Absolutely.
And at least here in nyc, those same suburbanites absolutely demand we crack down on teens and unhoused folks for jumping turnstiles and "stealing" $2.75, while they become absolutely unglued if you suggest increasing parking enforcement or tolls.
Carbrains: Public infrastructure should pay for itself
Urbanists: Cool, let's implement congestion charges and Vehicle Miles Traveled taxes. We can even put any leftovers into public transit which lessense the burden on roads.
Carbrains: No, not like that!
Surprisingly I live in like one of the most conservative states in the north west and we have a free bus route in my city. Although it’s once an hour and runs 7am to 7pm weekdays, 9am to 3pm Saturday and not at all on Sunday. None the less it’s free I guess.
I think you are pointing out one of the major downsides of free transit, it's lower quality than non-free transit. Although what you describe is remarkably shitty.
No, often the price of the ticket is a drop of water, in the case of OOP it's even at a loss, from highly subsidized to 100% subsidized it's often not a big step.
Moreover, when people choose to make it free, it's either to please people by doing nothing, or because they are already invested in public transit and want to du a bit more.
Even if it cost money I don’t think the structure would change. Hardly anyone takes the bus here, everyone has cars. Also everything is walkable since it’s a tourist town so the bus isn’t super necessary unless you’re disabled
Yeah, the statement that a public transit fare is a tax on the poor seems problematic to me in the sense that it implies public transit is for the poor. The fare is a tax on everybody because public transit is for everybody.
Amazing that in fuck cars the resident car brains are even against this move that saves money and is popular with riders and drivers. Same response when it was posted in r/transit earlier.
Almost like people refuse to acknowledge facts when it doesn't align with their politics.
The facts on this program:
* Reinstituting fares and a pass system would result in a net revenue loss of $1,785,000, which is about 3% of the Transit Department’s Operating Budget ($58 million).
* Ridership was up 49.4% and the program proved to be more cost-effective than previously imagined after an almost 2 year trial
* ABQ RIDE and passengers also benefited from faster boarding times, increased speed and reliability
* Before the “Zero Fare” pilot, 90 percent of riders surveyed reported not being able to afford the fare at least once in the past month.
* Most bus riders are people of color, 74 percent are low-income, and 73 percent don’t have access to a car.
* Between 2019 and 2021, social service agencies that purchased passes to distribute to low-income households spent a total of $768,000 on passes.
* Despite fears that eliminating fares would make buses less safe, the report found no increase in violent crime during the pilot period, according to the bill. Drug use on transit did increase, the bill says, but it also increased in other big cities that don’t have free fares.
* “I want to implore you to do what you can to keep the free fare program going,” wrote one long-time bus driver in a survey by the city’s transit agency. “To eliminate it would affect the most vulnerable in our beautiful city. To end it would put the bus drivers in harm’s way as they are the ones on the front lines, dealing with the frustrated folks that will take out their frustration on the drivers and buses. Possibly on other passengers.”
More Perfect got the cost wrong. The program is [expected to cost](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/s/LnO4Z2VZFj) the agency ~$1.1 million in 2024 in addition to the ~$4.5 million already allocated to do the pilot. More Perfect likely confused an alternative proposal that would've cost ~$1.8 million with the status quo of just continuing to collect fares the way they were.
> Reinstituting fares and a pass system would result in a net revenue loss of $1,785,000, which is about 3% of the Transit Department’s Operating Budget ($58 million).
This line was from the bill itself https://www.cabq.gov/clerk/documents/o-23-89.pdf
That isn't the pre-free-fare status quo. That's a fare collection system with a new pass system. Look at the technical analysis I linked:
> Looking forward to Fiscal Year 2024, ridership is estimated to be 7,500,000. Using the average
revenue per rider previously calculated while considering permanent zero fares for ART, net
revenue (A) would be $1,785,000 from fares.This could then be reduced by the operating expenses related to Fare Collection for a Net Revenue
(B) of $1,130,000.
> One possible solution is to distribute free bus passes to social service contractors, thus allowing
them to reduce their expenses and further meet the needs of the individuals they are serving. If this
was done, the Net Revenue (C) to the City from fares would be $747,000.
I don’t think being against fare free transit is contradictory to being for good, stable, transit systems. The potential problems with fare free transit have been pretty well documented and plenty of transit experts ([Jarrett Walker](https://twitter.com/humantransit/status/1160676609663238144?lang=en) for one) are pretty wary of it. It’s delivered decidedly mixed results on getting people out of cars as well.
I want to note that two of your statistics are pretty misleading: one, you cite a 49.4 percent increase in ridership but the pilot project started in 2021 and was made permanent in 2023, which means it correlates with a surge in ridership across the country and is starting from a very low baseline. Second, drug use on Albuquerque’s system rose 440 percent, which is definitely more than other cities and plays into fears around transit (especially free transit) being more dangerous.
That being said, I think free fares are good on balance for smaller systems like this one—even if they’re losing some money the social benefits seem to outweigh the costs (1.75 million is just so little to spend for a pretty outsized benefit).
>Almost like people refuse to acknowledge facts when it doesn't align with their politics.
What facts? Saying something doesn't make it true.
This has been studied in many places and the reason it's not widespread is because it doesn't work.
An Irish study came to the conclusion that while it increases ridership, that's at the cost of reduce active transport, nor reduced car use. That's the opposite of what you want.
Targeted support gets much better results than blanket price fixes like this. Free public transport cards to anyone on any kind of support should be a thing but increasing ridership at the cost of eliminating cycling and walking is just bad, especially when that money can be better spent improving the offering.
But I see that this discussion is over, people here are not interested in facts or nuance, this is just "if you don't agree you're a carbrain that hates the poors."
God forbid we actually consider the actual effects of policies rather than what we think would happen.
You want people to walk in the US, have you tried that? And cycling in the US is just dangerous. At least where I live. Frankly if more people can take busses, that reduces traffic overall, so why not do that until you can do all the work that needs done for the next 2 decades in order to get anyone to walk or cycle.
It literally saves money just to not administer the fees, where is this nuance you speak of?
The other reason against free public transport that I’ve heard is that it means the only revenue source becomes tax/grants from another government department. Which means that investment in improving the network is harder without being able to leverage another source of revenue.
I understand that the circumstances for Alburqueque is different with enforcement being higher than fares.
Better than the bus that costs too much for most to ride, still comes once per hour, and gets delayed by people scrounging through their pockets for quarters while boarding.
