Assessment 5: Argumentative Essay

Question: Should public transport be free?

This task consists of two parts: Section A and Section B.

Section A: Outline
Read the four texts about free public transport.
Using note-form, in your own words (with appropriate use of
paraphrasing), complete an outline for the essay question:

Question: Should public transport be free?

Your response should be

between 150 – 250 words. Do
not write a paragraph summary.
Your response must be in appropriate note-form.

Your outline will not contribute to your final mark. However it is

essential for you to complete this section so that your teacher can
provide you with feedback.

Section B: Argumentative Essay (Extended Essay)

Use the outline you have created from the texts in

Section A to write a formal argumentative essay:

Question: ‘Should public transport be free? ’

● Make reference to the material provided.

● You may also add ideas of your own.
● Use your own words.
● Write between 700 to 800 words.
● Use the formal conventions for an argumentative essay as studied in class.

1
 TEXT l

Free public transport is an attractive idea. But would it solve

our traffic woes?

Source: ABC News, 18th March, 2019.

Anthony Funnell
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-18/free-public-transport-do-pro
mises-stack-up/10893288

The promise of free public transport is an enticing one: fewer cars, less congestion, less
pollution and a greater sense of community, says Judith Dellheim from Berlin's Rosa
Luxemburg Foundation. "It could make the cities more human and more attractive," she
says. Dr Dellheim sees free public transport as a human right, not just a public good. "This is
a valid democratic issue because public transport brings people of very different social
groups together, it improves the social climate," she says.

But do the promises stack up? And would free fares really persuade people to embrace
public transport?

While most cities offer various concessions for public transport, no major urban centre has
opted to do away with ticketing. The exception is Luxembourg, which will abolish all fares
from next month. The European city-state is tiny, with just over 600,000 residents, but its
decision has drawn huge international interest. "It's possibly the first example of an entire
region, in this case a city-state, making public transport universally free," says public
transport advocate Tony Morton. "There have been experiments in the past where various
cities have introduced free public transport in their central areas. They've introduced systems
where maybe the city buses are free, but the trains aren't. Or they've made public transport
free for registered residents, but not necessarily for visitors. Luxembourg is the first example
at scale."

How successful the policy change will be won't be known for at least a couple of years, but it
is possible to make an assessment based on the experience of others.

In 2013, the Estonian capital Tallinn opted to abolish transport fares for all registered city
inhabitants, but not for tourists and other non-residents. The move was politically popular but
the results were mixed, according to Oded Cats from the Delft University of Technology. Dr
Cats, who spent several years evaluating the initiative, says there was only a moderate lift in

2
public transport patronage, with no corresponding decrease in car use or traffic congestion.
"People that already used public transport used it more frequently, as well as people shifting
from walking and cycling to using public transport for short trips, which is, of course, not a
desirable effect," he says.

While the policy has been socially beneficial for the unemployed and people on low incomes,
Dr Cats says the same level of assistance could have been provided through targeted
concessions. And he predicts Luxembourg's transport authorities will have a hard time
persuading people to give up their private vehicles. "About half the people working in
Luxembourg commute from neighbouring countries. Many people will have to still use legs of
a trip which extend beyond Luxembourg, meaning that the trip is not completely free," he
says. Existing workplace incentives, like employer-guaranteed parking spaces, will also
make eliminating private vehicle use difficult, he says.

Mr Morton, who is the president of Melbourne's Public Transport Users Association, is also
sceptical about the Luxembourg experiment, and about the broader notion that ticket pricing
is the main barrier to increased public transport usage. "We've tended to argue that public
transport needs to be cheap, but it doesn't necessarily have to be free," he says. He says
scrapping fares won't persuade people to embrace a service which they experience as
deficient or poorly run. "We haven't really made public transport a viable, attractive mode of
travel for people living in the suburbs of our capital cities," he says. "The question of how
much it costs to get on the bus or on the train is not even relevant because that bus or train
service doesn't exist where they are."

