Public transport should be free for all passengers, paid for entirely through taxation. There is an appealing simplicity to this idea, and several cities have experimented with it. I largely disagree that fares should be abolished universally, although I accept that there is a strong case for free travel for particular groups such as students and pensioners.
Proponents argue that removing fares would encourage people to leave their cars at home, reducing congestion and emissions. Fare collection is itself expensive, requiring ticket machines, gatehouses and enforcement staff, so abolishing it could free resources for better services. Tallinn, the Estonian capital, has offered free public transport to registered residents since 2013, and supporters credit the policy with encouraging lower-income households to make more regular journeys.
However, free services tend to be a poor use of public money when they are not targeted. Wealthy commuters would benefit as much as anyone else, while the cost would be shouldered by taxpayers, including many who rarely use buses or trains. Moreover, when a service costs nothing, it becomes harder to justify investment in its quality, and crowding and delays may worsen if demand rises faster than capacity. Modest fares also give passengers a direct stake in the service and a measure of accountability for its performance.
A more sensible approach would be to keep fares for most passengers while offering reduced or free travel to those in genuine need. Subsidies that keep fares affordable, rather than eliminating them altogether, would allow governments to channel resources where they are most needed while still generating revenue for maintenance and expansion.
In short, the goal of encouraging public transport use is laudable, but universal free travel is a blunt instrument. Well-designed concessions and sustained investment in reliability will achieve far more than a policy that treats every journey as a public entitlement.