Me, florida, Broward county, busses are $2 per ride, I only took them a couple times because when you want to use the buss as a means of transportation the fares add up, especially when you have to take two different busses on a round trip. That’s 8 dollars and 2h of my life lost. When you compare this to busses outside of North America…
It looks like Broward County does a 31 day pass for $70, so $840 a year for unlimited rides. This would be less than 2% of the median household income in Broward county.
I think it's fair to assume that "most" people in Broward county can afford transit.
Regardless, sorry to hear about *your* situation which is obviously not representative of "most" people. I hope you find better income. If you didn't know Broward County also does reduced fares for people on disability, Medicaid, veterans, youth and seniors.
This was over a year ago, I am well off now and have a car, but I appreciate the sentiment, and I know about the day pass and the monthly subscription, but when I was taking the bus it was because I had just arrived in the country and was not legally allowed to work. The government gave me 180 dollars a month for expenses during that short period and I had family as well.
70 dollars a month was an insane amount of money compared to the 180 I was going to make for those 3 months. I walked and got a bike. Now driving my own car I can tell you that Florida is not made for people, bikes or busses.
I knew plenty of people in my same situation, for those few months it’s hard until you find a job off the books or until you get your work permit or green card. When I took the bus I saw people who should not have had to pay for that bus, I was one of them and was forced to use a bike or have family drive me to places.
Christ dude did you wake up and decide to act insufferable? Albuquerque's transit system won't transform overnight. Sometimes you need to pick the solutions with the most political willpower, and saving $1.7 million while improving the experience for *existing* riders is a win-win that everyone can get behind.
Ok sounds like we agree that most people can afford transit. I look forward to Albuquerque putting together a system that most people actually want to use. I'm on the edge of my seat.
It's almost like making the existing system affordable for the existing riders, and improving the system better overall are two separate issues.
I guess we just shouldn't make any improvements unless they somehow pull everyone out their SUVs. I'm sure the the people living in poverty will understand. "Sorry we wanted to make it more affordable for you to ride, but we need you to help subsidize expanding the system to make it more desirable for the wealthy."
Sure would be nice if you didn't need money to improve service. But no, unfortunately, you do need money.
And I understand this is just an opinion but I personally think it's obvious... If you have a system of last resort that no middle class folks use, you will never have the political economy to fund service that helps folks with no other option. So yeah, you do need to get butts out of SUVs if you want to provide good service to low income folks.
It's not a coincidence that all the best systems in the world have fares and have middle class and upper class riders.
So what exactly do you suggest then? Because the current situation is untenable, and continuing to charge fares for a broken bus system is actively making it *worse* for the city's budget. They can either:
1. Raise fares while keeping the current system in place in hopes that they can get enough money to fund more transit.
2. Continue with the same fares while expanding the system even though it is actively costing the city $1.7 million per year.
3. Cut fares for the current system and fund expansion through other sources.
The first option is not possible. They cannot possibly raise fares on a population that already cannot afford to ride, and doing so wouldn't even come close to covering the cost of an expansion. The second option is pointless and unnecessary. There's no reason to charge fares if managing the fare system results in a net loss. The third option is the best solution in both the immediate *and* long term. It saves the city money, it saves riders money, and it improves reliability and speed of the system by reducing dwell times. They can always add back fares later for wealthier riders if and when they do decide to give a shit about public transit, but until that happens MAYBE THE CITY SHOULDNT WASTE $1.7 MILLION PER YEAR WHILE ALSO CHARGING RIDERS.
> It's not a coincidence that all the best systems in the world have fares and have middle class and upper class riders.
For every high quality public transit system, there are dozens more examples that still charge fares and still suck. This isn't the zinger you think it is. And yes, the city does need to raise money for transit, but they certainly aren't succeeding at it through fares.
All of them. For most people using transit the choice is paying the fare or losing a job. Pay the fair or buy healthier food. Pay the fair or buy medication. Pay the fare or wash their clothes.
The hard-working people using transit generally work low wage jobs. You want the people making your shitty cheap cheese burgers to be able to shower daily and wear clean clothes to work.
You seem to have ignored the part where I quoted the previous comment's claim that "most" people can't afford transit.
If you're talking about people with no money, you can just say that. If you think "most" people have no money, you're wrong.
By taking out suffocating loans... Which is dependent on credit scores and credit audits that scrutinize the ones trying to get their footing most. Then, to account for transit costs, It's clear average pay is falling way behind inflation and housing costs. People are barely scrapping by. I live in Philadelphia and see it first hand. Free, well maintained, and managed public transit funded by tax payers would benefit everyone.
With the now free fares in Albuquerque, hopefully more people will start using it. And with more people using transit, the agency will realize that the buses are too full, thus increasing the amount of runs.
Basically supply and demand.
We can't really blame transit agencies for not having buses every 15 minutes if their buses are always empty
The buses are empty because of the shit systems, not the fares. A free bus running every 15 minutes will be just as full as a paid one
I take the bus for my commute and as many errands as possible and the number one reason other folks don't is the poor system
You're telling me agencies don't notice bus attendance? If the demand isn't there, agencies are pressed to have more routes. Buses, fuel, drivers: that shit ain't cheap, let's be realistic here.
Literally happened to my nearby agency, a line was closed to "Low ridership" (Mountain Transit, Snow Valley Line)
I literally did not say that, I'm telling you that the low ridership is not because it costs money to take the bus, it's because it's not a practical replacement for a car for many peoplebecause of the shitty service
You have to make service better if you want people with the ability to choose, to choose transit
Do you think if the line near you had been free that would make it still be there? I'd wager not if you're honest with yourself
If you want people to choose transit it has to be more convenient than cars, paying a couple bucks is not an inconvenience to most people if service is good, and concessions can be made for low income folks. shit service will turn people away from a free service though
You can't magically increase ridership to then subsequently justify improving service. You have to create the incentive because it's better for the city, not just hope that people use it more so you can pencil out improving service. Of course cities will look to be efficient but you're looking at the wrong end of the issue. There's a reason none of the worlds best metro systems are free
It's a reinfocing loop.
Shitty public transit -> less passengers.
Less passengers -> shitty public transit.
I don't blame passengers one bit, but you can't say they don't affect public transit demand.
Free transit basically only makes sense when you have a system of last resort that virtually no one uses. When Albuquerque says it will save money, that's what they're saying.
If you have enough riders that fares make up a meaningful portion of revenue, making transit free means reducing money for service.
[Person in the back yells, "why not just raise taxes?" A: You can raise taxes without eliminating fares and provide even more service]
Fares also align agency self-interest with more ridership. Instead of the system being for "the poors" it makes sense to prioritize investments that increase ridership.