Transport economist Ansgar Wohlschlegel warns the introduction of free public transport
could have negative results if it isn't paired with complementary measures aimed at driving
down car ownership. "Once people start moving from car driving to using public transport,
then the roads get less congested, therefore car driving becomes more attractive again, and
therefore new people may start using the car to drive into the city because now the roads are
clearer," he says. And that, says Dr Wohlschlegel, could ultimately result in the worst of all
outcomes: increased public transport demand, coupled with an eventual increase in car
traffic.

Dr Cats agrees. What's most important, he says, is making car use more expensive during
those parts of the day associated with congestion. "That has to do with parking fees; in city
centres it has to do with congestion charging, with fuel taxes — unpopular measures, of
course, but those are the most effective measures for reducing congestion," he explains.
"Secondly, improving the quality of public transport, specifically at those times of the day in
those areas, and building very strong, high-capacity urban rail systems."

For international transport consultant Jarrett Walker, demand-responsive pricing is

fundamental to the efficient movement of commuters in already congested cities. "Public
transport agencies need to encourage people to travel outside rush hour if they can,

3
because service at rush hour is very expensive, and outside of rush hour you have surplus
capacity," he says. Fares, he says, are a simple and effective means of limiting rush-hour
movements. But he argues for greater flexibility in non-peak times.

Mr Walker says making travel free during those periods could help spread demand more
evenly and have a positive social impact, particularly for those on low incomes. "They are
more likely to be travelling all over the clock, and they are least likely to be travelling into the
city in the morning and out of the city in the afternoon," he says. "It's the difference between
having a job in a bank and having a job at Hungry Jack's or at McDonald's, or something like
that, where you are coming and going all over the clock."

Looking forward, Mr Morton argues we need a more realistic conversation about the cost of
investing in better public transport, balanced against the enormous amounts of public money
spent enlarging and extending road networks. "The stated motivation for not wanting to
expand public transport and to boost its use is that public transport is a drain on public funds,
whereas it is thought that roads somehow pay for themselves," he says. "Now, roads do not
pay for themselves. There's actually quite a substantial public subsidy for the road transport
system as well."

For Dr Dellheim it all comes back to one thing. "When the whole of society is fixed on cars,
then of course the whole life of the society, the whole economy of the society, is oriented on
the car industry and car use," she says. "So, it means that it's necessary to rebuild the whole
life of the society, to show the people that there are different possibilities, and then you see
that there is a real desire to change the mode of life of the society."

But whether free public transport is one way of doing that remains an arguable point.

4
 TEXT 2

Would you ditch your car if public transport was free?

Here’s what researchers have found.

Enrica Papar, Senior Lecturer in Transport Planning, University of Westminster

Source: The Conversation, 6th March, 2020.
https://theconversation.com/would-you-ditch-your-car-if-public-transport-wa
s-free-heres-what-researchers-have-found-133001

Would you ditch your car if public transport was free? Here’s what researchers have found

Luxembourg recently became the first country in the world to make all public transport free.
As of March 1 2020, all buses, trains and trams throughout the country can be boarded
without paying a fare – the largest area to introduce free public transport for both residents
and tourists so far.

Free public transport, however, isn’t a new idea. Cities and towns have been experimenting
with it since 1960 – Luxembourg merely secured the title of the first country to roll it out
nationwide. Today, at least 98 cities and towns around the world have some form of free
public transport. In some areas, only residents can use it, or certain groups, such as senior
citizens.

It’s often introduced to encourage people to use their cars less – reducing congestion in
cities and lowering air pollution and carbon emissions. But does it work? Economists tend to
argue that free public transport is irrational and uneconomical because it generates “useless
mobility”. This means that people will choose to move more simply because it’s free,
increasing the costs of transport operators and subsidies for local authorities, while
ultimately increasing emissions from public transport.

Perhaps it’s no surprise that introducing free public transport increases the number of people
using it. Strong passenger growth has been reported everywhere free public transport has
been introduced, and the effects are more evident after several years. Research has also
found that when fares are removed, only a small number of people who previously travelled
by car make the switch. New passengers attracted by it tend to be pedestrians and cyclists
rather than car drivers. The picture from most cities where free public transport has been
introduced is that the increased passenger numbers overwhelmingly come from people who
might have walked, cycled or not travelled otherwise. Three years after fares were abolished
in Estonia’s capital, Tallinn, the number of bus passengers increased from 55% to 63%,
while car journeys decreased only slightly (from 31% to 28%), together with walking (from
12% to 7%). Cycling (1%) and others (1%) remained the same.

