Broader impacts of the fare-free public transportation system in Tallinn

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we focus on the rationale for implementing the fare-free public transportation system (FFPTS) in Tallinn, Estonia, that took place on 1 January 2013. Through a series of interviews with relevant informants, we identify the main enablers and the FFPTS in Tallinn faced and the potential of such a system to contribute to the sustainable city development. Our analysis shows that the interlinking between local and national politics determines not only the type of initiatives implemented and the support they receive but also the degree of their success and their stability. We conclude that to be even more effective, it should be extended to the all potential users, not just to local registered residents as it has been recently applied in state-run bus travels in rural municipalities in Estonia. Finally, more restrictive private car policies should be considered to fuel a sustainable mobility transition and increase cities life quality.

KEYWORDS:

• Public transport
• fare free
• mobility
• urban environment
• transport policy

1. Introduction

From the perspective of creating sustainable cities, private, motorized transport is a major concern due to the large amounts of resources it hoards, especially in terms of land and investments; it impacts the quality of the urban environment, where air and noise pollution, traffic congestion, and accidents are the most relevant concerns (Mercier et al. 2016). Measures to reduce the use of private motorized transport in cities may involve restrictions in car use, car access and car parking, or incentives to use public transport (PT) like dedicated bus lines, park and ride facilities, or fare subsidies (Fearnley 2013). The use of free-fare PT as a reductive measure has been gaining attention in recent years. The current analysis looks at the implementation of a fare-free public transportation system (FFPTS) for all registered inhabitants of Tallinn, Estonia. To better understand the process of adoption of new transport policy, we apply a multi-level model as an analytical framework. This way we encompass not only the technologies and infrastructures, but also the cultural discourses, transportation user patterns, and the way they interact in social transition. We aim to shed a light on the specific drivers and obstacles of adopting the FFPTS in Tallinn and to assess the effects of the policy on traffic mobility and the urban environment as well as the limitations of a FFPT policy.

1.1. Multi-level perspective on socio-technical change

The multi-level perspective (MLP) is a systematic framework to understand complex socio-technical systems and their transitions that includes the determinants of stability and change (Geels 2002). MLP structures the analysis around the socio-technical regime niches (where novel ideas and practices emerge) and the socio-technical landscape (Geels and Schot 2010; Geels 2012). Regimes consist of formal rules and institutions backed with values and norms, as well as technical knowledge and capabilities that support the system (Geels 2014, pp. 266–267). Novel technologies often emerge in niches as they are protected spaces inside regimes that allow certain ideas to develop and materialize. Alternatives to existing socio-technical systems are being proposed, developed, and tried out by pioneers, entrepreneurs, social movements, and other relevant outsiders. Based on strong interests, non-governmental organizations, entrepreneurs, or the scientific community may push for the sustainability transitions (Hood et al. 2001). However, it may take time for their full acceptance and spread because they are often more expensive, require changes in user practices, are mismatched with existing regulations, or lack an appropriate infrastructure. Such socio-technical systems can gain momentum if the vision is clearly articulated and broadly accepted by a larger network of actors (especially powerful actors who bring legitimacy and additional resources).

The socio-technical landscape encompasses the wider context, which includes spatial structures, political ideologies, societal concerns, media landscape, and macro-economic trends that may favour or impede the support of new socio-technological regimes (Geels 2005). In Eastern European countries, the non-governmental environmental organizations have had a restively modest role in shaping sustainability debates and transitions (Orru and Rothstein 2015). Spatial structures, including the urban form (the density and distribution of homes to work sites), affect travel behaviour in ways that enable or inhibit low carbon travel (Clark et al. 2016; Naess 2012). In particular, compact urban areas support the adoption of sustainable transport solutions, reduce the length of the distances travelled by residents due to diversity in land use, and increase accessibility to destinations (Holden and Norland 2005; Ewing and Cervero 2010; Lefèvre 2009).

Existing mobility systems can be characterized by stability, lock-in and path dependence, which give rise to incremental change along predictable trajectories. A change in automobility can also be inhibited by sunk investments in spatial infrastructures; vested interests (industry, car lobby, road lobby), and or by beliefs of established actors (e.g. transport planners, policy makers, industry actors) that take existing practices for granted and legitimate the status quo (Geels 2012). Lock in mechanisms can be embedded in shared beliefs that make actors blind to developments outside their scope. Most incumbent actors do not work actively towards (radical) low carbon transitions since resource use and its related effects are not at the top of their problem rankings. There are overall trends in public concern over climate change that have promoted reductions in CO₂ emission through the provision of better PT as local transport policy makers focusing more on climate change (Reckien et al. 2014). Different innovations that have helped to modernize PT are indicative of an increasing political support of climate change policy since the late 1990s (Harman et al. 2012).