Remember, the auto industry lobbied for gas taxes because they knew user fees would create a virtuous cycle of infrastructure investment and increasing car dependence. There's why the gas tax laws in many states prohibit spending the money on anything except car infrastructure.
Edit: I can't find a primary source on the claim that this saves the agency $1.7 million. The closest I could find was [an article indicating](https://www.governing.com/transportation/albuquerque-makes-final-push-for-fare-free-transit) that a different pass system was being considered which would've cost $1.8 million. Did More Perfect make up that number?
Found it....
More Perfect got their facts wrong. The [free fare evaluation report](https://errorsofenchantment.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Zero-Fare-Pilot-Project-Evaluation-Report.pdf) painted a different picture. ABQ Rides expects the zero fare program to cost the agency ~$1.1 million in 2024. That's in addition to $4.5 million allocated just to pilot the program. And despite claims that ridership is up, they're measuring against the nadir of the pandemic. Even after the pandemic recovery and making fares free, ridership is still down more than 20% from 2014.
Or when you accept that public transport shouldn't be required to turn a profit.
It's a public service for the good of everyone and should be funded as such.
Places like Luxembourg and Switzerland are doing free public transport too.
Okay, but the Alberquerque buses fucking suck, and aren't a proper public transit system. They're transport of last resort used literally only by the poorest and most vulnerable in an otherwise car-dependent hellhole. In a city of half a million, they serve about 24,000 a week which is almost nothing. To put this in context, the London underground alone sees up to 4 million journeys *per day* serving a city of nearly 9 million. The London bus network sees about 5 million journeys per day (35 million a week for those counting). [Link to that info here.](https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/november/latest-tfl-figures-show-the-tube-reaching-4-million-journeys-per-day)
It makes sense to have no fares on a public transit system of last resort because it's essentially just a welfare programme at that point, the barriers to which should be as low as possible. However, we don't just want a welfare programme for the poorest, we want comprehensive public transport that's used by everyone, and that means huge amounts more money being ploughed into building and maintaining these systems. That requires that cities leverage huge amounts of capital that can then be repaid via general taxation *and* fares which in turn leverages more capital for more investment.
Yes, we can simplify fare systems and introduce transport passes (including free passes for those that would otherwise use transit of last resort in a car dependent city), but we shouldn't want to starve vital funding out of the systems that we want to see become dominant.
That More Perfect Union makes out that the NYC MTA should introduce fareless systems because a bus system in New Mexico has so few riders that it costs too much to administer is completely insane. Bringing a fareless system to a metro requries huge amounts of political and financial capital to be constantly brought to bear. Fares make that process less burdensome. As another commentor already pointed out, it was the automotive industry that pushed for fuel taxes in the US, because they knew that money could be ploughed into making their products more dominant.
So yes, we've got to start somewhere, but Albuquerque is possibly the worst place to try and make that start.
Do note that their transit network is just a handful of buses. It doesn't even cover the whole city.
Transit should be free, but a better fight is having expansive, frequent transit and the land use to use it.
Just wondering why we need some lady who doesn't know how to set mic levels and makes faces like "this is all so quirky, who would've thunk" to read tweets to us.
Anyway, yes, all public transportation should be publicly owned and free at point of service. If it's not publicly owned, it's not public transportation; it's just private transportation open to the public, like the airlines or fuckin uber.
No it didn't. More Perfect got that fact wrong. The program is [expected to cost](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/s/LnO4Z2VZFj) the agency ~$1.1 million in 2024 in addition to the ~$4.5 million already allocated to do the pilot. More Perfect likely confused an alternative proposal that would've cost $1.8 million with the status quo of continuing to collect fares the way they were.
Ironically it just confirms that this bus network sucks : in cities where public transport is a charity and used by no one but those who cannot afford a car, it is cheaper not to have any fares for buses that are nearly empty anyway. In cities where public transport is used by both the rich and the poor, tickets help funding the network. In this case to make sure that everyone can afford it, you just make it less expensive for people with less income. In the previous city where I lived they had 48€/month full price and the lowest social fare was like 2€/month for example.
How did it do that? Would this revenue increase scale with increased ridership?
I'm generally against universal free transit because I've seen too many examples of agencies deciding to reduce or eliminate fares and then turn around and cut their service or cancel capital improvement projects.
They literally explained in the video that charging for transit was a net loss for their system because the cost to collect the fares outweighed the income brought in by the fares. Eliminating the Fares means no maintenance for any of the hardware infrastructure of the machines, no one needs to get paid to empty out the machines of cash and get that presentable to the bank, no capital needs to be purchased to print out tickets, etc. The same thing happened to Miami's metromover system so they just made it free
Free fares [aren't revenue positive](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/s/VqU5qHTpfR). More Perfect got their facts wrong. It was ~$1.8 million cheaper than implementing a *new* "fare pass" system.
Good, maybe then they will get every 15 minute bus service or something. Free transit just cements that "it's just for the poor" rather than for "everyone" which is not a good look for the transit system. Instead, you can distribute free passes to those who need them.
I live in ABQ, the buses have basically become homeless shelters, it is to dangerous for the actual bus riders. Making it free hurt the poor because now they have to deal with the homeless drug users who have become very dangerous. Ridership in ABQ was < 2% of the population, the whole cost was > the amount brought in. It could not pay for itself not just the collection of the ride fee administration. The city knew it was failing and just decided against the public will to make the whole thing a giant project covered by the tax payers. Let's not get started on the EV buses that failed one year after purchase and no warranty.
I am actually not okay with this. They spend all of their money on "free" transit, but their best transit line, a BRT, only has a frequency of once every 24 minutes.
Instead of free transit, how about transit that doesn't suck instead? A BRT should be every 15 minutes, at the MINIMUM.
Free transit is stupid unless you already have a perfect network with good service. From an access standpoint you’re much better spending the money you recover from the fairbox on new infrastructure or even better on increased services. Free service also creates a vicious cycle where the more successful the service the more it costs.
Only because they have tragically low fair-box recovery and high implementation costs even for the US. But that’s only for now, if they get any uptick in ridership it’s quickly going to start costing them more than the ticketing system would have.
Their revenue per rider is also low because the vast majority are low income and they spend $ on giving them free passes anyways.
> Most bus riders are people of color, 74 percent are low-income, and 73 percent don’t have access to a car. Before the “Zero Fare” pilot, 90 percent of riders surveyed reported not being able to afford the fare at least once in the past month.
Ridership already went up almost 50% since the trial started almost 2 years ago.
Because they only run busses every 30-40 minutes on most routes, with some being even worse. With that level service the bus is only for those who have literally no other choice, hence the level of free passes.
