Public transport should be free

"Public transport should be free"

The intention of the following message was to open up discussions on this proposed new group project.

Idea Factory: Message of invitation to discuss of 18 August 2007

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Britton [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org]
Sent: August 18, 2007 8:52 AM
To: 'NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com'; '
Subject: Public transport should be free

Dear Colleagues,

There are now going on two hundred New Mobility measures and actions that we have thus far identified with your help for treatment under the New Mobility Advisory/Briefs and while we are already committed to the Carsharing City Strategies and BRT for the first two numbers, the topic of precisely "Public transport should be free" has over these last days has moved up toward the head of the list for the planned four first year editions. I mention this to you this morning since it will, as with just about everything done here, be very much a collaborative endeavor and is one that just possibly may interest you..

However our approach in this particular case will be a bit different from our usual starting point and method in this series, which is to provide an informed expert view based on leading edge international experience and knowledge to provide an informed but neutral appraisal of the measure, so as to inform city government and local leaders so that they can make a wise decision as to eventual next steps. And then to get them started in this proves.

A different approach
In "Public transport should be free" we intend to turn this around a bit. We shall take the title and the concept of barrier-free public transport as a positive statement, a challenge and our leading premise -- and then investigate and analyze whether in fact this may or may not make any sense for 21st century cities under duress. And if so, how.

I might note that just about all the analyses of free local transit in the past (see Barbara Post's biblio from the Transport Research Board of yesterday by way of first example) have started out well in the box of the existing institutional and financial situation as far as public transport provision is concerned - and then variously to wiggle it a bit to see what, within this quite constraining box, would be likely to happen if the city tried to do just that. With the results that it should not be terribly difficult to anticipate in advance. And since you are well installed in that box, not surprising that the conclusion is inevitably either (a) it won't work (here and then come the long list of reasons and justifications) or, at times, (b) we might give it a try on this bit of the system (specific routes, hours, user groups).

But since we are dealing here with the politics of transportation and problem-solving in a heavily charged and troublesome environment, it seems that the least we can do is step beyond that traditional box and start by setting out the fundamental considerations that in truth set the stage, a bit along the lines that Dave Wetzel has done in his yesterday's email to the group. What is it that we want behind all this? How important are those objectives to the community? What are the (full) means at our disposal (and we are not talking about fare boxes or balancing micro-budgets here)? Etc.

So the goal of this future New Mobility Advisory will be to take it from the top. And we very much hope that you will be interested to participate. With your ideas, and perhaps even to have you join our little editorial group that will be keeping an eye on all this to ensure its quality and professionalism.

The pressing need for a major paradigm change. And fast!
Please don't lose sight of the fact that despite the outstanding work that is being done in many cities around the world to render at least parts of their local mobility systems more sustainable - and often with considerable success in terms of the specific thing they set out to do - the overwhelming trend when measured from the vantage of municipality as a while is no less than terrible. Or if you prefer and have your eyes open, terrifying. Because there is not a metropolitan area ON THIS BENIGHTED PLANET where all the key indicators are not moving explosively I exactly the wrong direction. Not one dear friends! Not one!

Abusing the new system:
Those who stand against this concept of barrier-free pubic transport for all, suggest that its sheer openness would lead to abuses, joy riding, teen partying, and homeless people hanging out among them. When we were working on the first brainstorming piece for the Ministry of the Environment here in Paris for what eventually became the excellent country-wide 'Carte Orange' unified monthly fare card back in the middle seventies, these arguments were also advanced at the time as reasons not to open up the system in this way. But once the cards went into service with unlimited travel as art of the package, the feared abuses did not occur in any significant amount -- though there is a first period of what can only be described as public joy and satisfaction as people of all ages start to play with and use the system. And that is quite as it should be and can be easily planned for in advance.

There is one important wrinkle in the "free" vector to which we gave a lot of thought at the time and which is just as relevant today as it was back then. And that concerns the underlying attitude of the public to what we want them to consider "their transport system". For that a certain indication of proprietorship is called for, I think. It is collective proprietorship as we see in cases like public gardens and other public spaces (the vehicle in this context suddenly becomes a public space). For this, we suggest that what the people in that place (and yes, the visitors too) need to have their own individual 'keys to the system'. Which in this day and age probably translates to a readable card/pass, which has the double advantage of also permitting feedback on vehicle use.

Whether or not you charge for this or not, is a subject of study in each place. But it is for sure that if the user charges become onerous - and even more considered a source of revenue to the city or the transit agency (Get Thee behind me Satan) - then the entire problematique begins to shift.

Experience suggests that if people start to look at the public service as "their system" they not only use it far more (and remember a substantial portion of those who will in time start to use the public system will be doing it in lieu of their own cars), but they also tend to take better care of it than if their perception that it is one more example of Big Brother who doesn't give a damn about them as a human being. In France, for example, damage to vehicle seats and interiors went down after the system opened up via the Orange Cards.

There is a huge amount of area that can be played with and put to work under this city transforming concept.

Eric Britton

PS. And if anyone wishes to drag in the tired finger-pointing language of left or right, socialistic. communistic or whatever to simplify and eventually ridicule these important considerations, they will I promise lose a star. And you know how that can hurt. Measured mentions of sustainable development and social justice, and better economics for all, will on the other hand certainly have their place here.