# Should transit be free?



## Tlcooper93 (Jan 1, 2023)

This is a question getting asked a lot now, especially in Boston with the relatively new mayor pushing for free buses and more.









Buses Shouldn’t Be Free


The push for fareless transit is downstream of a larger failure: American urban elected officials have struggled to improve government services, especially infrastructure development.




www.theatlantic.com





This article has a very interesting take, which summed up seems to be:
If you have the money for free buses, you have the money for improved service (instead of free buses).

What’s everyone’s take?


----------



## skylar (Jan 1, 2023)

A lot of the discussion around fare-free transit puts the cart before the horse, which the article gets at a bit. A transit agency should put together a service plan that works well for its community (satisfying common trip pairs with good frequency, span of service, etc.) and then figure out the revenue structure for it, including ways to raise more revenue in the future as population growth, development, and inflation dictate. King County Metro (my local bus agency) has something like a $1 billion budget, with 25-30% of that coming from fares. If we went fare-free, I doubt it would be easy to just find an extra $300 million without service cuts or tax hikes, which likely would be controversial. It's far better to take that revenue into more frequency and better span-of-service so that transit is more useful for everyone, and also have generous low-income fares for people who really can't afford the fares.

The article also mentions things that agencies can do to make fares more cost-effective like bus-only lanes, but there's also room to make driving more expensive so that it doesn't seem "free", like congestion tolling and doing away with free parking.


----------



## jis (Jan 1, 2023)

Tlcooper93 said:


> This is a question getting asked a lot now, especially in Boston with the relatively new mayor pushing for free buses and more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The last paragraph of that article sums it up well. Fare-free systems if chosen have to be done in a sustainable way. 

One way to do so is to plow back portion of the increased economic activity in monetized form to fund the free fare. Eventually, all the known successful free fare zones are supported economically by the transit district within which they operate, just like even transit with fare is partly supported by the transit district through capture of some of the fruits of the transit. Just IMHO, while the article is polemically great, I did not see any deep new understanding of the issue or clearheaded analysis and presentation of them either. But that may be just me, and other might find the article to be of greater use.


----------



## ehbowen (Jan 1, 2023)

No.
Subsidies are called for as it is a public good for people to be able to access employment, attractions, shopping, etc. without the need of a personally owned vehicle. But My Humble Opinion is that riders need to have some 'skin in the game.'


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jan 2, 2023)

Yes. Maybe.

Was on the Dallas Light Rail this morning, there was a lot of people who rode to the end of the line, and then they did not get off. Which I guess is for another forum.

However I like the concept of a core zone where it’s free. As in Denver when you have the free bus in the entertainment district.

If you have free transit, then we could make walkable districts. More green ways, cooler cities, and better more vibrant cities.

But this is the USA, and we aren’t allowed nice things here.


----------



## MIrailfan (Jan 2, 2023)

No it would result in overcrowded transit.


----------



## flitcraft (Jan 2, 2023)

In the early 1980's, Seattle's busses were all free in the downtown core. It seemed to work well. Passengers entered and exited more quickly at stops because they could use both front and back doors, downtown retail could better compete with malls and their free parking, those of us that worked downtown could catch a bus and do some shopping or eat lunch at a restaurant located blocks away, and drivers could avoid exorbitant parking charges by parking at the edges of the ride-free zone where parking was much cheaper and easier to find. Some years back--well before the pandemic--this all came to an end, though I have no idea why. I do know that during the pandemic, Seattle transit became de facto free--you were still supposed to pay, but they stopped enforcing fares entirely. Still is the case, pretty much--they do spot checks now for fare evasion, but if someone is caught riding without having paid, they are simply told that they should have paid, but that's it--no ticket, no being escorted off the train or bus, no record kept of the incident. For those who do pay fares, we feel a bit like chumps seeing this. But we pay anyway, because it's the right thing to do.

Frankly, I do think that local public transit ought to be free, just like K-12 education is. If we could encourage less auto use for local transportation, that would be a boon for the environment and a public community good. Of course it does have to be paid for, and I have my own ideas about how that ought to happen. But that discussion would violate the 'no politics' rule!


----------



## danasgoodstuff (Jan 2, 2023)

It's never actually free, the question is how to best pay for it. And I say that as a retired public employee and strong supporter of public services. As to the fares question, I have mixed feelings - but's that's all they are since I haven't really studied the issue.


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 2, 2023)

Tlcooper93 said:


> This article has a very interesting take, which summed up seems to be:
> If you have the money for free buses, you have the money for improved service (instead of free buses).



This is the key issue here, and has been my opinion on the matter for a while.

There are a few circumstances where free transit really makes sense: when the cost to collect the fares exceeds the amount received from it (may be true for very small systems with low ridership, but likely not for systems that are any larger), and when the hassle/burden of fare payment discourages use (the latter used to be a bigger factor when you had to have $1 bills and exact-change coins on hand; but less of an issue with tap-to-pay systems, mobile fare systems, systems that take credit cards, etc).

Otherwise, virtually any dollar that goes towards covering the lost revenue from free fares would be better off invested in better service. There are very few places in North America where transit is legitimately dense enough in both service level and coverage that adding service would not benefit the public.

