Fare-Free Experiments

免车票实验

In spite of the controversy that it apparently creates, the number of cities experimenting with fare-free public transport (FFPT) is on the rise. In 1980, there were only six. By 2000, the number had grown to fifty-six. Today, FFPT exists in “full” form in at least ninety-six cities and towns around the world. Full fare abolition means that ticket-free rides are available for the vast majority of local public transport routes and services, for the vast majority of users, and for most of the time. In at least 138 other cities, fares are suspended in a partial way — either in specific city areas or modes of transport, or in specific periods of the day or year.

尽管它显然存在争议，但试验免费公共交通（FFPT）的城市数量正在增加。 1980年，只有六个。 到2000年，这一数字已增至56个。 今天，FFPT在全世界至少九十六个城市和小镇中以“完整”的形式存在着。 全车票取消意味着绝大多数本地公共交通路线和服务，绝大多数用户在大多数时间内都可以免费乘坐。在至少138个其他城市，车票以部分方式暂停发售——或者是在特定的城市地区还是在运输方式，或在一天或一年的特定时期内。

The United States is where the first reported case of full FFPT system occurred — in 1962 in the town of Commerce, in the Los Angeles suburbs — and where most FFPT programs could be found throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. At that time, the proponents of fare abolition in North America relied on social and political arguments, pointing to the anticipated social benefits of abolishing fares, and claiming that zeroing out fares could help increase the use of public transport and counter the high investment in automobile infrastructure.

美国是第一个报告了完整FFPT系统案例的地方 ——1962年在洛杉矶郊区的商业镇—并且大多数FFPT计划可以在整个1970s，1980s和1990s找到。当时，在北美取消车票的支持者依赖社会和政治争论，指出取消车票的预期社会效益，并声称将票价归零有助于增加公共交通的使用率并对抗汽车所需要的的高投资的基础设施。

The largest cases of that time — now discontinued — were located in Mercer County (New Jersey) and Denver (Colorado). Today, FFPT exists in twenty-seven localities across the United States: small urban/rural areas (e.g. Edmund, Oklahoma; Kootenai County, Idaho), university campuses (Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Macomb, Illinois) and natural parks and tourist resorts (Crested Butte and Estes Park, both Colorado).

当时最大的案例—现已停产—分别位于默瑟县（新泽西州）和丹佛（科罗拉多州）。今天，FFPT存在于美国各地的27个地区：小城市/农村地区（例如埃德蒙，俄克拉荷马州;科特奈县，爱达荷州），大学校园（北卡罗来纳州教堂山;伊利诺伊州马科姆）以及自然公园和旅游胜地 （Crested Butte和Estes Park，都在科罗拉多州）

The first European experiment with abolishing fares began in 1971 in Colomiers, in the suburbs of Toulouse (France), and was soon followed by Rome and Bologna. Perhaps the most renowned historic case of fare abolition is that of Hasselt, in Belgium. Faced with the problem of high traffic congestion, its mayor declared in 1996 that “we don’t need new roads, we need new ideas.” Hasselt dropped plans for constructing a new ring road and instead eliminated fares and reformed the network of collective transport, giving it clear priority. Increases in operational costs and changes in the local government have subsequently led to the cancellation of Hasselt’s fare-free policy in 2014.

1971年，在图卢兹（法国）郊区的Colomiers开始了第一次取消车票的欧洲试验，很快罗马和博洛尼亚紧随其后。也许最着名的废除车票的历史案例是比利时的哈瑟尔特。 面对高度交通堵塞的问题，其市长在1996年宣称“我们不需要新的道路，我们需要新的想法。”哈瑟尔特放弃了建造新环路的计划，取而代之的是取消了车票并改革了集体运输网络 ，明确给予其优先地位。运营成本的增加和当地政府的变化随后导致2014年哈瑟尔的无车票政策的取消。