1.2. Fare-free public transportation and incentives for its implementation

The roots of FFPTS can be traced back to the 1970s when the initial idea was proposed along with a variety of measures aimed at improving sustainability in cities around Europe and USA with the example of the ‘Red Bologna’ (Tira and DeRobertis 2018) and the Bologna Declaration of 1974 (Jäggi 2018). It was also brought up about as a reaction to fare increases like the Montreal Citizens Movement in the mid-1970s (Prince 2018) or the Red Dot Campaigns of Hanover in 1969 and Dortmund in 1971 (Dellheim 2018). A resurgence of FFPTS initiatives has come from new movements like the Planka.nu in Sweden (Nygård 2018), which primarily arose from social equality and environmental concerns, but also was against increases in bus transport fees. Similar trends have been seen in the ‘Revolted do Buzu’ and ‘Revolta da Catraca’ in Brazil (Aftimus and Santini 2018). Altogether, examples of FFPTS can be found in 97 cities and towns worldwide, of which 56 are found in Europe, primarily in Poland (21) and France (20) (Kębłowski 2018a).

1.2.1. Economic incentives

Next to environmental incentives, there are also economic and social benefits from PT. Benefits from an increase of PT users yields increased productivity derived from reductions in traffic congestion, the improved well-being of drivers (Baum 1973, p. 13), and improved transportation service due to more routes and more departures (Fearnley 2013). As the benefits from PT in terms of increase in city life quality (health, time saves, infrastructures, etc.) are more spread between individuals and public institutions, the costs assumed by local authorities have to be detracted from other public investments (Tomanek 2017) unless an equal (or higher) sum is obtained by the municipality from other sources (local taxes, state transfers, etc.). If there is an increase in PT users, however, other costs must be considered such as those derived from an increase in the staff and capacity of PT (rolling stock and fixed facilities) or the costs of fuel and power maintenance. In some cases, as in Hasselt (Belgium), where the expenditure related to maintenance of PT increased more than 10 times after the introduction of FFPTS, the city authorities cancelled the zero tariffs (for above 19-year-olds) in 2013, after 15 years of FFPT (Tomanek 2017).

On a positive note, the implementation of the FFPTS can act as a marketing for the city to gain notoriety in the context of wide-ranging urban development (by an example of Templin Storchmann 2003; Hasselt by Brie 2018). In Templin (Germany), this marketing effect has been responsible, in part, for a 33% increase in overnight stays over 2 years (Stadt Templin 2000).

1.2.2. Social incentives

FFPT increases the mobility of people and may facilitate related social interaction and economic activity. More recent reviews indicate that after free-fare introduction, PT passenger can grow from a modest 20–30% up to a 10- or 13-fold increase (Fearnley 2013). Experiments in the USA and Canada saw increases of 30–60% (Tomanek 2017). The results of introducing a FFPTS in European cities have shown that for example in Hasselt (Belgium) ridership increased 10-fold with 37% of new trips attributed to new users. In addition, the network in Hasselt has increased from four bus routes in 1996 to nine bus routes in 2000. This has increased the per capita trips from five trips per year in 1997 to 65 trips in 2013 (Fearnley 2013, p. 80). In Templin (Germany), a 12-fold increase in the number of passengers meant an increase from three trips per capita to about 37 within a few years (Fearnley 2013, p. 80). In Aubagne (France), within the 12 municipalities that introduced FFPTS, the number of passengers doubled from 1.9 million in 2008 to over 4.8 million passengers in 2014, and with the opening of a tram line in 2015 it rose to 5.5 million (Kębłowski 2018b).

Providing subsidies for general users or fee-exemption for specific groups (like the elderly, the young/students, etc.) is a widely accepted practice in most PT systems. With FFPTS, the access to mobility improved for segments of the population that are less well-off like women, the elderly, students, and low-income households (Fearnley 2013). In Hasselt, the likelihood of switching to PT has differed among societal groups (being higher for hospital and local market visitors, mainly aged over 45 years, and students). In Templin, the increase in passenger numbers was largely due to children and young people (especially for travelling to school in the morning); in the afternoons, the elderly were the main user group (Hofmann 2002). In Aubagne, ridership among different groups (younger, commuters, and non-residents) has increased and the FFPTS has been found to be especially convenient for the elderly, unemployed mothers, young people, and beyond that is has also managed to foster social diversity and intergenerational relations (Zobel 2009).

Almost half a century ago, in a review of transport studies Baum (1973) found that with the implementation of FFPTS increases of trips in PT due to work, business, or social purposes would be negligible. In a recent review, David et al. (2018) indicate that even when PT use increases in cities that have experienced FFPTS they have not observed, however, significant reductions in automobile pressure. Advocates of FFPTS claim that even when aged sections of the PT users are exempted from fares, a large proportion of the remaining PT users are working-class individuals who must devote a significant part of their income to PT fees (Tomanek 2017; Ray 2018; Rosenfeld 2018). There is a market segment of cost-sensitive commuters who can be persuaded to switch to PT. For less cost-sensitive commuters, the switch needs to be motivated by improved public transportation services that reduce potential transportation obstacles.

