Should transit be free?

[Matthew H Fish]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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=928257And then I looked at a database of state road projects. This one was somewhat comparable in cost:
https://www.oregon.gov/odot/projects/pages/project-details.aspx?project=20485This 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

“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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.