Ever since the 2000s, a plethora of fare-free systems emerged in Europe, where most (fifty-six) of the world’s cases of full FFPT are found. A particularly large number of them are located in Poland (twenty-one, all of which have emerged since 2010) and France (twenty). Many European municipalities justify FFPT as a strategy for reducing car usage (e.g. Avesta, Sweden; Bełchatów, Poland) and car-related pollution and noise (Tórshavn, Faroe Islands). In many towns, socio-political arguments are used: FFPT is explicitly conceived as a social policy aiming at helping disadvantaged groups (as in Lubin, Poland; Colomiers and Compiègne, France), or as an attempt to re-define collective transport as common good (Aubagne, France; Mława, Poland).

自2000s以来，欧洲出现了大量免车票的系统，其中发现了全世界大多数（56个）的FFPT案例。 其中特别多的是波兰（二十一个，自2010年开始出现）和法国（二十个）。 许多欧洲市政当局将FFPT作为减少汽车使用的策略（例如瑞典的Avesta;波兰的Bełchatów）以及与汽车相关的污染和噪音（Tórshavn，Faroe Islands）。 在许多城镇，这一社会政治观点被使用：FFPT被明确地视为目标为帮助弱势群体的社会政策（如波兰的卢宾; 法国的Colomiers和Compiègne），或者试图将集体交通重新定义为公共服务（法国欧巴涅;波兰姆瓦瓦）。

The geography of fare abolition thus embraces small or mid-sized towns with less than one hundred thousand inhabitants. Most of them rarely make the news — have you ever heard of Kościerzyna or Vitré, Hallstahammar or Lugoj, Velenje or Akureyri? An important exception is Tallinn, the Estonian capital, which is the largest city (430,000 inhabitants) to currently host a ticket-free program, providing a strong argument that FFPT can work in a larger urban areas.

因此，废除车票的地理位置包括居民不到十万的中小镇。他们中的大多数人很少在新闻中出现—你有没有听说过Kościerzyna或Vitré，Hallstahammar或Lugoj，Velenje或Akureyri？ 爱沙尼亚的首都塔林是一个重要的例外，它是目前拥有免车票项目的最大城市（430,000居民），提供了一个强有力的论据，即FFPT可以在更大的城市地区工作。

Still, transport experts seem convinced that fare abolition is irrational, senseless, and irresponsible. How to understand the fact that it nonetheless exists in nearly a hundred cities worldwide? Below I turn to the debate, and illustrate some of the arguments with examples from actually existing FFPT programs in Tallinn (Estonia) and Aubagne (France). The choice of these cities is not accidental; each of them is important in studying FFPT. Aubagne, located in the suburbs of Marseille, is among the most widely discussed cases of fare abolition in France, an important centre of FFPT. Tallinn, meanwhile, promotes itself as “the capital of free public transport,” and is actively promoting this policy domestically and abroad.

尽管如此，交通专家们似乎确信废除票价是不合理的，毫无意义的，和不负责任的。 如何理解它仍然存在于全球近百个城市中？ 下面我将开始辩论，并用塔林（爱沙尼亚）和欧巴涅（法国）这些实际存在的FFPT计划的例子说明一些论点。选择这些城市并非偶然; 他们中间的每一个在研究FFPT时都很重要。位于马赛郊区的Aubagne是FFPT重要中心—在法国被最广泛讨论的废除车票的案例之一。与此同时，塔林将自己宣传为“免费公共交通之都”，并积极在国内外推广这一政策。

Harmful and Irrational?

有害的和不理性的？

Most transport academics and practitioners discuss FFPT in terms of its utility, efficiency, and contribution to economic growth (or lack thereof). The idea of abolishing fares is criticized for threatening the financial stability of public transport networks. Free access to buses and trams eliminates revenue from tickets while increasing the cost of maintaining security and responding to higher passenger demand. As a transport official from Montpellier (France) explains, zeroing fares is a policy that “deprives public transport of resources essential for its development.” Furthermore, according to many transport engineers and economists, public transport should function as a self-funded or for-profit agency subject to market mechanisms.

