Mass transit: Make it free! (for a while)
Urban transit systems face a financial crisis that could force dramatic cuts in service. That would be disastrous - not just for riders, but for the economy, for the environment and for public health.
Mass transit ridership collapsed during the pandemic. Despite a booming economy, it still hasn’t recovered.
Ridership on public transit systems is down 27% from 2019. In some large urban systems, which accommodate most riders, it is closer to 40%. The imminent expiration of the emergency subsidies contained in COVID-era relief bills could force another round of service cuts as early as next year — the first manifestation of the “urban doom loop” that some are predicting for the nation’s large urban centers.
The negative consequences of declining mass transit ridership are far-reaching and self-reinforcing — the proverbial downward spiral. Fewer riders leads to less revenue. Less revenue leads to cuts in service. Less service leads to even fewer riders.
Failure to maintain a well-functioning mass transit system that people want to use chokes city streets and expressways at all hours of the day. It hampers efforts to address the climate crisis as people substitute car trips for train and bus trips.
It worsens public health and exacerbates existing health inequities. Increased car use, which is still predominantly gasoline-powered, increases the airborne fine particulate matter that causes asthma, chronic lung disease and cancer. This imposes the greatest harm on low-and-moderate income communities that are near the major urban and inner suburban arteries with the greatest traffic congestion.
A new study of the Chicago metropolitan area by scientists at MIT and Argonne National Laboratory estimated the region’s extensive urban and suburban mass transit system collectively saves over 2,000 lives per year by reducing air pollution. Decreased service will increase the death toll.
Workers in poorer communities are also the ones who bear the greatest financial burden from declining service. They are forced to switch from mass transit to cars after further service cuts. The annual cost of maintaining a single car is at last five times higher than buying a monthly pass for a mass transit system.
The switch to electric vehicles will sharply reduce auto pollution. But EVs still produce some air pollution through asphalt road decay and tire wear — like all cars. Most electricity production is still from fossil fuels. EVs are not as green an alternative as mass transit. And EVs, like all cars, exacerbate congestion and expand the amount of time stuck in traffic, which reduces worker productivity and inhibits economic activity.
Why hasn’t ridership recovered?
The causes of recent declines in mass transit use — both short- and long-term — are not complex. The digital technologies that allowed remote work during the pandemic have become a permanent feature of the post-pandemic economy. In Chicago where I live, I can walk to the local train or bus stop during rush hour on a Monday or Friday morning and board a half-empty car, the same trip that pre-pandemic would have had me clinging to a strap. In many cities, Tuesday through Thursday is the new in-office work week.
The emerging work patterns are leading some to predict construction of new office towers will grind to a halt as owners grapple with how to fill mounting vacancies. Moody’s Analytics reported the commercial office vacancy rate at the end of last year stood at just under 20% — the highest since 1979 when it began tracking the data. It some large cities it is over 40%. It will likely soar even higher over the next few years as business leases expire and many employers decide they need much less space for workers who only show up three days a week if at all.
A less recognized factor behind declining transit use is the rise of the rideshare industry — Uber and Lyft. Despite Uber’s well-funded and successful lobbying campaign to turn those new jobs into a low-paid hell with no regulatory oversight (see this depressing new essay in the New York Review of Books), millions of young, middle-class urban dwellers without cars are abandoning trains and buses in favor of fast-arriving cars, even though they wind up paying five to 10 times more for the ride. There’s even been a minor rebound in the traditional taxicab industry after it adopted CURB and other phone app-based tools to compete with Uber and Lyft.
Transit systems only survived the sharp decline in ridership through a massive federal bailout. The multiple COVID-relief bills passed by Congress in 2020 and 2021 channeled nearly $70 billion in new subsidies to urban and rural systems — more than five times the pre-pandemic subsidy level and three times the amount collected through fares, advertising and other operating revenue.
Decline is not inevitable
Transit ridership has been declining since the end of World War II, when the U.S. automobile industry — led by General Motors — conspired to put an end to the light rail and bus systems that criss-crossed many major American cities. The postwar suburban building boom, the creation of the interstate highway system, and the institution of a gasoline tax that went mostly to building roads hastened its decline. Americans took 23 billion trips on mass transit in 1946, three times more than they took last year when the population was more than twice as large.
Throughout that long decline, as farebox revenue fell, the local government agencies that took over all the failing private companies became dependent on federal, state and local support. In 2019, farebox revenue accounted for only 25-30% of total transit spending. The other 70-75% was roughly split between the federal government and state and local taxpayers.
Declining ridership also meant declining service. Agencies made ends meet by cutting routes, scheduling longer headways (the amount of time between train and bus arrivals at any stop), and reducing spending on maintenance. In an attempt to hold onto riders, they also kept fare increases to a minimum — politically attractive for existing riders but not sufficient to attract new customers.
