Subsidizing public transport has not achieved the objective of reducing the number of cars on the streets of Madrid. It is the conclusion of a report published today by EsadeEcPol in which it analyzes the series of road traffic in real time in the capital, collected from 1,400 measurement points of the City Council, from June 2020 to June 2023 (in September 2022 they entered discounts in force). The study contradicts the first conclusions of the Ministry of Transport which, after its implementation, came to defend the measure as a “cross-cutting policy” that was managing to reduce polluting emissions in large population centers.
In the General Budgets in force, the central Government allocates a total of 1,322 million to subsidize public transport. 600 million for free Cercanías, Rodalies and medium-distance trips, another 645 million in direct aid to autonomous communities and city councils to subsidize urban transport and another 77 million to reduce the price of intercity buses. To these figures we must add the subsidy extended by the Community of Madrid, which has meant an effective 50% reduction for all metropolitan transport passes. The department currently led by Raquel Sánchez also advances that the aid will be extended or reformed starting next year, as the Ministry of Finance has communicated to Brussels in the Budget Plan.
The EsadeEcPol document highlights that "it cannot be said that the public transport subsidy has reduced the number of cars in Madrid." Neither inside the M-30 nor on the roads entering and exiting the city nor in areas with more or less traffic. Circulation continues to be minimal or, in other words, “the subsidy had no effect,” the document states.
The report, signed by Jorge Galindo, Javier Martínez and Natalia Collado, analyzes the different types of displacements that occurred in the city of Madrid. In this way, in the central area there are no significant traffic variations to conclude that public transport subsidies have discouraged the use of private vehicles. The same occurs with trips from the outskirts of the capital to the interior, where there are no decreases in road traffic.
Another conclusion of the study is that the measure to make public transport cheaper has not caused a beneficial effect for the lowest incomes in Madrid either. The research associates an income level with the traffic measurement point, to do so it chooses an urban area and crosses that location with the income of the households in that census section. In short, EsadeEcPol summarizes, “regardless of the income level of the area, the rail transport subsidy policy does not seem to have a statistically significant impact on private vehicle traffic.”
The report also analyzes whether there has been a change in transportation habits depending on whether Madrid residents have a Metro or Cercanías stop nearby or far away. The conclusion is the same: there has been no statistically significant impact on the reduction of vehicular traffic even if citizens had preferential access to public transportation.
And the same happens on weekends, when transport is used more for leisure activities than for work: the subsidy for public modes of mobility has not had an impact on the reduction in the use of private vehicles, concludes EsadeEcPol.
The authors of the study on mobility in Madrid are, however, cautious and do not rule out that the subsidy applied throughout the country has had an effect of replacing private vehicles with public transport in other Spanish cities. In Madrid, where the greatest traffic is concentrated and where there are the most extensive public transport networks, this has not been the case.
In view of the redesign of transportation subsidies as of January 1, the report by Galindo, Martínez and Collado states that “aid should be designed based exclusively on an income relief criterion.” “Progressive rate policies or subsidies for low-income groups could be more effective than general subsidies, which often disproportionately benefit those who do not need the help,” they add.
The authors of EsadeEcPol even raise the possibility of exploring urban tolls, a measure that, according to their defense, “the evidence suggests that these are more effective than Low Emission Zones (ZBEs) in reducing congestion and emissions.” ”. They propose a pricing design taking into account emissions and income criteria. Higher tonnage, more polluting vehicles would pay more. “Implementing variable tolls based on the weight of the vehicle could contribute to changing the preferences of the population; “Not only would it discourage the excessive use of private vehicles, but it could also generate income that could be reinvested in improving public transportation,” they propose.
