In recent years, there has been a lot of discussion about fares in North America, in particular free fares or more accurately fare-free transit. I’ve talked about why I am not a fan of broad free fare programs in the past, and it amounts to a few key points which I won’t go into detail on, but which I will quickly reiterate.
Studies on broad based free fares for transit systems all around the world have not been conclusive.
Transit farebox recovery is a good metric for systems to have to drive them towards efficiency. Some advocates latch onto low farebox recovery as a reason to make transit free — which feels like arguing that cops ticketing drivers is so unimpactful that we should just make speeding legal.
If there is not a direct link between ridership and revenue for a transit agency, a lot of bad policies can be enacted to “balance” the books - frequency reductions, route cancellations etc.
Reduced and free fare systems based on income can be delivered effectively including in coordination with other social programs — encouraging people from across the socioeconomic spectrum to use transit is important, and if you do this successfully, many riders can and should pay.
Few transit services (particularly in North America) have punishingly high fares — especially relative to, say, driving, which is often a necessity, but many transit agencies do have punishingly little service. Using funds to reduce fares rather than increase service is not in the interest of transit systems or their riders.
Ultimately, the issue I see with free fares is they often feel like they are being implemented/pushed for by people who feel a certain way about transit, but who do not actually solely depend on it.
Transit is clearly a public good, and so it’s easy for a reasonable progressive person to suggest that we should give it to people for free — this makes sense! The issue is that good but not free transit is quite likely a greater public good than unusable but free transit.
I was reminded of this when doing research for my Washington Metro Explained video — coming out in a few weeks. Washington DC is interestingly implementing a free bus scheme, which is of course funny because: the bus system is seriously lacking, doesn’t have great ridership, and should see vastly increased service in an attempt to fix this — not free fares which will passively push things in the opposite direction. What struck me was when researching the Silver Line how major government and industry stakeholders in the project seemed completely disinterested in it. One said they “might” try using it, and another whose customers will directly benefit from it suggested that it was unlikely to be popular. I get the sense that these type of folks who almost certainly never use transit, and definitely do not understand the nuance of where best to spend marginal additional dollars on transit would be supportive of free fares — because transit is and only ever will be for people who will struggle to afford it, which is not them. But as mentioned before, transit agencies need to win riders from across the socioeconomic spectrum, because it helps it gain powerful advocates who will help raise the tides for all: The type of folks who have regular (probably 9-5) work and can email agency staff or attend board meetings.
Now, just because free fares for all is not something I support doesn’t mean I don’t think our fare systems have problems. For one, we generally make it too hard and confusing to pay for fares, and we also often make monthly fares — which are a great way of generating regular riders — too expensive. Creating unified cross-jurisdictional fare systems and removing punitive and illogical fare policies could go a long way to make paying fares feel seamless.
I also think there’s another way in which free fares are attractive, and that’s the triple threat punch of them feeling deeply progressive, relatively straightforward to implement, and quite uncommon. It’s rare that a transit leader or elected official in North America can claim they are doing something better than systems in Europe or Asia, and saying “you don’t have to pay to ride the bus here!” is one of those things. Of course, this ignores the fact that the world-class transit systems out there are basically never free because they are world-class and thus they avoid the moral hazard related to free fares. It’s also just generally sort of an easy lazy policy to implement from 10,000 feet when you don’t understand where your system falls short — and it’s also the type of thing business visitors and tourists (two groups which unfortunately seem to frequently get more attention than locals) will notice.
So, if transit systems aren’t to do free fares, what could they do that wouldn’t cost an arm and a leg? Here’s a list of ideas…
Implement some high frequency services on your busiest routes that run from 5am to 1am.
Implement infrequent 24 hour service on your busiest routes.
Invest in a regular program of stop upgrades to provide for improved accessibility and shelter at the busiest stops.
Subsidize your monthly pass more heavily.
Have children ride free — this reduces the barrier to families using transit which is great and also often means a net positive for ridership.
Ultimately, free fares are a nice idea, but if we want to create better transit systems, they should rarely be first on the agenda.
I really like the idea of children riding for free. It really can help families' mobility and affordability. But I do worry, to your point, that vastly reducing or eliminating fares, which essentially depletes revenue, just makes it easy for authorities to cut service or otherwise reduce investment. In North America, transit is unfortunately perceived as a budget item, not an essential service, and whose future is often dictated by people who do not regularly use it (or even seemingly understand it).