Archived link for whoever don't want to give data to NY Time:
https://archive.is/gBRoW
post
Pay walled
Also think about all the money you save for ticketing infrastructure and personel handling ticket control and service.
don’t think of it as a giveaway to the undeserving
Unfortunately, this mindset is a core part of American culture.
As someone who still owns a car anyway, I essentially never ride the bus because the marginal cost of a bus trip is almost always higher than the marginal cost of the equivalent car trip (basically every time unless I have to pay for parking, which is exceedingly rare). The total cost of the car trip is higher, to be sure, but most of that is fixed cost that I'd have to pay anyway, so foregoing it doesn't actually save me money. I could bring the marginal cost of the bus to $0 by buying a monthly transit pass, but unless it could eliminate all my car trips and thus allow me to get rid of my car, it's still a net increase in cost and doesn't make sense.
Even if I want to take transit, because it's a straight shot to my destination or lets me avoid a bunch of rush-hour traffic or something like that, it's not worth paying $5 round trip fare when gas to go that distance is $1.
On the other hand, if the transit fare were eliminated, I'd use it for many trips even as a car owner. There's a huge potential for congestion reduction just by eliminating that weird dichotomy where economics basically forces people to either go all-in on a transit pass or all-in on driving.
(In reality, I bike most of the time, in part because its marginal cost is even lower than driving. But ignore that for the purpose of the above argument and pretend driving and transit were my only choices.)
Edit:
Now that I think about it, it would change my habits even more because I often avoid going to places downtown at all due to the lack of free parking. If transit were free, it would probably be really good for business over there.
Also, this cost disparity is exacerbated when you're talking about a family (or other group) instead of an individual. Spending $5 in transit fare instead of $1 in gas is bad enough, but when it's $20 in transit fare instead of $1 for my family of four, even the paid parking starts looking like a better alternative, which is terrible.
unless I have to pay for parking, which is exceedingly rare
I guess that one of the hidden subsidies. Mandatory parking cost (of land) gets factored in to cost of business and socialised over customers that way. Hard for people to visualise that though as the true cost of that land is probably the opportunity cost, since the market price is probably skewed by the regulations.
It is absolutely a hidden subsidy, and a huge one at that. Donald Shoup (RIP) wrote a whole book about it that's relatively famous in urban planning circles.
(That Dropbox copy was linked directly from his publications page, so it's officially sanctioned, BTW.)
Here’s an Internet Archive mirror of the book, for people who’d like to read in their browser instead of downloading the PDF.
I am absolutely mystified at the existence of such people (especially since you can view a PDF file in a browser window anyway, and probably with a better UI than the one IA uses), but OK.
I also just want to support IA. I love the project and I want more people to check it out because a lot of people don’t realize that it has way more than just the Wayback machine.
What if you drink alcohol or use recreational drugs? You can still take the bus and won’t endanger anyone (unless you’re totally off your head). Drink/drugged drivers are a danger to everyone.
One of the anti-everything groups in our city actually put out a public statement about how people advocating for public transit "just wanted to be able to go out partying and then ride transit home!! REEEEEEE!!!!"
Many people went "yeah, duh?" Isn't that a phenomenal reason to have great public transit? It literally saves lives and promotes enjoying life.
Calvinism is such a blight upon humanity.
Not everyone drinks or do drugs.
Everyone who drives, or who rides while someone else drives, or who walks or bikes near a road, absorbs the risk of impaired drivers.
True, but at least from were I’m from almost nobody drives impaired.
Or, at least they don't declare it loudly.
Narhh it is pretty frowned upon and those who do it don’t care about free public transport anyway.
Where is it not frowned up? (Okay, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and all of Balkans. But otherwise?)
Big parts of the US? The justification being, how do you otherwise go home from the bar in a small town?
That's sad to hear. And maybe something I could have figured out. But didn't.
In a small town I'd assume you'd just walk, though. Depending on how you define "small town", of course! Or alternatively, take a taxi of some kind. Or have your friends ferry you around?
I'm not a USAian, but this is what I heard what the praxis would be like there. Even a small town would typically not be walkable, you'd need the car to go around. Of course, taking a taxi or having a designated driver would be a good solution, but it's common to drive yourself.
