1Bund und Kantone sorgen für ein ausreichendes Angebot an öffentlichem Verkehr auf Schiene, Strasse, Wasser und mit Seilbahnen in allen Landesgegenden. Die Belange des Schienengüterverkehrs sind dabei angemessen zu berücksichtigen.
2Die Kosten des öffentlichen Verkehrs werden zu einem angemessenen Teil durch die von den Nutzerinnen und Nutzern bezahlten Preise gedeckt.
Art. 81a BV regulates the basic supply of public transport and its financing. The provision requires the Confederation and the cantons jointly to ensure an adequate supply of public transport. At the same time, users must bear an appropriate share of the costs themselves.
The first paragraph obliges the Confederation and the cantons to provide sufficient rail, bus, ship and cable car connections in all regions of Switzerland. «Adequate» means a basic supply that makes all areas accessible (Griffel nach Kern, BSK BV, Art. 81a N. 10). This encompasses both the number of connections and their quality. Freight transport by rail must also be given appropriate consideration.
The second paragraph establishes that passengers must pay an «appropriate share» of the costs through ticket prices. The Federal Supreme Court has decided that this share may not be zero (BGE 149 I 182). Completely free public transport is therefore unconstitutional. In practice, passengers cover between 40 and 60 percent of costs in regional transport and up to 80 percent in long-distance transport (Stückelberger/Haldimann, Schienenverkehrsrecht, 2008, p. 265).
The regulation was introduced in 2005 with Railway Reform 2 (BBl 2005 2547). It aims on the one hand to guarantee comprehensive transport supply, and on the other hand to strengthen the polluter pays principle.
Example: A municipality wants to offer its city bus free of charge. Judgment 1C_490/2024 shows that such zero-fare initiatives violate Art. 81a para. 2 BV. The municipality could, however, introduce heavily subsidised fares, as long as passengers still bear an appropriate share of the operating costs.
In doctrine, it is disputed whether Art. 81a para. 2 BV also establishes an upper limit for prices. While Uhlmann affirms such an upper limit (SG Komm. BV, Art. 81a N. 34), Kern denies it (BSK BV, Art. 81a N. 32).
N. 1 Art. 81a BV was inserted into the Federal Constitution through Railway Reform 2 by popular vote on 20 February 2005 (BBl 2005 2547). The provision replaced the temporary transitional provision Art. 196 No. 3 BV on the financing of public transport, which would have expired on 31 December 2007 (BBl 2004 6651, 6665). The constitutional legislator pursued three main objectives: firstly, the permanent securing of public transport financing, secondly, the anchoring of an adequate service as a constitutional mandate and thirdly, the entrenchment of the principle of user financing (BBl 2004 6656).
N. 2 The formulation of para. 2 was intensively discussed. The Federal Council had initially proposed that the costs should be covered by users «as a rule», which the Council of States weakened to «in principle». The conciliation conference finally agreed on the formulation «to an appropriate extent» (BBl 2004 6657). This legislative history shows the constitutional legislator's will to anchor the polluter-pays principle on the one hand, while leaving room for social policy and environmental policy considerations on the other hand (Kern, BSK BV, Art. 81a N. 1).
N. 3 Art. 81a BV is systematically located in the 3rd Title (Confederation, Cantons and Communes), 4th Chapter (Environment and Spatial Planning), 7th Section (Public Works and Transport). The provision is closely connected with the other transport provisions of the BV: → Art. 81 BV (Public Works), → Art. 82 BV (Road Traffic), → Art. 83 BV (Road Infrastructure Fund), → Art. 84 BV (Transit Traffic), → Art. 85 BV (Heavy Vehicle Fee), → Art. 86 BV (Consumption Tax on Motor Fuels), → Art. 87 BV (Railways and Other Means of Transport) as well as → Art. 87a BV (Railway Infrastructure).
