Hey, there! Log in / Register
The latest trend in mass transit: Eliminating fares
By Arborway on Sat, 07/28/2007 - 11:19am
A growing number of cities in the U.S. and elsewhere are making their mass transit systems free to use.
The argument goes that you can't build your way out of gridlock. Either you simply run out of room to build new roads, or by building new roads you increase the number of private cars in a small area, and end up with worse gridlock than you had before spending a few billion dollars.
Fare increases reduce revenue:
By some estimates, the government subsidy to each private vehicle owner is about $3,700, while a common cost for providing a single trip by transit is about $5.
Yet big or small, most transit systems are scraping by or on the brink of financial collapse, paradoxically because of their reliance on the farebox. Revenue for any system drops when ridership dips or when fares are increased. Yes, when fares are increased. This is so well proven it has a name: the Simpson-Curtain rule. Most often the dip in ridership is caused by a fare hike.
Mass transit fares can be a barrier to escaping poverty:
Imagine if a government tried to put a farebox into every car. Each time drivers took a trip, they would have to dig into their pockets to find a couple dollars — in exact change.
And yet, we force the poorest among us to live this way. In British Columbia’s Lower Mainland, one of the most expensive places to live in North America, a family traveled from a suburb to Vancouver by public transit during spring break. It cost the mother and her three sons $26 in day passes.
For those without well-paying jobs, a bus fare of any amount can be a barrier to finding work, making it to school, visiting friends and relatives or even getting food to eat.
Allowing anyone to ride requires a system to discipline the Massholes out there:
Island Transit has developed a simple policy around dealing with behavior that is unruly or disturbing to others: “The operator is the captain of their own ship.†This is backed up by a state law regarding unlawful bus conduct. A bothersome rider first gets a written warning. The next time, his or her riding privileges are revoked. These privileges are only restored after completing a Rider Privilege Agreement. Island Transit has further protected its employees by installing a camera system in every vehicle. The big brotherness of it is acknowledged, but the safety of their operators simply takes priority. “Show me another transit system in Washington state,†said Island Transit operator Odis D. Jenkins, “where the teenagers more often than not say ‘thank you’ when they get off.â€
Of course, this might not work in a city such as Boston where eliminating mass transit infrastructure is a well-established tradition.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
back in the days of the 85 cent fare
About ten years ago, back in the days of the 85 cent subway fare, someone did the math and figured that, at least as far as the subways were concerned, fare collection was a net loss--that it cost more to pay a token booth clerk, to pay people to count the money, maintain the turnstiles, etc., etc, than was brought in. I'm not sure how that works out now that a single ride costs twice that.
I'd say you need to answer two questions before making the system free:
1. Access control. Having a fare for entry, and some sort of official person watching the gate, probably discourages at least some miscreants from accessing the system for nefarious purposes.
2. To realize any cost savings from the elimination of fares, you'd have to lay off a whole lot of personnel whose jobs center around fare collection. That's a pretty ugly prospect from several different angles.
Am I misssing something here ...
This paragraph makes the savings sound dramatic, but if the government subsidizes a car by $3700 (I'm assuming that is annually), how does offering free mass transit save money? If each trip is $5, let's estimate that every transit rider would use the T at least a couple of times a day, e.g. to and from work, going out to eat or shopping on weekends, etc. That's $10 per day, or $3650 per year.
That's pretty much a wash.
Yes
The environmental benefit to this proposal that in effect decreases reliance on cars far exceeds a simple cost-for-cost comparison.
But...
But that assumes doing away with fare collection will result in a net increase in T ridership while at the same time causing a net decrease in car use.
I don't think folks are driving their cars because the T costs too much, nor do I think T riders would use it more in lieu of using their own vehicles (if they own one).
There are three types of T riders:
1. Folks who live in the city (or close proximity to mass transit)
2. Suburban commuters (commuter rail)
3. Tourists
For what I've seen, folks living in the city use their cars when they need to go somewhere outside the T's scope or if they need to buy stuff they don't want to carry or are unable to carry on the T. Also, the difficulty and cost of finding parking can be prohibitive.
Suburban commuters would continue to drive to the commuter rail just as before. Whether the T is free to use or not, they still need to get to it.
Tourists don't matter. They'll use the T regardless.
I think you're overstating any environmental impact this may cause. There would be an increase in ridership, IMO, but it would be the current riders using the system more.