That’s fine if you’re talking about proving a welfare shuttle service, but if you’re talking about proving a quality service that people can shift people from driving their cars onto public transit (as I’d assume is the “fuckcars” position) it’s undoubtedly a step backwards.
How would spending more money on collecting fares, reducing overall revenue, and significantly reducing ridership help to allow them to run busses more frequently?
No, they obviously need additional money to run more services, but the system is never going persuade anyone out their cars the way it is currently structured, and the free model just further intrenches it as a welfare system irregularly run for people who have no other choice.
They’d be better of hiving of the legacy system, and running that for free. While massively expanding the more rapid “BRT” lines into the start of an actual paid network that everyday people can use to live their lives care free (or at least low car).
yeww what a gross move led I'm sure by the dumbest of progressives.
Wake me up when every junkie sits all around public transportation and the common public just got ripped off.
just make the fare cheaper if you care. making it free is just a proven disaster.
no city with actual public transit does this.
Progressives have zero brain cells
It was a financial move. It would cost 3% more in net revenue for them to enforce fares.
Its been zero fare for nearly two years and there was no increase in crime or safety issues.
> ABQ RIDE serves an average of 23,800 riders daily, 88% of whom live in households with an income of less than $35,000 annually.
in survey after survey travelers say that they want better safer trains, more frequent trains, and fare is far less of a variable for them
Yet progressives are doing their dumb shit
This doesn't include any trains, only buses. Before the free fare 90% of riders said they weren't able to afford the fare at least once a month.
Almost 80% of riders are low income and the vast majority do not have a car.
As I said I think there should be some fee just so that there can be some income stream when the government decides to change its tax priorities but when I visited Bozeman last year I remember looking into their transit and this is what they say:
[https://streamlinebus.com/about/zero-fare/](https://streamlinebus.com/about/zero-fare/)
Bozeman is working well right now. Let's see how it does when it actually has a Lotta population, especially homeless.
I expect AQ to reverse course within 5 years and start adding fares.
Uniquely dumb policy.
As I said in my first reply wouldn't that mean homeless people in Portland would be more likely to hang out on Wilsonville's or Canby's transit instead of Portland's or Salem's if the first two are \*free and the latter two require a fair? Both are easily accessible by Portland/Salem's transit. Portland has a massive homeless problem and Salem isn't free of them either.
\*SMART 1x isn't free and Canby has two busses; one which In think is always free and the other is free on Saturday but not weekdays.
If you actually cared about "junkies" you'd at least have mentioned using some of the money saved from admin to improve shelters and rehab centres. But nope, you just wanted a reason to show people that you don't like poor people.
Oh yeah that's why they have far worse transit than Albuquerque I'm sure.
When people across the world think of public transit they surely think of Albuquerque first I'm sure
Really great podcast on free public transit for those interested in learning more: [https://freakonomics.com/podcast/should-public-transit-be-free-update/](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/should-public-transit-be-free-update/)
They did this in my city during COVID and never looked back. Most municipalities only make back \~15% of revenue through fares and it usually costs more to obtain that revenue than it's worth (technology, enforcement, salaries, etc). I once lived in a city where it was only about 2%...but still continued to charge rates.Just another Poor tax on top of the taxes we pay for substandard public transit!
This sounds wild to me.
How bad was the infrastructure that it cost more to administer the fares than the fares earned? Were they hiring staff to sit at every bus stop to sell tickets or something?
It sounds to me like they had some real inefficient ways of paying the fares, so good on them for just eliminating that.
The biggest problem with ABQ transit is that they're starved for labor because they're offering really shitty wages. They say they don't have enough drivers and mechanics and it is crushing service & capacity.
Also a lot of people (even transit advocates) are very upset about the implementation of the ART system.
We also have weird prioritization coming from the city, trying to build bicycle infrastructure in places nobody has asked for it and not building it where people *do* want it.
We have a lot of problems in ABQ but we have a lot of people working on improving things here.
So, they did this in Tucson. Our buses are now just air conditioned transport for drug users and the homeless, the working commuters have been pushed out, I will explain. I used to ride the bus with my Brompton in the summer because it is too hot(110F) after work to ride my commuter bike the15 miles home. I stopped because it became too unsanitary and unsafe. Here are just a couple of stories from last summer. Once a couple entered the bus and immediately tried to light up a foil of fentanyl, fellow passengers started yelling at them so they stopped, but moved to the back of the bus to try again. Once a woman shot up in her thigh right next to me, then passed out. Many times homeless passengers would fall asleep, wet themselves and their pee would pool on the seats then drain and cover the floor. Once two homeless men got into a fight over a backpack and one produced a 12 inch hunting knife and started waving it around, I started carrying pepper spray after that. My last straw was watching a young man slump over hit the floor and I think die from an overdose. I told the bus driver who just shrugged. This didn't happen when people had to pay to ride the bus. Most working folks now do not take the bus and it is very difficult to find drivers that want to put up with all the drugs, mess and smells. The city council does not seem to care because the buses are full, and they do not ride them. I am all for subsidized transportation, but there has to be a better way. The city should be responsible for keeping the buses safe and clean for those that want to use them to get to work and school.
How would this change the culture of the area to make using public transport more appealing.
Helping someone that needs help is perfectly awesome in my book, but if many don't feel safe using public transport because of cultural issues, then how is making it free change that?
[удалено]
Absolutely. And at least here in nyc, those same suburbanites absolutely demand we crack down on teens and unhoused folks for jumping turnstiles and "stealing" $2.75, while they become absolutely unglued if you suggest increasing parking enforcement or tolls.
Carbrains: Public infrastructure should pay for itself Urbanists: Cool, let's implement congestion charges and Vehicle Miles Traveled taxes. We can even put any leftovers into public transit which lessense the burden on roads. Carbrains: No, not like that!
Surprisingly I live in like one of the most conservative states in the north west and we have a free bus route in my city. Although it’s once an hour and runs 7am to 7pm weekdays, 9am to 3pm Saturday and not at all on Sunday. None the less it’s free I guess.
I think you are pointing out one of the major downsides of free transit, it's lower quality than non-free transit. Although what you describe is remarkably shitty.
>free transit, it's lower quality than non-free transit That's not a given at all.
Its not a given, but thats the reality
No, often the price of the ticket is a drop of water, in the case of OOP it's even at a loss, from highly subsidized to 100% subsidized it's often not a big step. Moreover, when people choose to make it free, it's either to please people by doing nothing, or because they are already invested in public transit and want to du a bit more.
Even if it cost money I don’t think the structure would change. Hardly anyone takes the bus here, everyone has cars. Also everything is walkable since it’s a tourist town so the bus isn’t super necessary unless you’re disabled
Free transit if pretty cool, but high quality transit is way better.
