I am a huge fan of public transportation, and I think using it should be as easy as possible. But here is a possible problem with this idea: if you make public transport free, you change the social structure of the riders. As the cost of public transportation does not depend on income, free rides have far greater benefits for the lower classes, and this may lead to public transportation having the image of "transportation for the poor", which may then lead to vast parts of society avoiding riding on it. After some time, it may even become a stigma, and the lower classes will also avoid using it.
I fear that free public transport may lead to lower passenger numbers in the long run, except in areas with a homogeneous population.
In Tallinn's case this doesn't seem to be true. What's more, having lived in Tallinn for decades, I can say that the poorest of people have been always riding for free (illegally) - it's either worth the risk of having to run away from ticket checkers or they're so poor that they deal only in cash and don't have a bank account that the government can take fine money from. Thus making the transport free in Tallinn hasn't really changed the demographics of passengers.
There's no fear of safety in the public spaces (including transport) in Tallinn either. It's standard practice for kids to go to school alone. So you have 7 year olds waddling around the city on their own, taking various public transports etc, and everyone is happy.
Additionally, if the wealthier people are too snobby to ride with lower classes, then there's always the possibility to raise car taxes. I think that's a much better solution compared to depriving lower classes of mobility.
Also I think you might be hanging out with very wrong crowds if you think that the majority of society would not go on public transport because some lower class people might be on it. (Ed: I see you changed it to vast parts instead of majority now. Better, but I'd bet still overestimated.)
Then there's the completely bonkers idea that lower class people themselves stop riding the bus because lower class people are on it. There are many reasons why I think that's never going to happen, but the biggest one is practical - poor people have no alternatives! A minimum wage worker needs to get to their workplace or they won't have food. The idea of them skipping the busride because there are other similar people on the bus is ridiculous.
"So you have 7-year-olds waddling around the city on their own" This. I have seen so many kids going to school alone in Tallinn - quite the opposite of the current generation's helicopter parenting.
You could read it as kids being the next generation, young adults being current generation, and helicopter parenting happening en masse in places other than Estonia.
As an Estonian currently living in Demark, the contrast is very stark. Kids in Copenhagen don't have any freedom at all. Parents are climbing playground equipment alongside them, touching their playballs every 10 seconds etc. On top of that they are holding protests that this isn't enough.
> aim is to persuade the government to introduce a minimum ratio of 1 adult to 3 children in nurseries (roughly 0-3 year olds), and 1 adult to 6 children in kindergartens (roughly 3-5 year olds)
That's very odd, and very un-Scandinavian. Here in Norway small children take buses to school. Even on the same buses as high school students which I think would not be reckoned safe these days in my birth country (UK). Quite a few do get delivered by car though. But schools and society generally encourages children to walk or cycle to school.
I fully agree with all your points, and you are obviously lucky to live in a society where free public transportation may be able to work (I have never been to Tallinn). Even before I edited my comment, I never claimed that such a system would never work, and it is great that it seems to work for now in Tallinn. But you should not make the mistake to assume that what works in your city, will work in general (although I wish it would be like that in this case).
> Also I think you might be hanging out with very wrong crowds if you think that the majority of society would not go on public transport because some lower class people might be on it.
I don't understand this part. This is an opinion I formed after riding in dozens of public transportation systems in Europe and the US for over a decade. Should I have restricted my travels to cities without this problem to protect the romantic worldview of my late teens?
> But you should not make the mistake to assume that what works in your city, will work in general
Sure, I expect it to be harder in places like the US that have a lot of stigma around welfare. However on that note, Estonia isn't actually that big on welfare either. Thus I think there's potential for this to work in most of Europe without insurmountable difficulties.
> Should I have restricted my travels to cities without this problem to protect the romantic worldview of my late teens?
I was basing my comment on the idea of you having actually talked to people and then the majority telling you that they don't want to ride the public transport because of poor people. However if you haven't actually gotten this feedback from the majority you've talked to and are basing it on some other experience, then I guess I would be skeptical of your methodology.
--
I guess most of all, I have a hard time believing that people in most places would decide their travel method based on how much their fellow traveler earns. The thing that I can definitely see being an issue is hygiene/smells, but this stuff will annoy everyone, including minimum wage workers, and rich people can also stink of sweat.
> I guess most of all, I have a hard time believing that people in most places would decide their travel method basend on how much their fellow traveler earns. The thing that I can definitely see being an issue is hygiene/smells, but this stuff will annoy everyone, including minimum wage workers, and rich people can also stink of sweat.
The problem is not the salary of your fellow traveler (which would be ridicoulus), or hygiene, or snobbism. The problem is fear of crime, be it justified or not.
> However if you haven't actually gotten this feedback from the majority you've talked to and are basing it on some other experience, then I guess I would be suspicious of your methodology.
I imagine most pickpocketing is done due to lack of funds. Not having to buy a transport ticket will leave these people with additional funds. If anything, I would guess this kind of welfare would reduce the reasons to steal.
Then there's the point that people who would pickpocket probably wouldn't buy a ticket even if required.
However maybe most importantly, not letting these pickpocketers on the bus would just move the location of the act. They could hunt for wallets at the bus stops instead, without getting on. Thus I think this problem needs to be addressed independently and shouldn't be too big of a factor in public transport decisions.
I recognize your point however that if there's a theft problem in an area, people can become afraid of public transport due to it.
Of course it is! But sadly this is just the way a lot of people think, maybe without even realizing it. Why do you think middle-class families try to avoid living in poorer neighborhoods?
Poorer neighbourhoods often come with years of deprivation, including dilapidated housing stock and distinct lack of local amenities and services. When there are services and amenities in reasonable striking distance, such as in cities, people don't avoid living in poor areas terribly strongly - or how would you get rapid gentrification of all those former poor places? That so often seems to "just happen" - without focused investment.
Surely a subsidised or free bus or tram service should in no way discourage rich or poor as it is the amenity? What discourages better off people from public transport is unreliability or sparse service - as achieved by the UK's mid 80s deregulation everywhere except London. More surprisingly perhaps, so does price-gouging on fares and season tickets.
Why don't we avoid free parks, beaches and forests because poor people may be there too?
So reducing the cost will reduce demand? I appreciate this is sometimes the case with luxury goods, but it is hard believe that it would apply to public transport.
Do you have any evidence of a reduction in price leading to a reduction in demand for public transport anywhere in the world?
My fear is that in case of public transportation, reducing the cost will change the product, and the changed product will be in less demand in the long run.
> Do you have any evidence of a reduction in price leading to a reduction in demand for public transport anywhere in the world?
No, I haven't, and the well-known example of Hasselt in Belgium seems to suggest otherwise [0]. But I am not convinced that what works in a small town in Belgium, or a medium-sized city in Estonia, will work in larger cities.
In the US passenger numbers for ALL forms of public transport are collapsing and have been doing so for years. I submitted a story about it earlier [1] which covers BART's concern about the problem.
Making it free would help but also not curtailing bus routes to pay for the rail solutions is needed as well. So not only are they not getting riders their backlog on maintenance is growing to well over a hundred billion dollars across the US with new expensive rail programs trying to get complete. However it sounds good to expand it while the truth has been the opposite. Building a rail solution is like building a stadium, all the promised payoffs are a lie and the only payoff is to the consultants and politicians
I fear that free public transport may lead to lower passenger numbers in the long run, except in areas with a homogeneous population.