As Baum, Fearnley also argues that motorist’s behaviour and mode choice depend very little on PT fares (Fearnley 2013). Kilani and Houassa (2018) also claim that tariff reforms targeting the reduction of private car use alone do not have a net positive effect However, experiences from the USA show that FFPTS brought about 5–30% transitions from the use of other motorized systems (mainly cars) to PT (Tomanek 2017). In Hasselt, the effects of switching from private car trips to PT accounted for 16% of total PT trips (Lambrechts 2005; Tomanek 2017). Opponents of FFPTS claim fare-free PT attracts only cyclists and pedestrians, however, in Aubagne, it has been estimated that among passengers that began to use collective transport only after the fares were abolished, only 20% had previously walked and 10% cycled (Kębłowski 2018b, p. 107).

This paper explores the implementation of a FFPTS for all inhabitants registered as residents in Tallinn, Estonia. We first describe the selected case study and the methods. We then move on to analyse the FFPTS in Tallinn from the perspective of socio-technical transitions. We conclude by expanding on the relevance of the multi-level drivers of change towards sustainable transportation in urban areas.

2. Research methodology

2.1. Selected case study and characterization – Tallinn

Tallinn is the capital of Estonia and home to about 450 thousand residents, which makes one out of every three Estonians. Analysis of the ecological footprint of Estonian households showed that energy use from private cars and public transportation is highest among residents of the metropolitan Tallinn, Tartu, and Pärnu regional centres; in smaller towns and rural areas, transportation emissions are smaller (Poom et al. 2014). Compared to Tallinn and its relatively good public transportation network, poor service in urban sprawl areas has left the car as the only feasible travel option for many people in Estonia (Orru et al. 2019). The wide variety of attraction points, the spread-out territory of Tallinn, and higher economic power of its inhabitants, may encourage more frequent car use in the capital (Poom and Ahas 2016). It is the largest European city and the only capital city to have implemented FFPT. The FFPTS was made available only for residents to generate tax revenues to increase Tallinn’s finances by increasing registered residents (Fearnley 2013, p. 84). Consequently, the case of Tallinn is also particular because the ticket system has still been maintained (Tomanek 2017). Cats et al. (2017) conducted a modal shift analysis with a comparison of pre- and post-FFPT implementation. Their data suggest that between 2012 and 2013, almost a year after the introduction of FFPT, PT usage increased from an already high level of 55% to 63% while car usage declined from 31% to 28% and the use of walking as a primary means of transport declined from 12% to 7%. The results also show that user groups vary considerably, with people in the 15–19 and 60–74 age groups, people on very low incomes (up to €300 net/month), and the unemployed using PT more often (Cats et al. 2017). Before the introduction of a FFPTS in Tallinn, the fare box recovery rate (the proportion of PT operational costs that was covered by ticket sales) was 33%.

2.2. Methods

The current study takes the MLP framework to analyse the implementation and outcomes of FFPTS as a socio-technical transition towards the sustainable urban transport. We study FFPTS implementation using a mixed-methods approach. To conduct our analysis of FFPTS as a socio-technical transition we examined legislative acts, strategic documents such as activity plans, and statistical reports on passengers and environmental indicators (Tallinn Transport Department and Estonian Environment Agency). Furthermore, we interviewed relevant informants to identify the FFPTS policy design, implementation, and evaluation.

For the qualitative analysis, we conducted 10 semi-structured qualitative interviews with key informants. The interviews took place in Tallinn in December 2015 were conducted face to face in English and were recorded. Our key informants were from the main local and national authorities responsible for transportation and or environmental planning as well as academia and major think tanks and were approached by e-mail (see Table A1 inAppendix for detailed information). Key informant or elite interview is often the most effective way to obtain information about decision-makers and decision-making processes when the respondent is the expert in the topic at hand (Burnham et al. 2008).

The interviews began with a set of questions about the origins of the FFPTS in Tallinn, such as who had promoted the system, where did the idea come from, and if it had faced any opposition. A second set of questions focused on: system implementation; the extent to which it challenged legislation, regulation, and user patterns; technical issues related to the implementation (passes, bus-lines, vehicles); security. A third section of the interview asked about the impact of FFPTS on traffic (overall, city access, city centre, residential areas, rush hour), pollution (air quality, CO₂ emissions), and mobility (new PT lines, improved service quality). Finally, the interviewees were asked to reflect on the associated opportunities and challenges and to make an overall evaluation of the FFPTS. The interviews were recorded as audio files to allow for later listening to extract the detailed content of the responses. Responses were coded and transcribed for thematic analysis. This content was organized according to the categories in the interview guide.

