Fares

Popular Policy, Poor Outcomes: Why Cheap Fares Miss the Mark

Providing cheap public transport fares is a popular policy, but is it a good policy? This research by the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at the University of Sydney looks at what happened when the state of Queensland, Australia, implemented a low-cost flat fare.

Key Takeaways

• The study analysed survey data collected both before and after the introduction of a A$0.50 flat fare across all public transport modes.
• The fare applied across the entire state, regardless of the distance or the time of day travelled.
• Long-distance trips were more likely to see larger cost disparities before and after the fare policy was introduced between car and public transport alternatives.
• The low fare structure led to increased public transport trips due to induced demand.
• There was not much mode switching behaviour.
• The primary beneficiaries of the fare policy are younger, lower-income individuals and/or those who are already regular public transport users.
• These findings are consistent with the introduction of low or zero fare policies in other jurisdictions.

Comment

Free or low-fare policies are far from an optimum policy. They tend to be paid directly out of transport budgets. This means they often get paid for by, among other things, reducing or deferring service quality, such as coverage or frequency.

This has the consequence of making more people on low incomes car-dependent (a significant issue in Queensland), whilst benefitting those who already use public transport.

Additionally, the policies do little to reduce car use in our cities, as they fail to induce mode shift without other policies that discourage car use.

It would be far more cost-effective and deliver better outcomes to provide people on low incomes with targeted support for transport and use the savings to improve public transport services.

What next?

Have you modelled the impacts of different fare policies against a range of outcomes, such as equity, mode share shifts and service quality?

Road Safety

Amsterdam's 30km/h Experiment: The Results Are In

Last week, I looked at the data on Wales' 20mph zone. This week, I came across this report on Amsterdam's 30km/h speed limits, introduced in December 2023.

Key Takeaways

• Crashes declined from 926 to 823 (-11%) from 2023 to 2024 on roads that were slowed to 30km/h.
• The lower speed limit led to a slight decrease in traffic noise, with noise levels falling by 1.5 decibels. This decrease is imperceptible to the human ear.
• The limit had no observable positive or negative impact on air quality.
• CO2 emissions from traffic remained more or less the same.
• Analysis of journeys undertaken by the fire brigade and ambulances indicated that response times were the same after the 30 km/h speed limit was introduced.
• Travel times on most bus routes are now slightly longer. On average, the speed limit added over 80 seconds to a complete route.
• The lower speed resulted in additional travel time for other motorised traffic, increasing an average car journey by about 30 seconds – only 1% of total travel time.
• Road traffic volume remained more or less the same.
• There appears to be a strong increase in bicycle traffic (+9%). However, this was part of a broader trend and may not be due to the 30km/h limits.
• The majority (75%) of people who do not have access to a car have a favourable opinion of the measure, as do the majority (52%) of car owners. In total, six out of ten Amsterdam residents have a favourable opinion of the ‘30 km/h in the city’ measure. Approximately 10% of people who do not own a car and 30% of those who do have a negative or very negative opinion of the measure.

Comment

Central Amsterdam was already an outlier for cycling compared to many cities, so many of these findings may not be applicable elsewhere, where a 30km/h limit may have very different and possibly larger effects.

Even in Amsterdam, only a narrow majority of car owners support the slower speeds. In many jurisdictions, this number will be a minority, making the politics of copying Amsterdam's approach challenging. A more incremental approach, like London has done, may be a wiser political course in many places.

What Next?

How do the findings from Amsterdam impact your policies on road speed?

Logistics

From Chaos to Coordination: Tackling Fast Delivery Challenges

Fast home delivery has become a normal part of everyday life around the world. However, this convenience also has unintended consequences. This article on the World Economic Forum website discussed the challenges.

Key Takeaways

• By 2030, deliveries could account for 13% of urban transport emissions and drive a significant increase in vehicle numbers, exacerbating congestion, air pollution and pressure on public space.
• Some municipalities are implementing regulations, such as closing dark stores (distribution centres for super-fast delivery), introducing low-emission zones, or setting requirements for fleet electrification.
• The result is a fragmented ecosystem where rules not only differ from one city or neighbourhood to the next but also evolve in ways that are difficult to predict.
• To move forward, cities must develop structured and transparent frameworks that clearly outline how delivery services should interact with urban space.
• Amsterdam offers a strong model. From 2025, its zero‑emission zone bans polluting vans and trucks, with access rules tightening in phases until 2030, when only zero‑emission vehicles will be allowed.
• The approach is consistent across multiple Dutch cities, giving operators the clarity they need.
• Logistics infrastructure, such as curb space and urban consolidation hubs, are needed to reduce delivery emissions and congestion.
• Many cities lack the budget or political capital to build commercial logistics infrastructure. Strong policy visions often exist, but financing and implementation lag behind.
• Shared investment offers a pragmatic path forward: pooling resources, designing solutions together and aligning incentives, whether through joint ventures or public co-funding.
• Most urban authorities lack reliable data into the number of deliveries, the areas with the worst delivery congestion, and the types of vehicles on the road.
• Organisations such as the Open Mobility Foundation are helping cities and companies standardise how mobility data is collected and shared through open-source tools.

Comment

Fast deliveries are a significant and growing challenge for our transport systems. However, they rarely get the focus of decision makers, making it hard to appropriately prioritise the investments and infrastructure required to make it work more effectively.

Creating a policy approach that brings in investment from the private sector to fund, build and run logistics infrastructure and supports open data is a good way forward.

What next?

Do you have a strategy for dealing with the impact of fast deliveries?

Quick Adventures in Transport Wonderland

Here is what else I came across this week:

• The IPPR has conducted research into what the UK public wants from transport.
• New Zealand is adding petrol cars to its road user charging scheme.
• ​This research examined community perceptions of bicycle paths in cities new to cycling infrastructure.
• ​This article considers 8 dimensions that drive people's mobility choices.

Blog

Bridging Transport's Academic-Practitioner Divide

This week, my blog proposed an idea for helping to close the gap between transport research and practice.

Innovation

Cycling Signals

Starting in September, Berlin will be testing VeloFlow, a signaling system designed to help cyclists anticipate traffic lights. See here.