大多数交通学者和从业者在其效用，效率和对经济增长（或缺乏经济增长）的贡献方面讨论FFPT。 废除车票的想法因威胁公共交通网络的金融稳定而受到批评。免费使用公共汽车和有轨电车断绝了车票收入，同时增加了安全维护和响应更多乘客需求所需的成本。正如蒙彼利埃（法国）的一位交通官员所解释的那样，将票价归零是一项“剥夺对公共交通的发展至关重要的资源”的政策。此外，根据许多交通工程师和经济学家的说法，公共交通应该作为自给自足的或受市场机制约束的盈利机构。

FFPT is therefore a “fake good idea” based on the illusion that “there are goods or services that have no cost.” In other words, reducing the price to zero allegedly devalues the service to both its operators and passengers-clients. Finally, FFPT is often portrayed as an irrational idea. Supposedly, fares are not only a source of economic revenue, but also as a mechanism that controls passenger behavior. Without tickets, passengers would make trips that engineers deem marginal, “non-productive” or even “useless.” Put simply, the existence of tickets is what keeps passengers from going insane.

因此，FFPT是一种“假的好主意”，基于“商品或服务没有成本”的错觉。换句话说，将价格降低到零可能会使服务贬值给运营商和乘客客户。 最后，FFPT经常被描述为一种非理性的思想。 应该说，票价不仅是经济收入的来源，也是控制乘客行为的机制。 如果没有门票，乘客就会进行工程师们认为边缘化的，“非生产性的”甚至“无用”的旅行。简而言之，门票的存在让乘客远离疯狂。

However, some analysts point out that abolishing fares can help decrease equipment and personnel costs. Getting rid of the various devices and machines used to sell, validate, and control tickets saves money. No money has to be spent on secure cash management systems that include counting rooms, cameras, cash pickup, and deposit services. No commission is paid for third-party ticket sales, paper or electronic tickets, and accounting services.

然而，一些分析人士指出，取消车票有助于降低设备和人员成本。 摆脱用于销售，验证和控制门票的各种设备和机器可以节省资金。 不再有资金被迫用于安全现金管理系统，这包括结算室，照相机，现金提取和存入服务。不会再有佣金支付给第三方门票销售，纸质或电子机票以及会计服务。

At the same time, the lost revenue from ticket sales usually constitutes only a part of total public transport budget. This means the actual costs of maintenance and investment in a public transport system are never fully covered by its passengers — the public subsidy plays a much more important role in this regard.

与此同时，门票销售收入上的损失通常只占公共交通总预算的一部分。这意味着公共交通系统的维护和投资的实际成本从未被乘客完全覆盖过 —公共补贴在这方面发挥着更重要的作用。

These arguments are supported by the evidence from Tallinn and Aubagne. Before Tallinn switched to a fare-free system, only one-third of the operational budget of its public transport network was covered by revenue from fares, while the remaining two-thirds were provided by a direct municipal subsidy. Crucially, free fares are offered only to registered residents of the city.

这些论点得到了塔林和欧巴涅的证据的支持。 在塔林转向无车票系统之前，其公共交通网络的运营预算中只有三分之一由车票收入支付，而其余三分之二则由直接市政补贴提供。 关键是，只向该市的注册居民提供免车票。

As a result, between May 2012 (seven months before the implementation of FFPT) and May 2016 the number of Tallinn residents increased from 415,000 to 440,000, visibly attracted by access to free rides. Since Estonian municipalities have the right to collect part of their residents’ personal income tax, and the average tax contribution per resident amounts to €1000 per year, gaining twenty-five thousand new residents meant generating €25 million of additional revenue per year. This largely covered the money lost from fares (€12.2 million). As a result, instead of losing money, Tallinn gained €12.8 million per year.

