22 ms·

Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

444 points by jonbaer 7y ago

matchbok 7y ago
Great to see. Our tax money subsidizes car ownership (quite massively) already, glad to see some equity here. Everyone kicks and screams about transit systems "paying for themselves" but nobody asks the same of huge highways in the middle of nowhere.
- huebomont 7y ago
  The problem is there's no additional investment into the system to make it attractive to riders. The KC transit system is poorly designed and making it free isn't going to make it good. Better to keep charging the fare and use the revenue to improve service, then reevaluate when ridership is growing. Transit investment has a LOT of catching up to do to even get close to the types of subsidizing and handouts we give drivers in every corner of this country.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    Past experience shows generally that things like tolling or road pricing only become politically palatable if an alternative with existing capacity already exists. But funding such alternatives is hard and usually road pricing is proposed in part for the funding. So it's a very chicken vs egg situation.
    - huebomont 7y ago
      It's not a hard chicken/egg situation though - put money into making transit a viable alternative for these roads, then start charging for the roads when there's another option. We don't think twice about spending billions eternally digging up and reconfiguring our highways, so we could do the same to transit, for much more bang for the buck.
      - bobthepanda 7y ago
        The main issue is that historically in the US, transit operational funding is a strictly state and below matter, but the feds are happy to stump much of the bill for highways. And states and cities generally have fewer resources. With such a strong urban-rural political divide these days, and suburban views of transit ranging from apathetic to hostile, federal support for transit operations is unlikely. Personally, I would be a fan of devolving transport funding entirely to solve this issue.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        The reason for the distinction is that federal highways are interstate. Neither New York nor San Francisco is going to be willing to pay for highways to connect the two cities, but we all benefit from being able to get from one side of the country to the other. But arguing that states and cities have fewer resources is ridiculous. Cities have more resources than anybody -- they're where the highest income people live. It's the rural areas that have no money, but mass transit is useless there anyway, because it's too spread out and there is no need for it there because those areas have no traffic congestion. The cities are where mass transit works as the cities are where the money is. It's only a matter of popular will.
        bobthepanda 7y ago
        Cities give a lot more in federal taxes than they get, hence the "less available resources." Things like eliminating the state and local tax deduction have also hurt urban areas. If transportation taxes were devolved to the states or the localities then there would be a lot more public transportation funding.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        Cities give a lot more in federal taxes than they get, but the percentage of what they give that goes to transportation funding is negligible. >75% of the federal budget is social security, medicare/healthcare and the military, and the next biggest category after that is interest on the debt. Transportation is only ~2%, and almost half of that is things like aviation, railroads and funding for local public transit. If you want more local money in the cities then there's a lot more to be had by e.g. raising the retirement age than by eliminating federal highway funding, which we still kind of need unless you want to stop maintaining the interstate highways. Or if you really want to restore state fiscal control, transfer social security and medicare entirely to the states, and make the National Guard constitute more of the military.
  - baddox 7y ago
    > The problem is there's no additional investment into the system to make it attractive to riders. It seems to me that public transit probably follows the law of demand fairly strongly, and reducing the price will almost certainly make it more attractive to riders. Of course this won't fix all problems with public transit, and I don't think that's the goal. It sounds like the goal is to increase ridership (and specifically to increase access to people who cannot easily afford the fares). > Better to keep charging the fare and use the revenue to improve service Or...use tax revenue to improve the service. That's the point, and is exactly what happens with most public roads.
    - bobthepanda 7y ago
      The question is whether or not $9M annually would be better off making more useful transit. As it stands, very little of KC is covered by frequent transit throughout the day, and in fact much of it is covered by services that don't run the entire day. https://ridekc.org/assets/uploads/route-maps/SystemMap.pdf https://ridekc.org/assets/uploads/route-maps/SystemMap.pdf A free bus that runs every hour is still going to screw you over if you mistime your walk to the bus stop and it leaves without you. The bus not being available at noon is not made better because it is free, because there's still no bus to take.