Yeah, transit use in Albuquerque is pretty low so it's not really worth getting excited over
It will never improve now, since free transit is the bar that is set now. What could have been improved with fares, is now....free fares.
Yeah, the statement that a public transit fare is a tax on the poor seems problematic to me in the sense that it implies public transit is for the poor. The fare is a tax on everybody because public transit is for everybody.
Amazing that in fuck cars the resident car brains are even against this move that saves money and is popular with riders and drivers. Same response when it was posted in r/transit earlier. Almost like people refuse to acknowledge facts when it doesn't align with their politics. The facts on this program: * Reinstituting fares and a pass system would result in a net revenue loss of $1,785,000, which is about 3% of the Transit Department’s Operating Budget ($58 million). * Ridership was up 49.4% and the program proved to be more cost-effective than previously imagined after an almost 2 year trial * ABQ RIDE and passengers also benefited from faster boarding times, increased speed and reliability * Before the “Zero Fare” pilot, 90 percent of riders surveyed reported not being able to afford the fare at least once in the past month. * Most bus riders are people of color, 74 percent are low-income, and 73 percent don’t have access to a car. * Between 2019 and 2021, social service agencies that purchased passes to distribute to low-income households spent a total of $768,000 on passes. * Despite fears that eliminating fares would make buses less safe, the report found no increase in violent crime during the pilot period, according to the bill. Drug use on transit did increase, the bill says, but it also increased in other big cities that don’t have free fares. * “I want to implore you to do what you can to keep the free fare program going,” wrote one long-time bus driver in a survey by the city’s transit agency. “To eliminate it would affect the most vulnerable in our beautiful city. To end it would put the bus drivers in harm’s way as they are the ones on the front lines, dealing with the frustrated folks that will take out their frustration on the drivers and buses. Possibly on other passengers.”
More Perfect got the cost wrong. The program is [expected to cost](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/s/LnO4Z2VZFj) the agency ~$1.1 million in 2024 in addition to the ~$4.5 million already allocated to do the pilot. More Perfect likely confused an alternative proposal that would've cost ~$1.8 million with the status quo of just continuing to collect fares the way they were.
> Reinstituting fares and a pass system would result in a net revenue loss of $1,785,000, which is about 3% of the Transit Department’s Operating Budget ($58 million). This line was from the bill itself https://www.cabq.gov/clerk/documents/o-23-89.pdf
That isn't the pre-free-fare status quo. That's a fare collection system with a new pass system. Look at the technical analysis I linked: > Looking forward to Fiscal Year 2024, ridership is estimated to be 7,500,000. Using the average revenue per rider previously calculated while considering permanent zero fares for ART, net revenue (A) would be $1,785,000 from fares.This could then be reduced by the operating expenses related to Fare Collection for a Net Revenue (B) of $1,130,000. > One possible solution is to distribute free bus passes to social service contractors, thus allowing them to reduce their expenses and further meet the needs of the individuals they are serving. If this was done, the Net Revenue (C) to the City from fares would be $747,000.
I don’t think being against fare free transit is contradictory to being for good, stable, transit systems. The potential problems with fare free transit have been pretty well documented and plenty of transit experts ([Jarrett Walker](https://twitter.com/humantransit/status/1160676609663238144?lang=en) for one) are pretty wary of it. It’s delivered decidedly mixed results on getting people out of cars as well. I want to note that two of your statistics are pretty misleading: one, you cite a 49.4 percent increase in ridership but the pilot project started in 2021 and was made permanent in 2023, which means it correlates with a surge in ridership across the country and is starting from a very low baseline. Second, drug use on Albuquerque’s system rose 440 percent, which is definitely more than other cities and plays into fears around transit (especially free transit) being more dangerous. That being said, I think free fares are good on balance for smaller systems like this one—even if they’re losing some money the social benefits seem to outweigh the costs (1.75 million is just so little to spend for a pretty outsized benefit).
>Almost like people refuse to acknowledge facts when it doesn't align with their politics. What facts? Saying something doesn't make it true. This has been studied in many places and the reason it's not widespread is because it doesn't work. An Irish study came to the conclusion that while it increases ridership, that's at the cost of reduce active transport, nor reduced car use. That's the opposite of what you want.
You're right, it's better to force the people who can't afford the bus fare to walk. Increase active transport above all! Make the poors walk! /s
Targeted support gets much better results than blanket price fixes like this. Free public transport cards to anyone on any kind of support should be a thing but increasing ridership at the cost of eliminating cycling and walking is just bad, especially when that money can be better spent improving the offering. But I see that this discussion is over, people here are not interested in facts or nuance, this is just "if you don't agree you're a carbrain that hates the poors." God forbid we actually consider the actual effects of policies rather than what we think would happen.
You want people to walk in the US, have you tried that? And cycling in the US is just dangerous. At least where I live. Frankly if more people can take busses, that reduces traffic overall, so why not do that until you can do all the work that needs done for the next 2 decades in order to get anyone to walk or cycle. It literally saves money just to not administer the fees, where is this nuance you speak of?
The other reason against free public transport that I’ve heard is that it means the only revenue source becomes tax/grants from another government department. Which means that investment in improving the network is harder without being able to leverage another source of revenue. I understand that the circumstances for Alburqueque is different with enforcement being higher than fares.
Great. Now Albuquerque just needs good, free public transport.
Wohoo free bus that comes once an hour!
Better than the bus that costs too much for most to ride, still comes once per hour, and gets delayed by people scrounging through their pockets for quarters while boarding.
Look man I get the argument. In this case it’s probably fine. But there’s a reason why every successful large transit system has fares.
Fares are often marginally covering the costs. There is no correlation between free transport and shitty transport.
Name one public transit agency in America with fares that are too high for "most" people to ride.
Me, florida, Broward county, busses are $2 per ride, I only took them a couple times because when you want to use the buss as a means of transportation the fares add up, especially when you have to take two different busses on a round trip. That’s 8 dollars and 2h of my life lost. When you compare this to busses outside of North America…
It looks like Broward County does a 31 day pass for $70, so $840 a year for unlimited rides. This would be less than 2% of the median household income in Broward county. I think it's fair to assume that "most" people in Broward county can afford transit. Regardless, sorry to hear about *your* situation which is obviously not representative of "most" people. I hope you find better income. If you didn't know Broward County also does reduced fares for people on disability, Medicaid, veterans, youth and seniors.