因此，在2012年5月（FFPT实施前7个月）和2016年5月之间，塔林居民的数量从415,000增加到440,000，明显受到免费乘车的吸引。 由于爱沙尼亚市政当局有权收取部分居民的个人所得税，而且每位居民的平均税收贡献为每年1000欧元，因此新增2.5万居民意味着每年可获得2500万欧元的额外收入。 这主要涵盖了票价损失的金额（1220万欧元）。 因此，塔林不是亏钱，而是每年赚取了1280万欧元。

In Aubagne, revenue from fares was even less (8.6 percent of the operational budget) and fare-dodging was common. A switch to FFPT in part enabled local authorities to increase the versement transport — a tax that French municipalities can collect from local companies with more than eleven employees. Following French law, the tax could be increased from 1.05 percent to 1.8 percent once Aubagne committed to building a right-of-way tram line — a project that should be seen as integral to the shift to a fare-free network, which, besides zeroing fares, meant a thorough redesign and improvement of public transport services. The increase in the versement transport raised revenue by €5.7 million, which together with operational savings (€160,000) largely covered the cost of fare abolition (€1.57 million).

在欧巴涅，票价收入甚至更低（占运营预算的8.6％），并且逃票很常见。 转向FFPT的部分原因是地方当局的交通经费增加—法国市政当局可以向拥有超过11名员工的当地公司收取税款。根据法国法律，一旦欧巴涅致力于建设有权经营电车线路，税收可以从1.05％增加到1.8％—这个项目应被视为向无车票网络转变的不可或缺的一部分。票价归零意味着彻底重新设计和改善公共交通服务。 经济运输的增加使收入增加了570万欧元，再加上运营节省（160,000欧元），大大覆盖了取消车票增加的成本（157万欧元）。

Unsustainable?

不可持续？

Another set of arguments regarding FFPT revolves around the question of its capacity to contribute to “sustainable” mobility. In this perspective, transport is seen as key component of the “good city,” which is not only economically strong, but also socially cohesive and diverse, environmentally friendly, healthy, and participatory. To increase “quality of life” and “livability,” the proponents of sustainable mobility focus on the challenge of facilitating a shift from cars to public transport and “soft” modes such as cycling and walking.

关于FFPT的另一组争论围绕其促进“可持续”运行的能力问题展开。从这个角度来看，交通被视为“好城市”的重要组成部分，这不仅带来经济繁荣，而且带来社会凝聚力，多样性，环境友好，健康和参与度。为了提高“生活质量”和“宜居度”，可持续交通的支持者专注于促进从汽车转向公共交通和“软”模式（例如如骑自行车和步行）带来的挑战。

From this perspective, sustainable transport researchers claim that disincentivizing the use of cars — through parking policy, congestion charging, or increasing fuel taxes — is more effective in terms of regulating car mobility than abolishing fares in public transport. Moreover, it’s assumed that new passengers attracted by FFPT are pedestrians and cyclists, rather than car drivers. Consequently, for many public transport operators, reducing the price of tickets to zero works against efforts to increase the quality of their service.

从这个角度来看，可持续交通研究人员声称抑制汽车的使用——通过停车政策，拥堵收费或增加燃油税——在管制汽车的灵活性方面比在公共交通中取消车票更有效。 此外，假设FFPT吸引的新乘客是行人和骑车者，而不是汽车司机。 因此，对于许多公共交通运营商而言，将车票价格降至零会影响提高服务质量的努力。

None of these claims seem valid when looking at the data from actual cases of FFPT. First of all, each and every fare abolition program appears to generate a significant increase in the number of passengers. In Tallinn, within three years of fare abolition the number of passengers increased by 14 percent. In the same span of time in Aubagne, whose public transport network had clearly been underused, the number of passengers went up by a stunning 235.8 percent. Can such an increase in passengers — whether they previously used cars, bicycles, or walked — be considered a negative phenomenon?