If the idea is to help those who struggle financially, better access to jobs with transit that doesn’t require waiting an hour between buses and/or walking an extra mile or two each way will help far more than saving $2. Even at minimum wage, the value of time lost from bad transit service exceeds the fare. There are also other benefits to better transit service even if you don’t spend the extra time at work. More time at home (leave later, get home earlier) means, typically, a happier, more fulfilling, and healthier life, which reduces medical costs and other societal effects. Being able to spend more time at home with kids reduces the chance of delinquency, etc. All of that is worth more than saving $2.



flitcraft said:


> Frankly, I do think that local public transit ought to be free, just like K-12 education is. If we could encourage less auto use for local transportation, that would be a boon for the environment and a public community good.



There’s a bit of a logical flaw in this argument, that most public transit supporters tend to overlook. First, for most folks, the cost of driving exceeds the cost of using public transit. So, while making transit free might seem beneficial to them, their decision to drive vs. riding transit was likely based on something other than the bus fare. Therefore, getting rid of the bus fare does not address the underlying issues that push people to driving.

Second, without changing anything else, any road capacity that does get freed up by drivers shifting to transit will just be filled with other drivers anyway. It’s the same induced demand concept that says that adding a lane of road capacity will increase traffic to the same congestion that the lane was supposed to alleviate.

So, in summary, if the goal is to help those in poverty, better service will help them more than lowering the fare from $2 to $0 (for extreme cases, specialized programs to pay for their passes can be administered). If the goal is to get people out of their cars, address the reasons they are driving instead of using transit (a bus every 30-60 minutes that takes an hour travel 6 miles isn’t going to get people out of their cars, regardless of if it’s free). If the goal is to improve the environment and reduce traffic, completely different strategies (including road diets) are needed, which are a different policy altogether than making fares free.


----------



## MarkInAustin (Jan 2, 2023)

Agree with all who place the utility of the service for the community as the primary goal. Austin has a rail metro service that is one line, little used, and toll cost is thus virtually irrelevant. There is no parking at most stations. Ridership is significant only on Friday and Saturday nights, but it is never crowded like an east coast subway. As is, its utility to the community is low.

Bus service makes more sense when there are bus lanes that permit relatively free flow of bus traffic.

Reduced tolls or waivers for students, seniors, and persons otherwise on welfare is workable and fairly widespread from what I have seen. Low fare "closed" downtown business loops can work, especially if "subsidized" by a direct line from the local airport to the downtown loop that is sufficiently highly tolled, which can still be priced at a fraction of the cost of an Uber ride, with a built in time saving. Remote parking on spurs to the downtown must be available and affordable, of course. Again, Austin is an example of a city that did not plan adequately for remote parking for its one metro rail line.

One size obviously does not fit all.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 2, 2023)

As someone who uses senior fares when they are available, transit is close to "free" for me. (Heck it really is fare-free for me when I visit Philadelphia, though I guess I'm helping pay for it when I pay tolls on the PA Turnpike, whcih has no senior discount, by the way.)

The real hassle of paying fares for transit is not the cost for most people, but rather hassle of having to rummage through your pockets for exact change for an odd fare (like $2.75), or having to puzzle over a ticket vending machine to decide what to buy, and then having the machine not work properly, or decline your card or have a chip malfunction, etc. Touchless fare cards, and smartphone-based fares might help to some degree, but it is a hassle for the casual user and slows down the trip while you're trying to figure it out. Back when I was a kid, it was a lot easier, the fare was a quarter, you just dropped it in the farebox or turnstile, and off you went. For frequent users, they sold tokens at a discount. Also, no muss, no fuss, no complicated process to buy them. I guess the best thing with current technology would be a universal touchless card or phone app with all discounts embedded in your account..


----------



## jis (Jan 2, 2023)

MARC Rider said:


> As someone who uses senior fares when they are available, transit is close to "free" for me. (Heck it really is fare-free for me when I visit Philadelphia, though I guess I'm helping pay for it when I pay tolls on the PA Turnpike, whcih has no senior discount, by the way.)
> 
> The real hassle of paying fares for transit is not the cost for most people, but rather hassle of having to rummage through your pockets for exact change for an odd fare (like $2.75), or having to puzzle over a ticket vending machine to decide what to buy, and then having the machine not work properly, or decline your card or have a chip malfunction, etc. Touchless fare cards, and smartphone-based fares might help to some degree, but it is a hassle for the casual user and slows down the trip while you're trying to figure it out. Back when I was a kid, it was a lot easier, the fare was a quarter, you just dropped it in the farebox or turnstile, and off you went. For frequent users, they sold tokens at a discount. Also, no muss, no fuss, no complicated process to buy them. I guess the best thing with current technology would be a universal touchless card or phone app with all discounts embedded in your account..


In my experience with fare collection media, the most seamless that is available now is NFC wearables. I have used my Apple Watch with Express Transit Card, just tap the watch on the reader as you pass by. It is already on your wrist, so no need to look for the phone or card.

As for whether the fare collected on board or at the gate or ticket office is zero or not, all that we are deciding is what proportion of the total cost of operation is being funded by sources other than the farebox, and then deciding what is the most sustainable way of managing such a funding source, or two. There are very few, if any at all, transit systems that are truly self sustaining based on the farebox alone.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 2, 2023)

Not all of us wear such devices - after all, they are an added expense that, if worn just to pay fares, would take a long time to pay for if even if using them reduced fares.

