Does free transport work?

First, we should not forget that many uses of public space and infrastructure are already free of charge. Tolls have become quite rare, whereas they used to be more commonplace. Today, although highways and some bridges or tunnels impose a charge, motorists largely enjoy the experience of free travel – although I am well aware of fuel tax issues. The history of free public transport is yet to be fully written, but it has evolved through various forms, with the current ones dating back to the 1970s. Over time, communities have implemented such measures for multiple reasons, but not always the same ones. Nowadays, they are mostly centered around ecology and social justice, but this was not necessarily the case in the past, such as Compiègne that aimed to attract students with free transport. The context has changed: for 50 years now, we have been developing policies to encourage a modal shift away from cars towards public transport or active modes. However, in medium-sized French cities, half of all trips are still made by car, 4 to 5 times more than those made by public transport. If we add the rise of environmental problems to social justice issues, in a society that seems to be at an ever-increasing risk of becoming divided, free public transport is one solution worth exploring. The main arguments in support of it, however, are more or less pertinent depending on the different local contexts. Do we want to make public transport more attractive? Support a modal shift? Avoid the non-use of social tariffs by an estimated 40% of the people who could claim them? While these arguments should be assessed according to the specifics of each territory, it seems to me that three more global contextual elements are pushing our society to consider free public transport. First of all, we can see that policies focusing on solutions embodied by a specific mode have their limits: tramways are insufficient to create a decisive modal shift, just as electric cars do not solve all the problems of urban mobility. Free transport opens up another way of looking at things: how to make better use of existing systems? It offers another way of conceiving a public mobility policy. Here it could be compared to policies on lowering speeds, for example, which also consist in reviewing the way in which public space can be adapted to our needs, without waiting for an unlikely innovation to happen and provide the magic solution. Secondly, while privatization and individualization have been powerful dynamics for a long time, our society is also in the process of reconsidering what should be part of public common services. Covid-19 has even led us to question what we deem essential. Free service would make public transport networks part of this sphere of common and essential services to a much greater extent than is the case today. In this sense, the discussion on the relevance of free public transport is therefore part of a broader discussion on our society’s aspirations. Finally, the health crisis linked to Covid-19 has accelerated the already difficult financial situation of many public transport networks. Reviewing how these networks are financed is essential. This can pave the way to free public transport, even if that may initially seem paradoxical.

This idea is repeatedly put forward in the public debate. It is based on several arguments. I will discuss two main ones here. First, free service would ruin the financial capacity of public transport. Secondly, it would damage the image of public transport both in the eyes of the public and of the elected officials in charge of managing it, because what is free of charge is often viewed as lacking value and therefore doomed to be neglected. On these two subjects, I believe the discussion is more complex than how it is regularly portrayed. From a financial standpoint, we should note that commercial revenues are never sufficient to finance the development of public transport, since they never cover operating expenses. Investments are always driven by other budgets, provided by local authorities or by the State. The financial threat posed by free service cannot therefore directly concern investments in the networks, even if indirect effects are possible, and, even with regards to operating costs, it should be remembered that in many cities, this rate of coverage by fare revenues is 10 to 20%. In other words, the networks are already part of a massive financing system outside fare revenues, except in a few cases such as in Île-de-France (42% coverage in 2016) or Lyon (more than 50% for several years, before the health crisis). This is the effect of the mobility payment that complements public funding. Thus, while making public transport free clearly incurs a loss of revenue, this can be compensated by political choices that do not necessarily harm public transport: the choice can be made to reallocate other budgets to this effect, in the context of political arbitrations, as we saw in Dunkirk. It is also possible to look for new sources of revenue, such as parking charges, as considered in Montpellier. Finally, if an increase in users is to be anticipated, in the case of networks with high-capacity reserves, free service can lead to the vehicles being used at full capacity, thereby reducing the cost of the traveller.km, without requiring heavy additional investments. Moreover, the image of public transport does not seem to suffer from being free of charge, especially because such measures could be accompanied by an upgrading of the networks. Free transport offers a different experience of one’s relation to buses and trams, which become real extensions of the public road space, because of their increased porosity through this measure. The fact that free public transport has been sustainable in many cities despite political change suggests that when implemented, it becomes part of the city's identity. Finally, from a material point of view, there is no evidence that vehicles on free networks are more degraded than those on paid ones: it seems that the increase in users induces a social control that plays a part in maintaining their condition.

While there are a number of studies on the effects of making a service free, it is more difficult to identify the effects of free public transport policies that are actually implemented, because they operate in combination with various other levers and are part of specific contexts where data is not always readily available for comparison. What is clear, however, is that these measures do not lead to a massive modal shift away from cars. As with many other measures tested to date, such as shared mobility solutions (self-service bicycles, car sharing, etc.), the results in this sense remain modest. The main direct and quantitative effect seems to me to be the inclusive nature of the measure: it is first of all a social measure that allows everyone to get on board, by defusing the issue of unclaimed social tariffs. Therefore, after such measures are implemented, we observe mass use, which translates into strong increases in user volume in the first months. The network in question then has to stabilize its occupancy rate at a higher threshold than before, when access came at a charge. More precisely, it is likely that new uses will emerge, such as increased use at weekends by families for whom pricing represented a psychological barrier (even though this barrier is not necessarily justified), but we know that the price signal plays a strong role in the world of transport. Among the effects that are rarely discussed, we can look at driving professions. A recent study by the Observatory of Cities with Free Transport for Ademe shows that free transport gives bus drivers in Dunkirk greater control of their vehicle, by freeing them from having to sell tickets and control the passengers getting on – tasks which were often the source of negative experiences and stress. Free service is therefore also a measure that transforms how transport operators experience their work. On the other hand, these effects are still small compared to the massive climate and energy challenges we face. By itself, free public transport remains a limited measure because it does not involve any constraints on motorists. But combined with other measures, simultaneously or cumulatively over time, it can play a part, by sparking a broader debate on mobilities as well as on what is common and important for the community. It can be a lever for other measures and open up another way of thinking about urban planning. It can be seen as a counterpart to policies aimed at curbing car use: pedestrianization, restrictions on car use, urban tolls, rationing... In this sense, it can therefore be part of an environmental process.