Sweden: half-price public transport
In Sweden, the price of monthly travel passes for public transport is due to be halved in the second half of 2026. The decision by the right-wing government is expected to cost 6.5 billion kronor (around 605 million euros). Ebba Busch, Minister for Energy, Business and Industry, justified the move citing "the worst energy crisis the world has ever seen".
Punctual buses top cheap buses
It would have made more sense to invest the money in public transport, Expressen argues:
“Not that it would be a bad thing if people were to use buses and trains more instead of taking their cars. Clearly that is preferable. But for this to happen, buses need to be punctual. Punctuality and decent service frequency are more important than prices. Subsidised bus tickets will not make more people take the bus. But it could lead to more empty promises aimed solely at winning votes in the run-up to the election.”
At last the penny has dropped
Aftonbladet welcomes the shift in energy policy:
“After four years in power, the right wing seems to have finally realised that affordable public transport is a sensible policy. It helps people living on low incomes. It reduces emissions. And it makes Sweden less dependent on oil. ... Since 2022, Ulf Kristersson's government had been doing exactly the opposite. It cut taxes on petrol and diesel. It scrapped the electric car subsidy. It made commuting by car cheaper, even for people who are already well-off. Instead of expanding public transport, the government made Sweden more dependent on fossil fuels. Now it is trying to change course.”
This won't help those who need it
Sydsvenskan is not impressed:
“It is, of course, a good thing to promote public transport. But halving the price of monthly travel passes because of the Hormuz crisis is simply stupid. These travel costs are not affected by the unrest in the Middle East, and the move will primarily benefit those who are managing just fine without it. If the government carried out any research at all on this, it was about something other than how to support low-income households during difficult times.”