E&Y: Free public transport would reduce car travel by only 1%

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,803
Interesting report by E&Y for the National Transport Authority

Free public transport would incentivise excessive travel, says report

Eliminating fares for buses and trains would result in just 1% reduction in car travel, Ernst and Young tells NTA
www.irishtimes.com

Free public transport would be “overly costly and incentivise excessive travel” and would result in just a 1 per cent reduction in car travel according to an independent report commissioned by the National Transport Authority (NTA).

Motorists are more likely to switch to public transport if fuel prices increase, or parking and road usage is restricted, rather than if fares are made free, according to a report from accountancy firm Ernst and Young.

...

Where it had been made free, public transport use had increased by almost 22 per cent on average. “This increase is driven by a reduction in walking by 7 per cent, a reduction in cycling by 13 per cent but only a reduction of 1 per cent in car trips,” the report said.
 
Apparently, if it were free, it would lead to an increase in loitering and anti-social behaviour which, in turn, would discourage car users from using public transport.

Could they issue people with a card giving 50 free trips a year to the value of €300. I think a lot of drivers would probably use it or lose it.

But maybe drivers would just give their cards to other people to use.

Brendan
 
Personally I'd rather money was spent on a more reliable and faster service.

I'd happily pay €10 for a metro from city centre to the airport than crawl along on a Dublin Bus at a fraction of the price.
 
It doesn’t matter what price it is if the service is poor people won’t use it. I’d prefer to pay for a good interconnected public transport system than use a free one that frequently doesn’t run, is late and inefficient.

Our public transport ‘planning’ (including road and motorway construction) has always been responsive to needs that are ten years old or more. No real future planning imo. Although real planning in this regard would have huge cost I would imagine.
 
Interesting that making public transport free will cause a big drop in cycling and walking but not driving. I guess those that cycle and walk are more price conscience than drivers and more likely to avail of free transport.

I have used the Luxembourg free public transport a few times and it works really well. But Luxembourg is a rich country and less subject to anti-social behaviour.

Interesting that the Bloomberg report cites several studies that came to the conclusion that "to wean people off unsustainable levels of car dependency, you have to make driving more costly and difficult."

Seems like the best approach is low cost public transport (which we basically have with 2 EUR for a 90 minute trip or perhaps 1 EUR for a 90 minute trip as some politicians want to reduce it too) but not free and combining low cost public transport with making driving costly (fuel taxes etc) and difficult (slower than cycling etc).
 
People cite a lot of reasons for not using public transport, but cost is usually low down the list. And dropping fares leaves public transport companies dependent on fickle central government funding that might disappear when the going gets tough. The long and short of it is that there are too many cars on the road blocking the way of buses. Congestion charges, camera enforcement of bus lanes, transport police are all low hanging fruit. Do that. We have a good bus network. It's the traffic that's the problem first and foremost.
 
Hello,


The bottom line is really very simple - if we've a good, reliable, public transport service, then people will use it. The cost of that public transport, is probably a secondary consideration, while use of private vehicles comes from lack of suitable public transport options, in most situations (given it's already likely to be more expensive than public transport, where there's a suitable service available).

This recent EY report smells a bit like something that was commissioned to support a particular agenda, imho, and I really, really, really, don't like that kind of approach.
 
I agree somewhat with some of your points but I think cost always comes into it when they reach a certain level.
Also, to point out that the reason public transport is often late is because of all the private transport we allow to block up our public roads. We need to remove lots of cars or we won't get anywhere (literally!)
 
Gordon Gekko said:
They’d attract more people if you could tap your debit or Revolut card.

I never have any cash which is a barrier to me getting buses.
Click to expand...
My own opinion is that would make very little difference. Has there been any study of it do you know?

In case it helps - prepaid leap cards work really well and can be set up to auto-top up from your bank when they run low - no maintenance required. There's a bit of set up needed initially but that's it.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
Personally I'd rather money was spent on a more reliable and faster service.

I'd happily pay €10 for a metro from city centre to the airport than crawl along on a Dublin Bus at a fraction of the price.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a question of spending money. I think it's a question of better using the road space available to us. The reason buses are unreliable is because of all the cars clogging up our roads - we need to address that urgently
 
I'm in Dublin, so have good public transport options. Unfortunately, it's usually cheaper for myself, wife and 3 kids to drive (paying for a little petrol and parking) than the cost of the return bus fare for us all for a trip to somewhere in the city. That always feels completely wrong - the incentives/disincentives should push everyone towards sustainable/public transport away from private cars.
 
Nothing is sustainable if the taxpayer ultimately has to stump up the cost of discretionary consumption by people who can ultimately well afford it.
 

Dead right Concrete - it's just wrong
 
As soon as a congestion charge is mentioned then people will cry about bad public transport. But then the public transport is held back by congestion. Chicken and egg situation. And those who are not willing to make any accomodation will cry the loudest. Need strong politicians to show some leadership. Not holding my breadth.
 
T McGibney said:
Nothing is sustainable if the taxpayer ultimately has to stump up the cost of discretionary consumption by people who can ultimately well afford it.
Click to expand...
I think maybe you misunderstood - the "/" in "sustainable/public transport" means "and or or". Sustainable transport (walking or cycling) is another alternative. I'm not here referring to public transport by "sustainable" (although it is unarguably more sustainable to move people around in shared transport than individually).
Anyway - I agree - you're right the taxpayer does have to stump up the many costs (respiratory diseases, congestion, hospital use by victims of car accidents, etc.) of all that discretionary private travel by people who can afford it.
 
Concrete said:
Anyway - I agree - you're right the taxpayer does have to stump up the many costs (respiratory diseases, congestion, hospital use by victims of car accidents, etc.) of all that discretionary private travel by people who can afford it.
Click to expand...
No, as private motoring is heavily taxed, it constitutes a huge net earner for the taxpayer, notwithstanding its obvious negative externalities.

On that basis, my original point clearly stands.

Concrete said:
Sustainable transport (walking or cycling) is another alternative.
Click to expand...
Expecting people to walk or cycle long distances as a matter of necessity is not a remotely sustainable strategy, especially on inadequate roads.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register