24
votes
Why free buses in NYC could backfire horribly
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Zohran Mamdani Has Some Good Ideas for NYC Transit. His Biggest Promise Isn't One of Them.
- Authors
- David Zipper
- Published
- Jul 8 2025
- Word count
- 1376 words
This argument has popped up a number of times from different writers under different publications. It's made the rounds enough to have a counter article already out there.
At the end of the day, I don't really care what the solution is. I'm just some ape that uses my measly collection of rotten braincells long enough to think 'bad thing should be be good.' But what I find interesting is that when the wonks start marching in, they seem to leave out a few semi-relevant details.
From the original article:
I've been afflicted with Mamdani Mania since January and can assure you that fast comes before the word free in his tagline for improving the metro system. But this article makes it seem like Mamdani gave up on fast and replaced it with free.
From Mamdani's platform:
I don't understand why the author of this piece made it seem like improving transit times are not an essential part of the promise. Always read past the hyphen!
Even if I'm being a nit-picky little fanboy on that issue, I still have problems with this article and the way in which wonks get tunnel vision when they start wonking each other off.
Is there another way to spend $600m and yield net results that are more satisfactory to the wonks? Probably, yes. Let's say Mamdani takes the advice from the article and uses the bulk of the money to add more buses and make some modest improvements to the bus lanes and subway system, there's still the problem with affordability. Another central part of Mamdani's proposal that is conveniently glossed over is the fact that "one in five New Yorkers struggle to pay the fare." From a Nation piece about the pilot program that Mamdani co-authored:
...
Eliminating fares is a cost of living issue as much as it is a transportation issue. Surely that should factor in somewhere when analyzing the cost benefits of a policy like this, but that's not the case. And this is the problem I have whenever we go into wonkville, we start losing sight of the big picture. The wonk gets to set their sights on whatever narrow aspect of policy they choose and disregard the rest. In this case, the transportation policy needs to increase speed and total riders (not rides), reduce greenhouse emissions, and withstand external political pressure. "Sure, it may alleviate a significant economic burden for 20% of the population and will be accessible to everyone, but that's not what I'm talking about."
The other issue I have with this article and others like it is the way they present the political burden of the funding. Nevermind the fact that for every one article that asks why Hochul would stand in the way of a program like this, we get 10 calling Mamdani a fool for even thinking she wouldn't, though that should be a question too. The problem is that they don't recognize the political burden on the other end. It's true that Mamdani's balls are in someone else's hands, but this is where the simple and universal nature of the policy becomes a feature. Most people wouldn't notice the cuts to a wonkified transportation system like the alternatives presented in the article. Those that did would be in areas where services were cut, or it would be people asking, "Is it just me, or does the bus seem shittier these days?" If that's the case, then it's among the first things to go next time the state cuts taxes, builds a new stadium, or buys military gear for the cops. Now you're right back where you started. On the other hand, if you take away the free bus, then everyone who uses it is going to feel it the moment it happens. It's a lot harder to take away programs that universal and easily recognizable.
Thanks for writing this. I had a lot of similar thoughts percolating and haven't had the time to organize them into something coherent. As you say, even setting aside the other issues with the way this argument is framed, it seems odd to me to say that this accomplishes nothing if it only increases rides among existing bus users. Those are the folks that need more accessible public transportation — making it more accessible to them is a clear win. It means they have more money in their pockets and can more reliably participate in both the economy and their communities.
Providing benefits to folks that need them is part of what government does. Making those services better and more accessible is good.
Then we should eliminate fares for those people and give them free transit passes. If it's only 20% of riders, the cost would be $120 million instead of $600 million which is an absolutely massive difference. Even tack on $30 million for some insane administration fees, and it's still a better option.
The problem is that increasing taxes and putting the money where it's needed most is incredibly tricky. If fares go poof tomorrow, there's no replacement funding available right now. As the article points out, NYC could double the congestion tax, and it'd barely cover free fares for everyone.
