Should transit be free?
 

Transit companies across the country are raising fares and/or cutting service, but there are good arguments for reducing fares, or even making them free. What do you think?

Also: http://dagblog.com/technology/free-t...-slugging-9289

Most fare collection is electronic and already in place. So no saved costs.

Transit ridership is not hugely sensitive to cost. Many agencies have "free days" and really don't see large increases in ridership.

Since transit ridership is largely already the domain of the poorer demographic groups it is unlikely that further reductions in cost would CHANGE the demographic.

Such benefits are tenous at best. In many ways this argument is like the folks who claim that they have saved X% when they purchase an item on sale. This is only true if they would have purchased the item at full price and further ignores that they still only SPENT money.

Simply not going to happen. As pointed out above, transit ridership is relatively immune to price changes, further, most transit systems are low capacity without capacity for MASSIVE increases in ridership. And considering the cost associated with adding additional capacity (Transit has huge capitol and operating costs related to other modes), it simply isn't viable...

I think this is a first... I have read a myrridin post and agreed with it 100%!

Nothing personal, Roody, but myrridin is right this time; I've seen it in my town, and he could have been describing my transit experience over the last decade.

For much of the country, myrriden has a point. However, for places with a more "mature" transportation infrastructure (mature=crowded and congested), especially those locales that had the wisdom to put back in some of their rail-based transit, I think there is a lot to gain by eliminating fares.

Even though the fares are mostly electronic, those machines still have to be maintained and the barriers, also electronic, have to be maintained. So, there is at least some savings to be had here. Also, connecting buses often collect fares, which slow them down a bit.

As far as increasing ridership and diversifying the demographics goes, I believe this can happen. When Sacramento started putting its light-rail back in a couple decades back, they offered a reduced "lunch" fare of $.90 for a two hour pass. While the buses were still populated by mostly poor folks, the light-rail had a very diverse population ranging from 95th income percentile down to students.

So, if mass transit consists of only buses, then eliminating fares may not get much bang for the (lack of) buck. But, where there are rail systems, especially those that are well maintained, then much of what Roody hopes for might happen. It would be an interesting experiment if there was a jurisdiction in America that still had the guts to try new things.

Is this true? I'm aware that poorer people do ride on the bus. However, I also see a lot of well-dressed people heading off to work on the bus. I believe many of them use the bus because it's convenient.

I wouldn't assume working people are the poorer demographic group... although the governor of Wisconsin may soon have it otherwise.

I can see flaws with both sides of the argument, but to view this as a dualistic 'will work' or 'won't work' doesn't seem accurate either. For instance:

1. just because fare collection is already in place doesn't mean taking them out will have no impact. These electronics have wear, break down, will need upgrades, maintenance...

2. I've seen 'Free Ride' weeks in Houston and Austin with ridership increase dramatically. It made the news several days in a row. About 5 or 6 years ago, Houston seriously considered lowering bus fares to almost nothing because of the increase in patronage during 'Free Ride Week'.

3. I don't have enough information about rider demographics so I can't really comment.

4. Your telling me that if people used public transportation instead of driving individually there won't be any environmental impact? Then why all the government push to car pool???

5. I think that we can all agree that if enough people show interest in ANYTHING, especially something in the city's control, political representatives will get on board.

I don't think this needs to be a MSNBC verses FOXNEWS or anything. I'm merely pointing out that there are merits and flaws on both sides regardless of your personal view.

If you continually give people things for free, they look at it as a right or entitlement. If you make them pay for it, they may take ownership in it, then again they may not. Look at how many driver's think they should all have uncluttered 6 lane freeways for their commute to work, even though the costs are staggering. They also piss and moan every time a stretch of road is considered for tolls.

Aaron :)

Rather than describing transit riders as poor, I would prefer to say that mean income level of transit riders is lower than the mean income level of motorists. Which is why the argument that free transit will help the poor by increasing ridership among the poor is problematic.

The problem is that transit is the most expensive mode of transportation available. Rail has tremendous capital costs and high operating costs. Bus travel is lower, but requires all of the road costs in addition to the transit specific costs. The costs associated with collecting the fees are minuscule compared to the bulk of the costs associated with transit which is why free fares will not "save" much. And the single biggest flaw with the argument, is that no transit system in the country has the capacity available for large ridership increases. Indeed during the last gas spike, many transit systems reached capacity with additional demand still available. And adding significant capacity is simply not an option--the costs are simply too high.

Transit has it uses, and there are reasons why a society implements it; however, cost effectiveness is not one. If one looks at ridership and income levels of most transit systems in the US, it is easy to see that for the associated costs, it would be cheaper to simply pay these people to stay home and not work...

Our transit company was very sly about it. They lowered base fare from $1.25 to $1, and eliminated the higher suburban fare zones. This resulted in a huge increase in ridership, especially from the suburbs.

What they did at the same time, though, was eliminate transfers. It's a buck with every boarding. A $1.40 ride shot up to $2. True, they introduced the $3.50 all day pass, but my usage would still have gone from $2.80 to $3.50. Effectively, the urban users are now subsidizing the suburban users.

That's what caused me to buy a bike. I took delivery three days before the new fares went into place. And I'm grateful. My little act of peasant revolt completely changed my life for the better.

Im a firm believer of nothings free.

In a city with little downtown parking and already crowded public transit like Boston, it'd save me $60 a month on my monthly pass, but I don't think it'd change usage at all and would probably lead to train cars being less well cared for than they are now. On the plus side, that might encourage me to commute by bike more.

