Article / Archive
After winning the Democratic mayoral primary held two weeks ago, Zohran Mamdani is in the spotlight, as is his policy agenda for New York City. From reforming food truck permits to expanding library access, many of Mamdani’s plans are excellent. Alas, eliminating bus fares—his flagship transportation proposal—is anything but. Should Mamdani somehow cobble together the hundreds of millions of dollars required annually, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority would have many superior uses for the money.
Scrapping transit fares is not a novel idea. It’s been tried abroad and in the States: Tallinn, Estonia, stopped charging residents to ride public transportation in 2013, as did Kansas City, Missouri, in 2019. Michelle Wu, the progressive mayor of Boston, promised during her 2021 campaign to “Free the T,” and upon taking office spent city money to eliminate fares on several MBTA bus lines. Two years ago, as a New York Assembly member, Mamdani himself helped secure $15 million from the state budget to temporarily stop charging riders on five MTA bus lines.
Without question, there are advantages to letting passengers board for free. Total ridership typically rises when no one has to pay. Assaults on bus operators may decline because passengers are not swiping a card or handing over cash, and the boarding process can be faster (although this seems not to have happened during the MTA’s fare-free pilot, potentially due to a jump in riders). Because many bus passengers have low incomes, eliminating fares is fiscally progressive, disproportionately benefiting the less wealthy.
But prior fare-free deployments provide some cautionary lessons. In most cities, including Boston, the much-celebrated bump in ridership has almost entirely consisted of prior transit users who take more trips, along with people shifting to the bus from walking or biking. Eliminating fares seems to have no impact on driving, likely because those affluent enough to own a car care more about travel time than the fare. (In Tallinn driving actually surged after fares were dropped, perhaps because Estonia’s GDP was rising, and people used their new wealth to purchase cars.) Notably, if fare-free transit does not reduce car use, it cannot mitigate pollution or greenhouse gases. That reality contradicts the environmental framing of many free-fare efforts, such as Colorado’s “Zero Fare for Better Air.”
Then there’s the fact that fares are collected for the purpose of running transit. Along with state and local subsidies, farebox revenues fund transit agencies’ operating costs, such as staffing, fuel, and maintenance. The MTA currently collects upward of $800 million in bus fares annually. For context, that is more than the $500 million that Manhattan’s new congestion program is projected to add to MTA’s coffers this year. Mamdani’s team has estimated the annual cost of his fare-free proposal at $600 to $800 million, but those figures may be low, particularly considering the need to deploy additional buses and invest more in maintenance to handle a predicted uptick in passengers (some of whom will probably switch from the subway, further depressing MTA revenue). Ditching fares can be justified in smaller cities, like Olympia, Washington, which went fare-free a few years ago because the cost of managing fare collection exceeded the revenue collected. But that is certainly not the case in New York City, where a whopping third of all U.S. transit trips occur.
Despite the towering price tag of dropping bus fares, some observers are supportive. A spokesperson for the Riders Alliance, an advocacy group, told the New York Times that Madmdani’s proposal is “absolutely a good idea.” And, of course, taxpayers cover the cost of all kinds of things that benefit the public good. But is it the best way to spent $600 million–plus in taxpayer dollars, every year, ad infinitum?
It’s hard to see how that could be the case, particularly given the myriad opportunities to upgrade MTA’s bus service, which is the slowest in the country and not getting faster.
Low-income passengers themselves often say they would prefer speedier and more reliable transit service than one that’s free of charge. Basic math can explain why: If a bus rider makes $20 per hour and their commute takes an average of 40 minutes, reducing their average trip to 25 minutes would save them half an hour per day, worth the equivalent of $10—far more than the price of a round-trip ride.
“Bus passengers want reliability and reduced trip times,” said Eric Goldwyn, program director of the NYU Marron Institute of Urban Management. “We can do that with bus lanes, signal prioritization, all-door boarding, and bus stop consolidation.” The MTA could also simply run more buses, reducing wait times that frequently exceed 15 minutes on many lines. All of these moves would cost a fraction as much as going fare-free. New York City’s subway, which moves more than twice as many people as its buses, offers an additional to-do list. The Effective Transit Alliance, a nonprofit, claims that $350 million per year would ensure six-minute service across every subway line, citywide, from dawn to dusk.