It should not be an "either-or" situation between "affordable/free" fares and reliable/frequent/convenient routes. Both should be achievable.


----------



## jis (Jan 2, 2023)

Qapla said:


> Not all of us wear such devices - after all, they are an added expense that, if worn just to pay fares, would take a long time to pay for if even if using them reduced fares.
> 
> It should not be an "either-or" situation between "affordable/free" fares and reliable/frequent/convenient routes. Both should be achievable.


I agree with you on both the points you make. Until Musk manages to get the legislators to agree to require implantation of an NFC device into all that is  .... Juuuust kidding.


----------



## skylar (Jan 2, 2023)

flitcraft said:


> In the early 1980's, Seattle's busses were all free in the downtown core. It seemed to work well. Passengers entered and exited more quickly at stops because they could use both front and back doors, downtown retail could better compete with malls and their free parking, those of us that worked downtown could catch a bus and do some shopping or eat lunch at a restaurant located blocks away, and drivers could avoid exorbitant parking charges by parking at the edges of the ride-free zone where parking was much cheaper and easier to find. Some years back--well before the pandemic--this all came to an end, though I have no idea why. I do know that during the pandemic, Seattle transit became de facto free--you were still supposed to pay, but they stopped enforcing fares entirely. Still is the case, pretty much--they do spot checks now for fare evasion, but if someone is caught riding without having paid, they are simply told that they should have paid, but that's it--no ticket, no being escorted off the train or bus, no record kept of the incident. For those who do pay fares, we feel a bit like chumps seeing this. But we pay anyway, because it's the right thing to do.
> 
> Frankly, I do think that local public transit ought to be free, just like K-12 education is. If we could encourage less auto use for local transportation, that would be a boon for the environment and a public community good. Of course it does have to be paid for, and I have my own ideas about how that ought to happen. But that discussion would violate the 'no politics' rule!


The downtown ride free area went away back in 2012 as a compromise to satisfy some county council members to increase Metro's budget after it had severe shortfalls after the 2008 financial crisis and would have had to cut service. During the pandemic, service was also free for about 6 months (roughly March 2020 to Sept 2020) while Metro installed plastic shields to protect the operators while collecting fare. Fare enforcement was suspended after that to avoid conflicts but already is back, though with a pretty light touch.

As for the downtown RFA, it sort of worked, but was confusing outside of downtown because you had to know whether your bus was approaching downtown (requiring payment on entry), or leaving downtown (requiring payment on exit). For buses that change direction or were through-routed, you had to know what direction or route the coach was when it was downtown. For instance, at the time I moved out in 2006, the 43 would run from downtown<->UW (roughly north/south), and then turn into the 44 to continue to Ballard (east/west). If I were leaving work at UW waiting for the 44, it would be traveling parallel to downtown but still be pay-on-exit.

A few years later, Metro partially split the 44 from the 43, so some runs started at UWMC, and those would be pay-on-entry, but there would be no way to know looking at a timetable whether that particular coach started as a 43 or maybe was just a really late 44 that never was a 43 (this was before bus tracking). Even as an experienced transit user, I was confused, so it really was a barrier to using transit for visitors or infrequent riders. I don't miss those days.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Jan 2, 2023)

I think I like a compromise—not free, but almost—like the senior fare card in Philly that MARC Rider mentions. And the one-day pass for tourists that lets you on and off as much as you want for (I believe) a 24-hour period.

In general, in Center City, I’ve noticed seniors and tourists taking the bus and getting on and off for short distances, and younger working people mostly walking. (And before I was a senior, I did a lot of the “mostly walking.”) 

I can see two benefits to this system. First (and I’ve done something like this), if you can hop on and off without paying extra, you’re going to be putting much more money into the city than you are taking it out of the city. You might, for example, hop off at the SEPTA store and buy a cute tree ornament, then at the holiday plaza and buy hot chocolate and look at the tree, then head back toward the waterfront and get distracted by a chocolate shop on a side street, so get off there and buy a box....and on and off a few more times. Then be so exhausted that, instead of getting something cheap from a chain, you end up at the hotel dining room relaxing over an expensive dinner and putting even more money back into the city instead!

And as a local senior, you might be doing the same thing, only for errands—stop at a market to get something, a store to get something else, an office you have business at, etc.

The second benefit I can see is that older people are riding the buses, connecting with others (I’ve had many delightful conversations with seniors on the buses in Philly), keeping their minds sharp and bodies active—instead of thinking, “It’s too expensive, I’ll stay home” and ending up with declining health sooner than if they had stayed active.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 2, 2023)

MarkInAustin said:


> Agree with all who place the utility of the service for the community as the primary goal. Austin has a rail metro service that is one line, little used, and toll cost is thus virtually irrelevant. There is no parking at most stations. Ridership is significant only on Friday and Saturday nights, but it is never crowded like an east coast subway. As is, its utility to the community is low.
> 
> Bus service makes more sense when there are bus lanes that permit relatively free flow of bus traffic.
> 
> ...