3. Results and discussion

Since Estonian re-independence in the 1990s, the transportation landscape of Tallinn has remained relatively stable. In fact, there has been a smooth growth of private transport leading to a steady reduction in PT. From 1990 to 2012, the share of PT trips had decreased by more than 30%, although the modal split (the percentage of travellers using a particular type of transportation or number of trips using said type) before implementation of the FFPTS still favoured PT with a market share in 2009 of 40%, ahead of walking (30%), and private car (26%) (CIVITAS MIMOSA report¹). At the same time, motorization rates had more than doubled during the same period to 425 cars per 1000 residents in 2012. At the landscape level, there were increasing demands for sustainable transport alternatives, which challenged the status quo in the modal split at both the local level (environmental movements) and the supra-national level (EU environmental policy).

As we can reconstruct from the interviews, in January 2012 the mayor of Tallinn, Edgar Savisaar, reintroduced the idea of a FFPTS for Tallinn which had been part of Estonian political discussion for some time. As pioneers in sustainability issues, Tallinn’s former mayor, Hardo Aasmäe, and the green party had already proposed such a system in 2010, and the social-democrats had suggested the system for another city in Estonia (Tartu). However, these novel ideas did not find fertile ground with the existing regime. These proposals were not considered formally by Tallinn’s transport authority until 2012, when Savisaar placed it firmly on Tallinn’s political agenda by proposing an opinion poll or ‘referendum’, which duly took place in March of that year. Twenty per cent of Tallinn’s residents participated in the consultation, 75% of whom favoured the introduction of a FFPTS in Tallinn. Following the referendum, the city council gave its approval for the idea (Aas 2013).

3.1. Gaining political support

The consultation process (opinion poll or referendum) run by the municipality was not legally binding; it was seen by its advocates as necessary but by its opponents as propaganda. Critics claim that this new policy is based on a ‘populist’ move by those in power to ensure re-election. As one interviewed expert put it: ‘There is an obvious link between this measure (FFPTS) and the local elections 18 months ahead of the launch of the proposal by Mayor Edgar Savisaar’. The interviewed council members do not deny that the decision was politically based, and it was probably effective in achieving a fourth mandate for the party with a majority in the municipality. The interviewees highlighted the incentive to increase political support for the Central Party throughout Estonia. The Central Party that runs Tallinn stands in opposition at the national level. Thus, understanding the specificities of Estonian political alliances is crucial to understand not only the political opportunity of this proposal but also the support and resistance it encountered.

3.2. External triggers

The emergence of this political opportunity was operationally supported by the availability of EU funds and knowhow. The political move was reinforced by the EU-wide project CIVITAS MIMOSA, which Tallinn was involved in. The purpose of Civitas Mimosa is to catalyze different sustainable transport innovations across Europe by, so-to-say, breaking the lock-in and path dependencies of private-car mobility. According to the CIVITAS SMILE project, the primary goal of the FFPTS in Tallinn was to interrupt the decline in the use of collective passenger transport services in Tallinn. It was also aimed at preventing a further decrease in PT usage by increasing efficiency and speed in addition to improving the image of collective passenger transport. The indirect goal was to decrease car traffic and congestion in the city centre and to reduce the use of fossil fuels and emissions (CIVITAS SMILE project, p. 1). To fulfil these objectives, alongside the FFPTS, several other measures sought to support the transition to more sustainable transportation. In addition to free transportation, the following measures were introduced to make the use of PT more attractive and efficient: (1) bus priority lanes (before 2012, there were only 12 km of lanes and these did not cross the city centre); (2) trams and trolleybuses merging with buses under the same management unit; (3) installation of traffic control equipment; (4) introduction of a contactless green card (‘ühiskaart’, a card passengers are required to scan before while boarding so local authorities can monitor the use of PT); (5) adjusted traffic control, such as new one-way streets with two-way traffic for PT, removal of car traffic from tram tracks, and double lines to limit parking; (6) automatic passenger counting in some vehicles to provide information on passenger flows and optimize timetables; (7) acquisition of new vehicles (trams and buses) with CO₂ quotas; (8) renovation of the tramway; and (9) establishment of ‘Park & Ride’ facilities.

Another significant trigger has been the availability of funds for financing the new transport. In recent years, an important part of Estonia’s revenues from CO₂ quota selling² has been invested in acquiring new vehicles such as electric cars (from Japan for use by state social workers), buses and trams (from Spain). Some interviewees commented that the state government had not originally planned to supply the Tallinn PTS with new vehicles as Tallinn was the only city in Estonia with trams, but they ended up receiving new trams anyway. This prioritization of trams has been at the expense of investment into trolleybuses. The local government has partly replaced the existing trolleybuses with hybrid buses in order to cut the investments to of the electric trolley infrastructure. Consequently, the status quo is reinforced by sunk investments in infrastructures for private cars.

A holistic approach to the whole transportation regime would be an advisable strategy for a more effective transition and enable benefitting from synergies between different measures. However, due to problems with its implementation may not break the lock-in and path dependencies of private-car mobility.

