Anyone who says that pensioners and students should be able to travel free of charge on county buses must show what tax is being used to fund this „free service“. The other side of the free medal is the distinction made by the same politicians who so zealously defend free county bus transport. Why is it that students and pensioners who use trains, inter-island ferries and air services or public long-distance buses for their daily commute have to buy a concessionary ticket, but not a county bus? In what way is a student or pensioner from Viimsi or Kose preferable to a student or pensioner from Aegviid, Kehra or Vormsi (Viimsi and Kose have bus, Kehras and Aegviid have train and Vormsi has ferry)?

With the advent of free public transport in 2018, the number of passengers has increased by county only in Harju County, while the total number of other counties is negative, while the state's expenditure on public transport has increased by an average of 3.36 times and in Harju County by almost 4 times. At the same time, Harjumaa also had the highest number of commercial lines, which have now all closed down and been taken over by the state.

Comparative figures by region (explanation: RET state budget support and local government support).

We have reached a situation where there is no more money to sow from the helicopter, so if we do not ask the service user for more money or impose additional taxes, the next step will be to cut the route network, i.e. to reduce the number of actual departures. For example, we in IIL have calculated that if a 40% concessionary fare for students and pensioners on county buses were introduced, an additional €4 million in fare revenue could be harvested annually in the four counties we manage, for a total of €7-10 million (depending on the full fare) in Estonia. It is also true that about 10% passengers do not validate their journeys, which the introduction of a fare and more effective controls would certainly help to improve. Today's overcrowded buses do not always reflect real demand, but a free opportunity to spend time in a warm place.

The claim that the reform of public transport can save €20-25 million through internal resources and better planning is also a myth. The idea that demand-driven routes will bring savings and that people will be able to get around when they need to is not true. Rather, there is a great deal of additional temporal uncertainty for the passenger, especially in the middle of the route, where the bus may or may not make a stopover in an adjacent settlement. As a result, the use of public transport will be further reduced, while the stand-by fee will still have to be paid to the carrier. The savings of EUR 25 million per year mean, metaphorically speaking, that we are bringing to a standstill all regional public transport in the IIL's organisational area, i.e. in Harju County, Lääne-Viru County, Läänemaa and Rapla County. The second part of the reform foresees consolidations of the Public Transport Centres (PTCs). The claim that such action will lead to better organisation and savings is political nonsense. Consolidation of centres can save between €30 000 and €50 000 a year and increase the specialisation capacity of smaller CTCs, but it will not solve the shortfall in millions of euros.

Even the claim that buses will start bringing passengers to the stations in advance of fast trains on a clockwise basis and that this arrangement will save money is demagogy. The state is unable to adopt so-called „service level standards“ today, as setting minimum standards would require the state to spend an extra €10 million to provide basic connections on the network, then adding a clock service and linking to trains is even more expensive. It is true that high-speed trains create the possibility of commuting from remote rural areas to centres, such as from Jõgeva to Tallinn or Tartu, at a reasonable cost, so that people do not have to leave their home town to earn a competitive wage.

Passengers value time and convenience in their journeys and choose the connections that are most convenient for them, rather than those where buses visit train stations and make additional on-demand stops due to the national reform. Imagine that you live in the village of Kose, where today the bus goes directly to Tallinn with a frequency similar to that of the train from Keszthely. The bus journey time directly from Kose to Tallinn is 40-60 minutes (depending on the route). Now, as a result of the public transport reform, you are going to take the bus to the Kehra train. The bus journey time is 30 minutes to Kehra, then a further 35 minutes to Tallinn by train, plus a minimum of 5 minutes for a connecting journey, making for a significantly longer and more inconvenient journey. And if there is also a dish-driven boarding at Voosele or Tasuja, for example, you will not be able to catch the train, considering the additional travel time.

Hence the questions with answers:

• Will there be savings from such a link? No.
• Does such a connection meet passenger needs? No.
• Will such a connection increase or reduce the number of passengers? More likely to reduce.

By looking in the mirror and answering the fundamental question honestly. What kind of movement do we prefer? For me, I want fast, comfortable, safe and independent transport, and a car is the perfect way to do that. Yes, I am willing to take both the bus and the train if it fits my daily schedule, the journey time does not exceed the journey time by car over 30%, the stop is not very far from where I live (up to 20 minutes walk) and public transport runs with sufficient frequency to give me freedom of movement (at least once an hour during off-peak hours and at least every 30 minutes during peak hours).

Today's public transport problems that need to be solved urgently are;

1. Setting standards for service levels - this will provide clarity for organisers, the state and consumers.
2. Equal treatment on all modes of public transport (train, bus, plane, boat), both in cities and out of town - common discounts, allowing uniform tickets and more convenient service.
3. Financing model - how much will the passenger, state and local authorities contribute to the joint service? Also, is it possible to bring in the private sector to finance the service? For example, when starting up a service in industrial areas where there is a demand for the service, but the employees and employer are located in different municipalities from a funding perspective.
4. Outdated laws - legalising mandatory parking in rural areas where there is no light traffic route parallel to the road or passing through bus stops. There is no point in building expensive stopping areas if in a year or two people will no longer live there.

Politicians are looking for ways to save money and are tossing around the idea of bringing back commercial lines in Harjumaa, but in my opinion this only shows that there is a lack of courage to charge students and pensioners on public lines. Let us be honest - the commercial operators stopped providing the service after the introduction of free public transport, and if we now replace the public service with commercial buses in an area, we will see the same kind of unequal treatment between passengers based on choice of residence. A commercial operator has to operate without public subsidy, which means that it cannot transport students and pensioners free of charge.

Not just to waffle I point out free bus transport pros and cons, so that readers can decide for themselves which service they prefer;

Andrus Nilisk

E-mail: andrus@iil.ee

Tel: 5050987