Probably not. For most people cost is not the issue of why they don't ride. Free would increase a little, but most people are not riding because the service isn't there. Service can be one of Frequency, speed, or ability to get to the destination.
Transit needs to: Get you from where you are, to where you want to be, when you want to go, in a reasonable amount of time, for a reasonable cost. If you lack any of those things and transit isn't useful. Generally cost is the only part of transit that is reasonable (but not always) and so it isn't something to focus on.
People who ask for free transit are really saying transit is for the poor and "normal people" should just drive.
Worse, free fares can cause undesirables to cluster and abuse the system.
Transit begin able to be paid with a phone has removed most or all the "friction" arguments, the need is to make it reliable (arrive on time) and frequent (so you don't have to meticulously plan your day).
> Free fares would significantly increase ridership, no?
It's not just about that. Higher transportation costs are heavily regressive. People with less money can't afford to live in the city and have to commute and then anything they pay to commute is independent of their wages, so $100 in fares is $100 whether you make $200k/year or $20k, whereas even the taxes like sales tax labeled as "regressive" would have the former person paying ten times more than the latter.
Moreover, fares are often heavily subsidized to begin with -- in large part because of the above -- but then not zeroing them out requires you to still pay the full cost of the collections infrastructure. Which is actually really expensive, because then you need turnstiles, payment processing equipment, security to prevent theft or card skimming, billing departments to deal with credit card fraud or chargebacks, customer service when people have problems, enforcement against people who skip the fare, etc. None of those costs go away if the fare is even $0.01, but they all disappear when it's actually zero.
And people who have never used it before then wouldn't have to figure out how to set it up, which is a significant source of friction independent of the fare and can cause people to just get an Uber (which they've already set up) or rent a car etc. Which causes people to never even try using mass transit, and then regard it as that thing they never use so why is the government spending money on it, instead of that thing that was convenient to use when their car was in the shop and made them realize that they can get by as a one-car household instead of two, or at least something worth supporting because they remember actually using it.
On top of that, removing the fares is better for privacy because then you're not tying your movement history to your payment card.
Speaking generally, free fairs also provide various benefits to a community such as reduced use of cars and easier access for lower income access to jobs and services.
you probably dont live in Boston, because there is no one on the planet that drives into boston rather than taking the T because its too expensive. people drive downtown and pay $40 for parking instead of taking the T.
Rider fair is only one way to fund transit. My city (Corvallis, OR) provides free bus service city wide since 2011. The newest addition is free bus service to surrounding cities (up to McMinville and down to Eugene).
It's paid for with state and federal grants, university (OSU) contribution, as well as a utility fee.
Because governments aren't allowed to simply provide services for free anymore. It is inconceivable that something like moving around on mass transit would be free at point of use.
bluGill|3 months ago
Transit needs to: Get you from where you are, to where you want to be, when you want to go, in a reasonable amount of time, for a reasonable cost. If you lack any of those things and transit isn't useful. Generally cost is the only part of transit that is reasonable (but not always) and so it isn't something to focus on.
People who ask for free transit are really saying transit is for the poor and "normal people" should just drive.
bombcar|3 months ago
Transit begin able to be paid with a phone has removed most or all the "friction" arguments, the need is to make it reliable (arrive on time) and frequent (so you don't have to meticulously plan your day).
AnthonyMouse|2 months ago
It's not just about that. Higher transportation costs are heavily regressive. People with less money can't afford to live in the city and have to commute and then anything they pay to commute is independent of their wages, so $100 in fares is $100 whether you make $200k/year or $20k, whereas even the taxes like sales tax labeled as "regressive" would have the former person paying ten times more than the latter.
Moreover, fares are often heavily subsidized to begin with -- in large part because of the above -- but then not zeroing them out requires you to still pay the full cost of the collections infrastructure. Which is actually really expensive, because then you need turnstiles, payment processing equipment, security to prevent theft or card skimming, billing departments to deal with credit card fraud or chargebacks, customer service when people have problems, enforcement against people who skip the fare, etc. None of those costs go away if the fare is even $0.01, but they all disappear when it's actually zero.
And people who have never used it before then wouldn't have to figure out how to set it up, which is a significant source of friction independent of the fare and can cause people to just get an Uber (which they've already set up) or rent a car etc. Which causes people to never even try using mass transit, and then regard it as that thing they never use so why is the government spending money on it, instead of that thing that was convenient to use when their car was in the shop and made them realize that they can get by as a one-car household instead of two, or at least something worth supporting because they remember actually using it.
On top of that, removing the fares is better for privacy because then you're not tying your movement history to your payment card.
pugworthy|3 months ago
anthonypasq|3 months ago
chollida1|3 months ago
Why do you think they charge in the first palce?
pugworthy|3 months ago
It's paid for with state and federal grants, university (OSU) contribution, as well as a utility fee.
venturecruelty|3 months ago