I live in Austin also, and the only time I ride the Red Line ( our Billion $$$ Boondoggle)is when Train friends are visiting and want to ride.( we call it the Train to nowhere, it runs from downtown through NW Austin, doesn't stop in Cedar Park , fastest growing Suburb in the US, and ends in the Country outside Leander some 20+ miles from Austin.

Our City buses( Cap Metro runs them and the Red Line) are constantly being rerouted due to the horrible traffic and constant construction going on in Austin, making them difficult to use and unreliable).

When I first retired 12 years ago, Seniors could ride Free, but now you have to Buy a Senior Fare ID for $5 ( good for 3 years) by visiting Cap Metro Headquarters downtown, then pay 1/2 Price for each ride.

In my case, to reach Downtown, where Parking is Difficult to Impossible,( 2 miles away across the River) requires 2 changes of buses and takes 45 minutes. When I retired there was a One Seat ride that took 15 minutes.

We've passed a Huge Bond Issue ( Billions) to build a Light Rail System that runs from downtown to the Airport,to the University and to South Austin, but already the plans are being downgraded due to Inflation and NIMBYs and Politicans fighting it Tooth and Nail.

Should Public Transportation be "Free"? No, we all Pay for it, but it sure helps overcome the Gridlock that occurs in Cities that push Automotive Traffic as the Prime way to get around! YMMV


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 2, 2023)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> In general, in Center City, I’ve noticed seniors and tourists taking the bus and getting on and off for short distances, and younger working people mostly walking. (And before I was a senior, I did a lot of the “mostly walking.”)
> 
> I can see two benefits to this system. First (and I’ve done something like this), if you can hop on and off without paying extra, you’re going to be putting much more money into the city than you are taking it out of the city. You might, for example, hop off at the SEPTA store and buy a cute tree ornament, then at the holiday plaza and buy hot chocolate and look at the tree, then head back toward the waterfront and get distracted by a chocolate shop on a side street, so get off there and buy a box....and on and off a few more times. Then be so exhausted that, instead of getting something cheap from a chain, you end up at the hotel dining room relaxing over an expensive dinner and putting even more money back into the city instead!



That's a good argument in favor of an unlimited-ride pass. But, regardless of the fare, the "hop on, hop off" type of use is only practical if the service is frequent. If you knew you had a 30-60 minute wait for the next trip, you'd probably not be inclined to get off to grab something from a small shop. If the next bus or train was 5-10 minutes away (and another one 5-10 minutes after that), it's less of a concern.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Jan 2, 2023)

Trogdor said:


> That's a good argument in favor of an unlimited-ride pass. But, regardless of the fare, the "hop on, hop off" type of use is only practical if the service is frequent. If you knew you had a 30-60 minute wait for the next trip, you'd probably not be inclined to get off to grab something from a small shop. If the next bus or train was 5-10 minutes away (and another one 5-10 minutes after that), it's less of a concern.



That’s an excellent point about the frequency. Yes, I was thinking of a large city center — the longest I’ve ever waited for a bus in Center City Philly is maybe 15 minutes—and that’s because several might arrive right behind each other and then there would be a slight lull.

So I agree—it wouldn’t work as well in a less dense city or even in the areas of Philly that are farther out and have fewer buses.


----------



## City of Miami (Jan 2, 2023)

In my 50+ years of using public transit exclusively in many cities foreign and domestic the most important thing by far is dependability. A bus every half hour or even hour is doable if it will reliably be there when it is scheduled to be. A bus supposedly every 10 minutes rates far lower for the rider when you have to gamble when that will be.
The fare question is a variation on you get what you pay for. Locally fare free has driven everyone off the bus except, well, I can't say can I? For me service has deteriorated to the point that it is very often a miserable experience to be avoided when possible. But it's so-called FREE baby and that alone is somehow makes it progress.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jan 3, 2023)

Yeah the homeless problem is a far reaching issue that is impacting mass transit.

I am a house first supporter. Get a roof over them, then determine and treat any underlying issues with them. Bad luck is very treatable, just as much as addictive and mental issues.

My biggest grip from the 90’s was homeless shelters kicking people to the street during daylight. Never thought that was a good plan then, still happening today.

I still stand-by the free core, but I agree there a good way to do it and a not so good way. Seattle’s way seem quite messed up. Denver has a pretty neat corridor for this. Denver is/was a free, frequency bus on a bus only road with lots of restaurants and entertainment locations. You could start the route right at the Union Station light rail station and get off to eat or drink wherever you fancy. This bus is a stand-alone service, if you want to go else where you need to hop off and hop on a light rail, bus, metro train.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jan 3, 2023)

City of Miami said:


> In my 50+ years of using public transit exclusively in many cities foreign and domestic the most important thing by far is dependability. A bus every half hour or even hour is doable if it will reliably be there when it is scheduled to be. A bus supposedly every 10 minutes rates far lower for the rider when you have to gamble when that will be.
> The fare question is a variation on you get what you pay for. Locally fare free has driven everyone off the bus except, well, I can't say can I? For me service has deteriorated to the point that it is very often a miserable experience to be avoided when possible. But it's so-called FREE baby and that alone is somehow makes it progress.


In principal, I agree with you, but your examples are too extreme. I would absolutely take 10 or 15 minute unreliable frequencies over half hour reliable frequencies.