      - baddox 7y ago
        But the point is to offer rides for free and use other money (presumably tax money) to maintain (and hopefully invest in more) infrastructure. I don't see how the current quality of the KC infrastructure is relevant: if it's bad, then they clearly the $9m in fare revenue isn't cutting it, and they already need tax revenue to make it better. If they can't or don't get the tax revenue they need, then that's definitely a problem!
        huebomont 7y ago
        You leave out the possibility that they could run much better service with the money they have and they need to plan better. I don't know if that's the case here, but it's always the first thing to ask. Too many poorly run transit systems skip right over that to dumping more money into a poorly planned system and wonder why it doesnt work.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Being free makes it a hell of a lot more attractive to a lot of people.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    > Transit investment has a LOT of catching up to do to even get close to the types of subsidizing and handouts we give drivers in every corner of this country. That’s completely untrue. Yes we spend more on vehicles than transit. But way more people drive than use transit. There is not even a comparison. In 2016 federal and state spending on road, transit, and water infrastructure was $416 billion: https://www.bidnet.com/resources/business-insights/us-government-spending-highway-infrastructure-en.jsp https://www.bidnet.com/resources/business-insights/us-govern.... Water is about 1/3 of that, leaving $276 billion for transportation. Spending on transit was $65 billion, or 1/4 the transportation spend. Transit, however, accounts for just 5% of commutes: https://www.bts.gov/content/commute-mode-share-2015 https://www.bts.gov/content/commute-mode-share-2015. 85% is driving alone or in a car pool. So we spend 3x as much on road infrastructure, but 17x as many people drive to work as take transit. If you run the numbers on a cents of subsidy per passenger mile basis, busses and subway trains come out to $0.50+ per passenger mile. Roads are just $0.02 per passenger mile. Even adding in CO2 footprint and pollution (assuming that cars are all ICE) puts you at about $0.25. Transit is incredibly expensive.
    - kasey_junk 7y ago
      I’m not disagreeing with your broader point but none of those studies account for space utilization issues. Transit uses space better due to lack of parking and more density per track. No idea how that impacts the actual dollar numbers but it’s worth noting.
      - weberc2 7y ago
        The cost per passenger per mile is two orders of magnitude lower for roads than for public transit; I can’t imagine parking space accounting for that.
        kasey_junk 7y ago
        Parking space and the tracks/roads/right of ways themselves? I don’t expect it brings them to parity but I expect it’s non-trivial.
- mrep 7y ago
  > Everyone kicks and screams about transit systems "paying for themselves" If you mean paying for themselves with fares, then no, as most public transportation does not cover the costs with just fares [0]. For example, I'm in Seattle currently and the fares only cover 20-40% of costs [1]. Not that I am complaining as I take the bus to work everyday, but it's not a slam dunk case of invest more because it has a positive return on investment. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio [1]: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/fare-revenue-annual-report-2017.pdf https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/fare-revenu...
  - milkytron 7y ago
    I think what the original commenter meant was that people get upset because they don't want to subsidize transit systems, and would rather have them break even or turn a profit. What a lot of those same people don't understand, is that taxes pay for the road systems. The people that understand public transit realize that it's hard to recover the costs without assistance (taxes).
    - runarberg 7y ago
      I think exactly that happened in the last Washington state election. The state legislator put on the ballot a measure that would limit the amount the state could tax each car owner. Proponents would claim that the tax was going towards public transit infrastructure (like Sound Transit 3) and that it was unfair to tax car owners for that. The measure was approved.
      - julienb_sea 7y ago
        The measure was sold largely as a general flipping of the bird towards King and neighboring counties by the rest of the state. Generally there is opposition from eastern Washington for car tabs going to fund Sound Transit's investments on the western corridor, which doesn't really do anything to benefit those that don't live in the western corridor. And yes, I am aware that King net exports money to the east. I'm not sure how impactful that argument is for a minimum wage worker living far away from Seattle paying $500 a year on car tabs, for a car that they have no alternative but owning in order to get to their job.
- stretchwithme 7y ago
  I'd rather see nothing being subsidized. If you want to help the poor afford public transit, lower their taxes. Maybe not taking a substantial their working capital and giving it back to them when their old isn't such a bright idea either.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    One could cease to provide social security as it is structured if one replaced it with an alternative. We already know from US history that it is unwise (in a humanitarian sense) to trust the public to just save enough to retire comfortably (including having the foresight to keep their savings in assets that don't diminish in value before they are needed to offset continued life without labor into the system).
    - weberc2 7y ago
      I thought postwar America was known for investing in real estate to great wealth-building effect? I’m not sure how worthwhile other time periods are for comparison as our economy is so much different.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        Approximately 65% of Americans own their home.
        weberc2 7y ago
        I’m not sure what point you’re making, if any. Care to elaborate?
