There are a good number of proponents around the world supporting the idea that public transport should be free. And if we here at World Streets have our own thoughts on the subject (stay tuned), it is always good practice to check out both sides of the issues. Just below, you will find four short statements taken from the Wikipedia entry, setting out arguments against FPT. More to follow on this and in the meantime we are interested in hearing from our readers and colleagues around the world both with (a) their comments on these criticisms and (b) yet other critical views.
* Note: See the numerous, extensive, excellent comments below.
But before we dig into this, permit me as editor to make a basic point. And that is that the concept of “free public transport” is not a “bad idea” A bad idea is, for example, to undertake to do anything that will increase capacity for car traffic in cities, or something really stupid like spending public money to build high-tech elevated systems in cities in the global South or pretty much anywhere else as far as this observers concerned. Those are bad ideas. Free public transport is rather an interesting idea and one which we can all benefit from if we take the time and trouble to examine it serenely from the necessary multiple points of view. Now on to a typical critical, negative assessment.
In later issues we will look at this from more positive angles, 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 arguments against. 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):
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 above:
# # #
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.
for an earlier World Streets article on this topic. Also note the handful of articles looking at FPT from different angles at
* But above all continue reading the extensive comments that follow.