Multiple Choice, Single Answer

Several cities, from Tallinn in Estonia to Dunkirk in France, have made their buses free for residents. Supporters present free fares as a way to cut traffic and pollution while also helping low-income households. The results so far suggest that the first of these aims is harder to achieve than the second. When fares are removed, the number of passengers usually rises, sometimes sharply. However, studies of these schemes have found that many of the new passengers previously walked or cycled, or are simply making extra trips, rather than leaving their cars at home. Drivers appear to respond less to price than to journey time, frequency and reliability: a free bus that comes every half hour is still a poor alternative to a car. The social benefits are clearer. Households on low incomes spend a larger share of their budget on transport, and free fares give them easier access to work, education and health care. Cities also save the cost of collecting fares, although in larger systems this saving is small compared with the lost ticket income, which must be replaced from taxes. For this reason, many transport economists argue that if the main aim is to reduce car use, the money would be better spent on more frequent services and dedicated bus lanes, while targeted discounts could protect those who most need help.