I drive a school bus about thirty miles in the morning and thirty two miles in the afternoon. In the morning I pick up about eight kids and bring them to one school. Six get off and about eight get on. Then I go to the next school and drop off six. I pick up one kid and then go to the last school where the remainder of them get off.

The bus gets six miles per gallon at $4.00 per gallon of the expensive diesel. I don't know how much it costs per rider with all that goes into the system. I'm sure it is expensive. Most of the people on my list don't ride the bus. in the morning. In the afternoon the bus has more than forty people. The route is a bit different but nearly the same distance.

School bus service is paid for with taxes, not out of pocket for the riders. Is it worth it? Does it really save the environment with low ridership? I wish I knew. There must be a way to calculate viability with all costs taken into account. Environmental benefits should be part of the figure. I work for a private company that bid on the school bus service contract so I know the company is making a profit doing this.

It seems mass transit is sort of like a chicken and the egg riddle. What will need to come first in order to get enough riders to make it viable? Will the system need to expand enough to entice more riders or will there need to be more riders to make the bus companies add more routes and more busses on existing routes?

I suppose public benefit must be part of the equation too. For people who can't drive cars there should be a way for them to get to work and do shopping. Those are basic things necessary for living.

First, I never said that we should have free transit. I only linked to an article that said we should.

Second, I don't think we know enough about this issue to have a definitive answer. I would love to see some experimentation done to see what effect free fares would have in different types of cities and suburbs. Until the study is done, I'm going to remain neutral.

I do think that the person who said transit is the most expensive form of transportation is full of crap. With even the cheapest car costing more than $15,000 this assumption is laughable.

I believe that ransit should be very cheap or free to those who are impoverished or on fixed incomes. This would include seniors, the disabled, the unemployed, and students. The ability to travel to school or new jobs is the only way these unfortunate people will ever be able to improve their lives and become full contributing citizens. But I have no problem with working people paying full fare--even increases in some cases--since they'll still be saving money over driving.

Here is an online calculator showing what you can save by taking public transit.

Unless your suburbs are in the incorporated city, the urban users are always subsidizing the suburban users. Where I live the city streets are literally falling apart. Since the damage is proportional to the speeds, weights, and numbers of motorized users, the bulk of the damage is done by suburbanites, none of whom pays a dime to repair the damage they do. You should see my teeth grind when these free-loaders tell me to get by bike off the road. Grrrr.

My bus company just did the opposite. They doubled the fare to one suburb that opted out of the regional transit plan. Since this area includes a big shopping mall, I'd like to know what effect, if any, this fare increase had on sales at the mall.

I think myrriden was referring to the government portion of the costs, not those borne by the user. So, whether someone drives a $200 beater or a $100,000 whatever, the taxpayer is subsidizing that driver to the same extent (discounting the likelihood that the "whatever" is likely a deductible business expense). I would guess that it is difficult to get honest numbers as to the extent and size of that subsidy, and we would have disagreements as to how much of the military and medical costs should be rolled into this, but I doubt that the costs of building and operating public transit is as great as the costs of having everyone in a car.

Actually, I was referring to total costs, not simply government costs, though per user government costs are far higher for transit than for automobiles (or other road users). The reasons are simple and fairly easy to understand. First all non rail transit utilize the road system, so all of the costs for the roads are included, in addition to the costs for purchasing and maintaining the transit system. Rail based transit avoids some of the road costs, though not all since many/most rail transit users get to their rail stations via road vehicles... On top of those costs, rail systems are tremendously expensive. Far more so on a per rider basis than roads, though that can be altered if right-of-way costs are sufficiently high. Roads require more right of way for a given trip density when compared to rail, which is why the relationship can switch, but since right of way costs are low in most places the additional demand doesn't change the relationship often. Such switches occur in very few areas of the US, mostly in places like the northeast and Chicago...

If rail transit was such a cost effective solution as some believe, then communities all across the country would be implementing it on their own; however, there isn't a single rail transit system in the US that was built based upon local funding. All have required significant federal subsidies. One that I am familiar with, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit, is quite likely going to go bankrupt. They borrowed heavily to accumulate the local matching funds required to put in the Light Rail System. They are having trouble keeping up with the debt payments. And this is with a local gas tax to subsidize the rail operations and decent (though not spectacular) ridership.

You might also state that there are no single urban freeway system paid for by local funding. All have required significant federal subsidies.

What does this really say? Answer: very little. If federal money was removed from the freeway system, you wouldn't get past the nearest rest stop.

The difference is that urban freeways connect multiple communities/states. It is a rare transit system that serves more than a local community/metroplex.

Also interstates/freeways are the predominant means of delivering goods to communities--ie, covered under the commerce clause. Transit rail solely moves people.

Well, imagine my surprise. I was reading my local newspaper online this morning and this letter to the editor was in it:
I hope they gather a bit of data. It will be interesting to see how this works out.

I do hope it works well for them and they don't find the increased ridership means they have to buy more busses and it ends up costing a lot more than $2.75/household.

Yes, absolutely; public transit should be free at the point of use, fast, and efficient.

I think a few random days don't tell us much - people have established commuting routines and may have paid for monthly parking, so they aren't highly motivated to travel in completely different manner for a one time saving of a dollar and a half. Any potential response to fare reductions would probably be evident over afew weeks, months or years.

In Toronto what we saw with the addition of subway lines in the 1950s and again in the 1970s and 1990s was a surge in population density and commercial development in the areas served - but of course that takes place over years, not days.

So you need a long-term plan and the political leadership to implement it, not a one day sale.

What do you base that claim on?

EDIT: Actually, I see you did write a more detailed explanation, but is seems to be pretty much descriptive and subjective. Are there any more objective cost analyses that back you up?