3.3. Opposition by representatives of sunk investments

Such drastic infrastructural changes did not bypass the attention of opposition against the increasing prioritization of public transportation. At the local level, some car drivers lobbied unsuccessfully to challenge the bus priority lane, arguing that it went against freedom of movement. As it was reported, the central government was also questioned about the legitimacy of developments, in terms of whether financing the FFPTS should be considered an external subsidy. As one interviewee explained: ‘We know there were consultations with the European Commission to interfere with the FFPTS’. At the EU level, however, it is not considered an external subsidy and was not opposed. Also revenues from CO₂ quota selling could be devoted to new vehicles because within the EU regulation revenues from quota selling is neither seen as a subsidy nor tax payer’s money.

An example of user resistance is the criticisms towards implementation of the ühiskaart, which the local authorities use to monitor the use of PT. Ühiskaart substitutes the Estonian ID to store the abonnement. Some interviewees noted that this was an ‘inconvenience’ for residents that could have been avoided.

3.4. Lack of coordinated mobility plan

For advocates of PT, several measures (e.g. PT priority lanes, signalling systems, info screens) were undertaken and the FFPTS was aligned with them to increasing the share of PT by improving the mobility and attractiveness of PT. One of the criticisms of FFPTS is that while serving the goals and targets set in the EU project CIVITAS MIMOSA, Tallinn lacked its own coordinated mobility plan. As one interviewee put it: ‘There is no public strategy on the transport policy in Tallinn’. One example of the disjointed policies is that the FFPTS only applies to registered Tallinn residents and, therefore, does not tackle the problems experienced by suburban commuters since it generally does not cover neighbouring villages, although an agreement has been forged with the municipality of Viimsi. Some even argue that increased PT use within Tallinn has been offset by more cars entering the city from surrounding municipalities due to the economic cycle. Related to the above, there is a lack of a proper Park & Ride system, which are designated free car-parking areas connected to the city by free PT. Interviewees reported that the parking areas needed to be located further from the city centre and be connected by the rail infrastructure.

Others cite city-parking policy as an example of inconsistencies in transport policies. While public parking charges are considered acceptable, critics claim that the existence of large areas of private parking facilities in Tallinn’s centre diminish the effectiveness of the public parking price policy. This is so because private parking facilities can benefit from high public parking prices by offering competitive pricing to redirect clients to their lots. The interviewed experts reported that the large area of city centre residents’ parking facilities and plans to provide additional parking for all new developments was weakening Tallinn’s city centre parking charge policy. In addition to infrastructural changes and attractiveness, the issue of speed in mobility is more difficult to solve. The geographical spread of the city, with a density of 2700/km² may also contribute to explain why car users are not eager to switch to PT.

3.5. Policy impacts towards sustainable transportation

Prior to the enactment of FFPTS, several opponents claimed that the viability of the PT system will be simply threatened by the introduction of free fares. Interviewed experts brought out some of the pessimistic predictions prior the introduction of FFPTS: ‘Its quality in terms of frequency of services would deteriorate’; ‘The system will simply collapse’; ‘It is unsustainable if oil prices start to rise again’.

Almost 5 years after its implementation, there is still some controversy over the evaluating the success of the FFPTS policy. Since most decisions regarding the implementation of the public transportation measure improvement (extension of PT priority lanes, contactless green card, adjusted traffic control, automatic passenger counting) that accompanied FFPTS implementation were already taken before the proposal for the FFPTS was launched and would have been implemented anyway. This makes it difficult if not impossible, to assess the specific impact of these measures individually. Evidence regarding the effects of FFPTS implementation is inconclusive due to a lack of accurate measurements of the number of PT passengers and car users both before (when validation was not compulsory) and after (when compliance with validation was met by only some 30% of travellers). During the weeks following 1 January 2013 system implementation, passenger numbers increased by between 2 and 5%, supporters of the policy claimed even up to 10% in the interviews. One year after the FFPTS was implemented, transport authorities saw a 7.7% increase in passenger numbers (Figure 1). What has been even more important, is that from 2013 until 2017 the number of passengers has stayed constant and no reducing trend, such as the one that appeared in years prior, could not be recognized. However, the Estonian Labour Force Study shows that in 2012 around 42% of employees used public transportation, which has dropped to 35% in 2017.³ As is also predicted by the socio-technical transitions theories (Geels and Schot 2010; Geels 2012), the full acceptance and changes in user practices take time even if supportive infrastructures are in place. Furthermore, as also pointed out in earlier studies (Ewing and Cervero 2010; Lefèvre 2009; Poom and Ahas 2016), compared to more compact urban areas, the spread-out territory of Tallinn may be less conducive for the adoption of more sustainable transport solutions

Figure 1. Number of boardings annually into different transport modes in Tallinn.

There has been a significant change in the modal split of PT due to changes in the PT fleet in Tallinn, which has increased the proportion of bus passengers and reduced the number of trolley and tram passengers (Figure 1).