I lived for a year by a 10-minute bus with bad reliability (the MBTA 1 bus from Harvard Sq to Nubian Station). In general, it was hard to wait more than 10 minutes for a bus, even if you missed one, or it was super late. If one bus was late, usually the subsequent bus was not, meaning at the very worst, you'd wait 20 minutes.

If you miss a bus with half hour frequency, you're SOL. I really can't defend that.


----------



## Barb Stout (Jan 3, 2023)

Albuquerque started a no-fare bus policy at the beginning of 2022 ostensibly due to the economic disaster that befell many people here in ABQ during Covid19. There have been indeed reports of more crime or fear of crime, drug use, drinking alcohol on the bus, harassment, etc, and the city had a hard time keeping bus drivers on certain routes. However, the crime rate overall has gone up during after Covid19, so I'm not sure how much which factors are more important in the analysis. I know of a number of people who used to take the bus who don't anymore because of this idea or situation of it being dangerous. There are also homeless people who get on a bus and stay there for a lengthy time just to get out of the elements and homeless people and/or begging scare some people. My own feeling is if they're not causing trouble and if there is enough room, why not let the homeless ride the bus? I have taken the bus only once since the no-fare policy was instituted and was surprised by how few people took the bus from a certain transportation center near the city outskirts. It picked up markedly at the downtown stop. This situation was quite different from when I was taking the bus on a daily basis about 10 years ago when there were a lot more people taking it from that transportation center.


----------



## City of Miami (Jan 3, 2023)

Tlcooper93 said:


> In principal, I agree with you, but your examples are too extreme. I would absolutely take 10 or 15 minute unreliable frequencies over half hour reliable frequencies.


Perhaps we have different priorities. Mine is where I wait. I much prefer waiting at home before I head out for a bus that will be there as scheduled. Additionally apps are a great aid where I can see the current location (even if none as is often the case here) of the bus I want and make my own departure rendezvous calculations. Afaict few people take advantage of this technology.


----------



## BCL (Jan 3, 2023)

I've seen partially free. In Southern California many agencies have a free student transit pass, although I couldn't take advantage of it with my child who isn't a student in the area. San Francisco MUNI has gone to a free service for those 18 and younger, although cable cars require full fare for all riders.






Free Muni for All Youth (18 years and younger)


The SFMTA has expanded the Free Muni for Low- and Moderate-Income Youth to all youth 18 years and younger, regardless of household income level. No application or proof of payment/Clipper card is required to ride Muni vehicles, with the exception of Cable Cars. Simply get on and ride.Calling all...




www.sfmta.com



The pilot program is possible as a result of San Francisco Mayor London Breed’s budget proposal for FY2022, which includes $2 million to fund this program for 12 months. This program launched August 15, 2021, in conjunction with the start of the 2021-2022 school year, and will continue through June 30, 2024.​​This change eliminates the requirement for families or households to submit an application with proof of age and self-certification of income.​​Current Free Muni for Youth program participants no longer need to carry their Clipper card with the pass or tap when boarding vehicles, with the exception of cable car service.​​Proof of payment is not required from youth who appear to be 18 years and younger.​​Youth 16 and above are encouraged to carry a student ID or other form of ID for age verification. Muni fares for regular service will also be waived for students enrolled in the SFUSD’s English Learner and Special Education Services programs through the age of 22.​​Current Free Muni for Youth participants can continue to use their Clipper card for free fares on the cable car or *request a new cable car pass,* which is also available to San Francisco youth 5-18, regardless of household income. Youth 4 and younger are always free on the cable car.​


----------



## Matthew H Fish (Jan 5, 2023)

I live in a city (Corvallis, Oregon) where all the buses are free. But it is a small college town, in population as well as physical size, so many of the bus routes are short routes that take 30 minutes from start to returning to their starting point--- my average ride on the bus is shorter than 10 minutes. 
I am very much of two minds about it. On one hand, I like it personally, and it is very convenient. I also think it can help a lot of people who need a bus for basic necessities. 
On the other hand, I think it is generally a bad thing that in most smaller US cities, buses are treated as a social service only for the destitute, rather than as an efficient way to move a lot of people. This leads to slow, inefficient routes, because the idea is that the people who are riding are probably not employed, and they should be happy for what they get. A bus that is free, but makes employment or accessing services very difficult, doesn't really help as much as it seems.


----------



## cirdan (Jan 6, 2023)

Just my two cents here.

I do not believe that inability to pay transit fares are a significant barrier to ridership, especially if many of the people you are trying to attract are driving cars with five digit price tags.

And if indeed there are sub-groups of customers whose livelihood is so fragile that having to pay a fare would force them to starve, then there must surely be other more meaningful ways to help such individuals.

For example many transit agencies already offer lower fares for pensioners who are for the most part typically travelling off peak anyway and thus filling seats that would otherwise be empty anyway. Free tickets could also be handed out to the extremely vulnerable, especially if being able to use transit helps them achieve social integration, partake in beneficial social activities, find a job etc.

But at the end of the day, if the average customer is not prepared to put money on the table for a service, then that service can't be particularly good in the first place.

I don't see any reason why transit should be free any more than say, groceries should be free.

