In London, the Mayor wants to individually name each line that operates as part of the London Overground. The project is set to cost $4M but there was some backlash because some people were arguing that that money could go towards lowering fares across the TFL network. Jago Hazzard made a video where he looks at the amount of journeys a year and he crunches the numbers; he found that the average journey on the Tube would be lowered by a quarter of a penny.
This is unrelated to the article but is the station of the Montreal Metro, Bonaventure station? Caught my eye being familiar due to being the first and last station I’ve went to on my trip to Montreal recently. Took a Via Rail train to and Toronto and Montreal, so got off at Union and Bonaventure respectively
100% agreed. Unfortunately a lot of agencies like San Diego's are hiding behind the COVID-induced driver shortage as an excuse to not increase frequencies. Well then at least save and invest funds to spend on more service once the driver shortage ends.
San Diego MTS is facing a fiscal cliff by 2028. It's already cut bus service repeatedly. Unfortunately the County voted to expand free fares to everyone 24 and under.
I voiced these concerns to San Diego's Regional Planning Association spokesperson but she simply said "frequency and free fares are not competing goals, they're being funded from different revenue streams." Technically true, but it's like a library putting all its money into a new paint job instead of new tech when the library computers are running on Windows 98.
One point I would make in defense is that, while you're correct an ideal society should have all groups of social classes using transit, the US is not that society (Canada hardly is either). Particularly with buses (with a few regional exceptions), transit as it exists is a last resort, for the poor welfare concept, not an equal mode of transportation. Alongside that, D.C. is known for having some very poor communities.
As you pointed out, we need and generally have programs to support particularly low income users and provide subsidized or free fares. When that is most users, the administrative cost of collecting fares, particularly when they are a low percentage of funding, gets called into question. And that's on multiple levels, fare collection on buses, PoP enforcement, actual administrative staff running subsidized programs. And that's aside from making taking transit easier for those low income riders, who again are often your base, saving them time and money they may have very little of.
Alongside that, removing farebox collection, at the least, also speeds up boarding and transit times. So free fares can be seen in the same way bus lanes; reducing operations cost by getting you more for less. That said, I would expect the effect to be lower, and PoP or off board payment can replicate it (although not without additional costs of their own).
All that said, I do agree with the issue of shifting capital spending to operations and the sugar high effect. Personally, I would like to see "PoP light" systems, where proof of ridership is enforced, but only during peak week day hours, effectively making midday and evening trips, along with weekends, free. This strikes the right balance of helping seniors or the unemployed during the day, encourage trips taken for shopping after work, reducing PoP staff to a single split shift, and maximizing fare recovery.
"(Canada hardly is either)" Woah woah woah, as someone who has regularly taken buses in several Canadian cities I do not agree here. Maybe the 0.1% isn't on the bus, but I see everyone else on it! Lots of people ride despite owning a car!
Re. all door boarding, you can do that with multiple readers I just don't think it's a good case for dropping fares!
I did say with some regional exceptions. The TTC has all folks, but if you look outside that in the GTA, Durham for example, that fades. And Ontario cities outside of Ottawa and the GTA (London, Kingston) are similar. But I don't disagree Canada is much better off, if still very far from perfect.
Doing that with multiple readers (and that alone assumes it's not collecting change, which is miles ahead many American bus systems), is still a capital cost you're taking from another project, and still will require enforcement adding to ongoing operations cost. Which of course might be worth it, but it really depends how much of your rider base is paying a greatly reduced fair.
Of course great arguments overall, and great article. I just think the context of a welfare bus system is being idealized a little, and therefore the full merits of collecting a fare over emphasized.
Reading this from a european perspective it feels like America is sort of missing the point. So, what almost all european advocates for free transit actually want is for it to be free in the same way healthcare is free.
It's not like you don't have to pay for it, it's that we all collectively fund it for it to be accessable to everyone. If you're a student or unemployed you may literally pay nothing, if you're on low income you only pay a little, if you earn a lot, you pay a bigger portion. And that's okay since there are many people who as you put it, can and should pay for good transit. As with healthcare, a collectively funded system provides a high quality service in an essential sector in a way that's accessable to everyone and since everyone has to contribute, each persons pays less than they would if it weren't collectively funded. Sure, not everyone will actually use it (as not everyone will actually use healthcare), but it being accessable for everyone ultimately benifits society as a whole.