Making transit free doesn't make transit better. If you're most concerned about accessibility, we should do everything possible to make transit free for those in need while taxing the wealthy to improve transit. Usage fees for 80% of people and waivers for the other 20% are an easy way to do that.
Means-testing (which would be required to give only that subset of people free fares) is often (if not nigh-always) more expensive than providing the same thing to everyone and relying on the fact that the positive impact will be disproportionately for the people who need it most.
And I think it's reductive to say "making transit free does not make transit better." We very recently had a thread on the front page of Tildes that discussed an article that very much said otherwise, though it acknowledged (much like the platform of the relevant politician) that there are other, more important factors than free fares when it comes to improving transit.
To tac onto your point. The same question is put forward when pushing back public spending or pushing anti-social policy. "We need to support people that DESERVE it." And it's a tricky thing because it appeals to a sense of fairness and pride in one's ability. It's an issue I learned about this when I needed to create employee equity reports for a large company that wanted to ration benefits. (Its also what got into a whole left wing rabbit hole so that was fun)
Being deserving is a very subjective classification that you will need to assess by objective metrics. Yes, you could have some sort of individual assessment, lifestyle audits and a formal process; but that's a time cost that most people can't afford. Especially if they can't afford the bus. That means testing comes down to figuring out the metrics based on what you have and making the incredibly difficult decision of drawing the line between deserving and not?
We have an idea on the type of people who we want to have a free pass. Like single parents needing to make the distance between their kids school and their multiple jobs. Everyone can get behind that right? Okay, what metrics on a census or spreadsheet can you filter out to find that person.
And even worse. What if they are the "wrong type" of single parent holding down multiple jobs. Like if they have a criminal record? Or they are an immigrant? Or they suddenly come into some money? Or they are have been on the program for too long? Or they are the "wrong type" for the million other excuses people point at? Don't they deserve their hardships, right?
There's also the matter of market value. If there is a free and paid tier, that means that the pass technically has infinite value. So what arbitrary limits are we putting in place so we can quantify how much profit is lost to perform this service. Regardless of that, you will have people who need money being willing to sell their bus pass for a quick buck. Something that will loose money in the long run. So what is the added cost, infrastructure and privacy burden of tracking all these people and making sure they don't abuse this system.
And of course, there is playing the system. If there are metrics, people with means can easily min/max it. A good example is Covid relief funds. Instead of just a flat rate for all individuals, it was decided that businesses would be compensated for opportunity cost. So they set a formula to determine how much an entity deserved and you could play those numbers to maximize return. Don't understand why online services businesses that could allow Work From Home could get millions in "relief" but the metrics said they deserved it.
On the other side, if you had enough perception of the "wrong" people abusing a social service, thats how you get the public to support doing away with something that benefits themselves.
And then theres one of the hardest things I saw happen. The ease of metrics changing when times get tough. And suddenly a person who was deserving of something, changed nothing and loosing the thing they came to rely on. In businesses, it's almost easier to just fire a person because they immediately become a liability. You can't fire a citizen and you will have a large population bittling up resentment.
I'm a believer that complex problems need complex solutions. But I'm also practical and this isnt a problem. Its a value judgment. Where is that money best spent?
I personally don't care if free transit passes are given to more people than strictly require them. Hypothetically, if 20% of riders "deserve" them but the barriers are so low that 25% of riders get free passes, that's still an absolute win.
We're talking about more money than the entire congestion tax! Funding doesn't just fall off trees. Governments have to tax and spend somehow. Even if the 1% was taxed twice as much, it wouldn't replace all the transit funding NYC would lose via free fares.
Universal free fares sound nice, but there's no evidence they're equitable policy. We need more funding to expand and improve transit, and usage fees are a great way to get it. Even if there's an alternative funding proposal, it still sounds like a bad idea to take away critical transit funding.
