Public transport has an important role to play in our country: it must make a significant contribution to the necessary reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and thus become an important pillar of climate policy. As far as I know, no one has yet figured out exactly how this is supposed to work. But that’s what I think is important now in relation to the price structure. Why?
In recent months, the public transport industry has done important preparatory work to set the course for the two systems (zone price = francs per time and route price = francs per kilometer) in the future. A unified tariff system is planned. Bravo!
Also planned is a pricing system that calculates retrospectively what you’ve driven. The combination of these two elements can open up a whole world of new products at fair prices and discounts. In addition, you can save on costs, which, in turn, should have a positive effect on prices. There are great opportunities to attract new customers here.
But, unfortunately, there is a big “but” here: like all of us, the public transport industry has to cope with the current circumstances. There is not enough electricity, and SBB, although they produce a lot themselves, are also forced to buy. Therefore, electricity becomes more expensive, and, as a result, prices for the route increase. Who will bear the additional costs? The first reflex, at least with some delay, is to communicate this to the clients. I strongly and strongly oppose this: if fares rise, then those who benefit from the fare cuts in 2021 should bear the increase. It was not the buyers who ordered, but the customers, that is, the cantons. Or, in other words, fair play both ways, please!
But that’s not my point of view at the moment. This example shows a serious problem: on the one hand, public transport needs to be modernized and made suitable for carrying a significant part of the total traffic. But then you scare customers away by announcing price increases. So you’re destroying what you’re building on the front. In general, this is more of a control measure than a choreographed appearance.
In my opinion, there should be a vision for public transport that can be broken down into mandatory goals such as “You only pay for the seat you sit in.” Then it would be very clear what serves the purpose, goes away, what does not serve the purpose, solutions need to be found for this. Not Hugh and Hott, but towards the light. In my opinion, this is not a question of industry, but a task of politics: to take over!