Discounts on public transport did not reduce car use

The discounts that the Government introduced in public transport to mitigate the impact of the energy crisis did not achieve their second, parallel objective, of reducing CO2 emissions in cities. In general, according to a study by EsadeEcPol, there were no appreciable differences in the use of private vehicles in a city like Madrid, where public alternatives have more presence and, in addition, they received additional discounts from the municipal executive.. The free commuter passes had almost 700 million euros allocated in the General State Budgets.

Madrid is, therefore, “the best scenario”, as summarized in conversation with EL MUNDO by Natalia Collado, economist at EsadeEcPol and co-author of the study.. In other cities with “a less capillary transport network”, the result of the measures “would be worse” or would have “even less effect if we had found that there had been any,” he details.

On paper, the municipality of Madrid “could be especially favorable for the stated objective of the policy,” the study details.. “It has a remarkably dense public transportation network benefited by the subsidy, which was also expanded by an extra contribution from the regional government,” the document contextualizes.

Despite this, the report is equally blunt: “With the available evidence we cannot affirm that the subsidy for metropolitan rail transport has reduced the number of cars on the streets of Madrid”. Although the study was limited to Madrid – where there is more data and, in any case, the result should be more positive -, various controls were carried out by area to see if relevant deviations were detected.. No effect was detected in areas with greater traffic intensity, lower or higher income levels, main access roads to the city such as the M-30 or areas with better access to subsidized public transportation.

Furthermore, the authors of the study also recall that “even if we detected an increase in the volume of travelers on subsidized transport, this would not imply a 'promotion' of public transport compared to private vehicles”. The “real measuring stick,” they explain, “is in the use of the private vehicle.”

The analysis compares the traffic observed in the period of time in which the measure was in force with what would have been observed without this policy. “The difference between the estimated series and the real one is not statistically different from zero,” the report states.. Furthermore, they detail that the probability of obtaining this result randomly is very high and all of this leads to the conclusion that “the policy has not had a statistically significant observable effect, nor in a clear direction, on the use of private vehicles in Madrid.” .

Therefore, it can be concluded that the measure, whose stated objective was to reduce the use of private vehicles, failed.. However, assessments must be made. Regarding the objectives of reducing emissions, there is no data recorded that could be relied upon to draw a positive assessment.. However, when it comes to alleviating the energy crisis, any discount – and in this case they were considerable, ranging between 50% and 100% – is effective.

On the other hand, the report also describes how the measure benefits the highest incomes the most, something that has already happened with other aid presented as a solution to the energy crisis, such as the fuel bonus.. “The evidence tells us just that: that in some way these reductions benefit the lowest incomes, but they are not the most benefited,” Collado details.. This is illustrated, for example, by the case of people who travel on foot.. “Those who can walk in many cases are people for whom the opportunity cost of not making that trip on public transport or private transport is lower,” he explains.. That is, they are usually high-income people.

EsadeEcPol also lists possible solutions, both for the current situation and in the future, based on other studies. Collado mentions a survey of private vehicle users to understand what would motivate them to switch to public transport in which they responded that “the important thing is frequency, followed by speed and also intermodality.”. Basically, what they conclude is that a network in which you have to wait less time for transport, and that also allows, to the extent possible, to provide a door-to-door service, would be helpful in replacing the private vehicle.

In this sense, they also point out the policies of progressive rates or subsidies for low-income groups.. Here, from the other side of the policies, rates such as urban tolls also appear.. They are more effective than Low Emission Zones in reducing congestion and emissions and can be designed to tax higher-income people more. For example, it could be done by vehicle weight, since larger vehicles have more emissions and higher consumption and tend to belong to families with greater purchasing power.