I understand what you and @gary are saying and it makes sense from a purely economic perspective. But the economy is not a perfect arbiter of what is beneficial for society. I know policy and politics is all about compromise and trade offs, but there also needs to be a core set of values and ideals that you are working towards, otherwise the compromise will always shift in the direction of whoever holds their ground. And because there hasn't been any economically progressive ideas in play there for so long, the minimum for the working class seems to be begging for scraps.
So before you can even get to a point of compromise, any sort of policy position needs to be defined by three things. Meaning, measures and message.
In terms of meaning:
Bus passes for the 20% of residents that needs it is just a vapid nothing-burger. It doesn't represent an ideal and is a fundamentally reactionary and conservative position. Its solving the smallest problem by doing the bare minimum for the majority of people to protect the interest of the minority. And that is antithetical to the role of government that should seek to create policy with maximum impact. And setting this as the goal, means you will eventually be dragged into dropping the program all together.
Free busses for everyone means that freedom-of-movement available to everyone. Freedom of movement is a proven driver of economic activity and opportunity. It also means that there is a societal safety net for every human in the city allowing them to easily get to or away from somewhere. Even if you compromise on the availability now, you still have a goal post to work towards.
In terms of measures:
I've already harped on about means-testing but this is not something that can be overstated or brushed away as a arbitary thing you settle for. But even if we get a perfect solution, what are we measuring for. "20% of bus rides". Why 20%. Yes, its what we can afford in this situation. But that means we are settling for 20% of the benefits. So to prove this system works, we need to show a 20% increase in... what exactly? An arbitrary metric is where you set yourself up for failure. Because this is an indirect value generator. There is not going to be a 1-to-1 correlation that can easily be pointed to other than approval polls that will most likely swing for the 80% of people not getting free bus rides. But its very easy to measure the costs. Like increases in incidents or longer wait times or over full busses and the like. And if any cost exceeds 20%, then its an instant loss.
A sweeping policy actually removes many variable and considerations in assessing it impact. Everyone is given the same treatment and you get to assess a policy in its entirety. For example, traffic mitigation impact of this at 20% would be negligible because those 20% of people are unlikely to drive cars. Easiest example: a free and safe public transit system takes high value workers out of a car, but maintains their value and preserves their income to be reintroduced into the economy. Lets consider value beyond the roads with a personal example. The clothing place I work at now saw significant increases in sales after a bus stop and train station reopened because of increased foot traffic. Because of that, the value of street level advertising boards around our building increased. The take out stores and fast food places saw significant foot traffic increases. There's been a significant decrease in late coming from staff. This is just the jump from no/low-density to high-density transit options being available to everyone.
Analytically speaking, at a macro scale a lot arbitrary dis/incentives will inevitably leads to a debased system. Especially the intuitive ones. Humans are stupidly bad at measuring value because we are not omnipotent entities with infinite perspective. That's why we are so prone to unintended consequences, economic models very break so often and why humanities and social sciences are so important. It's also why every good operations person will never tie bonuses or performance reviews to something like ticket completion counts or job times. They are only partial value metrics and neglect a majority of reality. The system could be generating untold billions in knock on value, but a few bad numbers is all someone needs to shut it down because it doesn't "feel" right. It's why I ended by saying that this isn't a problem but a value judgement. You need to take into account every element, not just the economics, and be able to make a decision if the benefits outweigh the costs. This is beyond just one person to decide. And that is actually why Democracy is such a powerful tool.
And that conveniently brings us to why messaging is probably the most important part of policy:
Simply put, you can't sell a platform of an improvement for 20% of people. Not in an age where 80% of people are struggling. It has been proven that any form of identity politics does not work. Not anymore. And when I say identity politics, I mean people running on platforms that only seem to benefit subsets of the population. I think that's the actual lesson that is not being seen from campaigns like US National 24, Canada/Australia 25 and now Mamdani.