在查看来自FFPT实际案例的数据时，这些说法似乎都失效了。首先，每个车票取消计划似乎都会使乘客人数大幅增加。 在塔林，在取消票价的三年内，乘客人数增加了14％。 在欧巴涅的同一时间段内，其公共交通网络显然未得到充分利用，乘客人数增加比例惊人的235.8％。 乘客的这种增加—无论是以前使用过汽车，自行车还是走路—都能被视为负面现象吗？

Although it was clearly not the among the main aims of the policy, FFPT nonetheless attracted some car users to public transport. In Tallinn, the share of public transport increased by 9 percent, and that of cars decreased by 3 percent. In Aubagne, although no precise data is available, a smaller shift to public transport has been observed in passenger surveys: 20 percent of new passengers who used to drive claim to have abandoned their cars precisely because of free rides. Finally, while in Tallinn as well as Aubagne the quality of public transport significantly increased before fare abolition, it continued to do so not just despite, but precisely because of FFPT. Providing free rides to passengers generated even stronger political support for developing public transport, which in both cities stands at the center of the political agenda.

尽管这显然不是该政策的主要目标之一，但FFPT仍然吸引了一些汽车用户乘坐公共交通工具。 在塔林，公共交通的比例增加了9％，汽车的比例下降了3％。 在欧巴涅，尽管没有准确的数据，但在乘客调查中观察到较小的公共交通转移：20％的曾经开车的新乘客声称因为免费乘车而放弃了他们的汽车。最后，在塔林以及欧巴涅，公共交通的质量在取消车票之前显着上升，但不仅如此，它仍然继续上升，恰恰是因为FFPT。为乘客提供免费乘车服务，为发展公共交通提供了更强大的政治支持，发展公共交通在这两个城市中都处于政治议程的中心。

Socially Just, Politically Transformative

社会正义，政治转型

The third set of arguments in the debate about FFPT views the policy not in terms of its economic viability or contribution to sustainable development, but its potential to facilitate a profound and long-term social and political transformation. The fundamental value of fare abolition lies in simplifying the way public transport is used: it can be taken by anybody, at any time, according to any needs they may have. Public transport is thus imagined not as a commodity, but as a “common good” — similar to many other public services such as health care, education, parks, roads, sidewalks, cycling paths, streetlights and lampposts, libraries, schools, kindergartens, or playgrounds.

关于FFPT的辩论中的第三组争论认为该政策不在于其经济可行性或对可持续发展的贡献，而在于其促进深刻和长期的社会和政治转型的潜力。废除车票的基本价值观基于简化公共交通的使用方式：任何人都可以随时根据其需求使用任何方式使用公共交通。 因此，公共交通不是一种商品，而是一种“公共利益”—类似于许多其他公共服务，如医疗保障，教育，公园，道路，人行道，自行车道，路灯和路灯柱，图书馆，学校，幼儿园， 或游乐场。

Just as in the case of these services, we could imagine public transport being continuously provided free of charge, regardless of whether it’s needed in a given moment or not. After all, you don’t have to insert coins to light an individual lamp posts on your way home at night, or pay for every minute spent in a park or library.

正如在这些服务案例中，我们可以想象公共交通是免费提供的，无论是否在特定时刻被需要。 毕竟，你不必在晚上回家的路上插入硬币以点亮一个灯柱，也不必为在公园或图书馆花费的每一分钟付费。

In this sense, FFPT introduces a different logic into transport. It moves away from the market-oriented focus on profitability and demand management. It directly challenges a free-market dogma that “continues to envisage payment as a way of assuring that infrastructure is respected.”

从这个意义上讲，FFPT在交通中引入了不同的逻辑。 它远离市场导向的聚焦于盈利能力和需求管理。它直接挑战了一种自由市场的教条，即“继续设想支付作为确保基础设施受到尊重的一种方式”。

For some municipal officials, it fits the socialist vision of transport as a public, accessible and affordable service. For others, it expresses a more radical, anticapitalist principle of de-commodifying common goods and services, and signals a transition from “customer-passengers” to “citizens.” Abolishing fares may be seen as way of challenging bio-political control over passengers exercised through ticketing and surveillance, which is often accompanied by policing strategies that focus especially on undocumented users.