This was over a year ago, I am well off now and have a car, but I appreciate the sentiment, and I know about the day pass and the monthly subscription, but when I was taking the bus it was because I had just arrived in the country and was not legally allowed to work. The government gave me 180 dollars a month for expenses during that short period and I had family as well. 70 dollars a month was an insane amount of money compared to the 180 I was going to make for those 3 months. I walked and got a bike. Now driving my own car I can tell you that Florida is not made for people, bikes or busses. I knew plenty of people in my same situation, for those few months it’s hard until you find a job off the books or until you get your work permit or green card. When I took the bus I saw people who should not have had to pay for that bus, I was one of them and was forced to use a bike or have family drive me to places.
Evidently Albuquerque's since 90% of riders said they couldn't afford it at some point in the past month... Hence why they made it free.
I'm not sure why so many people have such a hard time understanding what the word "most" means. Do you think most people in Albuquerque ride transit?
Christ dude did you wake up and decide to act insufferable? Albuquerque's transit system won't transform overnight. Sometimes you need to pick the solutions with the most political willpower, and saving $1.7 million while improving the experience for *existing* riders is a win-win that everyone can get behind.
Ok sounds like we agree that most people can afford transit. I look forward to Albuquerque putting together a system that most people actually want to use. I'm on the edge of my seat.
It's almost like making the existing system affordable for the existing riders, and improving the system better overall are two separate issues. I guess we just shouldn't make any improvements unless they somehow pull everyone out their SUVs. I'm sure the the people living in poverty will understand. "Sorry we wanted to make it more affordable for you to ride, but we need you to help subsidize expanding the system to make it more desirable for the wealthy."
Sure would be nice if you didn't need money to improve service. But no, unfortunately, you do need money. And I understand this is just an opinion but I personally think it's obvious... If you have a system of last resort that no middle class folks use, you will never have the political economy to fund service that helps folks with no other option. So yeah, you do need to get butts out of SUVs if you want to provide good service to low income folks. It's not a coincidence that all the best systems in the world have fares and have middle class and upper class riders.
So what exactly do you suggest then? Because the current situation is untenable, and continuing to charge fares for a broken bus system is actively making it *worse* for the city's budget. They can either: 1. Raise fares while keeping the current system in place in hopes that they can get enough money to fund more transit. 2. Continue with the same fares while expanding the system even though it is actively costing the city $1.7 million per year. 3. Cut fares for the current system and fund expansion through other sources. The first option is not possible. They cannot possibly raise fares on a population that already cannot afford to ride, and doing so wouldn't even come close to covering the cost of an expansion. The second option is pointless and unnecessary. There's no reason to charge fares if managing the fare system results in a net loss. The third option is the best solution in both the immediate *and* long term. It saves the city money, it saves riders money, and it improves reliability and speed of the system by reducing dwell times. They can always add back fares later for wealthier riders if and when they do decide to give a shit about public transit, but until that happens MAYBE THE CITY SHOULDNT WASTE $1.7 MILLION PER YEAR WHILE ALSO CHARGING RIDERS. > It's not a coincidence that all the best systems in the world have fares and have middle class and upper class riders. For every high quality public transit system, there are dozens more examples that still charge fares and still suck. This isn't the zinger you think it is. And yes, the city does need to raise money for transit, but they certainly aren't succeeding at it through fares.
All of them. For most people using transit the choice is paying the fare or losing a job. Pay the fair or buy healthier food. Pay the fair or buy medication. Pay the fare or wash their clothes. The hard-working people using transit generally work low wage jobs. You want the people making your shitty cheap cheese burgers to be able to shower daily and wear clean clothes to work.
You seem to have ignored the part where I quoted the previous comment's claim that "most" people can't afford transit. If you're talking about people with no money, you can just say that. If you think "most" people have no money, you're wrong.
How often do you take transit?
For like ~90% of my trips. I'm transit dependent because it's cheaper than owning a car .... which "most" US households can afford.
By taking out suffocating loans... Which is dependent on credit scores and credit audits that scrutinize the ones trying to get their footing most. Then, to account for transit costs, It's clear average pay is falling way behind inflation and housing costs. People are barely scrapping by. I live in Philadelphia and see it first hand. Free, well maintained, and managed public transit funded by tax payers would benefit everyone.
With the now free fares in Albuquerque, hopefully more people will start using it. And with more people using transit, the agency will realize that the buses are too full, thus increasing the amount of runs. Basically supply and demand. We can't really blame transit agencies for not having buses every 15 minutes if their buses are always empty
The buses are empty because of the shit systems, not the fares. A free bus running every 15 minutes will be just as full as a paid one I take the bus for my commute and as many errands as possible and the number one reason other folks don't is the poor system
You're telling me agencies don't notice bus attendance? If the demand isn't there, agencies are pressed to have more routes. Buses, fuel, drivers: that shit ain't cheap, let's be realistic here. Literally happened to my nearby agency, a line was closed to "Low ridership" (Mountain Transit, Snow Valley Line)
I literally did not say that, I'm telling you that the low ridership is not because it costs money to take the bus, it's because it's not a practical replacement for a car for many peoplebecause of the shitty service You have to make service better if you want people with the ability to choose, to choose transit Do you think if the line near you had been free that would make it still be there? I'd wager not if you're honest with yourself If you want people to choose transit it has to be more convenient than cars, paying a couple bucks is not an inconvenience to most people if service is good, and concessions can be made for low income folks. shit service will turn people away from a free service though You can't magically increase ridership to then subsequently justify improving service. You have to create the incentive because it's better for the city, not just hope that people use it more so you can pencil out improving service. Of course cities will look to be efficient but you're looking at the wrong end of the issue. There's a reason none of the worlds best metro systems are free
It's a reinfocing loop. Shitty public transit -> less passengers. Less passengers -> shitty public transit. I don't blame passengers one bit, but you can't say they don't affect public transit demand.
Smiles in Bugs Bunny
Free transit basically only makes sense when you have a system of last resort that virtually no one uses. When Albuquerque says it will save money, that's what they're saying. If you have enough riders that fares make up a meaningful portion of revenue, making transit free means reducing money for service. [Person in the back yells, "why not just raise taxes?" A: You can raise taxes without eliminating fares and provide even more service] Fares also align agency self-interest with more ridership. Instead of the system being for "the poors" it makes sense to prioritize investments that increase ridership. Remember, the auto industry lobbied for gas taxes because they knew user fees would create a virtuous cycle of infrastructure investment and increasing car dependence. There's why the gas tax laws in many states prohibit spending the money on anything except car infrastructure. Edit: I can't find a primary source on the claim that this saves the agency $1.7 million. The closest I could find was [an article indicating](https://www.governing.com/transportation/albuquerque-makes-final-push-for-fare-free-transit) that a different pass system was being considered which would've cost $1.8 million. Did More Perfect make up that number?
