On Wednesday 2 April, all buses, trams and subways in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague stop for 110 seconds. A symbolic protest against the announced cut of 110 million on public transport in these cities. According to Hatte van der Woude, chairman of the OV-NL industry association, the public transport is at a turning point: “either we invest in a well-functioning public transport, or we have it slowly deteriorating. The choice is up to politics.”
Seven days later, action group Degoeduak explains that choice to the House of Representatives. With more than 46,000 signatures, they forced a debate about their proposal to “radically reform the OV”.
‘Bus lines lifted’
Because much is not going well with the Dutch public transport, according to Jurjen van den Bergh, founder and director of Degoedenak. For example, “10 percent of travelers suffer from transport poverty.” People are closed off from society because they cannot afford an public transport card.
According to Van den Bergh, there is “bus line after bus line”. This leaves the accessibility of public transport to be desired. A Report from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency From 2024 it shows that work, hospitals and supermarkets are increasingly difficult to reach. People get in the car rather. And “now the climate goals are under pressure”, according to Van den Bergh, the Netherlands must “make difficult choices for the climate.”
According to Degoedofak, there is a downward spiral. Carriers are struggling with high fixed costs and too few travelers, because public transport is experienced as unreliable and uncomfortable. This leads to less income, even higher costs, and even worse quality, which means that travelers drop out again. How do you break through that vicious circle? The action group proposes to fully put public transport in public hands and to lower ticket prices to zero.
But although free public transport sounds ideal, the question is: is it also payment and feasible?
The Dutch will even like to pay in the hope of never taking ‘benefit’!
Of all times
The debate about a free and accessible public transport is not new. In 1972 a book by politician Michiel van Hulten, from the Progressive-Christian party PPR, was published under the title ‘Free’ public transport. Just like Degoeduak now, Van Hulten argued fervently for “free” public transport because “the environment will continue to be polluted”, “freedom of displacement” and “transport poverty increases”.
‘Free’ was always written by Van Hulten in quotation marks, because according to him “free public transport does not exist and cannot exist.” The costs must shift from “the traveler who uses public transport” to “the civil taxpayer who gets public transport as a service (regardless of or how much he uses it).” He compared the public transport with the fire brigade, for which all Dutch people “even like to pay in the hope of never” benefit “!”.
View as a service
Both Van Hulten and DeGoeduak is mainly about viewing public transport ‘Different’. Van den Bergh: “Not as a subsidized sector that should be as cost -effective as possible, but as a necessary service.” Such as the fire brigade or the doctor.
Van Hulten is no stranger to Van den Bergh: “He even thought about this initiative through his book and conversations!” Yet the circumstances are now different than in the 1970s. Since 2000, public transport has been partly privatized. The government continued to steer, but the transport was tendered to commercial parties – with the aim of increasing quality and reducing costs.
Provinces determine the conditions and commercial carriers compete with each other. For example, market forces must ensure that public transport remains accessible and affordable.
According to Van den Bergh, the market forces in Dutch public transport failed. He sees “hardly any love” in politics The Hague for the privatized public sector. That is why, according to him, it is now time for the government to fully attract public transport. “Politics must again dare to think about public transport.”
Politics must again dare to think about public transport
‘Not conducive’
The enthusiasm about free public transport in the 1970s was unanimous. Van Hulten, although State Secretary for Transport, and Water Management was in the Den Uyl cabinet, public transport did not get his portfolio-he was seen as “politically radical”. The Minister of the same Ministry, the Catholic Tjerk Westerterp, doubted that free public transport would be affordable and called the plan ‘not conducive’.
And even now there is no consensus. According to transport economist Erik Verhoef (VU University), “market forces has also had positive effects. Public transport has become cheaper and more efficient.” According to Verhoef, the problem lies in how the tenders are set up: too much on cost savings, too little on quality. With what the economist de Winner’s Curse As a result: the carrier who brings in the work is not necessarily the best, but often the most optimistic.
According to Verhoef, the danger of competing with unrealistic plans has “as a result that buses are late or not at all because they have not yet been delivered.”
