While full details for Budget 2027 are yet to be made official, the National Transport Authority (NTA) recently announced new fare increases of an average of 15% across all fares to come into effect on January 1st, 2027. An Adult 90-minute Leap Card journey will increase from €2 to €2.30, Young Adult/ Student fares to increase from €1 to €1.15, and Child fares to increase from €0.65 to €0.75. The NTA stated that the revised fare structure is intended to maintain an appropriate balance between passenger fares and state investment.
While most will balk at a sizable percentage increase in cost for their trip on public transport, what does this mean for the commuter, particularly the lower earner commuter who relies most on affordable public transport?
Many on the opposition benches argue this restructuring of the fixed fee model is a regressive policy which disproportionally affects low earner workers and those who primarily use public transport. For Dublin last year, the NTA reported the use of a car as the most dominant form of travel with 54 per cent using a car regularly to travel and get to work. However, 58 per cent of commuters in Dublin in the same year used public transport at times throughout the year to travel, representing many workers to whom an increase of 15% on their daily fare quickly adds up over the working week. In their statement, the NTA expressly admitted that for every 10 per cent increase in fare price, 3 per cent fewer people will use public transport. For many commuters, particularly lower earners and those living in commuter belts, this increase acts as an indirect barrier to movement. Those who have the financial flexibility to own a car and bear the associated costs, including steadily rising petrol costs, have the means to shift their commute method, leaving many with no option but to restrict their movements, absorbing the cost into their budget and subsequently travelling less out of financial necessity. For someone with no car, commuting on public transport is not optional. A fare increase functions as a flat tax against such workers, disproportionally affecting those relying on public transport, particularly low-earners and those in commuter belts.
The NTA have also claimed the increase is a funding sustainability issue: fares only cover 38 per ceent of costs of operating public transport, with the State covering the remainder. However, many critics of the fare restructuring, including those on opposition benches and members of local commuter coalitions, argue this is an inherently political decision to abandon certain workers in favour of a car-centric transport policy. Soon after the price increase announcement, Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers announced that fellow Ministers must “prioritise, and make choices and trade offs for 2027.” This comes with an unprecedented budget of €8.5 billion in spending to be allocated across the state, an increase of 6 per cent from last year. Additionally, the introduction of the temporary excise reductions on fuels introduced by the Government in March 2026, following public pressure stemming from rising fuel costs, is expected to have cost up to €407 million by February 2027, a political choice directly benefitting drivers. Opposition groups argue the Government is prioritising car-centric policies and abandoning sustainability goals, with these budget balancing decisions in favour of drivers being partially subsidised by the fare increases on regular public transport users. As former Green Party Minister for Transport Eamon Ryan put it, the choice to increase fares is a signal from the Government getting rid of “all of that green nonsense and getting back to the consumer paying.”
This situation directly increases the economic divide between lower earners and those who can afford to commute and travel by car or otherwise, a divide which is already acutely felt by those most affected by the cost of living crisis. An increase in public transport fares reflects a shift in direction for Government parties, away from sustainable measures and cost-effective public transport, and back towards a car-centric system of travel. This shift in policy direction disproportionately affects lower earners and those in commuter belts who cannot afford an increase, who now may be restricted in their travel due to economic necessity.
