The measure came into force on 10 July 2026

[...] the annual financial requirement is likely to be between €20 million and €25 million.

[...]

The policy is intended to encourage more people to leave their cars at home and use public transport for journeys within Porto and the surrounding urban region.

[Mayor] Duarte has cautioned that abolishing fares will not, by itself, resolve Porto’s congestion problems. He described the programme as part of a broader mobility strategy that must also include faster services, better connections, increased capacity and more reliable journey times.

Porto currently has about 16 kilometres of dedicated bus lanes. The municipality plans to increase this to approximately 22 kilometres by the end of 2026, giving buses greater priority over private vehicles on some of the city’s busiest routes.

The mayor said public transport would need to become more convenient and dependable than travelling by car before a substantial change in daily habits could be expected. The municipality’s objective is for public transport to become the main means of travelling around Porto, with private cars taking a secondary role.

The scheme is unusual because Porto is paying for its residents to travel across the entire metropolitan network rather than offering free journeys only inside the municipality.

The Porto Metropolitan Area comprises 17 municipalities, each of which remains responsible for its own spending decisions. [...]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 months ago (9 children)

I have yet to see any city where the reason more people don't use public transit is the lack of good service as opposed to the cost for fares. Thus free fares is fixing the wrong problem, if you have money for free fares you have money to give more people better service.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    What is your evidence that that is the reason?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Cities that make their service better get larger jumps in ridership than cities that make fares free. Also rider surveys reveal that cost is way down on the list of concerns, while better service is always near the top. (better service is either more frequent, or serving more places)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    A city can have both free public transportation and good service and the source of the funds shouldn't matter if it comes from taxes or fares. Fares, however, do impact poor people more, create a need for enforcement and thus criminalizing additional, and a need for a system to collect the fare. In a lot of ways, free public transport is simpler and better for the users.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    The system to collect fares is cheap compared to what it gets, unless you're system is so bad only those with no other options use it. In most places even the poor have other options.

    Not that we shouldn't think of the poor, but they are a minority and we should think of the wealthy as well, no reason a rich person shouldn't use transit, but if it isn't good they won't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Some people might decide to take public transport instead of paying for car fuel if they feel a need to save money. With free public transport it is always clear what the cheaper option is.

    Also public transport needs to be subsidized anyway, at some point you are actively wasting money by collecting fares if the staff and infrastructure for enforcing fares is more expensive than the income from fares.

  • source
  • parent