So by merely tripling fares, bus service could become inherently scalable? I kind of like the idea of not having to beg anybody to add service to meet demand.

great for business and the environment. makes for crowded buses unless service is ramped up massively though

But Metro has a huge budget shortfall and they are raising fares to meet only a portion of the shortfall. They still having to make cuts to make ends meet.

This editorial looks like it was written by someone clueless of their current financial situation.

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of driving a car is subsidized? The consumer pays for the car, the government pays for the roads--what would that ratio look like? To be fair, you'd have to add the roads to the public transportation subsidy as well. And you'd have to figure out pollution costs per vehicle...

1
I agree.
It looks like an argument to triple fares.

I don't have a car. I ride transit. I'm against free transit because I would pay a lot more for better service. The hegemonic discourse is already that transit is useless.

Free transit = ride-free zone exploded in all directions. Ew.

there seems to be confusion between subsidy and pay as you go. cars pay gas tax, sales tax on purchase, repair, parts, license fees, secondary taxes paid by those that provide services to cars or build and maintain the roads. car owners pay for the roads while bus users receive a subsidy, there is nothing wrong with this but it how it is. without the car industry how would we pay for the roads needed for transit and freight?

free service would make the service devalued. lower fares could make sense but free would create a citywide ride free zone. people hopping on and off for a two block ride and in the austin experiment it resulted in mostly high school kids joy-riding after school.

it also make sense to LOWER fares during PEAK PERIODS to encourage use then when traffic is at its worst.

I lived on Whidbey Island for a few years growing up, and the busses there are free. Island Transit is definitely a smaller and much simpler system, but it is totally awesome, so that should count for something.

Personally, I'd like the halfway point of having a european fare system, where bus drivers don't check tickets, but there are conductors who inspect randomly and frequently, and charge a fine for "schwarzfahrers"...it works a lot better for multi-modal transit systems.

Free bus transit would turn the city's bus fleet into a giant network of mobile homeless shelters. It'd be the like the Ride Free Area everywhere.

Chapel Hill, NC has completely free public transit, funded partially by the city and partially by the university. It can work.

So instead of making some money back off transit (an admittedly money loosing operation) let's just make it a giant black hole for your tax payer dollars.

We're already have a huge debt in this state, why purposely make it worse? What programs is E.C.B. willing to cut to make this happen? Education? Health Care? Parks?

Here's a suggestion, how about we require all bicycles to have yearly license plates. These license plates will cost you a % of your bikes worth as determined by the state with a minimum fee of $35 per bike. That should at least slightly offset some of the money that would be wasted on free Mass Transit.

@12,

Good luck with that. You'd have that fee imposed on a little kid's tricycle, would you?

@1/5, Um... charging $5-7 per one-way trip would just make people take their own cars. Gas + daily parking is usually a lot less than that. Not really a win-win for anyone, because (in addition to the nasty environmental and congestion caused by the cars) you would still be stuck in the same damn traffic.

But completely free transit doesn't sound like a good idea either, especially when the economy is in the tank--and especially if you want to use the bus to actually get around town (as opposed to using it as a homeless shelter).

If we actually charged market rates for roadways and parking, nobody could afford to drive a car.

Hobo transit here we come!

As an inter-county commuter, the cost of driving to work every day (considering only gas and parking) is approximately $250. My monthly bus pass is $90 ($2.50 face value). I would be willing to pay twice as much (still reflecting a $70 savings for riding versus driving), if that increase would result in more reliable schedules and expanded service. Sure, I'd rather ride for free, but that's just not realistic. The money for mass transit has to come from somewhere, and I'd rather pay for it as a user than as an indirectly impacted taxpayer.

How about instead of eliminating fares, we use all these federal funds to maintain or increase service? Let's get rid of that "and". I'd rather pay to ride decent buses on reliable schedules than not pay to ride crappy buses on unpredictable schedules....cliché it may be, but we get what we pay for.

All good points, especially #14. Free transit sounds like a good idea, until you really think hard about it.

@9. You must not ride Metro too much. How much weaponry would that "ticket inspector" need to survive a trip to the back of a #174 or #358 bus? Encouraging punk-ass kids to ride all over the county isn't going to reduce traffic: it will increase property crimes in places that were previously inaccessible to them.
@10 is more realistic. The Ride-Free zone becomes a "warm place to sleep" on cold mornings downtown. Encouraging vagrants to use public transportation isn't going to suddenly socialize them: it will result in more bus violence.

if car owners were given back all their direct and indirect taxes paid as a result of car ownership, they would have no problem paying for the roads. bus riders if given back their share of taxes used to pay for buses wouldn't have enough money from that to pay for the fares.

transit is subsidized by non transit users and that's a good thing, and it is disingenuous to say car drivers are subsidized and even more so to say bus riders subsidize cars.

Another good idea that's dead on arrival. No power analysis about the oil and auto industries.

Erica...I thought I once read an analysis by you that refuted the idea of free bus and transit. Do I misremember?

Kemper Freeman was also proposing to make transit free. Sounds great, but given how the downtown ride free zone has become a magnet for the homeless, I doubt that it was to make transit look better or attract more riders.

Fares aren't just for collecting revenue... they're for making sure that a limited good is used efficiently. Take away the cost and offer it for free, and the system would collapse. We should certainly keep fares low, but dropping them to zero is a recipe for disaster.

Make the bus free and Metro becomes a flophouse on wheels. This is a bad idea as is the Ride Free Zone.

Think of all of the crack they could sell on the bus though.

So, if the buses became free, they would be dominated by the homeless, drug addicts and homeless drug addicts. No one else would ride the bus in more because of this.
So, Free Bus = More Cars on the Roads.

One side note plus though, think of the money that could be saved. Once the homeless took over the buses, metro could then make all of the buses out of old cardboard refrigerator boxes and the homeless wouldn't know the difference.

@15, you are (once again) incorrect. Lots of people could afford to drive cars. Just not everybody.

No, I said you couldn't afford to.

Me, I could. I don't drive that far or that much, and walk when it's summer, so it's darned cheap for me.

For a list of the externalized costs of the auto system:
.
http://freepublictransit.org/index.php?p…
.

Free transit works great downtown -- every neighborhood should get its own crazymobile and rolling homeless shelter.

"If we actually charged market rates for roadways and parking, nobody could afford to drive a car."

-- verbal diarrhea from Slog commenter