My personal belief is that wealth inequity is the cause of almost every societal ill. I say this fully understanding that the pursuit of wealth inequity is the driver of most societal progress. My view is that most of the big cultural regressions is partly due to inherent prejudice but largely due to the lack of opportunity afforded to most people. Yes, there are vile monsters peddling this crap that don't deserve the air they breathe, but they are the only ones listening to most people and bolting their bullshit onto a very difficult reality. It's okay to ship off immigrants BECAUSE THEY TOOK OUR JOBS. Ban trans people from sport BECAUSE THEY ARE STEALING OPPORTUNITIES FROM MY KIDS. China is bad BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALL THE MANUFACTURING. Don't support the poor BECAUSE THEY ARE GETTING HAND OUTS WE DON'T. Don't trust the science BECAUSE IT WILL KILL THE ONLY INDUSTRY I CAN WORK IN. Destroy the government BECAUSE THEY WASTE ALL THE MONEY. Genocide those starving, desperate people AND TAKE THAT LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT. We need to preserve our heritage BECAUSE ITS ALL WE HAVE LEFT. We need to turn to higher powers or strongman leaders because THE NORMAL SOLUTIONS ARE NOT WORKING ANYMORE.
If you dig under the layers of crap, everyone seems to be saying same things. There is no meaningful work and no one is willing to pay what I'm worth. There are so few opportunities for my kids and no one seems to have their best interests at heart. Life is getting harder but they keep saying things are better than ever. The few small wins doesn't come close to the growing mountain of losses I deal with every day. I'm willing to work hard and do what it takes to be successful, but I don't know what to do. Their is no ethical combination of decisions that will make my life better. Why is everything so hard and can anyone please help me.
This is beyond the US. See it with Chinese grads that are laying flat and British guys looking out for boats on the channel and when having a nice chat with the militant mob that tried to shut down my mother-in-laws store for employing a few undocumented immigrant (xenophobic riots over here were not a fun time). Trump threw around the Woke bogyman, but they weren't just forcing kids to become trans or ruining movies this time. They were the DEI hires and what was making eggs expensive and the immigrants the government were looking after over citizens and the jobs that was going to China. Its why the deficit was such a big deal, because all logic says that 2 trillion dollars must have gone somewhere and it wasn't to people that needed it. It an emotive, knee jerk reaction that gives you that catharsis of making the bad people suffer for what they did.
The Mamdanni strategy is a bit different and a lot more academic. Its an innocent enough question. Everyone would appreciate easy transport, cheaper groceries and some help with childcare and rent. Universal ideas. Everyone needs to get around and eat and sleep and wants kids to be taken care of. And we make sure its a privilege everyone in the city gets to enjoy. No exceptions. But the most famous city in the greatest country in the world can't afford that. And New Yorkers aren't lazy and they aren't helpless and they come together to help each other out. So everyone chips in a little of what they can through their taxes and paying for other city services. But we still don't have enough. What about all those lovely mega-corps in their big skyscrapers raking in billions in profits alone. They obviously don't need the money. Don't think there's much more they can get after the first billion in profit and they are firing staff while still being profitable so they really don't need some of those subsidies or tax breaks to keep locals employed. And the cost of just one thing would be a little more than a collective rounding error on their part. What good is all that money doing, jumping between other piles of money.
It's true progressive, leftist politics and is something a lot of people didn't know they needed after 50 years of almost global austerity. And that's how his campaign is communicating it.
All this is not to say that you're completely wrong and all this will play out exactly as expected and we see the Communist States of America by 2028. You're right, there needs to be compromise and working withing the very strict limitations. But you don't compromise on the meaning, measures and message of the ideal. That's breaking a promise and all trust in your vision.
For this situation, I don't think the compromise is finding the 20% of people that need free busses. I think a 20% gamble on a free bus ride would go down better since it's evenly applied and would actually be a nice surprise for some people over highlighting a person's financial troubles.
But seriously, piloting 20% of the city bus lines being free would be a safer bet. Now you have a 1-to-1 comparison for before-after and free-tolled lines. You can measure the macro conditions that emerge around these lines. Where are we seeing better foot traffic and economic activates. Traffic through put. Habit changes. You can change the dynamics over multiple pilots. A central network of free busses vs a corridor vs a ring around the central city. And now you can take steps towards the ideal, if it works. But you can also walk back. Be honest if the program doesn't work and present the data. People are not dumb and they appreciate genuine effort.
