Free transport: test the proposed solution

Making urban public transport free may appear to be a straightforward way to reduce congestion and pollution. Although removing fares would help some passengers, I do not agree that all services should be free for this purpose. Reliability and useful routes are often more important in persuading drivers to leave their cars behind.

There are clear benefits to reducing the cost of travel. Someone who struggles to pay a daily bus fare would have more money for other necessities, and occasional passengers might use the service more frequently. However, these changes would not necessarily reduce the number of cars on the road. A new passenger might previously have walked or cycled, while someone who already travelled by bus would simply make the same journey without paying. The environmental argument therefore depends on a change in behaviour among drivers, not just an increase in the total number of passenger trips.

For a driver, the practical quality of a service can be decisive. If a bus does not reach an industrial estate before an early shift starts, removing its fare will not make it a realistic option for the workers there. Extending the timetable or providing a direct connection could have a greater effect. Cities also need resources to maintain vehicles and provide enough capacity at busy times. A universal free-fare policy that leaves too little funding for these tasks could make services less attractive. Targeted discounts, combined with improvements to routes and frequency, would better address both affordability and usefulness.

Overall, affordable public transport matters, but a free service is not automatically an effective substitute for a car. I would prioritise reliable coverage and assistance for passengers who need it rather than abolishing fares across an entire city.