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        If the up-thread reference to American real-estate investment implied Americans use real-estate ownership as a retirement nest-egg, the numbers do not bear out that hypothesis---or at least, do not show it's a solution much of America avails itself of. ... and that's ignoring that shocks like the mortgage crisis can happen, which indicates that home ownership isn't as stable a store of value as, say, the US dollar.
- Koremat6666 7y ago
  > but nobody asks the same of huge highways in the middle of nowhere. Building roads should move from government to fully private entities for the same reason. California has built roads from nowhere to nowhere for no reason other than local assemblyman was focused on getting them done. On other hand critical roads that would have helped commute distance, improved public transporation systems are in a bad state.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Well, marginal dollar on road yields greater than marginal dollar to economy. Current political structures in the US means that marginal dollar on passenger rail is absorbed by the agents in charge of ensuring the rail existence. i.e. the $500 million railway and the $1 billion version of (say) the Central Subway will both yield probably the same economic benefit. Rent-seekers know that they can extract a large amount of economic rent because of government propensity to spend and political reasons that require governments to chase sunk costs. Because of the large amount of roadway in America, the number of parties you can call to get more road built is pretty big (as Thiel says, competition is the enemy of profit). And the primary place you put more road is out where there's nothing. Because of the existence of a large network of roads, you could build roads where there is nothing and it's easy to get to where there's something. Personally far prefer public transit so I'm pretty interested in ideas that change the structure of the interactions to pursue efficient construction.
  - andys627 7y ago
    Do you have any sources for this info?
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      I have not kept them handy.
- clairity 7y ago
  it's true that public transportation has a net societal benefit, and that portion of the benefit should be paid for by all (through taxes or whatnot). however, fares shouldn't be zero. riders should pay too, not just because we should bear our portion of the direct benefit (we should), but also because it gives us a sense of ownership for the system. those fare revenues give transit agencies funds to improve service, and riders legitimacy in demanding better service. public transit needs to get better in every dimension: frequency, timeliness, coverage, capacity, cleanliness, etc.
- throwaway894345 7y ago
  Are you really willing to give up affordable transport (outside of your metropolis, anyway) and commercial goods? I know cars are Not Very Utopian or whatever, but public infrastructure has to have one of the better returns on investment with respect to tax dollars.
- randyrand 7y ago
  Another example SFO adds an additional ~$5 fee to leave or enter on BART, but drivers can arrive and drop off for free. Cars are massively subsidized.
kodablah 7y ago
> The hope among lawmakers and transportation officials is that the city will recoup that expense, and more A poor goal that's hard to quantify and often not met (especially for social services at smaller community levels). Just consider it a sunk cost up front and be honest about it. Then the debate can at least be about whether it's a worthy cost socially. Putting a monetary recoup hope unhelpfully moves the debate away from the social obligation side.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  Compare this to Intercity Transit in Olympia, WA, which is going fare-free mostly because it needs to replace the fare collection system on older buses and install them on new ones, but - the regional pass is on a path of deprecation in favor of a new system. So they'd need to buy two sets of fare collection systems in the span of a few years - the cost to install these fare collection systems even once is more than what the agency currently collects in fares - the fares only make up 1.5% of revenue anyways, so the impact is not as large as it would be in, say, New York where fares are north of 40% of revenue https://www.intercitytransit.com/zerofare https://www.intercitytransit.com/zerofare
newmac 7y ago
On my first visit to Seattle, you could ride the bus anywhere downtown for free. It seemed like a great way to provide mobility to those in need, while still having a paid option for those in the outer areas of the city to get home to their suburbs. The first conversation I had with someone on the bus there was with someone going to an employment counselling office. Not sure why that struck me, but it always stuck with me. No I see that the free ride zone has been gone since 2012. Too bad!
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  I think it was a logistical nightmare, because you had to pay your fare entering before the free ride zone, and exiting leaving the free ride zone. Unless you were transferring. And not all lines ran through it. I wish we'd gone the other way and just made the whole thing free ride.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  IIRC, the reason Seattle instituted the free fares downtown scheme was to reduce bus boarding times, especially in the tunnel beneath downtown where buses would often get backed up. /No longer live in Seattle, so I may not be remembering this correctly.
