Senior Free Subway Rides Need Public Debate on Limits

President Lee Jae-myung's remarks on subway free rides for senior citizens, made during discussions on responses to high oil prices driven by Middle East tensions, have sparked controversy. At a cabinet meeting on the 24th, President Lee instructed officials to "study measures to restrict free rides for senior citizens only during the one-to-two-hour peak commuting hours." He added that "it may not be easy to clearly distinguish them, as some elderly people also commute to workplaces."

Promoting public transportation is an essential measure amid high oil prices. However, it is virtually impossible to neatly divide elderly people's travel into productive and leisure purposes. If the government's poorly designed reform plan is perceived as social exclusion or welfare cuts targeting the elderly, it could instead deepen generational conflict. Busan Mayor Park Hyung-jun's sharp criticism that the proposal "amounts to demeaning the elderly" likely stems from the same concern.

Still, since President Lee has raised the long-avoided subject of senior free subway rides, this is an opportunity to seriously consider improving subway finances. According to data released on the 25th by the National Assembly Budget Research Institute (Narasalim Institute), cumulative free-ride losses across six urban rail systems nationwide from 2017 through last year reached 5.3652 trillion won ($3.9 billion). Losses last year alone totaled 777.9 billion won. The share of free riders aged 65 and older, identified as a major driver of deficits, reaches 18% in Seoul. This represents nearly a fivefold surge from 4% when the senior free-ride policy was introduced in 1984.

Subway finances, deteriorating steadily due to rising free ridership driven by an aging population, cannot be left unaddressed. Yet a one-sided solution will not work. A public deliberation process that considers both fiscal soundness and intergenerational equity is essential. Society must reach consensus by examining various approaches — restricting free rides during commuting hours, raising the eligibility age, or replacing unlimited free rides with a discount system capped at a set number of trips or amount. Moreover, rather than leaving deficit coverage solely to local governments, central government fiscal support should also be explored. In particular, candidates for metropolitan government heads who have declared their bids ahead of the June 3 local elections would do well to actively incorporate these issues into their platforms. We hope the senior free-ride issue becomes an opportunity to redesign a sustainable transportation system and welfare framework.