There is another financial consideration about going fare-free. If the MTA does make the move, what will happen if future public leaders refuse to contribute the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to offset the absence of farebox revenue?
For the moment, support from New York state has given the MTA financial security that is the envy of many transit executives elsewhere. But budget priorities can change, particularly for an initiative like fare-free transit that requires a new infusion of money annually.
“Funding for things like fare-free transit has to come from somewhere, and funding is fragile,” said Goldwyn. “Just look at what’s happening 100 miles to the south,” he added, referencing the dire situation in Philadelphia, where SEPTA, the regional transit agency, is facing a 45 percent service reduction because the state of Pennsylvania has not extended the financial lifeline that it did a year ago. The history of American transit shows that such service cuts can trigger a downward spiral, as exasperated riders find other ways to travel. The resulting decline in farebox revenue then opens a new budget gap that necessitates further service reductions, and the cycle repeats. Eliminating fares would leave the MTA without a key source of money and raise the likelihood that bus frequency and coverage get slashed during a future crisis. A transit system without fares is a brittle one.
The good news, if you want to call it that, is that it is unlikely that a future Mayor Mamdani could fulfill his pledge to go fare-free. Beyond convincing City Council to approve a six-figure outlay, Mamdani would likely need a similar, multiyear commitment from New York state, and Gov. Kathy Hochul has hardly seemed enthusiastic about securing it.
Even better news: Mamdani seems to genuinely care about improving transportation for New Yorkers. As mayor, he could leverage the city’s agencies to speed bus service, such as by installing more bus-only lanes. In the state Assembly, Mamdani championed the use of bus-mounted cameras to automatically ticket drivers who block a bus lane or bus stop. His other ideas about transportation—including replacing street parking with year-round outdoor dining, “daylighting” intersections to improve visibility, and using camera-based ticketing to keep bike lanes clear—are generally fantastic. Who knows; he might even do something about the NYPD officers who systematically block sidewalks. Of course, all of those policies are harder to fit on a poster than “free buses.”
Mamdani clearly understands that transportation affects job prospects, influences public health, and helps shape the cost of living. Many of his proposals are creative and worthwhile. Nixing bus fares is an exception.
After winning the Democratic mayoral primary held two weeks ago, Zohran Mamdani is in the spotlight, as is his policy agenda for New York City. From reforming food truck permits to expanding library access, many of Mamdani’s plans are excellent. Alas, eliminating bus fares—his flagship transportation proposal—is anything but. Should Mamdani somehow cobble together the hundreds of millions of dollars required annually, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority would have many superior uses for the money.
Scrapping transit fares is not a novel idea. It’s been tried abroad and in the States: Tallinn, Estonia, stopped charging residents to ride public transportation in 2013, as did Kansas City, Missouri, in 2019. Michelle Wu, the progressive mayor of Boston, promised during her 2021 campaign to “Free the T,” and upon taking office spent city money to eliminate fares on several MBTA bus lines. Two years ago, as a New York Assembly member, Mamdani himself helped secure $15 million from the state budget to temporarily stop charging riders on five MTA bus lines.
Without question, there are advantages to letting passengers board for free. Total ridership typically rises when no one has to pay. Assaults on bus operators may decline because passengers are not swiping a card or handing over cash, and the boarding process can be faster (although this seems not to have happened during the MTA’s fare-free pilot, potentially due to a jump in riders). Because many bus passengers have low incomes, eliminating fares is fiscally progressive, disproportionately benefiting the less wealthy.
But prior fare-free deployments provide some cautionary lessons. In most cities, including Boston, the much-celebrated bump in ridership has almost entirely consisted of prior transit users who take more trips, along with people shifting to the bus from walking or biking. Eliminating fares seems to have no impact on driving, likely because those affluent enough to own a car care more about travel time than the fare. (In Tallinn driving actually surged after fares were dropped, perhaps because Estonia’s GDP was rising, and people used their new wealth to purchase cars.) Notably, if fare-free transit does not reduce car use, it cannot mitigate pollution or greenhouse gases. That reality contradicts the environmental framing of many free-fare efforts, such as Colorado’s “Zero Fare for Better Air.”