对于一些市政官员来说，它符合社会主义的交通愿景，即公共，便利和负担得起的服务。 对于其他人来说，它表达了一种更为激进的反资本主义原则，即将公共利益和服务去商品化，并标志着从“顾客—乘客”到“公民”的过渡。取消车票可能被视为挑战通过票务和监视对乘客进行生物-政治控制的方式，这通常伴随着集中关注无证用户的警务策略。

Finally, providing unconditional access to public transport has been praised for directly addressing the issue of social exclusion, inequality, and transport poverty. Increasing accessibility for lower-income passengers means creating a more socially just transport system. A fare-free network “shows solidarity with the weak, with those who cannot afford a car, with those who are dependent on public transport, who are particularly affected by its drawbacks.”

最后，因为直接解决了社会排斥，不平等和交通贫困问题，提供无条件的公共交通服务受到了赞扬。增加低收入乘客的可达性意味着建立一个更加社会公正的交通系统。一个免车票的网络“显示了与弱者的团结，与那些买不起汽车的人，以及那些依赖公共交通的人，特别是受到其缺陷的影响的人。”

That outcome is clearly visible in Tallinn. Providing unconditional access to public transport resulted in increased use among the unemployed (32 percent) and low-income groups (26 percent among residents with income less than 300 euros per month). Buses and trams are used more heavily by residents on parental or home leaves (21 percent), and pensioners (17 percent). This phenomenon is visible across age groups, and particularly among the youth (21 percent among fifteen- to nineteen-year-olds), the middle-aged (16 percent among forty- to forty-nine-year-olds) and the elderly (19 percent among residents between sixty- and seventy-four-year-olds).

这一结果在塔林清晰可见。 无条件使用公共交通工具导致失业者（32％）和低收入群体（每月收入低于300欧元的居民中26％）的使用率增加。 父母或离开家庭的人（21％）和养老金领取者（17％）这类居民更多地使用公共汽车和有轨电车。 这种现象在不同年龄组中都可以见到，尤其是年轻人（15至19岁人群中占21％），中年人（四十至四十九岁人口中占16％）和老年人（ 在六十到七十四岁的居民中占19％）。

The use of public transport has increased in post-Soviet housing estates where a large share of Russian-speaking Tallinners live, facilitating integration for that ethnic group. At the same, use has also been on the rise in middle-class neighborhoods, showing that free rides are not just attractive for the poor.

后苏联住宅区使用公共交通工具的比例有所增加，其中大部分讲俄语的塔林人住在这里，促进了该族群的融合。 同时，中产阶级社区的使用率也在增加，这表明免费乘车不仅只对穷人有吸引力。

It is clear, however, that FFPT “would not solve all of our problems; rather, at best it would represent the first step” towards a wider transformation of the power relations that shape transport. Against mobility experts who claim that passengers are more concerned with issues of safety, frequency, reliability, and availability of transport, a variety of organizations and movements have campaigned for fare abolition.

然而，很明显，FFPT“无法解决所有我们的问题; 相反，它充其量只是代表“朝着更广泛的关于塑造交通的权力关系的转变迈出的“第一步”。 与那些声称乘客更关心安全，班次频繁度，可靠性和交通可用性问题的交通专家相反，各种组织和运动都在争取取消车票。

One of their many examples is the Movimento Passe Livre (“free fare movement”) that emerged in Brazil during protests against an increase of public transport fares across the country in June 2013. The question of increased ticket prices was important not only as a sign of stark inequality between highly mobile car-driving urbanites and the urban poor who have no choice but to use public transport. FFPT also constituted a rallying cry against the continuing commodification of public services and their imposition of purely economic, “rational,” and “sustainable” considerations.

