Should transit be free?

[Tlcooper44]

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

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/washington-dc-free-bus-transit/672407/
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]

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]

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

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/washington-dc-free-bus-transit/672407/
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?

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]

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]

---

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]

No it would result in overcrowded transit.

 

[flitcraft]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Tlcooper44]

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]

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]

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]

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.

https://www.sfmta.com/fares/free-muni-all-youth-18-years-and-younger​

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.​