But if the program does work and there is an appetite to see it expand but there's no budget. Now you've got to have some very interesting discussions. Discussions about what fat needs to be cut. And if you can get the same result by increasing taxes on 1% of New Yorkers vs taxing 90% of them, then it really comes down to whos vote matters more. Because individual billionaires can leave New York. But businesses that have real estate, or provide services, or need the address prestige cant. If they do, they will probably be replaced by someone that will pay the cost. And one city generating that income and grass roots movement could just spread to the next and next because there are literal bag of money waiting to be ripped open.
I want to improve public transit accessibility, quality, and overall usage. Based on everything I've ever read, governments need increased funding to expand and improve transit to meet these goals.
Additionally, I care a hell of a lot about making sure public transit meets the needs of as many people as possible. That includes free transit passes for those that need it, and taxing the wealthy via usage fees to expand transit for everyone.
Did you read the article you're commenting under? Free transit is well studied. The results speak for themselves.
Because 20% of riders say they struggle to pay. That's the whole context of this conversation. How can we best provide for those that need help? How can governments get enough funding to expand transit to those that aren't being served yet?
Transit being literally free doesn't mean freedom-of-movement. What about all the people that are too far from a transit stop? By focusing funding on free transit instead of increasing the quantity and quality of transit, you're reducing the number of people that benefit. If anything, fewer people have freedom-of-movement because they're denied access to fast, accessible, high-quality transit.
We're way off topic here. Maybe you'd be interested in this post?
You know what's funny is that Mamdani's political strategist are quietly famous for running Dan Osborne's independent bid in Nebraska. Mamdani's populist media strategy is successful because he's focusing on kitchen table issues that cut across the political spectrum. Being a leftist or a centrist doesn't make much difference. He's a populist in many ways, and that's why he's successful.
Means testing doesn't have to be complex. "Bottom 20% of income ride free. Next 20% ride at half off. Based on yearly state income tax filings". Boom, it improves the lives of most people that need help and it preserves some revenue for the transit system.
Everything in policy is a balancing of tradeoffs. If Mandani has an extra $1 billion somewhere that wouldn't be better allocated elsewhere, then fast and free transit is a great thing. But if he only has, say, half that, then preserving some paying riders' revenue to subsidize those most needy is not a bad idea either. We can't always give everyone free things; if we can I don't mind but if we can't, I will always want to direct it to those at the bottom first.
Means testing can often be inefficient, but it doesn't have to be that inefficient.
In regards to where this funding for public transit might come from, I think the obvious answer to me is to defund the NYPD. The numbers for 2024 were over 11 billion in funding. Take even just a single billion from there, distribute it to things that do make peoples lives better, like public transit and social services. Boom, funding problem resolved.
A lot of people get very upset at the thought of defunding the police, because they think they'll be less safe as a result. But realistically, the main thing that money goes towards is equipment that is excessive at best. The NYPD does not need to be militarized, with full tactical gear and vehicles. They need to be used to help the general public, and they are more often oppressors of those people. The only people I can imagine feeling safe in the presence of armed people with no oversight, accountability, and no obligation to do anything to help anybody, are the 1%. After all that is where the police force's primary focus lies, protecting the interests of the wealthy. And yet so much of our money, tax payer money to whom it matters most to, is used in turn to oppress us at every opportunity. So if we cant tax the corps, which we should, we should take the money we already have and reconfigure it to help the majority, not armed bullies who harm more than they help.
NYPD budget: $5.8 billion
MTA budget: $19.8 billion
Those are the total budgets for each agency, so they may differ a bit by funding source. I think the numbers make it clear that simply slashing police funding won't pay for every program Mamdani has proposed.
Means testing is often expensive, but it's not always more expensive. I would be absolutely shocked if means testing for free transit cost more than making transit free for everyone. Bureaucrats are pricey, but they don't cost $400 million.
