The French city of Dunkirk gained international attention that belied its size when it announced its public transport system that connects 200,000 residents would be free for all passengers in 2018.
Some cities and governments took steps to follow suit. Free public transport for under 18s was introduced in Paris and Malta announced it was dropping all fares across nearly all of its bus network, joining the likes of Estonia’s capital, Tallinn, which rolled out free fares for residents in 2013.
More recently, Germany, for three months of this year, offered monthly tickets for unlimited travel for just €9 – about $13.95.
Ahead of a state election in November, Victoria’s opposition is moving to implement a similar program, proposing to cap daily fares across Melbourne at $2 and halve the price of regional transport.
Under the plan, the price of a daily zone 1 and 2 fare on the metropolitan train, tram and bus network would drop from $9.20 to $2, and from $4.60 to $1 for a concession ticket.
The opposition leader, Matthew Guy, says it would save the typical family of public transport users in Melbourne about $3,500 a year, and cost nearly $1.3bn over four years, according to analysis by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office.
But planning and public transport experts warn the plan could starve the government of funds needed to maintain existing services and improve those in the outer suburbs.
Daniel Bowen, from the Public Transport Users Association, describes the opposition’s plan as “overly simplistic” and says it could lead to infrequent and unreliable services.
“A more sophisticated, nuanced reform of the fare system is actually needed,” Bowen says, describing Melbourne’s public transport fares as “among the most expensive” in the world for short trips.
“To travel a few stops on the tram is $4.60 – the same fare you pay to travel from Pakenham into the city, which is 30km, and if you travel outside of Melbourne, V/Line fares double or even triple for going a few extra stops outside zone two.”
Prof Jago Dodson, director of RMIT university’s Centre for Urban Research, says the $2 fare cap could risk worsening social inequality, given the scheme would benefit those living in Melbourne’s inner and middle suburbs, where public transport is good, but do little for those in the outer suburbs, where services are poor.
“If we’re reducing the revenue for public transport, the financial task of improving services in the outer suburbs is made much harder because not only do we have to overcome the [annual] $300m deficit in fare revenue just to maintain the system, we also then have to find additional money to improve services beyond what we currently have,” he said.
“There’s a real risk with this approach that there’s much less funding available to improve services across the metropolitan area and to give everyone in Melbourne fair and equitable access to high quality public transport.”
Dodson said when people made the choice to use a car or public transport, “convenience and travel time” were more important factors than price.
“Even if you made public transport free, many people in the outer suburbs would still not use it either because the services they need don’t exist or they don’t meet their needs in terms of how they want to travel around the city,” he said.
“The best way to increase the use of public transport is to make sure that we’ve planned a really high quality network that provides people with an equivalent convenience in terms of travel experience to what they would have with their car.”
The German scheme saw more than 52m tickets sold before it came to an end in August. However, research from the Association of German Transport Companies (VDV) found that poor or complicated public transport connections were among the most common reasons for not buying tickets.
Critics also expressed concern about the impact that a continued scheme would have in funding better transport networks, particularly in rural areas. The German finance minister, Christian Lindner, has said extending the scheme could cost the government €14bn ($21.7bn) a year, which could constrain spending in other areas, including education.
In Victoria, there are warnings that the Coalition’s proposal could also have unintended consequences.
By halving V/Line fares, Dodson says it could be beneficial to those who make sporadic trips to Melbourne but may have long-term effects on the state’s urban sprawl.
“If we make fears cheaper, then we’re likely to see more people moving to regional locations and taking advantage of a cheaper commute back to Melbourne,” he says.
“Cuts to the price of particular services like public transport can be attractive electorally but from a wider kind of strategic planning perspective, it’s not really the way to go about it.”
“We really need a much more systematic approach to planning both of our transport networks and of Melbourne and its satellite cities.”