Sadly, transit agencies are often also political playballs. Maybe some years down the road another administration will come to power locally who are less inclined to lavishly fund the transit agency's activities. Even if the farebox covers 20 or 30 percent of all costs, that is a second leg that the agency is standing on and means the agency is not entirely at the mercy of political muscle who can pull the rug basically from one day to the next.

Money does make the world go round and if a transit agency is discouraging ridership, it will feel that directly by loss of fare income. Such an agency will thus do its utmost to serve markets that can be served rationally rather than hiding behind excuses or ticking boxes. An agency whose renumeration depends entirely on convincing the government that they are doing a good job will quite naturally shift its creative capabilities to serving that illusion.

This is why I reject free transit, but I am open to corporations sponsoring tickets to encourage people to use transit. For example today many downtown stores will refund parking fees for those who spend money with them, but not refund transit fares. This leads to a systemic imbalance.


----------



## jis (Jan 6, 2023)

cirdan said:


> This is why I reject free transit, but I am open to corporations sponsoring tickets to encourage people to use transit. For example today many downtown stores will refund parking fees for those who spend money with them, but not refund transit fares. This leads to a systemic imbalance.


Kansas City downtown business district chooses to fund the Streetcar to run a fare free service instead of going through the rigmarole of first collecting a fare and then refunding it. I suspect this would be acceptable to you under the "corporation sponsoring ticket collectively" clause?


----------



## cirdan (Jan 6, 2023)

jis said:


> Kansas City downtown business district chooses to fund the Streetcar to run a fare free service instead of going through the rigmarole of first collecting a fare and then refunding it. I suspect this would be acceptable to you under the "corporation sponsoring ticket collectively" clause?


I guess any form of transit is better than no transit.

I am not familiar with he streetcar in Kansas City, but downtown circulators often have a tendency to be novelty rides rather than a meaningful part of an interconnected transit system. I would rather the fare sponsorship somehow took people all the way home.

But maybe its a step in the right direction, and beggars can't be chosers.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jan 6, 2023)

cirdan said:


> Just my two cents here.
> 
> I do not believe that inability to pay transit fares are a significant barrier to ridership, especially if many of the people you are trying to attract are driving cars with five digit price tags.
> 
> And if indeed there are sub-groups of customers whose livelihood is so fragile that having to pay a fare would force them to starve, then there must surely be other more meaningful ways to help such individuals.


This is very true.
Within my own extended family, I have some (city dwelling) relatives who are well below the poverty line, yet still afford to drive, which, when all is said and done, is far more expensive that any monthly transit plan.

For the individuals who truly can't afford transit, there are more meaningful ways to help them, as mobility around the city is not their biggest concern.


City of Miami said:


> Perhaps we have different priorities. Mine is where I wait. I much prefer waiting at home before I head out for a bus that will be there as scheduled. Additionally apps are a great aid where I can see the current location (even if none as is often the case here) of the bus I want and make my own departure rendezvous calculations. Afaict few people take advantage of this technology.


For what its worth, your perception with regard to apps is wrong. App use to determine transit times is widespread, especially amongst gen z and millennials. For the MBTA alone, there are three apps.

In terms of 10 min, vs. 30min:
Firstly, its not just transit leaving home, but transit coming home. I currently live next to a bus that has 25 minute frequencies (at best). Yes, I can use an app to help out with my departures, but it sucks for return journeys. For many, a bus is not the only form of transit they take to their destination. I get off a red line train at Harvard to transfer to the 74 bus, only to have to wait.

A personal preference for an on time 30 min frequency bus, is still a significantly *downgraded* form of transit from a spotty 10 min service which is far more useful to far more people. Also, you realize you can use your app to determine where you wait for the 10 min frequency bus too right?


----------



## Matthew H Fish (Jan 6, 2023)

But another thing to consider is that for the most part, a gigantic part of transit is free, in that roads are free. This might seem like a glib point, but from both a philosophical and practical viewpoint, what is the difference between having a free bus, and a free road? 
Especially because there are many situations where there might be a road or bridge that is difficult to maintain, and might connect a pretty small community. If anyone wants, I could probably find a specific example, but there are probably many cases where there is a 20 million dollar bridge to connect an area of maybe 100 homes---and people who might take that for granted might think of 20 million dollars for free city buses that would serve thousands of people as a "giveaway".


----------



## Matthew H Fish (Jan 6, 2023)

Okay, I did find a specific example!
I looked at the Corvallis budget, and the Transit Fund is 8 million dollars per year
https://archives.corvallisoregon.gov/public/ElectronicFile.aspx?dbid=0&docid=3093251 
(you do have to scroll down a bit to find the itemized budget)
For a ridership that was (pre-pandemic) between 70,000 and 120,000 people per month:


https://archives.corvallisoregon.gov/public/ElectronicFile.aspx?dbid=0&docid=928257


And then I looked at a database of state road projects. This one was somewhat comparable in cost:


Oregon Department of Transportation : Project-Details : Projects : State of Oregon


This was to heighten a single bridge over the freeway, in a sparsely populated area, and if it wasn't there, the alternative would have been to drive 1.5 miles down the frontage road to an underpass. (The main reason they did this was for trucks below on the freeway, but it might have been cheaper just to remove it entirely)
I am sure there are other examples, and there might be something I am missing there, but basically, the annual cost for my city of 60,000 people to have free bus service is about twice that of a city of 1500 people to replace a single freeway overpass.