We should remember as well that NYC is a huge tourist city. Taxing tourists via small fees for transit is a good thing that's super easy to administrate!
Means testing doesn't have to be expensive. Some transit agencies, museums, and other services offer reduced-price or free passes or admission; they simply ask to see a valid Medicaid or SNAP card, which are already means tested.
Given what's happening to those programs, I don't know that your statement is as valid as it might have been in the past.
Following up from this previous discussion on free transit: https://tildes.net/~transport/1oz6/transit_passes_are_better_but_free_fares_are_good_too
Offtopic from the article, I still strongly prefer Mamdani over anyone else running for mayor in NYC!
Some of his "popular" ideas aren't actually popular amongst the poorer socioeconomic groups they're intended to help, and I think this article does a fantastic job digging into why free fares are usually bad policy.
They make other arguments, as well, so there may be something to this.
That said, I have an issue with characterizing this as "for the environment". The reason to do it is because public transport should be free (or rather, entirely taxpayer funded). It benefits everyone, even those that do not use it. Same belief, BTW, for toll roads.
As to the "no increase in use" ... Car ownership is extremely inelastic. You're not going to sell your car because suddenly the bus is free. But over time, as the "only poor people use it" stigma fades, maybe you (or your kid) try it, and maybe you think about not buying a new car when it's time.
My argument is, this is not a change you make, and then assess the results a year later. Real changes in habits and usership will take decades, maybe even generations, to kick in.
ETA: Not necessarily good to point this out, mid-election...
Unfortunately, there's no evidence that free transit actually encourages new people to use transit. Instead, it usually leads to systems being starved of funding and becoming even less popular...
As the article points out, would you rather spend money on free transit or fast transit?
The vast majority of people would kill for frequent, fast and safe transit. It's way easier to coax people out of their cars if the bus comes every 6 minutes and beats out cars via bus lanes etc.
Car ownership is inelastic, but car use can be. I live in a city in Germany with great public transport, and even here there's a high proportion of car ownership. But a lot of those car owners will still commute or get around via public transport or bike or walking or whatever, because it's just so much easier. Car owners will choose other means of transport if those other means work out better for them.
Which implies that public transport being free isn't so much of a significant benefit. My hunch is that the more useful solution is to concentrate on making public transport more broadly useful — making it more convenient and easy for a wider range of people, rather than making it cheaper for the people who are already using it. So expanding routes, making it easy to use connected services, etc. For example here, all the city's public transport networks are connected into the same system, so I can buy a single ticket and use everything: trams, buses, trains, ferries, even the local funicular railway (IIRC). That means that it's very easy to cross the entire city and get to exactly where you need to go without having to figure out all the right changes.
I could believe (but have no evidence to suggest!) that this sort of connected, expanded, convenient network is a more useful use of resources than making public transport free, at least where the aim is getting as many people to use public transport as possible.
I think too many people are seeing my "it should be free" comment in the light of "it should be free, and you get what you pay for" ... that is, free public transport will continue to be mediocre, and may even get worse.
The underlying discussion has been about whether public transit should be free, or something users pay for ... not about how good the public transit is. I feel like that is a related issue, but not actually the one being discussed now.
In the US (in most places, anyway), public transit kind of sucks, and it should be made much better ... I think that making it free should be part of that equation, but I don't think that's the whole solution.
I'm in Germany, too. I live in Aachen. I'm not a native, and I only have a few years here, but my experience is that local public transit here is decent (The Netherlands was much better), but any kind of longer-distance commute is simply horrible. DB is the worst train service I've ever seen anywhere -- including the US.
I'm not suggesting that free necessarily means bad, I'm more thinking about what the priority should be given a non-infinite budget. Is it more important that the people who are currently able to use public transport get it for free or is it more important that public transport is more widely used but people need to pay for it? (FWIW, I'm assuming here that people who need free public transport like low-income families will get that in either case.)