5
Experts from the Cosmopolis Centre in Brussels agree that the effects of free public
transport on car traffic levels are marginal, arguing that by itself free public transport cannot
significantly reduce car use and traffic, or improve air quality. So what can? Well, the
researchers found that the behaviour of motorists and the transport mode they choose
depends very little on public transport fares. Rather than relying on free public transport to
engineer the shift, a more effective way to reduce the number of people choosing to drive
could be regulating car use. Increasing the cost of parking, congestion charging, or
increasing fuel taxes could all be combined with free fares to lower car demand.

How successful fare abolition is at tempting people to use buses and trams depends on the
quality of the service. Cleaner and more reliable public transport must be a prerequisite for
these schemes if buses and trams are to compete with the car, and making it part of a wider
investment plan could have a big impact on the sustainability of transport. Fare removal can
help to make public transport visible as a valid alternative to the car in cities where many
residents might have forgotten about it over time, due to chronic underinvestment.

Free public transport may not be effective for making transport sustainable on its own, but it
can have plenty of other benefits that make it worthwhile. It can be a progressive social
policy, guaranteeing and improving access to public transport for diverse groups that might
otherwise struggle to get around.

TEXT 3

Free public transport trial across Australia for 12 months would cost
$2.2 billion, Greens say.

Henry Belot
Source: The Guardian, 6th April, 2023.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/06/free-public-transport-trial-across-a
ustralia-for-12-months-would-cost-22bn-greens-say

Giving all Australians access to free public transport for one year would cost the federal
budget $2.2bn, according to an independent costing of the Greens’ proposal.

The Greens’ transport spokeswoman, Elizabeth Watson-Brown, said a 12-month trial of free
fares would provide cost-of-living relief while significantly reducing carbon emissions. “This is
not just a cost-of-living measure, it has social and environmental benefits as well – helping
get cars off the road, cutting down on traffic congestion and transport emissions, which are

6
the fastest growing source of carbon pollution in the country,” she said. Light vehicles
account for about 11% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to federal
government analysis.

Costings by the Parliamentary Budget Office predict the policy would likely increase the
number of people using public transport and leaving their car at home, but didn’t factor that
into the $2.2bn figure. The 12-month trial is not government policy and is being proposed as
ministers warn of budget constraints and significant expenditure, including on the National
Disability Insurance Scheme and the estimated $368bn acquisition of nuclear-powered
submarines.

But Watson-Brown said the $2.2bn bill for free public transport was one-seventh of the
projected $17.1bn cost of stage-three tax cuts in their first year. The Greens MP said Opec’s
decision to cut oil production by about 1.15m barrels a day, in addition to earlier cuts,
highlighted the need for governments to make transport cheaper. “We’re in a cost-of-living
crisis, and with petrol prices set to spike again in May, the cost of getting from A to B is
putting more and more pressure on already struggling households,” Watson-Brown said.
“Long-term, we need to invest in a major expansion of our public transport networks, but a
trial of free public transport can be implemented immediately by the federal government and
help people right now.”

There is international precedent for the policy. In 2018, the French city of Dunkirk made
public transport free for its 200,000 residents. Malta and the Estonian capital of Tallinn have
announced similar schemes. Last week, fares on regional Victorian train lines were slashed
from more than $40 for a return ticket to a cap of $9.20, with concessional fares reduced to
$4.60. The state opposition proposed cutting fares to $2 a day, claiming that could cost
$1.3bn over four years.

Watson-Brown said a 12-month national trial would shift attitudes towards public transport
and start treating it as “a collective right, much like public schools and hospitals. We don’t
expect public schools and hospitals to raise their own revenue from users, so why should we
expect differently of public transport? In many ways public transport fares are a regressive
tax for what should be a social right.”