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 6, 2023)

If the argument is that we should be spending a ton more on transit vs what we are spending on highways, you won’t get any disagreement from me. If transit was as lavishly funded in this country as roads are, then we could afford to make it free without a significant negative impact on service levels.

But I want to see all that money being spent on transit first, because we have a long way to go before we have transit as ubiquitous and available as highways and roads. And even then, some portion of highway funding comes from gas taxes, which are the best equivalent we’ve come up with (other than toll roads) to a user fee.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 6, 2023)

Trogdor said:


> some portion of highway funding comes from gas taxes, which are the best equivalent we’ve come up with (other than toll roads) to a user fee.



And that is being diminished with the advent of electric cars since they don't pay for gas.

If the perception that transit (mass or free) is only for those without cars or, in some other way, is connected with "the poor" - there will not be any "lavish spending" on transit. Before the funding can increase and transit becomes "universal" the attitude/view/impression/presentation of transit must change. That could be done without spending any money - but those in power don't really want that.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 7, 2023)

Trogdor said:


> And even then, some portion of highway funding comes from gas taxes, which are the best equivalent we’ve come up with (other than toll roads) to a user fee.


It shouldn't be too hard to devise some way to charge drivers for the mileage their cars ride over the public roads. A number of insurance companies are now selling policies where your premium is determined by the numbers of miles you drive. Heck, the technology could probably determine what roads people drive, so they could be charged different rates for urban expressways, sprawl arterials, local streets, or rural roads. This would probably also have a benefit on greenhouse gas reductions, and possibly the reduction of highway building, as drivers might be encouraged to drive less, which is what the goal of transportation policy should be.


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 7, 2023)

MARC Rider said:


> It shouldn't be too hard to devise some way to charge drivers for the mileage their cars ride over the public roads. A number of insurance companies are now selling policies where your premium is determined by the numbers of miles you drive. Heck, the technology could probably determine what roads people drive, so they could be charged different rates for urban expressways, sprawl arterials, local streets, or rural roads. This would probably also have a benefit on greenhouse gas reductions, and possibly the reduction of highway building, as drivers might be encouraged to drive less, which is what the goal of transportation policy should be.



“Devising some way” is the easy part. Getting the population at large to accept it in light of privacy concerns (real or perceived) is far more difficult.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jan 7, 2023)

Qapla said:


> And that is being diminished with the advent of electric cars since they don't pay for gas.


Not only that, but gas engines have become significantly more efficient since the last time the gas tax was raised, back in 1993. 
Even Randall Otoole advocated for a vehicle miles traveled tax. There's simply no way getting around the fact that roads no longer pay for themselves (they never did, despite some people thinking they do), and its starting to show.


Trogdor said:


> Getting the population at large to accept it in light of privacy concerns (real or perceived) is far more difficult.


This is definitely going to be the largest hurdle to overcome. 

In terms of free transit, I feel really believe that perception has to change in this country for us to get anywhere. Making transit free, in large part, will only harm its public perception. At the end of the day, people have a say where their tax dollars go (whether or not you agree with their desires). Therefore, transit has to fundamentally be desirable to a lot of people.

While the discussion around environmental impact, racial equity and traffic calming matters, they are all secondary or tertiary to the fundamental point of transit: to get people from a to b, quickly, and reliably. If you focus on making transit the best option travel wise, all of these things will be added unto you, in _sermon on the mount_ kind of way,

Every great transit system in the world works so well, because it is the best possible option in as many travel scenarios as possible.

To bring it back to the MBTA in my original post, instead of Wu insisting on running free buses and trains, she and others ought to focus on running _great_ buses and trains. She claims that we can do two things at once, but I have seen no evidence of that.


----------



## cirdan (Monday at 11:27 AM)

MARC Rider said:


> It shouldn't be too hard to devise some way to charge drivers for the mileage their cars ride over the public roads. A number of insurance companies are now selling policies where your premium is determined by the numbers of miles you drive.


In addition to charging for miles driven, it is time to start thinking about charging for parking in a fair way. Parking a vehicle in an inner city location and paying pennies for the priviledge is the few living at the cost of the many when you take into account land value and what else could be done with it. 

More and more cities are also introducing congestion charging schemes. In London for example a large part of the money raised is earmarked specifically for investment in public transportation. Unfortunately the city leadership have displayed a remarkable gift for frittering that money away on pet projects rather than using it to its greatest effectivity. But that doesn't invalidate the underlying concept.


----------



## cirdan (Monday at 11:35 AM)

Tlcooper93 said:


> This is very true.
> Within my own extended family, I have some (city dwelling) relatives who are well below the poverty line, yet still afford to drive, which, when all is said and done, is far more expensive that any monthly transit plan.


This may also be an attitude thing. In the same way that many relatively poor people still manage to buy new clothes rather than buying second hand. Likewise they often manage to have the latest iPod or whatever. Rather than criticizing this as irresponsible waste, I think it is important to recognize that when you are poor it is important to have something in your life that is good so you don't totally lose face and descend into a pit of hopelessness.

In the case of transit, the solution here would be to convince more people that actually transit is cool and cars are just a 20th Century leftover, rather than the other way around. This is not achieved by making transit free but on the contrary by making it more up market with more frills and comforts and providing a more reliable and robust service. If that involves raising the fares by a reasonable and proportionate amount, so be it.