In my city the bus to downtown (CBD or "town") is $8.69 one way. For my family of 5 we're $43 bucks to get into town. One way. It's $86 for the round trip.
It's cheaper to drive and pay $30 for pre booked parking for a family outing then it is to go via public transport.
Even if we go off peak where the prices by approx half.
Cost me $7 round trip to take the light rail to the other CBD (4km away). For the whole family it's still cheaper to find street parking then to pub transport it.
But when it's one person it makes no sense to commute to work, $30 a day parking plus tolls (easily $50 to go to work) when I can do it for $17 a day.
Still way too much. If I didn't wfh as much as I do it would be a significant cost
This is a NYC initiative, this is a lot of words to say you've never lived there. Fare is not $20 nor $5, and the vast majority of NYCers do not have a car. Owning a car in NYC is also wickedly expensive, both in expected and unexpected costs.
Paywalled. (I hope there is more to it than the copy paste text).
It appears the original OP (not me; I just cross-posted) quoted the first, second, and last paragraphs. The archive link already posted (https://archive.ph/gBRoW) appears to include the whole article, though.
There's an archive link in the post body that includes the full article.
Here's a gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/opinion/free-bus-rides-mamdani.html?unlocked_article_code=1.MlA.InK3.LhCVnpVIgoAo
The way I understand it, free buses are not a cost-effective way to get people to stop driving. You get a better effect by using the same money for more routes and higher frequencies.
As a social policy, though, it might have something to it.
I see a lot of places with great mass transit only use token fares, in Georgia its like 5 cents, in China for many cities its 15-30.
Essentially free, but you maintain ticket infrastructure so you can track which routes need to be expanded and where you can run fewer buses.
I used to live in a place with free buses, you still had to get a card and tap on/off. Most likely so they could track which routes are popular.
China does have great public transit, and it's cheap. BUT weirdly enough, several years ago they raised the subway/bus cost in some cities. Seems the subways/buses were too successful, so they raised prices to deal with congestion (and maybe budgets were down? dunno). Still super cheap fares, but for many people it was a significant amount.
I wonder if "the same money" just means the fares themselves? Because there are all the other major costs mentioned in the article: police enforcement, legal costs to prosecute, and further junk prosecutions over fare jumpers (and others) missing court dates because they can't afford to get to them. There's also the reduction in driver assaults by people desperate to get on the bus without fare, which surely carry a cost to the city (in addition to how terrible it is). And, we can probably assume, there's a cost savings in maintenance of payment systems and equipment on every bus. When you factor all that money in, plus as you say, the benefits as a social policy, I wonder how free fares really stack up against routes and frequencies—but in a perfectly world we'd want both!
If you're very interested, the Norwegian institute of transport economics has an article about it here: https://www.tiltak.no/b-endre-transportmiddelfordeling/b-2-tilrettelegging-kollektivtransport/b-2-6/#
You web browser can probably translate it, or you can just check out the references at the bottom
It probably depends, but in my city (Tampa FL US) the frequency is by far the biggest problem. We live within easy walking distance of 5 different bus routes (on purpose) including one that goes directly to the uni my penultimate kid went to, the community college my youngest attends, my job, both jobs my youngest works, and my husband's previous office. Without transfers. One bus. So basically we are the best served family in the whole city, right?
Two of those routes run hourly. The other three only every half hour. So it's useless for work & school, if you have to be there on time.
This is a degradation of service, too - when I went to the same university, I lived by a bus route that went directly there, and ran every 15 minutes. Buses need to run every 15 minutes to be useful, even if the routes are good.
Paying is not so bad now with the tap to pay but free would streamline the whole affair for sure.
Locally, our transit system gets most of it's funding from a payroll tax on all the businesses in the Tri-County area (why it's called "Tri-Met", Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties.)
https://trimet.org/budget/pdf/2025-adopted-budget.pdf
$62.4 million from passenger revenue.
$540.4 million from payroll tax.
The payroll tax is 0.8237%.
So...
0.8237/$540,400,000
x/$602,800,000
Solve for x...
0.8237 x 602,800,000 = 496,526,360
496,526,360 / 540,400,000 = 0.9188126573
So if we increased the payroll tax 0.0951126573, an amount absolutely nobody would notice, we could make our mass transit system here free.
