Opinion: Some cities may eliminate bus, subway fares

But effort to help disadvantaged could cause headaches for fiscally strapped transit agencies.
A transit turnstile in Chicago. Cubic Corp., which makes fare gates, back-office fare collection technology and other smart cities products for some of the world's largest mass transit agencies, is being acquired by two private equity firms in an all-cash deal valued at $2.8 billion. (Antwon McMullen/Dreamstime.com/TNS)

A transit turnstile in Chicago. Cubic Corp., which makes fare gates, back-office fare collection technology and other smart cities products for some of the world's largest mass transit agencies, is being acquired by two private equity firms in an all-cash deal valued at $2.8 billion. (Antwon McMullen/Dreamstime.com/TNS)

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, LaShawn Poole took two buses every weekday to get to her job as a medical assistant in Kansas City, Missouri. She had to shell out more than $100 a month, which took a chunk out of her limited budget.

Now Poole rides for free to her current job as a cashier at Target. That’s because the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority got rid of fares completely when the pandemic began in March 2020.

Across the country, some transit agencies and cities are considering scrapping or reducing fares, at least for low-income riders, to ensure access for disadvantaged communities. The moves come after the pandemic highlighted transit inequities, as the majority of those who continued to ride buses and trains were lower-income essential workers, often people of color.

Critics caution, however, that the loss of fare box revenue could result in services being cut or in more financial headaches for fiscally strapped transit agencies. Some say making fares free could attract more riders experiencing homelessness and could give rise to criminal activity.

But a growing number of transportation officials say it is time to reexamine the fare system and improve social equity in transit.

Jenni Bergal

Credit: contributed

icon to expand image

Credit: contributed

In the Washington, D.C., area, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s staff is recommending that the agency launch a pilot program that would reduce fares for low-income riders, eliminate a $1.50 transfer fee between rail and buses, and lower seven-day bus pass prices.

In Boston, city officials are in the initial stages of planning a pilot program that would offer free bus service in some areas that were the hardest hit by COVID-19.

And in Los Angeles, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s board recently approved a plan to move ahead with a 23-month fareless pilot program for students and low-income riders. Before that can happen, however, the board wants to see a detailed plan for how the agency will cover the cost.

The issue has even gotten attention on Capitol Hill.

In March, U.S. Sen. Edward Markey and U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, both Democrats from Massachusetts, reintroduced the Freedom to Move Act, which would offer $5 billion in grants to transit systems to go fare-free.

‘let’s invest in people’

Public transit has been hit hard during the pandemic. In the early months, ridership plummeted 76% nationally as commuters worked remotely, transit agencies enforced social distancing and riders stayed away for health and safety reasons.

Transit ridership has been improving since then, but it was still 62% lower nationally in the fourth quarter of 2020 compared with the same period the previous year, according to the American Public Transportation Association, a trade group.

Many transit agencies did away with fare collection early in the pandemic to help minimize contact between riders and operators, instituting rear-door-only boarding on buses. Most agencies later returned to collecting fares — though some did not.

In Kansas City, transit officials already started a zero-fare program four years ago, first for veterans, then for high school students, and later for social service safety net clients such as domestic abuse victims, according to Robbie Makinen, the transportation authority’s CEO.

By the time COVID-19 struck, it was a logical move to make rides free for all, Makinen said.

The transit system, which runs buses and a streetcar, didn’t see a big dip in ridership the way many others did during the pandemic, Makinen said. Ridership sank to 60% of its previous numbers and now is back up to 80%, with 30,000 to 40,000 passengers a day.

Makinen attributes that stability to the zero-fare policy.

“Whenever you say free transit, everyone goes crazy and says it’s not free; someone’s paying,” he said. “But the return on investment for empathy, compassion, for social equity, far outweighs the return on investment for concrete and asphalt.

“Let’s invest in people, in our workforce.”

‘It’s a terrible idea’

On average, fare revenue covers 30% of transit agencies’ operating costs, though it varies from system to system, according to Chad Chitwood, an American Public Transportation Association spokesperson.

To make up for the loss, Kansas City officials agreed to cover half the missing revenue, and the transit agency paid for the other half by cutting management costs.

Eliminating fares also is saving nearly $1 million a year, Makinen said, because that’s how much it takes for new fare boxes, collections, maintenance and picking up and transporting the money.

The zero-fare program will continue into 2022, and hopefully will be made permanent, Makinen said.

But making up for the lost farebox revenue may not be as easy for some other transit agencies that rely more heavily on fares.

Congress has helped, with its three COVID-19 relief measures together allotting nearly $70 billion to transit agencies as a stopgap. To achieve social equity in transit in the long term, federal, state and local governments will have to make additional investments, said Art Guzzetti, a vice president at the American Public Transportation Association.

But not everyone is on board with the concept of zero fares.

“It’s a terrible idea. It will chase away a lot of paying patrons if it hasn’t already,” said Dorothy Moses Schulz, an emerita professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

Schulz, a former police captain at the MTA Metro-North Railroad, a New York suburban commuter rail system, said letting passengers board for free would encourage more people experiencing homelessness to ride back and forth on trains and buses all day, driving away regular customers.

It also could present added security threats, attracting criminals or people who are drunk or disorderly, particularly in some of the larger systems, she added.

Offering fare discounts to low-income people is a better alternative, Schulz said.

“Paying does give you a sense of ownership, even if it’s a reduced fare,” she said. “It translates into better behavior. If you get something for nothing, you think it’s worth nothing.”

But in Kansas City, Makinen said public safety incident rates on transit vehicles have dropped 35% since zero fares started. The reason: 85% of incidents had been over fare disputes, he said.

While Makinen conceded his system is seeing more people experiencing homelessness riding on buses since fares disappeared. He said the agency addressed that by instituting a policy against “loop riding,” so that when passengers reach the end of the line they have to get off.

And instead of placing armed police officers on buses, he added, the agency has been working with homeless service agencies that have started to put outreach teams on buses, offering services and spotting problems.

“Homelessness is not a transit issue,” Makinen said. “It’s a community issue.”

By Jenni Bergal writes for Stateline, an initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts. This story is part of the Solutions Journalism Network, a nonprofit organization dedicated to rigorous reporting about responses to social problems. It originally appeared here.