If poor people saw that rich people are using public transit too, and doing so in large numbers, that would remove the shame factor.

Think of it this way. When your bus is stuck in congestion and you have no idea when you will be home, and a magic fairy came and said, for a 20 percent higher fare you could be home by now. You have the choice. Would you take it?

Would you take it even if you were poor?


----------



## MARC Rider (Monday at 7:11 PM)

Just heard a guy from Washington State DOT give a presentation at the TRB meeting today. Apparently they're going to have free youth fares for kids under 18 on the Amtrak Cascades. He claimed it was the first time this sort of thing was available on an intercity train.


----------



## cirdan (Tuesday at 5:16 AM)

Trogdor said:


> “Devising some way” is the easy part. Getting the population at large to accept it in light of privacy concerns (real or perceived) is far more difficult.


I think privacy concerns are very real. But I also recognize my credit card provider could, if they wanted to, map out a pretty accurate picture of my day to day if not minute to minute activities, and identify my hobbies, food preferences, preferred brands, vacation destinations, etc.

And yet they still manage to flood me with advertising material that completely misses the mark.

I think one thing the covid crisis has shown is that people are prepared to give up privacy concerns and disclose their medical status to complete strangers, including big corporations with a bad record on data privacy, just to be allowed to board a flight or whatever. This shows how quickly privacy concerns can be scattered and forgotten about if there is a personal advantage at stake.


----------



## MARC Rider (Tuesday at 5:44 AM)

cirdan said:


> I think privacy concerns are very real. But I also recognize my credit card provider could, if they wanted to, map out a pretty accurate picture of my day to day if not minute to minute activities, and identify my hobbies, food preferences, preferred brands, vacation destinations, etc.
> 
> And yet they still manage to flood me with advertising material that completely misses the mark.
> 
> I think one thing the covid crisis has shown is that people are prepared to give up privacy concerns and disclose their medical status to complete strangers, including big corporations with a bad record on data privacy, just to be allowed to board a flight or whatever. This shows how quickly privacy concerns can be scattered and forgotten about if there is a personal advantage at stake.


Yeah, the privacy train has left the station hours ago. Anyway, all the goverment needs to know is how many miles you've driven, not where you've driven them.


----------



## cirdan (Tuesday at 8:54 AM)

MARC Rider said:


> Yeah, the privacy train has left the station hours ago. Anyway, all the goverment needs to know is how many miles you've driven, not where you've driven them.


or track the vehicle, not the person.
in 99% of cases that maybe boils down to the same thing, but it's not the same thing, and more specifically, it cannot be constituted as evidence against the person.


----------



## City of Miami (Tuesday at 10:14 AM)

MARC Rider said:


> Apparently they're going to have free youth fares for kids under 18 on the Amtrak Cascades.


Get them in the habit while they're young?


----------



## Trogdor (Tuesday at 4:10 PM)

MARC Rider said:


> Yeah, the privacy train has left the station hours ago. Anyway, all the goverment needs to know is how many miles you've driven, not where you've driven them.



Sure, plenty of people willingly give up their personal info voluntarily to private companies for all sorts of reasons (probably one of the biggest reasons of which is that they don’t think of it/realize it). Many of those same people are anti-government everything, and would absolutely riot at the idea of government tracking the first thing about them.


----------



## jebr (Tuesday at 4:51 PM)

cirdan said:


> In the case of transit, the solution here would be to convince more people that actually transit is cool and cars are just a 20th Century leftover, rather than the other way around. This is not achieved by making transit free but on the contrary by making it more up market with more frills and comforts and providing a more reliable and robust service. If that involves raising the fares by a reasonable and proportionate amount, so be it.



There already seems to be some of this shift with the younger generation - a smaller percentage of young people are getting driver's licenses than they used to, and there's demand for better transit service. What we need is an efficient, effective transit system in most of the country to make this decision a reasonable one for most people, that doesn't have to be given up once they get a job, or have kids with even a modicum of daily activities, etc.



cirdan said:


> Think of it this way. When your bus is stuck in congestion and you have no idea when you will be home, and a magic fairy came and said, for a 20 percent higher fare you could be home by now. You have the choice. Would you take it?



Not only that - but transit is often not just "stuck in congestion." In most of America, you're looking at cutback after cutback to service, routes that maybe only come once an hour or once every 30 minutes, trips dropped at the last minute, and long walks to get to the one stop with service on roads that often have pitiful pedestrian infrastructure. In most of America, non-automobile travel is relegated to the bottom-of-the-barrel, service-of-last-resort standard, rather than building a reasonable alternative that a significant portion of the population could find usable. Who's going to rely on transit when day-of cancellation emails are often the norm, the last train leaves at 11 PM, even on weekends when the bars are open until 2 AM, and almost every route, even core local routes, has had frequency dropped by 25 - 50% in the past three years?

As to the title of the thread - free transit basically says, to me, that the jurisdiction has given up on operating useful transit, and instead they're operating it solely as an option-of-last-resort for people who have no other option. That isn't a system I want, and in basically every American city the investment to make transit free would be better served by keeping the fares but improving transit access.


----------