I realise how this won't be put into practice in the US any time soon, but it's the way to go.
I mean, it is already subsidized by everyone, just not to the extent that it's super good. And part of that is that US transit operations are not very efficient.
There are really two issues here. First, capital spending versus service spending. In general, I agree, a shift from capital spending to service spending is a bad idea. But there are plenty of capital projects that are terrible (especially in the U. S.) and the cities would be much better just shifting the money into service. For example, the Seattle Streetcar. The route is terrible, and the cost is high. The capacity of the trams is no higher than a typical bus. It runs on electricity (which is cheap in the Pacific Northwest) but many of the buses do as well (with overhead wire). The city would have been much better off just putting the money into service. In Seattle, the streetcar is just the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately. ST3 is a massive project, and much of it will provide very little benefit (and in some cases, make things worse for existing subway riders).
Free fares gets a bit more complicated. In theory, a fare-less system is actually more efficient. The buses run faster, as people avoid paying in the front. You can achieve the same thing with off-board payment, but this avoids that infrastructure as well. No need for everything that goes into collecting the payments. Thus at an abstract level, it would actually make for faster and more frequent service with the same amount of taxpayer funding.
It is also more attractive for tourists. Free circulators are common for this very reason. Folks from out of town can get intimidated with buses and fares, simply because they don't want to hold up an entire bus. This is less of an issue with a metro. It might take you a while to figure out how to pay, but you aren't delaying anyone.
It is also cheaper and more effective at serving low-income people. Plenty of cities have free or reduced fares for low income riders, but like all systems, there are holes. Sometimes the people who need it most (a homeless mom trying to get to a job interview) are the hardest to reach. Even if the social workers are perfect, it still costs money -- money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Ultimately, free fares comes down to a political issue. Can you retain the same level of funding without fares? If so, great. If not, then you are probably better off with fares.
Which brings us back to DC. From a capital standpoint, it is hard to think that a BRT project in DC would be so poorly planned that it would be better to just put the money into service. Washington DC is a big city, with big city transit use, not a Podunk town with little need for improvements to its transit infrastructure.
With free fares though, I could actually see it working out. DC is a very liberal city. If this applies to the city proper (and not the surrounding suburbs) it is possible that the city will fund transit adequately, and the savings (from eliminating fares) will actually improve service. DC is also a major tourist town. You might end up with fewer tourists driving around.
I just don't know. There are a lot of studies which have been done and in real applications most riders have asked for better service. I just don't think there are many cities where the best use of a marginal operating dollar is for free fares.
Yep, also agree. The DC city council’s unfortunate preoccupation with free bus fares is based on its misconception of bus transit as fundamentally a welfare policy for the poor / those without cars, as noted by @Neolithic, above. Thus the emphasis on free service rather than frequent service. Yet this is a giveaway for all, and since it is income blind, will also benefit those who can certainly afford to pay. A similar misguided attitude can be seen in the decision several years ago to decriminalize fare evasion, a policy that has arguably degraded the user experience, particularly on the metro subway, undercutting efforts to attract riders back, post-Pandemic. Now WMATA is spending $30M on high fare gates to discourage fare gate jumpers. A more sensible fare policy would have been to provide an income based threshold for discounted fares, that users would need to apply for and demonstrate need, admittedly much more complicated to administer than a blanket free fare policy.
Competing policy goals are also seen in the Mayor’s / DC government’s proposal to eliminate several routes of the city-run Circulator bus, which is independent of WMATA. The rationale is that the city can’t afford to both keep the present level of service and buy electric battery powered buses by a self-imposed decarbonization deadline. It’s not clear to some observers (and me) why a slower effort to electrify that preserves service isn’t possible. But this raises the issue of competing goals.
Good comment, but on this "admittedly much more complicated to administer than a blanket free fare policy." I don't know! The government knows how much everyone makes, if people are low income they probably have a touchpoint already and transit should just be added into that existing connection.