7
 TEXT 4

All aboard! Should public transport be free for everyone?

Ben Knight
Source: University of New South Wales Newsroom, 13th March, 2023.
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/social-affairs/all-aboard-should-public-transport-be-free
-everyone

More cities worldwide are experimenting with zero-fare public transport.

Are you tired of forking out hundreds of dollars monthly on buses, trains, and light rail? You
may not have to pay for those trips in the future, as more places around the world consider
ditching tickets in favour of free public transport policies.

Luxembourg was the first country to make all forms of public transport free in 2020.
Germany is one of the latest to consider cutting fares permanently after a successful trial of
a €9 ($A14) monthly ticket reduced air pollution levels and increased ridership. Even cities
in Australia like Melbourne have a zone where tram journeys are free.

Dr Mike Harris, lecturer in urban design and landscape architecture from the School of Built
Environment at UNSW Arts, Design & Architecture, says ditching fares has many other
benefits for cities and citizens. “One of the ideas is it encourages more drivers to leave their
cars at home and switch to more economical and environmentally friendly modes of mass
transit,“ Dr Harris says. “But removing fares is another way to help people with the rising
cost of living and improve equitable access to mobility.”

But in truth, there isn’t such a thing as a ‘free’ public transport system – it must be funded
from somewhere. Instead, such systems are often supported by means other than
collecting funds from passengers.

Dr Harris likens the idea to how Medicare operates. It’s a publicly funded service people
contribute to through their taxes, but some may use it more than others. “Public transport
could arguably be considered a similar universal basic service, but for mobility,” Dr Harris
says. “When you eliminate fares, it emphasises that public transport serves the public. It
shouldn’t be measured on whether it is profitable, but by how it improves quality of life for
people.”

Most mass transit systems worldwide are already covered to some extent by public funding.
In New South Wales (NSW), about a quarter of the cost of public transport is covered by

8
fares, with taxpayers subsidising the remaining costs. “It would be possible to reduce ticket
prices further by increasing subsidisation. It’s just a matter of how much,” Dr Harris says.

An alternative to subsidising transport costs for those who can afford it anyway would be to
charge cheaper flat rates or waive fees for those on low incomes or in areas where public
transport is available but underused. “It’s probably more common than you think for people
on lower incomes to limit their public transport usage because the costs add up,” Dr Harris
says. “So, for them, not having to pay would be one less cost. But more than that, it opens
many more opportunities to travel where they need, when they need.”

Dr Harris argues that broader economic benefits may also offset revenue shortfalls from
slashing ticket prices. In NSW, the decision to waive public transport fares in April last year
saw a spike in trips and consumer spending across the CBD. “Congestion on the roads
costs the economy nearly $20 billion annually from people wasting time in traffic,” Dr Harris
says. “More of those people using public transport means increases the activity happening
in cities, which helps bring those losses down.”

While free travel may not get everyone to leave their vehicles in the driveway, it will still
convert some of those trips into public transport journeys. But even a marginal decrease in
cars on the road could still make an impact. “There will always be those who need to drive.
But even taking a small portion of those cars off the road eases congestion for those who
need to drive,” Dr Harris says. “It also opens opportunities to turn some more road space
into active transport infrastructure for those who want to cycle and walk, which reduces
congestion even further.”

But eliminating fares is only one part of the equation. The quality of services, like the
frequency, reliability, and scale of coverage, is key to enticing more people away from cars.
“To attract and accommodate more riders, fare reduction needs to be accompanied by more
investment in increasing quality services to avoid issues like overcrowding and schedule
disruptions,” Dr Harris says.

Another part of improving services is catering to a broader range of needs and users. In
addition to making all forms of public transport free, the NSW Greens also want pets
permitted to ride too. Most places in Europe, including the UK, allow pets to travel on a lead
or in carriers. “Every member of the public should be able to use public transport regardless
of their means. Nobody should be excluded because it is simply too expensive or because
they have a pet,” Dr Harris says. “Even if it’s not entirely fare-free, making public transport
fares much more affordable would still improve the liveability of our cities for people and
help them run more smoothly.”