Opponents say this increase has been due to a substitution of pedestrians not of motorized vehicle drivers. In addition, advocates, sceptics, and critics of the PT have claimed an imprecise part of increased PT use is attributable to people who used to walk between two or three stops who now take PT. This increase can result in a crowding problem during rush-hour.

Another very positive and somewhat unexpected consequence of this new policy is the relatively high increase in train passengers once FFPTS was applied to within-city train rides for Tallinn residents. It integrates within-city train rides with the rest of the city transport system using the same ticketing system. The inclusion of the train system into the FFPTS was introduced by the central government in June 2013 following no significant increase in the number of passengers during the previous 3 months despite the renewal of the vehicles. According to an interviewee, the number of passengers did not justify the renewal investment, and as the council had interest to integrate it in the FFPTS scheme, the local and national authorities came to an agreement that went into effect on October the same year, just after local elections took place. After implementation, train passenger numbers initially increased by 300%. Within 2 years, train travel within Tallinn’s perimeters rose to over 700%. The figures are reliable since train passenger numbers can be confirmed by the train inspector’s records. Despite this spectacular increase, these 1.5 million rail journeys account for only 11% of total PT journeys in Tallinn (of about 140 million trips).

3.6. Drafting the cost-sensitive individuals

At its root, FFPTS is a form of fiscal redistribution across groups as typically free and reduced fare PT is limited to children, the elderly, and students. Earlier studies show that FFPTS may promote equity in the access to mobility (Fearnley 2013). Existing case studies (see e.g. Kębłowski 2018b; Tomanek 2017) of a FFPTS show that it can have a positive effect on numbers of PT users while increasing the mobility of different population groups such as the elderly, people on low incomes, disabled people, students and children. Proponents claim that FFPT policy in Tallinn has reversed a decreasing use of PT and has achieved a respectable increase in PT use (of about 10%), especially among lower income families. Although Cats et al. (2014) showed that PT fares were a primary concern in Tallinn, in an annual municipal PT satisfaction survey conducted in 2010, 49% of the respondents declared dissatisfaction with PT fares followed by crowding (29%) and frequency (21%). As expected, in recent satisfaction surveys, the problem of cost has receded.

Another effect is related to the coexistence of different groups in PT vehicles. Some experts reported initial concerns about increased usage of PT by homeless people. As one interviewee put it the initial concerns were that ‘Vehicles would be dirty and would be subject to vandalism and use by homeless people’. This concern appears unfounded, as some interviewees pointed out that homeless people used PT before the introduction of the FFPTS. One advantage is that the increased number of passengers outside peak hours has contributed to an increase in the sense of security on board.

3.7. Quality improvements

Pointing out some negative impacts, some opponents claim that the introduction of FFPT has been done at the cost of quality improvements. However, the Tallinn case shows that the overall satisfaction with PT increased from 16% in 2012 to 32% when the free fare system was introduced in 2013. In 2017, the overall satisfaction with the public transportation reached 78% and there was no significant difference of opinion between the PT users and car users. Almost half of the respondents (46%) consider the quality of PT to have improved over the past years and 40% think it has not changed. The overall satisfaction is also reflected in the steady diminishing of the negative assessments. As for the cleanliness, 23% found it unclean in 2012, and 20% in 2016. Overcrowding was a problem for 33% in 2012 and only 20% in 2016. The rate of dissatisfaction with the frequency of transport has decreased from 24% in 206 to 14% in 2016. The satisfaction ratings of other aspects (e.g. the convenience of transfers) has stayed the same.

3.8. Environmental consequences of transition

Although environmental quality improvement has been one of the key incentives for the introduction of more sustainable urban transport systems (Mercier et al. 2016), the ecological and environmental health arguments have been of secondary importance in the debates around FFPT implementation in Tallinn. Among critics, green groups argue that regardless of the efforts environmentally sustainable mobility in the city remains an unreachable dream. Arguing that the FFPTS and the variety of other measures do not suffice to facilitate the real transfer of users from private cars to PT. As one interviewee put it: ‘More challenging policies regarding the promotion of intermodal PT, especially in suburban areas, would be necessary for the reverse the tendency of decreasing numbers of passengers’.

As for the indicators of environmental impacts of the policy, there are also no accurate data available on the petrol consumption of private vehicles or air quality dynamics related to the introduction of FFPTS. If we compare environmental indicators such as air pollution levels in Tallinn (Figure 2), we can observe an increase in 2013 compared to 2012, after which levels have been decreasing according to all three measuring stations: (a) in the city centre, (b) in an area proximate to industrial activity and affected by domestic heating (mainly wood stoves), and (c) in a residential area where panel houses prevail. Looking at indicators of hazardous compounds we can note that the trend is somewhat different for NO₂ (which indicates that exposure to traffic exhaust) compared to PM₁₀ (which in Northern-European city centres is driven largely by road dust emissions (Johansson et al., 2007)). These emissions may be a result of winter chains on car tyres damaging the road surfaces, which can cause more air pollution, especially during dry winters. However, according to some sceptics, it is still too premature to tie these air quality improvements to the decrease in private car use. The figure need careful interpretation as the air quality is also affected by climatic conditions.