For me, the latter should be the priority. Public transport is more useful the more it is used, especially if, as you say, it currently sucks and needs to be improved. And, at least according to the evidence presented here, making public transport free does not mean that more people use it. But other measures clearly can improve usage numbers, and I suspect the best way to make more people use public transport is to make it more effective. Cleaner, more modern vehicles; more expansive routes that make it easy to access the network; regular night routes, etc - the are the things that will help convince people about the value of public transport. (In fairness, I have no idea the extent to which NYC has these things already, but these are the sorts of areas I would focus on if I had control over the transport budget for a city.)
I am someone sympathetic to the idea that public services should generally be free, but I don't think that should be an absolute rule, and more importantly, if there are better ways to use resources, I think it makes sense to spend more money on those things. In the case of public transport, making it efficient and effective seems like a greater priority in general than making it, in Bevan's words, "free at the point of use".
The local transport varies a lot city-to-city. I live in Dresden, and it's really impressive (despite a bridge falling over and everyone deciding there's no more room in the budget for anything, including public transport). But there are also some real lows. And nationally, DB is a disaster, particularly on your side of the country where I feel like half of the trains I get end up cancelled. But I think that also echoes my point: you can reduce DB tickets as much as you like, but as long as the infrastructure is lacking or broken, people are generally going to opt for the more reliable means of transport.
Yes, exactly. I have two cars, and I use my light rail as often as possible. I would use busses more if they didn't triple my transit time, so I only use them selectively.
The only thing I'll chime in on cost is that I think youth, family, and low income subsidies or waived fare is beneficial to an appropriate degree.
I, for one, would love to go back to using public transit regularly. But the nearest stop to my new place is a mile away on roads with bridges, no sidewalks, and we only get 8.5 hours of daylight in the winter. That bus doesn't run often and doesn't go anywhere useful without a transfer that I might or might not be able to catch.
So I went from using public transit constantly as my primary form of transportation when I lived in a place where it was at least somewhat convenient to hardly ever using it.
Yeah, this is exactly the issue. Assuming (very naively!) that you can either make public transport cheaper, or expand and improve the network, 9/10 times I would choose to expand and improve the network. Free public transport for those of us already living directly on the public transport network is lovely, but it means that the rest of the community is essentially subsiding my transport access. Thank you, that's very kind of you, but I'd rather focus on getting more people onto the system than making my own life a bit cheaper.
The economic theory is that it drives people to businesses they normally wouldn't visit and it stimulates the economy indirectly. Free/cheap fare subsidized by the city gives avenue for other profit centers to thrive. I'm not sure that works when you have such a strained job market though.
I wouldn't sell my car, but if I had an easy transport to work that let me save on gas, I can see the argument for environmental relief.
Instead, the argument in these case studies here seems to be the opposite; the extra money is used to buy more cars eventually.
This whole discussion is kind of funny, because what it boils down to is a tax cut. Some people are saying "that's not very financially prudent", which, yeah, it's a tax cut. But it's a very sensibly targeted tax cut.
It is a weird case where paying to use the service improves the quality of the service. You're right that usually we want to cut taxes on things that we want more of. Funding isn't always clear cut though.
Genuine question: Why not cross-allocate funds then, like with every other tax cut ever? This one in particular positively affects people who don’t have another choice the most, which sounds like a great change in comparison to tax cuts for the 1% that we’d usually see.
Pretty much every transit system already gets funding from a variety of sources, but usage fees usually make up anywhere from 10-40% of the budget. Good luck convincing voters that their property taxes or income taxes need to increase a lot to pay for transit they may or may not use.
In most jurisdictions, it's easier for funding sources to be allocated for things the tax is directly related to. Toll roads usually pay for roads, transit fees pay for transit, construction fees pay for infrastructure, etc.
Additionally, usage fees give agencies a direct financial reason to increase ridership. If I work at a transit agency and 40% of my salary is paid by usage fees, I'm directly motivated to increase the number of riders and possibly increase my salary!