You should also take into account that expenses are reduced because the need for payment infrastructure and processing disappears.
Plus the millions cities like NYC waste catching and prosecuting gate jumpers
While all that is true, at least in Portland it will be partially off-set by the need for added security.
We ALREADY see it as is with the paid system, it would just get worse in a free system:
If someone is willing to commit other crimes on the bus, they're probably willing to get on the bus without paying as well.
Of course, the problem is transit, not the criminals nor the society that increases desperation and gives desperate people nowhere to turn
Plus all the time loading and unloading. A few tens of seconds per stop over the length of the route adds up
Is it that people ride the bus?
I'll bet it's that people ride the bus.
Don’t think of it as a giveaway to the undeserving
Imagine even thinking this about bus fares, when there's corporate welfare, subsidies, bailouts, and a tax code that heavily favours the wealthy.
My dad retired a few years ago, he spent basically his whole life driving to work and anywhere else he needed to go himself.
Where we live, senior citizens can get a pass so they don't have to pay bus or train fare.
So now he takes the bus everywhere, sometimes he basically just goes and rides it for fun, doesn't really even go anywhere in particular, just gets on a bus and rides around for a bit, gets off at some random stop, and waits around for a bus going back the way he came from.
Weird hobby, but I guess it beats collecting stamps.
So I think that makes a pretty compelling case. If you make it free, people will use it
This is a great hobby 😊
If he starts to show signs of dementia you need to show him how to share his location with you guys by default. This hobby sounds like it could make something stressful even more stressful if not prepared.
Thankfully, this hobby would help stave off dimentia if onsetting, as it is highly cognitive and forces an amount of exercise 🙂
Whatever city simulation game you use, it is usually better to make public transit free, and it pays on the long run. I wonder why...
I'm all for taxing the wealthy and using that money to fund public services.
While I am broadly speaking in favour of free transit, one thing that should be noted in any conversation about it is that it often does not significantly increase ridership by users who were previously not using transit - the increase mainly comes from increased utilization by prior users, and sometimes you can get negative effects such as the newly free transit trips displacing walking.
Hence, other investments into the transit system may be prudent - for example, expanding the system, increasing headways and so on.
We should try to be brave enough to do all of the above, but sometimes you're forced to choose one or the other.
Your state legislature suddenly starts giving a shit about how your city is run?
in victoria we already have completely free public transport for the under 18s
https://transport.vic.gov.au/news-and-resources/campaigns/travel-freeeeeeeee
I love this because it will mean some more young voters who want public transport to be good. Hopefully.
Even if I think overall investment from Vic Labor still prioritises roads over sensible public transport investment.
There are a number of low-hanging-fruit projects they've cancelled, and taking decades to build much needed improvements.
Small tram extensions for interconnections, priority signalling and lanes for trams and busses, etc. 10 minute minimum all day frequencies on trains are already possible.
While I think Skyrail is very lovely and an improvement, it's not actually brought any new connections or frequency improvements, and is as much for cars as it is for public transport users.
Meanwhile we're spending billions upon billions upon billions on new roads. We don't need any new roads.
The only solution to traffic is viable alternatives to driving.
pretty sure we discussed this previously with brisbanes 50c fares
as far as I know completely free public transport is not a good idea as certain types of people use it to treat the trains/buses worse and make the public who use it feel worse, so having a small fare ensures that the people up to no good are pushed out leaving it affordable but without the riff raff
without the riff raff
Wtf, this reads truly unempathetic and isn't realistic about the challenges of homelessness and severely poor mental health
Putting words in your mouth, shall we introduce W 50¢ fare for the street so you don't need to be confronted by the failure of our society?
riff raff meaning dickheads who treat public transport like shit and the people around them like shit, if you use public transport already you would know them as the sort of people who scratch up the window, play music on their phone speakers and leave garbage all over the seats and spill drinks
this causes less people to take public transport as they take private cars to avoid that shit
The "riff raff" are also members of the community that require access to transportation.
If you search my comment history for bpc-clone there should be instructions for installing it so you can read paywalled sites. It's very useful for education and journalism.

all 9 comments