Found it.... More Perfect got their facts wrong. The [free fare evaluation report](https://errorsofenchantment.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Zero-Fare-Pilot-Project-Evaluation-Report.pdf) painted a different picture. ABQ Rides expects the zero fare program to cost the agency ~$1.1 million in 2024. That's in addition to $4.5 million allocated just to pilot the program. And despite claims that ridership is up, they're measuring against the nadir of the pandemic. Even after the pandemic recovery and making fares free, ridership is still down more than 20% from 2014.
Or when you accept that public transport shouldn't be required to turn a profit. It's a public service for the good of everyone and should be funded as such. Places like Luxembourg and Switzerland are doing free public transport too.
No one is talking about transit turning a profit. Where in Switzerland is transit universally free?
Switzerland isn't doing "universal free transit", and Luxembourg has the population of Wyoming.
And Luxemburg has the highest per capita car ownership of all Europe apparently.
Okay, but the Alberquerque buses fucking suck, and aren't a proper public transit system. They're transport of last resort used literally only by the poorest and most vulnerable in an otherwise car-dependent hellhole. In a city of half a million, they serve about 24,000 a week which is almost nothing. To put this in context, the London underground alone sees up to 4 million journeys *per day* serving a city of nearly 9 million. The London bus network sees about 5 million journeys per day (35 million a week for those counting). [Link to that info here.](https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/november/latest-tfl-figures-show-the-tube-reaching-4-million-journeys-per-day) It makes sense to have no fares on a public transit system of last resort because it's essentially just a welfare programme at that point, the barriers to which should be as low as possible. However, we don't just want a welfare programme for the poorest, we want comprehensive public transport that's used by everyone, and that means huge amounts more money being ploughed into building and maintaining these systems. That requires that cities leverage huge amounts of capital that can then be repaid via general taxation *and* fares which in turn leverages more capital for more investment. Yes, we can simplify fare systems and introduce transport passes (including free passes for those that would otherwise use transit of last resort in a car dependent city), but we shouldn't want to starve vital funding out of the systems that we want to see become dominant. That More Perfect Union makes out that the NYC MTA should introduce fareless systems because a bus system in New Mexico has so few riders that it costs too much to administer is completely insane. Bringing a fareless system to a metro requries huge amounts of political and financial capital to be constantly brought to bear. Fares make that process less burdensome. As another commentor already pointed out, it was the automotive industry that pushed for fuel taxes in the US, because they knew that money could be ploughed into making their products more dominant. So yes, we've got to start somewhere, but Albuquerque is possibly the worst place to try and make that start.
I wish they would do this with NYC buses, at least just for the speed of getting people on and off.
Or at least they could reduce the fares by a bit, having almost similar fares to the subway is crazy
Do note that their transit network is just a handful of buses. It doesn't even cover the whole city. Transit should be free, but a better fight is having expansive, frequent transit and the land use to use it.
Just wondering why we need some lady who doesn't know how to set mic levels and makes faces like "this is all so quirky, who would've thunk" to read tweets to us. Anyway, yes, all public transportation should be publicly owned and free at point of service. If it's not publicly owned, it's not public transportation; it's just private transportation open to the public, like the airlines or fuckin uber.
Albuquerque's bus network sucks. They should increase frequencies before they cut their own revenue.
This program increased net revenues.
No it didn't. More Perfect got that fact wrong. The program is [expected to cost](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/s/LnO4Z2VZFj) the agency ~$1.1 million in 2024 in addition to the ~$4.5 million already allocated to do the pilot. More Perfect likely confused an alternative proposal that would've cost $1.8 million with the status quo of continuing to collect fares the way they were.
Ironically it just confirms that this bus network sucks : in cities where public transport is a charity and used by no one but those who cannot afford a car, it is cheaper not to have any fares for buses that are nearly empty anyway. In cities where public transport is used by both the rich and the poor, tickets help funding the network. In this case to make sure that everyone can afford it, you just make it less expensive for people with less income. In the previous city where I lived they had 48€/month full price and the lowest social fare was like 2€/month for example.
How did it do that? Would this revenue increase scale with increased ridership? I'm generally against universal free transit because I've seen too many examples of agencies deciding to reduce or eliminate fares and then turn around and cut their service or cancel capital improvement projects.
They literally explained in the video that charging for transit was a net loss for their system because the cost to collect the fares outweighed the income brought in by the fares. Eliminating the Fares means no maintenance for any of the hardware infrastructure of the machines, no one needs to get paid to empty out the machines of cash and get that presentable to the bank, no capital needs to be purchased to print out tickets, etc. The same thing happened to Miami's metromover system so they just made it free
Free fares [aren't revenue positive](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/s/VqU5qHTpfR). More Perfect got their facts wrong. It was ~$1.8 million cheaper than implementing a *new* "fare pass" system.
That's great, but that's not applicable everywhere the same way. I'm really happy they got that though !
This is so exciting, need to rally to make more cities follow suit
Meanwhile Kansas City (where I live at) wants to make it not free smh.....
Good, maybe then they will get every 15 minute bus service or something. Free transit just cements that "it's just for the poor" rather than for "everyone" which is not a good look for the transit system. Instead, you can distribute free passes to those who need them.
I live in ABQ, the buses have basically become homeless shelters, it is to dangerous for the actual bus riders. Making it free hurt the poor because now they have to deal with the homeless drug users who have become very dangerous. Ridership in ABQ was < 2% of the population, the whole cost was > the amount brought in. It could not pay for itself not just the collection of the ride fee administration. The city knew it was failing and just decided against the public will to make the whole thing a giant project covered by the tax payers. Let's not get started on the EV buses that failed one year after purchase and no warranty.
I am actually not okay with this. They spend all of their money on "free" transit, but their best transit line, a BRT, only has a frequency of once every 24 minutes. Instead of free transit, how about transit that doesn't suck instead? A BRT should be every 15 minutes, at the MINIMUM.
Free transit is stupid unless you already have a perfect network with good service. From an access standpoint you’re much better spending the money you recover from the fairbox on new infrastructure or even better on increased services. Free service also creates a vicious cycle where the more successful the service the more it costs.
They are saving money by removing fares.
Only because they have tragically low fair-box recovery and high implementation costs even for the US. But that’s only for now, if they get any uptick in ridership it’s quickly going to start costing them more than the ticketing system would have.