“The private nature is therefore not the problem, but the control of the system,” according to Verhoef.
Example country Estonia
In countries such as Estonia and Luxembourg, experiments are already being carried out with free public transport. Since 2013, the residents of Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, travel for free with the tram and bus and in 2019 this had to be rolled out in the rest of the country, under the leadership of the Head of Mobility Johann Peetre.
“We were not cheering when we saw this,” says Peetre. “In Tallinn it worked because only registered residents were allowed to travel for free – they paid through their municipal taxes.” That model even worked positively for the municipality: people registered more often and more money came in. “
But outside of Tallinn? “It worked in the small, controlled environment of the capital, but scaling up was not a success.” Out Estonian government data It appears that between 2014 and 2019, public transport use throughout the country grew by only 6.3 percent, while hardly any growth was visible at the local level. At the same time, car use continued to rise, especially among lower income groups: in the lowest income group, the share of commuters that travels with the car increased from 32 to 49 percent.
Free public transport, but therefore it appears that there is insufficient to get people out of the car. According to Peetre, many travelers weigh “accessibility and comfort heavier than the price.”
Peetre also warns: “If you make it free in good times, what do you do with a recession? Cut back on quality is obvious.” When it was chosen to abolish the free public transport – outside of Tallinn -, he was also happy that it was chosen to “not cut back on quality.”
According to him, public transport users did not mind having to pay again: “The number of travelers fell by a few percent.”
4 billion a year
Back to the Netherlands and DeDoakak. According to the action group, it costs around 4 billion euros a year to make public transport for free. Director of Degoeduak van den Bergh calls that amount “ambitious but realistic.” And: “It can be found on the budget of infrastructure and water management.”
But more is needed says Van den Bergh: “Only free public transport does not work, it is part of a larger whole.” Material, staff, infrastructure – everything must be expanded.
Mobility expert Arie Bleijenberg mentions free public transport for everyone: “shooting with a cannon on a mosquito”. Free or cheaper public transport is better used for specific groups and in off -peak hours. In The Hague and Tilburg, children and clients of a care institution have recently traveled in their region for free. According to Bleijenberg, that is much more efficient: “making public transport for everyone for free is a hugely inefficient way to do something about the poverty problem in the Netherlands.”
Improved accessibility has more effect according to Bleijenberg: “Six million people do not have a driver’s license and a quarter of households do not have a car. They depend on public transport. More night buses and new bus lines for this target group would help better.”
Peetre sees this in the studies he did for the Estonian government. “If you only want cheaper transport, make public transport for free.” Do you want to go for broad prosperity, get people out of the car and get the climate goals? “Then invest in quality.” All studies show: “Travelers want to travel quickly, comfortably and affordably.” And affordable does not have to be free.
Van den Bergh acknowledges the dangers, but also says that they only apply when free public transport is implemented isolated. That is why Degoakaak proposes a phased introduction, coupled with other measures such as account, where motorists pay for use. The more often, further or more polluting you drive, the more you pay. Van den Bergh: “This makes public transport more attractive and it remains affordable for everyone.”
Travelers want to travel quickly, comfortably and affordably
Chance of success
On Wednesday 9 April, Degoeduak will be in the plenary room of the Lower House to argue their citizens ‘initiative: “This is the first time that we as a citizens’ initiative ourselves in the plenary room of the Lower House”.
The State Secretary Chris Jansen (PVV) already responded in a letter to parliament. The State Secretary recognizes the social involvement of the action group and the signatories, but finds the proposal insufficiently substantiated to drastically change the policy. Van den Bergh remains optimistic: “Previously, a shift of 4 billion was unthinkable. Now 3.5 billion is being moved to Ukraine without much discussion.”
He also hopes for support from parties such as the BBB. “They have their mouths full of facilities in the region. Then you should embrace this.” He hopes that they also see “that it is not wise to finance the war industry with the scaling of the public sector.” So far, from that side he mainly has questions about the costs of the plan.
At the same time, he feels strengthened by the resistance to public transport cuts, also among MPs. “I hope they use this debate to seriously look at alternatives.”