N. 4 The systematic position after environmental law (→ Art. 73–80 BV) and before the actual transport provisions underscores the dual function of Art. 81a BV: Public transport serves both basic services and environmental policy objectives. The provision must also be understood in the context of the sustainability principle (→ Art. 73 BV) and the spatial planning mandate (→ Art. 75 BV) (Griffel, Verkehrsverfassungsrecht, 2008, p. 15).
N. 5Paragraph 1 establishes a threefold constitutional mandate: the Confederation and cantons jointly ensure (1) an adequate service, (2) of public transport, (3) on rail, road, water and by cable car, (4) in all regions of the country. The term «adequate service» is an indeterminate legal concept that is concretised through legislation and practice. According to Griffel, it focuses exclusively on general accessibility (BSK BV-Kern, Art. 81a N. 10 citing Griffel).
N. 6 The «adequate service» encompasses quantitative (frequency, network coverage) and qualitative aspects (reliability, comfort, accessibility). The claim is not directed at individuals, but obligates the Confederation and cantons to jointly fulfil the task. The formulation «in all regions of the country» concretises the basic service obligation and requires comprehensive coverage including peripheral areas (Kern, BSK BV, Art. 81a N. 7–9).
N. 7Paragraph 2 anchors the principle of user financing: The costs of public transport are covered «to an appropriate extent» by the prices paid by users. The phrase «appropriate extent» is likewise an indeterminate legal concept. The Federal Supreme Court clarified in BGE 149 I 182 that this extent cannot be zero — complete free financing is unconstitutional.
N. 8 The consideration of rail freight transport according to para. 1 concerns coordination with passenger transport in track allocation and infrastructure planning. The provision does not require equal treatment, but appropriate consideration of freight transport needs (Kern, BSK BV, Art. 81a N. 11–12).
N. 9 From para. 1 follows an obligation of the Confederation and cantons to cooperatively ensure a basic service of public transport. This obligation is concretised in planning, financing and operational duties. Implementation occurs primarily through the Passenger Transport Act (PBG, SR 745.1) and cantonal implementing laws. No subjective right to specific transport connections can be derived from Art. 81a para. 1 BV (Uhlmann/Hinderling, Transportrecht, 2008, p. 72).
N. 10 Para. 2 establishes a constitutional barrier for tariff design. Transport operators and authorities are obligated to design tariffs so that an appropriate cost recovery rate is achieved. According to BGE 149 I 182 and Judgment 1C_490/2024, communal or cantonal initiatives for zero fares in public transport are incompatible with Art. 81a para. 2 BV and thus invalid.
N. 11 Violation of Art. 81a BV can be challenged within the framework of abstract judicial review (→ Art. 82 lit. b BGG) or in the preliminary examination of popular initiatives. Individuals can only invoke Art. 81a BV indirectly, for instance when discriminatory tariffs violate → Art. 8 BV.
N. 12Disputed upper limit for transport prices: In legal scholarship, it is disputed whether Art. 81a para. 2 BV establishes an upper limit for transport prices. Uhlmann (SG Komm. BV, Art. 81a N. 34) takes the position that the provision represents a global upper limit: complete cost coverage through user prices would accordingly be inadmissible, as this would negate the public welfare character of public transport. Kern contradicts this view (BSK BV, Art. 81a N. 32): The provision does not establish an upper limit and does not exclude complete cost coverage.
N. 13Appropriate cost recovery rate: What constitutes an «appropriate extent» of cost coverage is disputed in doctrine. Practice shows cost recovery rates between 40% and 60% in regional transport and up to 80% in long-distance transport. Stückelberger/Haldimann (Schienenverkehrsrecht, 2008, p. 265) advocate for a differentiated consideration according to type of transport and region. The Federal Supreme Court has not yet defined a lower limit in percentages, but only clarified that zero fares are inadmissible (BGE 149 I 182).
N. 14Relationship to environmental objectives: The tension between user financing and environmental policy steering objectives is controversially discussed. Part of the legal scholarship argues that low tariffs to promote switching from motorised individual transport are mandated by → Art. 73 BV (sustainability) and → Art. 74 BV (environmental protection). The Federal Supreme Court relativised this argument in BGE 149 I 182 E. 3.3.2: Public transport also consumes resources, which is why unlimited promotion through free offers is not inherently sustainable.