其中一个例子是Movimento Passe Livre（“免车票运动”），它在2013年6月在巴西的关于反对全国公共交通票价上涨的抗议活动中出现。票价上涨的问题不仅仅是一个关于高度运动的驾驶汽车的城市居民与别无选择只能使用公共交通工具的城市贫民之间的严重不平等的标志。 FFPT也构成了对公共服务持续商品化及其实施纯粹经济，“理性”和“可持续”考虑的反抗的号召。

What About the Workers?

工人会怎样呢？

In addition to this debate, the issue of FFPT reflects on the position of transport workers. How does a switch to a fare-free system affect them? In many cities, including Tallinn and Aubagne, FFPT has been applauded by drivers for improving their labor conditions. Even if working hours and salaries remained the same, drivers no longer have to sell and monitor tickets, which used to be a source of considerable stress.

在这场辩论之外，FFPT问题还反映了交通工人的地位。 切换到免车票系统如何影响他们？ 在许多城市，包括塔林和欧巴涅，FFPT一直受到司机的欢迎，以改善他们的劳动条件。 即使工作时间和工资保持不变，司机也不再需要出售和监控车票，这往往是相当大的压力来源。

The shift to FFPT also means that drivers no longer have to count cash at the end of their working day. In Aubagne, one driver told me that FFPT “is heavenly. It means no more stress . . . about fare-dodging, checking tickets . . . With [FFPT] the driver can focus on driving and welcoming passengers, that’s it.” The policy “transformed the the job of the bus driver, who now has only one question in mind: driving the bus well.”

转向FFPT还意味着司机不再需要在工作日结束时计算现金。 在欧巴涅，一位司机告诉我，FFPT“是天堂般的。 这意味着不再有压力….关于逃票，检票…. 通过[FFPT]，驾驶员可以专注于驾驶和欢迎乘客，就是这样。“这一政策”改变了公交车司机的工作，他或她现在只考虑一个问题：好好的驾驶公交车。“

The shift has not been entirely positive for all workers. In Tallinn, as many as seventy out of eighty ticket controllers were made redundant. In Aubagne, ticket inspectors were made responsible for maintaining security aboard buses, since initially there were widespread concerns that fare abolition would result in vandalism. Once security issues were quickly understood to be minor, inspectors were further directed to supervise the drivers’ attitude and performance — instead of monitoring passengers, they now monitor other workers.

这种转变并不是对所有工人来说都是完全正面的。 在塔林，80个票务管理员中有70个被裁员。在欧巴涅，检票员负责维护公共汽车上的安全，因为最初人们普遍担心废除车票会导致故意破坏。一旦安全问题很快被认为是次要的，检查员就会被指示监督司机的态度和表现 – 而不是监控乘客，他们现在监视其他工人。

The decreased scope of duties under FFPT leaves the position of drivers within their respective transport agencies the same, if not weaker. In Tallinn, although drivers can join a company-based trade union, their actual capacity to engage in collective bargaining continues to be severely limited by a system in which individual salary bonuses aren’t awarded to employees who raise objections to company policy. As one driver told me, “with or without fares, there is fixed bonus every month: if you drive on time, the bonus comes, but if you make a [complaint] then the bonus can be reduced.”

在FFPT下减少的职责范围使得各交通机构内的司机的地位和以前相同，如果不是更弱势。 在塔林，尽管司机可以加入基于公司的工会，但他们参与集体谈判的实际能力仍然受到一种制度的严重限制，在这种制度中，个人工资奖金不会颁发给反对公司政策的员工。 正如一位司机告诉我的那样，“有或没有车票，每个月都有固定的奖金：如果你准时开车，奖金就会到来，但如果你做了[抱怨]，那么奖金就会减少。”

In Aubagne, FFPT was introduced in the context of a shift from a family-like business to a privatized network run by a local branch of Veolia, a French transnational company. For one local trade unionist, there is “a major contradiction between abolishing fares and letting a private company . . . manage it.” Although Veolia adhered and adjusted to FFPT, it simultaneously implemented a series of measures “rationalizing” the PT network. For instance, drivers’ individual punctuality began to be measured by a GPS system, and their responsibility for managing the company gradually diminished. The introduction of FFPT complicated their situation rather than empowered them in their struggle to join trade unions of their choice, and to have a voice in the debate about the company’s policy.