Figure 2. Annual average concentrations of NO₂ and PM₁₀ in different areas in Tallinn.

3.9. Policy impacts on the landscape

As a somewhat unexpected consequence on the landscape, free transportation has attracted new residents to the city thus increasing the city budget. According to the municipality, in 2012 about 4000 new residents were registered in the city and an additional 10,000 in 2013. Overall, between March 2012 when the referendum was held, and December 2018, approximately 35,000 new residents have registered in Tallinn, increasing the cities total population to approximately 450,000. Most interviewees agree that the majority of these new residents were living in Tallinn but had not registered with the authorities before the FFPTS was implemented. Unregistered residents had wanted to avoid certain taxes such as the car tax implemented in 2003. Some believe that the additional residents are from other municipalities around Tallinn who changed their ‘official’ address to benefit from the FFPTS, therefore, disadvantaging those other municipalities by withdrawing their taxes. In parallel with the increase in the number of Tallinn’s residents since 2013, the number of travels per resident has decreased.

Related to the newly registered residents, the increased city budget has accompanied implementation of the FFPTS in Tallinn. Thus, the cost of FFPTS (about €16 million/year) has been self-financed thanks to additional taxes derived from an increased number of residents registered in the city. The earlier proportion of PT operational costs that was covered by ticket sales was around 1/3. The municipality gets around a €1000 share of income tax per individual every year. Due to increasing number of residents, the city now garners at least €20 million in profit each year (Cats et al. 2017). However, the cost of FFPTS in Tallinn’s budget is relatively high at around 1/10th of the total budget.

3.10. Policy emulation on a broader scale

Inspired by the political benefits drawn from the policy change in Tallinn, the Central Party in the Government Coalition has pushed for the introduction of FFPTS throughout Estonia since 1 July 2018. Eleven out of 15 counties have agreed to offer free public transport. The Estonian government set up transport centres as public bodies to run bus services in the regions and will support the initiative with €3.3 million also to consolidate their bus lines, order new stock where necessary and improve services. The difference to the Tallinn service is that anybody can use the PT service without needing to be registered in the county like in Tallinn. The first results show up to two times the number of passengers in some lines. For example, in Ida-Viru county bus lines saw an increase from 130,703 passengers in August 2017 to 230,946 passengers in August 2018 (Kriis 2018). This has increased the mobility of rural Estonians, who comprise 1/3 of the country’s total population, are generally older, and less affluent⁴ (European Commission 2017). Since most work places are situated in nearby urban areas, transportation costs took a relatively high share of their income, thus the free transport initiative has been welcomed.

The move also serves the incentives of improving Estonian reputation in the broader EU political landscape. The city council became interested in competing for the European Green Capital Award of European Green capital award and thus exploiting the environmental side of the PT initiative. The competition for the European Green Capital Award has put Tallinn on the international stage in the same way that the digital society has promoted Estonia in recent years. Thus, the FFPTS will keep Tallinn in the political spotlight for the next few years.

4. Conclusions

This paper has analysed Tallinn as an example of a transition towards more sustainable mobility through the example of FFPTS in Tallinn using the MLP analysis to gauge its success. At the landscape level, there were demands for sustainable transport alternatives, which challenged the status quo in the modal split at both the local level (environmental movements) and the supra-national level (European Union 2010 strategy). As suggested by Geels, initiatives for such transitions may emerge from niches in an existing regime facing an uphill struggle against the existing system because they require changes to the existing cultural discourse, habitual user practise, as well as sunk in investments and infrastructure. However, the momentum derived from the mayor of Tallinn’s decision to hold a referendum and the acceptance of the new policy and support from powerful actors (the ministry) provided legitimacy and attracted resources (use of CO₂ quota for trams and trains).

The study shows that the FFPTS in Tallinn was less the result of publicly discussed and integrated environmental innovation regarding transport policy and more the result of several measures implemented to increase the quality factor of PT in Tallinn and to reverse the trends leading to a decrease in the numbers of passengers. FFPTS has indeed increased the mobility of the most cost-sensitive population groups such as the elderly, people on low incomes, disabled people, students, and children. The change in regime can also be related to the improved public image of PT. However, this transition has not achieved a significant increase in PT use (up to 10%) and has failed to draft the motorized vehicle drivers. Nevertheless, juxtaposing the FFPTS’ economic price on city budget and gained social and ecological benefits casts serious doubts on the broader cost-effectiveness of this transition. Our analysis indicates several reasons for the apparently meagre results of the initiative:

First, most decisions regarding the measures (extension of PT priority lanes, priority signals for PT, traffic control equipment, contact-less green card) that accompanied FFPTS were already taken before the proposal for the FFPTS was launched and would have been implemented anyway. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to assess the specific impact of these measures individually. However, adding the FFPTS to the pool of measures has likely increased the overall attractiveness of the PT and, therefore, helped to reverse the decline in users.