Then there’s the fact that fares are collected for the purpose of running transit. Along with state and local subsidies, farebox revenues fund transit agencies’ operating costs, such as staffing, fuel, and maintenance. The MTA currently collects upward of $800 million in bus fares annually. For context, that is more than the $500 million that Manhattan’s new congestion program is projected to add to MTA’s coffers this year. Mamdani’s team has estimated the annual cost of his fare-free proposal at $600 to $800 million, but those figures may be low, particularly considering the need to deploy additional buses and invest more in maintenance to handle a predicted uptick in passengers (some of whom will probably switch from the subway, further depressing MTA revenue). Ditching fares can be justified in smaller cities, like Olympia, Washington, which went fare-free a few years ago because the cost of managing fare collection exceeded the revenue collected. But that is certainly not the case in New York City, where a whopping third of all U.S. transit trips occur.
Despite the towering price tag of dropping bus fares, some observers are supportive. A spokesperson for the Riders Alliance, an advocacy group, told the New York Times that Madmdani’s proposal is “absolutely a good idea.” And, of course, taxpayers cover the cost of all kinds of things that benefit the public good. But is it the best way to spent $600 million–plus in taxpayer dollars, every year, ad infinitum?
It’s hard to see how that could be the case, particularly given the myriad opportunities to upgrade MTA’s bus service, which is the slowest in the country and not getting faster.
Low-income passengers themselves often say they would prefer speedier and more reliable transit service than one that’s free of charge. Basic math can explain why: If a bus rider makes $20 per hour and their commute takes an average of 40 minutes, reducing their average trip to 25 minutes would save them half an hour per day, worth the equivalent of $10—far more than the price of a round-trip ride.
“Bus passengers want reliability and reduced trip times,” said Eric Goldwyn, program director of the NYU Marron Institute of Urban Management. “We can do that with bus lanes, signal prioritization, all-door boarding, and bus stop consolidation.” The MTA could also simply run more buses, reducing wait times that frequently exceed 15 minutes on many lines. All of these moves would cost a fraction as much as going fare-free. New York City’s subway, which moves more than twice as many people as its buses, offers an additional to-do list. The Effective Transit Alliance, a nonprofit, claims that $350 million per year would ensure six-minute service across every subway line, citywide, from dawn to dusk.
There is another financial consideration about going fare-free. If the MTA does make the move, what will happen if future public leaders refuse to contribute the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to offset the absence of farebox revenue?
For the moment, support from New York state has given the MTA financial security that is the envy of many transit executives elsewhere. But budget priorities can change, particularly for an initiative like fare-free transit that requires a new infusion of money annually.
“Funding for things like fare-free transit has to come from somewhere, and funding is fragile,” said Goldwyn. “Just look at what’s happening 100 miles to the south,” he added, referencing the dire situation in Philadelphia, where SEPTA, the regional transit agency, is facing a 45 percent service reduction because the state of Pennsylvania has not extended the financial lifeline that it did a year ago. The history of American transit shows that such service cuts can trigger a downward spiral, as exasperated riders find other ways to travel. The resulting decline in farebox revenue then opens a new budget gap that necessitates further service reductions, and the cycle repeats. Eliminating fares would leave the MTA without a key source of money and raise the likelihood that bus frequency and coverage get slashed during a future crisis. A transit system without fares is a brittle one.
The good news, if you want to call it that, is that it is unlikely that a future Mayor Mamdani could fulfill his pledge to go fare-free. Beyond convincing City Council to approve a six-figure outlay, Mamdani would likely need a similar, multiyear commitment from New York state, and Gov. Kathy Hochul has hardly seemed enthusiastic about securing it.
Even better news: Mamdani seems to genuinely care about improving transportation for New Yorkers. As mayor, he could leverage the city’s agencies to speed bus service, such as by installing more bus-only lanes. In the state Assembly, Mamdani championed the use of bus-mounted cameras to automatically ticket drivers who block a bus lane or bus stop. His other ideas about transportation—including replacing street parking with year-round outdoor dining, “daylighting” intersections to improve visibility, and using camera-based ticketing to keep bike lanes clear—are generally fantastic. Who knows; he might even do something about the NYPD officers who systematically block sidewalks. Of course, all of those policies are harder to fit on a poster than “free buses.”
Mamdani clearly understands that transportation affects job prospects, influences public health, and helps shape the cost of living. Many of his proposals are creative and worthwhile. Nixing bus fares is an exception.