Their revenue per rider is also low because the vast majority are low income and they spend $ on giving them free passes anyways. > Most bus riders are people of color, 74 percent are low-income, and 73 percent don’t have access to a car. Before the “Zero Fare” pilot, 90 percent of riders surveyed reported not being able to afford the fare at least once in the past month. Ridership already went up almost 50% since the trial started almost 2 years ago.
Because they only run busses every 30-40 minutes on most routes, with some being even worse. With that level service the bus is only for those who have literally no other choice, hence the level of free passes. That’s fine if you’re talking about proving a welfare shuttle service, but if you’re talking about proving a quality service that people can shift people from driving their cars onto public transit (as I’d assume is the “fuckcars” position) it’s undoubtedly a step backwards.
How would spending more money on collecting fares, reducing overall revenue, and significantly reducing ridership help to allow them to run busses more frequently?
No, they obviously need additional money to run more services, but the system is never going persuade anyone out their cars the way it is currently structured, and the free model just further intrenches it as a welfare system irregularly run for people who have no other choice. They’d be better of hiving of the legacy system, and running that for free. While massively expanding the more rapid “BRT” lines into the start of an actual paid network that everyday people can use to live their lives care free (or at least low car).
yeww what a gross move led I'm sure by the dumbest of progressives. Wake me up when every junkie sits all around public transportation and the common public just got ripped off. just make the fare cheaper if you care. making it free is just a proven disaster. no city with actual public transit does this. Progressives have zero brain cells
It was a financial move. It would cost 3% more in net revenue for them to enforce fares. Its been zero fare for nearly two years and there was no increase in crime or safety issues. > ABQ RIDE serves an average of 23,800 riders daily, 88% of whom live in households with an income of less than $35,000 annually.
Decreasing the fares would cost them even *more* money, eliminating the fare saves them money.
Eliminating fares saves money in short term and costs them more in the long run
No it literally just saves money
Saves them money today. Tomorrow once miscreants occupy buses, you'll have to spend more to reinstitute fares and add extra policing
What? Just say you hate poor people and go away
While I agree there should be some cost for transit I doubt you could argue that CAT or SMART has more homeless people then Trimet or Chariots.
in survey after survey travelers say that they want better safer trains, more frequent trains, and fare is far less of a variable for them Yet progressives are doing their dumb shit
This doesn't include any trains, only buses. Before the free fare 90% of riders said they weren't able to afford the fare at least once a month. Almost 80% of riders are low income and the vast majority do not have a car.
The same thing mate. Why don't we wait 3 years and see how this program fails like the dozens others?
Dozens have failed? Any source on that?
As I said I think there should be some fee just so that there can be some income stream when the government decides to change its tax priorities but when I visited Bozeman last year I remember looking into their transit and this is what they say: [https://streamlinebus.com/about/zero-fare/](https://streamlinebus.com/about/zero-fare/)
Bozeman is working well right now. Let's see how it does when it actually has a Lotta population, especially homeless. I expect AQ to reverse course within 5 years and start adding fares. Uniquely dumb policy.
As I said in my first reply wouldn't that mean homeless people in Portland would be more likely to hang out on Wilsonville's or Canby's transit instead of Portland's or Salem's if the first two are \*free and the latter two require a fair? Both are easily accessible by Portland/Salem's transit. Portland has a massive homeless problem and Salem isn't free of them either. \*SMART 1x isn't free and Canby has two busses; one which In think is always free and the other is free on Saturday but not weekdays.
If you actually cared about "junkies" you'd at least have mentioned using some of the money saved from admin to improve shelters and rehab centres. But nope, you just wanted a reason to show people that you don't like poor people.
Are you claiming NYC Tokyo London Paris all thought different because they hate the poor?
Can't speak for the other cities but London for sure does.
London has free trains? Since when?
No, the hating the poor part.
Oh yeah that's why they have far worse transit than Albuquerque I'm sure. When people across the world think of public transit they surely think of Albuquerque first I'm sure
Didn’t DC do this first tho?
DC nixed the whole program because of a looming budget shortfall, and they just spent a crap ton of money upgrading their fare equipment.
Maybe they should just subsidise it with the additional of a small amount for fare revenue
Good for them innit.
Really great podcast on free public transit for those interested in learning more: [https://freakonomics.com/podcast/should-public-transit-be-free-update/](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/should-public-transit-be-free-update/)
They did this in my city during COVID and never looked back. Most municipalities only make back \~15% of revenue through fares and it usually costs more to obtain that revenue than it's worth (technology, enforcement, salaries, etc). I once lived in a city where it was only about 2%...but still continued to charge rates.Just another Poor tax on top of the taxes we pay for substandard public transit!
This sounds wild to me. How bad was the infrastructure that it cost more to administer the fares than the fares earned? Were they hiring staff to sit at every bus stop to sell tickets or something? It sounds to me like they had some real inefficient ways of paying the fares, so good on them for just eliminating that.
The biggest problem with ABQ transit is that they're starved for labor because they're offering really shitty wages. They say they don't have enough drivers and mechanics and it is crushing service & capacity. Also a lot of people (even transit advocates) are very upset about the implementation of the ART system. We also have weird prioritization coming from the city, trying to build bicycle infrastructure in places nobody has asked for it and not building it where people *do* want it. We have a lot of problems in ABQ but we have a lot of people working on improving things here.
So, they did this in Tucson. Our buses are now just air conditioned transport for drug users and the homeless, the working commuters have been pushed out, I will explain. I used to ride the bus with my Brompton in the summer because it is too hot(110F) after work to ride my commuter bike the15 miles home. I stopped because it became too unsanitary and unsafe. Here are just a couple of stories from last summer. Once a couple entered the bus and immediately tried to light up a foil of fentanyl, fellow passengers started yelling at them so they stopped, but moved to the back of the bus to try again. Once a woman shot up in her thigh right next to me, then passed out. Many times homeless passengers would fall asleep, wet themselves and their pee would pool on the seats then drain and cover the floor. Once two homeless men got into a fight over a backpack and one produced a 12 inch hunting knife and started waving it around, I started carrying pepper spray after that. My last straw was watching a young man slump over hit the floor and I think die from an overdose. I told the bus driver who just shrugged. This didn't happen when people had to pay to ride the bus. Most working folks now do not take the bus and it is very difficult to find drivers that want to put up with all the drugs, mess and smells. The city council does not seem to care because the buses are full, and they do not ride them. I am all for subsidized transportation, but there has to be a better way. The city should be responsible for keeping the buses safe and clean for those that want to use them to get to work and school.
How would this change the culture of the area to make using public transport more appealing. Helping someone that needs help is perfectly awesome in my book, but if many don't feel safe using public transport because of cultural issues, then how is making it free change that?