Vrije Universiteit Brussel Free Public Transport: Scope and Definitions Keblowski, Wojciech Published in: Free Public Transport And Why We Don't Pay To Ride Elevators Publication date: 2018 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Keblowski, W. (2018). Free Public Transport: Scope and Definitions. In D. Judith, & J. Prince (Eds.), Free Public Transport And Why We Don't Pay To Ride Elevators (2 ed., pp. 1-6). Montreal: Black Rose Books. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 11. Oct. 2021 [1] Free Public Transit: Scope and DeMnitions Wojciech Kębłowski Free public transit may seem like a straightforward idea. However, among the many cities and towns that have experimented with abolishing fares in local transport networks, there are signiycant dixerences with respect to how this apparently simple idea has been implemented. Crucially, while in some cities free public transit (or more precisely, fare-free public transit) is holistic, in others it applies to only a speciyc part of urban society, or urban space. We should therefore distinguish the key dixerence between “full” and “partial” free public transit. By full fare abolition I mean a situation in which, within a given public transit system, fares do not apply to (a) the great majority of transport services, to (b) the great majority of its users, (c) most of the time. Additionally, to exclude temporary tests and one- time experiments, I argue that to be considered “full,” free public transit should (d) be in place for at least twelve months. According to this deynition, fully free public transit systems can be identiyed in as many as 97 cities and towns worldwide (see ygure 1). More than half of them (56) are in Europe (ygure 2), where a particularly high number of examples can be observed in France (20) and Poland (21). The largest city in which fares have been fully abolished is Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, with a population of over 400,000.1 Outside 2 Free Public Transit Europe, a particularly high number of free public transit towns can be found in the US (27), followed by Brazil (11), China (2) and Australia (1). While fare abolition may seem to be a straightforward and uniform idea, the rationale behind it dixers from place to place, and may be identiyed as following certain regional patterns. For instance, free public transit in the United States oàen appears to be justiyed as an economic measure (aimed at increasing the use of under-used public transport networks, stimulating the local economy, reducing operational costs, etc.), which largely rezects the predominant liberal perspective on the role of public institutions. In Europe, on the other hand, free public transit is oàen framed as a tool for promoting public transport among car users, and hence as an element of sustainable transport planning. Additionally, in many municipalities with established leà-wing traditions (socialist, post-socialist or communist), the idea of fare abolition is strongly related to socio-political rationales, according to which collective transport should constitute a common good, to which all users should have unconditional access. Across the landscape of fare- free towns and cities, the reasons behind fare abolition do not seem to entirely depend on whether the local administration is predominantly socialist, green, centrist or liberal. In other words, there seems to be no direct or strong correspondence between the type of rationale behind free public transit and the political “colour” of the municipal government implementing the policy. In other words, free public transit cannot necessarily be labelled as a leà-wing or right-wing policy. Besides fully free public transit systems, there are myriad cities and towns where fares have been partially abolished. Three main forms of partial free public transit can be identiyed. First, free public transit can be limited in terms of who can beneyt from it. Speciyc social groups that obtain access to free rides on public transport can include children (for example in Tarnów, Poland), students (Świnoujście, Poland), or the elderly (Cape May County, NJ, US)—discounts of this kind are commonly applied in public transport systems across Europe. Interestingly, they can embrace not only urban but also national networks: the railways in Slovakia provide free tickets to children, students, retired persons and seniors. Thus conceptualised, partial free public transit can form part of a social policy that aims at aiding persons with disabilities (Xiamen, China) and their caretakers (Tarnów, Poland), the unemployed (Rzeszów, Poland), or low-income residents (Timișoara, Romania, where free travel is provided to residents whose revenue is lower than 2,000 RON, equivalent to €435 or US$517). 1. See chapter 8 in this volume for further details on free public transport in Tallinn. Free Public Transit: Scope and DeMnitions 3 Distributing free tickets can also be a way of promoting public transport usage among tourists (Geneva canton, Switzerland) or car drivers (Wałbrzych, Poland). Second, free public transit can be limited in terms of where it applies. This means that in many cities, free access to transport is available only for a speciyc service or in a speciyc area, which exists as an exception within a paid public transport network. For instance, in Boston (US), one may take a bus service for free from the airport to the city (but not the other way around), while in Amsterdam (the Netherlands) and Fredrikstad (Norway) free public transport applies to local ferries. In Chengdu (China) passengers do not have to pay to use short-distance “neighbourhood” buses, while they need valid tickets on board of “regular” bus services and in the metro. In many smaller towns and villages, all public transport services are free of charge, yet they consist of merely one or two free routes, and therefore can hardly be considered as full-zedged public transport systems—as for instance in Carhaix- Plouguer (France), Canby (Canada) and Telluride (Colorado, US). Other cities in which free public transit is limited to a single service within a larger public transport system include Columbus (US) and Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) Third, free access to public transport may depend on when it is used. This is the case in Chengdu (China), where all buses are free to ride before 7:00am, a measure introduced to reduce the number of passengers during the morning peak.2 Similarly, free access to public transport is available before 7:45am in Singapore. In Gorlice (Poland), free public transit is available on weekends, while in Stockholm (Sweden) it is provided on the yrst day of the year, presumably to help everyone return home aàer the party. In Jelenia Góra (Poland), the timing of free public transport is extremely speciyc: one can ride local buses for free on the yrst day of every month and on days preceding long weekends. Additionally, in many cities free public transport has been introduced only temporarily. This may occur because it was conceived of as a test, one that local authorities did not consider to be successful—as was the case in Guangzhou (China), Salt Lake City (United States) and Valašské Meziříčí (Czech Republic). Temporary abolition of fares is also a common ingredient of the so-called “car-free days,” which are celebrated in many world cities on September 22, and are extended for up to a week in some municipalities. Fares can also be abolished in response to speciyc events, which are oàen quite dramatic. Tickets 2. However, this form of partial fare-free public transport didn’t work. The ex-CEO of the Chengdu bus group told me that if he were still CEO, he would oxer people free breakfast to convince them to ride buses earlier. 4 Free Public Transit are oàen suspended in the aàermath of terrorist attacks (e.g. in Paris in 2015 and Brussels in 2016) or natural disasters (Prague zooding in 2002), and during days with high air pollution levels. In July 2015, fares were temporarily abolished in Athens in the midst of a major political crisis when the national government did not reach an agreement with the so- called “Troika.” The distinction between full and partial forms of fare abolition is important for at least three reasons. First, it shows that among the many cases of free public transport there exist important variations: while in some cities fares have been completely abolished, in others the provision of unconditional access to transport is in fact socially, spatially or temporally limited. Moreover, while several towns and villages claim to be providing fully free public transport, the services they provide are in fact composed of only one or two routes, and due to their limited scope cannot really be considered as fully free public transport networks. Second, in those cities where fare abolition is only partial, it can serve as a practical test of its feasibility. It may function as a visible example that a “fare-free city” is not only imaginable as part of some urban utopia, but actually exists—even if it is currently limited in terms of where, how and for whom it is applied.