N. 15 In tariff design, transport companies and authorities must ensure an appropriate cost recovery rate. Social tariffs (discounts for certain groups of persons) are permissible as long as the overall cost recovery rate remains appropriate. Cross-subsidisation of loss-making lines through profitable routes is common and constitutionally compliant.
N. 16Popular initiatives for free public transport are incompatible with Art. 81a para. 2 BV at all state levels (Confederation, cantons, communes). According to the latest case law (Judgment 1C_490/2024), this also applies to municipal transport operators. Initiative committees should instead focus on substantial discounts or expansion of services.
N. 17 In service planning, the external costs of transport must be considered (ARE, External Costs and Benefits of Transport, 2014). The economic benefits of public transport (reduction of congestion, air pollution, accidents) justify subsidisation, but exclude free provision.
N. 18Concession granting and service agreements must consider the requirements of Art. 81a BV. Transport companies have no claim to full cost coverage by public authorities. Authorities must ensure when determining compensation that appropriate levels of self-sufficiency are achieved.
#Interpretation of Art. 81a para. 2 BV and cost sharing
BGE 149 I 182 E. 3.2.1-3.2.3 of 31 March 2023
Constitutional initiative for free public transport violates Art. 81a para. 2 BV.
The Federal Supreme Court develops binding interpretation principles for Art. 81a para. 2 BV: The provision requires that the costs of public transport be covered to an «appropriate extent» by user prices.
«Selon une interprétation littérale de l'art. 81a al. 2 Cst., cette disposition exige qu'une part appropriée des coûts des transports publics soit couverte par les prix payés par les usagers. Cette part appropriée ne peut pas être nulle.»
Judgment 1C_490/2024 of 9 December 2024 E. 2.2
Municipal initiative for free local public transport in Bern is incompatible with Art. 81a para. 2 BV.
The case law on Art. 81a para. 2 BV is applied to municipal transport operators and confirms that even at the local level, a zero-fare solution is unconstitutional.
«Die Kosten des öffentlichen Verkehrs werden zu einem angemessenen Teil durch die von den Nutzerinnen und Nutzern bezahlten Preise gedeckt werden.»
CCST.2024.0005 of 6 March 2025 consid. 2
Vaud initiative for discounted public transport violates Art. 81a para. 2 BV.
Even a significant price reduction (capping subscription prices at the level of the motorway vignette) may violate the requirement for appropriate cost sharing.
«Le texte proposé [...] contrevient à la notion de part appropriée des coûts de l'art. 81a Cst. et partant au droit supérieur.»
BGE 143 I 109 E. 5.1 of 2 September 2016
Division of competences between the Confederation and cantons in tariff setting for public transport.
Art. 81a BV does not create a new federal competence, but supplements the existing division of competences through obligations for the Confederation and cantons to ensure adequate services and user cost sharing.
«L'art. 81a Cst. ne porte pas atteinte à la répartition des compétences entre Confédération et cantons.»
BGE 149 I 182 E. 3.2.3 of 31 March 2023
Art. 81a para. 2 BV applies to all public transport, not only rail transport.
The Federal Supreme Court clarifies that Art. 81a para. 2 BV refers to all means of transport mentioned in para. 1 («par rail, route, voie navigable et installations à câbles»).
«Par conséquent, des points de vue historique, systématique et téléologique, on ne peut limiter l'application de l'art. 81a al. 2 Cst. au seul transport par rail: cette disposition s'applique à l'ensemble des transports publics.»
BGE 149 I 182 E. 3.3.2 of 31 March 2023
Art. 81a para. 2 BV is not in contradiction with the sustainability principle (Art. 73 BV).
User cost sharing is compatible with the principle of sustainable development, as unlimited growth of public transport also consumes resources.
«Il n'apparaît pas que le report des usagers sur des infrastructures consommant de l'énergie au détriment d'une mobilité douce réalise complètement le but de développement durable.»