In London, the Mayor wants to individually name each line that operates as part of the London Overground. The project is set to cost $4M but there was some backlash because some people were arguing that that money could go towards lowering fares across the TFL network. Jago Hazzard made a video where he looks at the amount of journeys a year and he crunches the numbers; he found that the average journey on the Tube would be lowered by a quarter of a penny.
This is unrelated to the article but is the station of the Montreal Metro, Bonaventure station? Caught my eye being familiar due to being the first and last station I’ve went to on my trip to Montreal recently. Took a Via Rail train to and Toronto and Montreal, so got off at Union and Bonaventure respectively
Yes it is! It's great!
100% agreed. Unfortunately a lot of agencies like San Diego's are hiding behind the COVID-induced driver shortage as an excuse to not increase frequencies. Well then at least save and invest funds to spend on more service once the driver shortage ends.
San Diego MTS is facing a fiscal cliff by 2028. It's already cut bus service repeatedly. Unfortunately the County voted to expand free fares to everyone 24 and under.
I voiced these concerns to San Diego's Regional Planning Association spokesperson but she simply said "frequency and free fares are not competing goals, they're being funded from different revenue streams." Technically true, but it's like a library putting all its money into a new paint job instead of new tech when the library computers are running on Windows 98.
One point I would make in defense is that, while you're correct an ideal society should have all groups of social classes using transit, the US is not that society (Canada hardly is either). Particularly with buses (with a few regional exceptions), transit as it exists is a last resort, for the poor welfare concept, not an equal mode of transportation. Alongside that, D.C. is known for having some very poor communities.
As you pointed out, we need and generally have programs to support particularly low income users and provide subsidized or free fares. When that is most users, the administrative cost of collecting fares, particularly when they are a low percentage of funding, gets called into question. And that's on multiple levels, fare collection on buses, PoP enforcement, actual administrative staff running subsidized programs. And that's aside from making taking transit easier for those low income riders, who again are often your base, saving them time and money they may have very little of.
Alongside that, removing farebox collection, at the least, also speeds up boarding and transit times. So free fares can be seen in the same way bus lanes; reducing operations cost by getting you more for less. That said, I would expect the effect to be lower, and PoP or off board payment can replicate it (although not without additional costs of their own).
All that said, I do agree with the issue of shifting capital spending to operations and the sugar high effect. Personally, I would like to see "PoP light" systems, where proof of ridership is enforced, but only during peak week day hours, effectively making midday and evening trips, along with weekends, free. This strikes the right balance of helping seniors or the unemployed during the day, encourage trips taken for shopping after work, reducing PoP staff to a single split shift, and maximizing fare recovery.
"(Canada hardly is either)" Woah woah woah, as someone who has regularly taken buses in several Canadian cities I do not agree here. Maybe the 0.1% isn't on the bus, but I see everyone else on it! Lots of people ride despite owning a car!
Re. all door boarding, you can do that with multiple readers I just don't think it's a good case for dropping fares!
I did say with some regional exceptions. The TTC has all folks, but if you look outside that in the GTA, Durham for example, that fades. And Ontario cities outside of Ottawa and the GTA (London, Kingston) are similar. But I don't disagree Canada is much better off, if still very far from perfect.
Doing that with multiple readers (and that alone assumes it's not collecting change, which is miles ahead many American bus systems), is still a capital cost you're taking from another project, and still will require enforcement adding to ongoing operations cost. Which of course might be worth it, but it really depends how much of your rider base is paying a greatly reduced fair.
Of course great arguments overall, and great article. I just think the context of a welfare bus system is being idealized a little, and therefore the full merits of collecting a fare over emphasized.
Most buses etc already have multiple readers for other reasons so I don't see it as being a big loss
Reading this from a european perspective it feels like America is sort of missing the point. So, what almost all european advocates for free transit actually want is for it to be free in the same way healthcare is free.
It's not like you don't have to pay for it, it's that we all collectively fund it for it to be accessable to everyone. If you're a student or unemployed you may literally pay nothing, if you're on low income you only pay a little, if you earn a lot, you pay a bigger portion. And that's okay since there are many people who as you put it, can and should pay for good transit. As with healthcare, a collectively funded system provides a high quality service in an essential sector in a way that's accessable to everyone and since everyone has to contribute, each persons pays less than they would if it weren't collectively funded. Sure, not everyone will actually use it (as not everyone will actually use healthcare), but it being accessable for everyone ultimately benifits society as a whole.
