Thinking outside the box on free rides

Joo Jung-wan
The author is an editorial writer of the JoongAng Ilbo.

Forty years ago, four out of 100 Koreans were eligible for free rides on public transit. Today, the free-riding share is 20 out of 100. Seoul, Busan and other major metropolitan governments are running free subway programs for those 65 or older. The program is necessary for older people with no regular income. But the problem is the soaring cost. The free-riding population is growing exponentially in line with the rapidly aging society. According to a projection of Statistics Korea, the elderly will account for 30 percent of the population by 2036 and exceed 40 percent by 2050.

Nobel Prize-awarded American economist Milton Friedman famously said, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” In other words, someone would have to pay for the free lunch or ride. The bill to finance free rides for senior citizens will just go up when it is left unattended. Today’s elderly adults may enjoy the benefit, but the expensive bill should be paid by the working population. The program requires an entire new perspective.

Governments and politicians would have been aware of the dear consequences, but they chose not to see them as long as they can evade the onus during their term. Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon and other local government heads had asked the central government to subsidize the widening losses in public transit due to increasing senior free-riders. They are merely trying to solve their financing problem and missing the point. To taxpayers, who — the central government or local governments — covers the cost won’t make any difference.

The real question is if the free transit for the elderly should left as it is or be retrenched — and if so, to what scale. Politicians will want to put off the discussion as long as possible so as not to irk elderly voters.

But not all politicians are sidestepping on the issue. Lee Jun-seok, the 38-year-old head of the fledgling New Reform Party, has held up the hot potato in proposing its party platform. “Even at the risk of losing votes, we should start discussing scrapping free subway rides for the elderly, as it is necessary for the future of our country,” he said.

Regardless of the contentiousness of the idea, the fact that the issue has been raised is a positive development as it can open a social debate on the issue. Bringing forth a challenging theme instead of avoiding it itself is commendable.

Lee proposes to end the unlimited free transit for the elderly and instead hand out a one-year prepaid transit pass worth 120,000 won ($90.5) to each elderly person. Since the typical one-trip subway fare costs 1,400 won, the pass can allow seven free rides per month. When the balance is used up, the elderly must pay for their rides at a 40-percent discount like minors.

The idea can spark various questions — whether seven rides per month can be of any comfort to the elderly; who should shoulder the prepaid pass; and if there aren’t any better options.

It helps society for the elderly to move about instead of simply staying at home. A study by the Korea Transport Institute found that a free transit pass for the elderly helps sustain their health and economic activities and reduce the risk of depression for the aged and car accidents from their driving.

The British model can be benchmarked. Free bus and underground travel is granted for those 60 or older except during weekday morning rush hours. Older people are asked to pay for their rides if they have to use public transit during the morning rush hour. Differentiating the fare system on an hourly basis won’t be technically difficult.

Congestion in commuting hours could ease upon changes in the older people’s pattern of using subway. Free-riders during less busy hours also won’t hurt the subway operator’s balance sheet greatly. We can accommodate the model to our conditions. The free-ride restriction can be imposed on both morning and evening rush hour.

Politicians are busy trotting out ways to increase social benefits for the elderly but rarely talk about scaling down benefits. But if they truly care about our society’s future, the issue must be addressed. We need to liven the debate to find the optimal solution on free transit for the elderly.