在欧巴涅，FFPT的引入是在从家族式企业转变为由法国跨国公司Veolia的当地分支机构运营的私有化网络的背景下。 对于一个当地的工会成员来说，“废除车票和让私人公司….管理之间存在着重大的矛盾。”尽管Veolia坚持并调整了FFPT，但它同时实施了一系列“合理化”PT网络的措施。 例如，驾驶员的个人准确性开始由GPS系统测量，他们对公司管理的责任逐渐减少。 FFPT的引入使他们的处境变得复杂，而不是在他们在加入自己选择的工会的斗争中增强他们，并在关于公司政策的辩论中发表意见。

Transport Is Not (Only) About Transport

交通并不仅仅与交通有关

The controversy created by the question of fare abolition reveals a wider problem regarding how urban transport is conceived and analyzed. The debate about transport seems to be dominated by technical and economic narratives, while the explicitly social and political dimensions of mobility are often sidelined. In the particular case of FFPT, approaching the policy as a transport mechanism generates a series of myths and misunderstandings that are not substantiated by the evidence from actually existing cases of FFPT programs. Although fare abolition is assumed to break the bank, in reality it may help generate new revenue, by attracting new tax paying residents (Tallinn), or raising local taxes (Aubagne). While it’s attacked as a measure that fails to make cities more sustainable and livable, there is evidence that free rides are to some extent attractive to car drivers, and thus help increase the use of public transport, which in turn means less air pollution and noise. The quality of free transport services is not necessarily worse than paid transport — FFPT can act as a powerful symbolic statement of political support for collective transport.

废除车票问题造成的争议揭示了关于如何构思和分析城市交通的更广泛的问题。关于交通的辩论似乎主要被技术和经济叙述所主宰，而明确的社会和政治层面的流动性往往被排除。在FFPT的特殊案例下，将政策作为一种交通机制处理会产生一系列迷思和误解，这些并未得到实际存在的FFPT计划案例证据的证实。虽然假设取消车票会打破银行，但实际上它可能有助于通过吸引新的纳税居民（塔林）或提高地方税（欧巴涅）来创造新的收入。虽然它被视为一项未能使城市更具可持续性和宜居性的措施，但有证据表明，免费乘车在某种程度上对汽车驾驶员具有吸引力，从而有助于增加公共交通的使用，因此减少了空气污染和噪音。免费交通服务的质量不一定比付费交通更糟糕——FFPT可以作为一个对集体交通进行政治支持的有力的符号化表述。

In other words, transport policies are not (only) about transport. It is when looking at FFPT as an urban policy rather than a transport policy that we can begin to fully understand its ambition and impact. This requires seeing it not in a vacuum of mathematical modeling or analysis of traffic flows, but in the context of the specific place in which it is designed and put into practice — undergirded by power relations and political struggles, interacting with its spatial and social context, affecting the labor conditions of its workers. This means that, while the policy of abolishing public transport fares is obviously related to the field of transport, it cannot be understood as a transport policy alone.

换句话说，交通政策不仅（仅）关于交通。 在将FFPT视为城市政策而非交通政策时，我们可以开始充分了解其雄心和影响。这需要看到它不在数学建模或交通流分析的真空中，而在其设计和实施的特定地方的背景下——由权力关系和政治斗争所支配，与其空间和社会背景相互作用 ，影响其工人的劳动条件。 这意味着，虽然取消公共交通车票的政策显然与交通领域有关，但不能仅仅将其理解为交通政策。

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/public-transportation-brussels-free-tickets