On your last sentence specifically: your motivation wouldn't be to increase ridership, it would be to increase usage fees. This is distinctly different. This could mean wanting to raise prices or provide a more expensive higher end service that caters to the wealthy. From an opportunity cost perspective your best bet likely would be to abandon the kinds of demographics that may need it most and can't afford to pay a premium.
As a rule, transit agencies aren't trying to replace rideshare apps or taxis. If you're aware of any counter examples, I'm happy to learn!
In general, I think most public transit users would be ecstatic to get a more premium service for a bit more money. The usage of express toll lanes suggest that even the poor are willing to pay a bit more to save time or have an easier commute.
I think any equity concerns can be solved by giving free transit passes to those that need them.
I think you were missing my point. My point is that increasing ridership and increasing revenue are not equivalent, therefore being motivated by increasing revenue can have various poor outcomes. There's actually a great example right in your last sentence: giving transit passes to those that need them increases cost without increasing revenue, so if driven by revenue you are disincentivized to serve those demographics at all.
You previously said that if you worked at a transit agency and saw 40% of your salary came from usage fees you'd want to increase ridership, but that's not a correct way to form that argument. You'd want to increase usage fees, which are different from ridership. This could mean various things, but none of them are giving out transit passes and in so doing increasing cost without increasing usage fees. Something it could include though is shifting capacity from poorer areas where you have to give out free passes to wealthier areas that can pay.
No, I follow your argument. It's a reasonable concern. I've just never heard of any real-world examples where any bad decisions were made due to these incentives.
Do you know of any real examples where these incentives caused poor outcomes? I'm only aware of the endless positive examples from cities around the world.
You aren't aware of cases where resources get allocated away from areas that cost money to areas that make money? Never seen it happen with expanding food, prescription, medicine, transportation, etc. deserts in poorer communities? Never heard of businesses, cities, or politicians cutting costs by cutting support or benefits for those that cost the most to service while bringing in the least?
There are tons of examples, but to pick just one: look at school lunches. Between various program flaws and stigmas means tested school lunch programs leave children less food secure than universally free lunch. With universally free lunch the goal is to feed all the kids, not cover as much as possible with usage fees.
There are lots of things that make sense in theory but work out differently in practice. I personally believed free transit was a great idea till I did a lot of reading and learned all the evidence says it hurts the poor by starving transit funding.
I can provide plenty of real examples of transit agencies making good decisions in part because their salaries depend on usage numbers (both total number of riders and revenue per passenger).
Do you have a single example where this incentive had perverse effects? If it caused the issues you're describing, there should be plenty of data to support your idea.
These incentives are the same ones that built our currently terrible public transit infrastructure. Pick a city and you have an example. These exact incentives are why public transit (stigmatized as for the poor) barely get funding while tons of roads for personal vehicles (for the comparatively wealthier) get the funding. They shift "service" toward wealthier communities by not focusing on public transit at all. Just look at Toronto's suburb-heavy city council wanting to rip out the street cars to make more room for cars.
But you are right that I'm not going to find a study that discusses the effects of transitioning from our current model to the same model.
Edit: I probably should've just left this earlier at that data was irrelevant to the point I was making, so asking me to provide it was (presumably unintentionally) a kind of goalpost moving as you were asking me to defend a different claim than the one I made. My claim was that your argument was logically unsound. It's the same argument as if a grocery store worker said, "My paycheck depends on the store making profit so I am motivated to increase the number of items sold." This is logically unsound because items sold does not equate to profit due to varying profit margins on items with some even being negative (loss leaders, some promotions, etc) in addition to other factors such as that customer acquisition cost on those could be larger than customer value. This doesn't mean that the inverse is true either; just that the argument is not correctly formed because it is not an established fact that more sales MUST produce more profit. A correct forming is "My paycheck depends on the store making profit so I am motivated to increase the profit made."
I got distracted by a statement that I read as, "I've not seen resources allocated away from poorer communities due to the service's incentives being based on capital", because that obviously happens all the time so the statement itself kind of stunned me.