fully funded from the public purse: being free, it cannot recover part of its cost from increased farebox revenue. As patronage on the system increases, so does the cost of provision. This may create resistance to measures to improve public transport or promote public transport use.
3. Crowding. Fares can be used to moderate demand. If cheaper fares are available off-peak, then people with more flexibility have an incentive to travel at off-peak times. This results in more effective use of limited resources. (Demand management is also used in telecommunications and energy markets.) It could be anticipated that a free service would be particularly crowded at peak times.
4. Impact on car industry. Greater public transport means that people use fewer cars; as a result, car manufacturers and service providers (e.g. mechanics, gas stations, etc.) can go out of business.
Source of the four above comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport
# # #
Thank you for pitching in on this side of the debate. Of course we are also interested to hear from you with other comments and suggestions on this important transport policy issue. (See http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/should-public-transport-be-free-stay-tuned/ for an earlier World Streets article on this topic. Also: http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/category/free-public-transport/) Print this article
Posts
Thanks for raising this issue, Eric. I agree with several who've already commented: local context is important.
ReplyDeleteFor a time I was a frequent user of a free bus system in the resort town of Ketchum, Idaho, and believe the town's traffic conditions and air quality would have suffered without the system. The fare-free feature definitely encouraged its use. In this situation, where road space was limited and the valley subject to air inversions, local agencies had decided it was well worth supporting a free bus. The service was used both by tourists and locals, including several disabled residents.
I would argue that free public transport should be at least considered as an option much more frequently than is currently done. And I agree that both positives and negatives of this approach should be carefully examined.
As for #4 on the list of arguments against free public transport, well -- the fact that came from Wikipedia says something .... but you might also argue that if car manufacturers and service industries converted to building transit equipment and providing transit-oriented services, then free transit would be GOOD for business. The sort of saving-jobs argument represented by #4 is always specious. For instance -- most civil societies don't encourage heroin consumption in order to keep poppy farmers employed.