Public Transport Should Be Free: Essay (Band 9)

Public transport should be free for everyone. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Band-9 sample essay

I agree that core urban public transport should be fare-free, funded as essential infrastructure like roads and streetlights. The economics, equity, and environmental arithmetic all favor removing the fare box.

Start with the hidden math: fares typically cover only a quarter to a third of operating costs, with collection itself — machines, inspectors, enforcement — consuming much of the revenue. Cities already subsidize the rest. Eliminating fares therefore costs less than assumed while removing boarding delays that slow entire networks. Tallinn and Luxembourg demonstrate the model works at national and city scale.

The equity gains are profound. Transport costs punish the poorest commuters most — low-wage workers traveling furthest to essential jobs. Free transit functions as targeted relief without bureaucracy: no applications, no stigma, just access. For students, the elderly, and jobseekers, zero fares remove a daily tax on participation in society.

Environmentally, every fare barrier nudges marginal riders toward cars. Free systems consistently report ridership jumps of ten to twenty percent, directly cutting congestion and emissions. Critics warn of overcrowding and cost, but crowding signals demand worth serving, and the sums remain modest beside road budgets that dwarf transit spending without question.

Roads are free at point of use because mobility underpins prosperity; buses and metros deserve the same logic. A city serious about equity and climate cannot charge its poorest for the greenest choice.

(260 words)

Why this scores Band 9

Task Response (9): Full agreement with layered justification — economics, equity, environment — plus preemptive rebuttal of cost and crowding objections. Named precedents (Tallinn, Luxembourg) ground the case.

Coherence & Cohesion (9): Each paragraph owns one argument with internal development. The closing paragraph synthesizes via the roads analogy rather than repeating points.

Lexical Resource (9): Urban-policy fluency: "fare box," "boarding delays," "targeted relief," "marginal riders," "ridership jumps," "dwarf transit spending." Domain vocabulary deployed naturally.

Grammatical Range & Accuracy (9): Colon-led explanations, concessive clauses, parallel structures ("no applications, no stigma, just access"). Clean throughout.

Vocabulary to steal

• fare box — ticket revenue system (domain term)
• hidden math — counterintuitive economics
• targeted relief without bureaucracy — efficiency framing
• daily tax on participation — cost-as-exclusion metaphor
• crowding signals demand — reframe objection as proof
• greenest choice — environmental superlative

FAQs

How do I address the cost objection?

Head-on, with funding logic: fares cover a fraction of operating costs already, and the difference buys congestion, emission, and equity gains. Concede cost, then outweigh it.

Should I name cities with free transport?

Yes if accurate: Luxembourg, Tallinn, and several French and American cities run fare-free systems. Real precedents convert theory into evidence.

What if I disagree instead?

Equally valid: argue that fares fund service quality and free systems overcrowd. Either side scores if developed with specifics.

Master every essay type in the Task 2 samples library.