I realise how this won't be put into practice in the US any time soon, but it's the way to go.
I mean, it is already subsidized by everyone, just not to the extent that it's super good. And part of that is that US transit operations are not very efficient.
There are really two issues here. First, capital spending versus service spending. In general, I agree, a shift from capital spending to service spending is a bad idea. But there are plenty of capital projects that are terrible (especially in the U. S.) and the cities would be much better just shifting the money into service. For example, the Seattle Streetcar. The route is terrible, and the cost is high. The capacity of the trams is no higher than a typical bus. It runs on electricity (which is cheap in the Pacific Northwest) but many of the buses do as well (with overhead wire). The city would have been much better off just putting the money into service. In Seattle, the streetcar is just the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately. ST3 is a massive project, and much of it will provide very little benefit (and in some cases, make things worse for existing subway riders).
Free fares gets a bit more complicated. In theory, a fare-less system is actually more efficient. The buses run faster, as people avoid paying in the front. You can achieve the same thing with off-board payment, but this avoids that infrastructure as well. No need for everything that goes into collecting the payments. Thus at an abstract level, it would actually make for faster and more frequent service with the same amount of taxpayer funding.
It is also more attractive for tourists. Free circulators are common for this very reason. Folks from out of town can get intimidated with buses and fares, simply because they don't want to hold up an entire bus. This is less of an issue with a metro. It might take you a while to figure out how to pay, but you aren't delaying anyone.
It is also cheaper and more effective at serving low-income people. Plenty of cities have free or reduced fares for low income riders, but like all systems, there are holes. Sometimes the people who need it most (a homeless mom trying to get to a job interview) are the hardest to reach. Even if the social workers are perfect, it still costs money -- money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Ultimately, free fares comes down to a political issue. Can you retain the same level of funding without fares? If so, great. If not, then you are probably better off with fares.
Which brings us back to DC. From a capital standpoint, it is hard to think that a BRT project in DC would be so poorly planned that it would be better to just put the money into service. Washington DC is a big city, with big city transit use, not a Podunk town with little need for improvements to its transit infrastructure.
With free fares though, I could actually see it working out. DC is a very liberal city. If this applies to the city proper (and not the surrounding suburbs) it is possible that the city will fund transit adequately, and the savings (from eliminating fares) will actually improve service. DC is also a major tourist town. You might end up with fewer tourists driving around.
I just don't know. There are a lot of studies which have been done and in real applications most riders have asked for better service. I just don't think there are many cities where the best use of a marginal operating dollar is for free fares.
Yep, also agree. The DC city council’s unfortunate preoccupation with free bus fares is based on its misconception of bus transit as fundamentally a welfare policy for the poor / those without cars, as noted by @Neolithic, above. Thus the emphasis on free service rather than frequent service. Yet this is a giveaway for all, and since it is income blind, will also benefit those who can certainly afford to pay. A similar misguided attitude can be seen in the decision several years ago to decriminalize fare evasion, a policy that has arguably degraded the user experience, particularly on the metro subway, undercutting efforts to attract riders back, post-Pandemic. Now WMATA is spending $30M on high fare gates to discourage fare gate jumpers. A more sensible fare policy would have been to provide an income based threshold for discounted fares, that users would need to apply for and demonstrate need, admittedly much more complicated to administer than a blanket free fare policy.
Competing policy goals are also seen in the Mayor’s / DC government’s proposal to eliminate several routes of the city-run Circulator bus, which is independent of WMATA. The rationale is that the city can’t afford to both keep the present level of service and buy electric battery powered buses by a self-imposed decarbonization deadline. It’s not clear to some observers (and me) why a slower effort to electrify that preserves service isn’t possible. But this raises the issue of competing goals.
Good comment, but on this "admittedly much more complicated to administer than a blanket free fare policy." I don't know! The government knows how much everyone makes, if people are low income they probably have a touchpoint already and transit should just be added into that existing connection.