Transit experts are almost unanimous in saying the key to making mass transit more appealing to new and existing riders is providing more frequent service with cleaner and safer trains and buses. Rider surveys say the same thing.
But that doesn’t make price irrelevant. The laws of economics still apply. To reclaim lost riders, a number of cities across the country have begun experimenting with free transit routes. Some made the entire system free. Others allowed people to ride free on a handful of existing routes free.
The results are encouraging. Richmond, according to a Stateline analysis, regained all of its pre-COVID ridership after waiving fares on all its routes. Indeed, of the 22 transit systems (there are thousands of transit agencies across the U.S.) whose ridership in 2023 exceeded 2019 levels, 14 offered free rides for at least part of the year.
Boston in late 2021 began offering free rides on three bus routes that traversed some of its lowest-income neighborhoods. Within a year, ridership on those routes increased 20% to 30% compared to 7% systemwide, according to the MBTA’s analysis. New York City began a six-month free rider program on five of its bus routes last September. An MTA spokesperson, in reply to an email, said the agency is still analyzing the data, but has chosen to extend the program.
A suggestion for my kind of town
I began looking into this subject a few months ago because I thought there would be a good health care angle. But as I learned more, I realized that the benefits of expanding mass transit go well beyond improvements in public health or the environment.
Transportation in all its forms is the circulatory system of the economy. When I sit in traffic next to near-empty buses; when I have to wait 20 minutes on a platform for the next train; when I see delivery trucks clogging my street because people choose to order online rather than take the bus to a local store; when low-income people can’t make doctor, dentist or social service appointments because they can’t afford a cab or bus; I realize our circulatory system is filled with plaque and is on the verge of a stroke.
There is so much that could be done to unclog the system. More bus routes; more routes serving local business districts, not downtowns; more dedicated bus lanes; more frequent buses and trains on every route so people know if they step out, they’ll be able to catch a ride within a reasonably short amount of time.
On Wednesday of this week, I made a brief presentation to the Chicago Transit Authority’s board (they only give you three minutes) suggesting it experiment with a free transit program in the city. More on that in a second.
The $2 billion CTA faces a $500 million-plus deficit in 2026 when its COVID-relief money runs out. It’s the largest portion of the $730 million shortfall that the Regional Transportation Authority needs to keep all the systems under its umbrella, including suburban bus and rail, running.
The Chicago Metropolitan Area on Planning recently sent a report to the Illinois legislature calling for numerous changes to improve service quality, frequency and safety. Like most urban planners, they see that as key to rebuilding ridership.
That is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The report, recognizing new revenue will be needed, called for expanding the state sales tax, already among the highest in the nation, to cover a range of services, including business services. This will no doubt generate tremendous opposition in the state legislature.
Here’s what I told them they need to do to win support in Springfield:
The CTA needs to take bold, dramatic action to rebuild ridership and show it deserves more taxpayer support. Rebuilding ridership is the surest path to fiscal sustainability …
How? While you still have COVID relief money, you should create a one or two-month free fare program on all or some of the CTA bus and train routes.
It should be preceded by an aggressive campaign to make buses and trains safer, cleaner, and more frequent. Shorter headways are crucial to attracting new customers – and keeping them once you’ve got them on board. Give people a free chance to use transit to shop, see the doctor, eat out and see friends. It will revitalize neighborhood business districts. This is where your growth opportunity lies.
The free fare program should also be preceded by a month-long marketing campaign aimed at putting a pre-loaded fare card into the pockets of every citizen. Advertise unlimited free rides. Extend the same deal to existing cardholders.
Can you afford it? A two-month fare holiday on all routes would cost about $60 million in foregone revenue. But if you increase ridership during that period by 20% — like in Boston — and kept half that increase after restoring fares, your loss would be less than half that amount in 2025 and reduce the level of subsidy going forward.
It could even be tried nationwide and, perhaps in these divisive times, bring together a bipartisan coalition on Capitol Hill to pass the program. A temporary free fare program extended to every transit agency in the country — whether in Montana, Iowa and Alabama or New York, Massachusetts and Michigan — would benefit everyone.
It would cost a relative pittance. All transit agencies spent $52 billion in 2021, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, with at most 30% of that or $15 billion a year coming from farebox revenue. Sending about $3 billion to the states for free fare programs is just a tiny fraction of the $95 billion in military aid the U.S. just sent to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.
Given the benefits it would create for cities and towns, neighborhoods and downtowns, the climate and public health, isn’t it worth a try?
Great ideas. Hoping they take your suggestions!
Excellent idea! It’s an uphill struggle, however, as long as we continue to build low-density, automobile-centric cities and suburbs. I’m all for mass transit, but we need fundamental rethinking of our metropolitan-wide land use policies.