Second, among the motivations of this transition, the reputational incentives of powerful politicians may have prevailed over environmental and sustainability goals. Allegedly, this ‘re-election motivated populist move’ has had a positive effect on residents’ image of the city. Furthermore, it has attracted the residents from municipalities around Tallinn who would benefit from the FFPTS (and as a ‘side’ effect withdrawing their taxes to Tallinn). However, as a result, the overall number of PT rides per resident has decreased.

Beyond the recent infrastructural and societal landscape changes, the regime shift has had ripple effects on a larger geographical scale. Supported by the Estonian government, FFPT have been introduced in 11 out of 15 counties in Estonia for any citizen regardless of residence, which created a positive result in terms of increases in the number of passengers. Beyond the borders of Estonia, the FFPTS initiative in Tallinn has led to Tallinn entering the competition for the European Green Capital Award and set Tallinn as a flagship for the new municipal mobility policy. The implementation of a FFPTS in the city of Tallinn has attracted international attention for being the most ambitious attempt in Europe to develop a fare-free policy for PT.

The transition to the FFPTS opens a new vision and, therefore, the regime dynamics may start to change, but effects that are more positive could be reaped if the so far disjointed regime parts start to be synergistically exploited. What is clear is that just introducing FFPT is not enough to produce a modal swift from private car to PT. Even accompanying measures (introduction of bus lanes, investments in new trams, priority signals for PT, etc.) may not suffice for a sustainable effect. One of the key measures would be to improve the poor PT connectivity between peripheries and the city. For connecting the municipalities in the golden rim around Tallinn, further development of the Park & Ride system, which involves designated free car parking areas connected to the city by free PT, is needed. Furthermore, in parallel to PT planning, better planning of access to economic and social engagements (e.g. schools, services) in a polycentric mode could help to lower the demand for car use in geographically spread out cities like Tallinn.

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this paper benefited from comments in conferences at Bratislava (Gabaldón-Estevan et al. 2016) and Valencia (Gabaldón-Estevan and Kaufmann 2016). We would like to thank the editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their critically reading of our manuscript, whose suggestions and comments helped improve and clarify this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

D. Gabaldón-Estevan’s work on this project was supported by COST Action IS1309 ‘Innovations in Climate Governance: Sources, Patterns and Effects’ (INOGOV). H. Orru’s work on this project was supported by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research grant IUT34-17; K. Orru’s work on this project was supported by grant PRG-346.

Notes on contributors

Daniel Gabaldón-Estevan

Daniel Gabaldón-Estevan works at Universitat de Valencia (Spain), Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology. His interest is on Innovation, Mobility and Energy from a systemic perspective.

Kati Orru

Kati Orru currently works at the Institute of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Tartu (Estonia). Kati does research in Urban Politics, Social Policy and Environmental Sociology.

Clemens Kaufmann

Clemens Kaufmann works for Factum Chaloupka & Risser OG, Vienna (Austria) and his interests and expertise are in the area of Transportation, Traffic and Road Safety as well as Mobility.

Hans Orru

Hans Orru works at the University of Tartu (Estonia), Department of Family Medicine and Public Health His skills and expertise are on Environmental Epidemiology, Exposure Assessment, and Health Impact Assessment

Notes

1. CIVITAS MIMOSA is an innovative collaboration among the cities of Bologna (Italy), Funchal (Portugal), Gdansk (Poland), Tallinn (Estonia), and Utrecht (Netherlands). MIMOSA is short for motto of the project: ‘Making Innovation in MObility and Sustainable Actions’. The document is available at: https://civitas.eu/sites/default/files/12–5-620tallinn.pdf.

2. Shale oil still accounts for about 85% of Estonia’s total electricity production and is responsible for CO₂ emissions reductions since the 1990s.

3. See: www.stat.ee/toojou-uuring.

4. European Commission: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/rural-development-2014–2020/country-files/ee/factsheet_en.pdf.

Appendix

Table A1. Key informants.

Institution	Position	Date
Stockholm Environment Institute	Expert	11 December 2015
Climate and Radiation Department, Ministry of Environment	Consultant	15 December 2015
Tallinn University	Researcher (Geographer)	16 December 2015
Geomedia Consulting and Training Centre	Chairman of the Board	17 December 2015
Transport Development and Investments Department – Ministry of Economic Affairs	Head of Department	17 December 2015
Tallinn Transport Department	Head position	22 December 2015
TTU & Stratum Inc.	Professor (Engineering)	22 December 2015
Tallinn Linnavalitsus	Head of Tallinn EU Office	23 December 2015
Harju Public Transport Centre	Head of Development	28 December 2015