  - tzs 7y ago
    The free ride zone predated the tunnel by 17 years. The original reason for it was to entice people to use the bus. From the 1973-09-09 NY Times [1]: > “I make a flat prediction,” said Mayor Wes Uhlman, who conceived the plan. “With the E.P.A. [Environmental Protection Agency] breathing down the neck of all of us, every major city in the country will be providing free transit within two years. > “The downtowns are becoming congested and polluted, and we simply have to reclaim them for people away from the automobile.” [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1973/09/09/archives/seattle-joining-movement-for-free-bus-rides-10-increase-in-riders.html https://www.nytimes.com/1973/09/09/archives/seattle-joining-...
brianzelip 7y ago
In Baltimore, the Charm City Circulator (bus) is free. https://www.charmcitycirculator.com/ https://www.charmcitycirculator.com/
downerending 7y ago
This is awesome. And also in stark contrast with progressive Portland, which recently hired a gaggle of new fare-enforcement workers: https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2019/10/trimet-beefing-up-fare-enforcement-will-rely-less-on-uniformed-police.html https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2019/10/trimet-beefing-...
- noodlesUK 7y ago
  The sad thing is, TriMet (Portland public transit) used to be free downtown as well...
- steeef 7y ago
  As recently as last week it seems, TriMet's board has been discussing how free fares might work: https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2019/12/is-trimet-discussing-a-free-transit-system-2-board-members-say-yes.html https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2019/12/is-trimet-discu...
gamechangr 7y ago
Great to visualize, even if it is not entirely successful. Seems like this needs to happen.
lacker 7y ago
Unfortunately, I think this is a step backwards. According to the US Census, about 1% of commuters in Kansas City use public transportation. https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US28140-kansas-city-mo-ks-metro-area/ https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US28140-kansas-city... It's hardly "public" transportation at all, if it's only useful to 1% of residents. If public transportation is going to make any impact on the lives of Kansas City residents, it first has to be providing a useful service to them. That probably means expanding its reach, and putting more vehicles on existing lines. Making it free means that any expansion has become more expensive, and is now less likely to happen.
- kick 7y ago
  "Free" is an incentive to use it: cities outside of the US have had great results by making public transit free. Also, you misread the statistic. That's commute to work, and only people who are 16 and up. Work is not the only thing public transportation is useful for.
  - asdff 7y ago
    Some people struggle paying for the monthly pass that they need. Other people have no idea how to pay for transit at all, and don't take it out of ignorance. Free helps both of these groups.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  If public transportation is going to make any impact on the lives of Kansas City residents, it first has to be providing a useful service to them. Why does that have to be "first?" Why not make it free, and also make it useful? If the goal is to increase ridership, making the rides free lowers the barrier for people in transit-served areas. Then you can subsequently or simultaneously expand it. It makes no sense to keep charging during the expansion to some mythical point in the future where it will suddenly become free because it's reached a certain number of users.
  - edmundsauto 7y ago
zozbot234 7y ago
Doesn't literal "no cost" public transportation lead to issues with folks abusing the service as a place to hang out? Also, does the service never get congested in other ways? I'd argue that public transportation should be paid for when congested, so that users are incented to shift their use to other times.
- npo9 7y ago
  Points against charging extra for public transit during congested times. 1. It’s much better for someone traveling during congestion to use public transport than to use a private vehicle. 2. Traveling during congestion almost always is accompanied by increased travel times —- a natural incentive to adjust travel times. 3. Keeping fare prices consistent and simple makes the system easier for everyone to understand and less confusing to new users.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    > It’s much better for someone traveling during congestion to use public transport than to use a private vehicle. Sure, but charging a nominal price for public transit wouldn't meaningfully affect the incentive to avoid traffic congestion outside of it. i.e. by and large, the users aren't going to move back to private vehicles, because shifting the time of use is often easier.
- kiliantics 7y ago
  Oh no, people hanging out in public spaces! People making use of the space they literally own, how terrible! Couldn't you make the same argument for cars? We should stop people hanging out in their cars and congesting our public roads!
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    > We should stop people hanging out in their cars and congesting our public roads! And indeed, we should work on that too. Road pricing is a thing, after all - and it's finally becoming somewhat popular in congestion-prone city downtowns. Free public transit will help this, by providing a clear alternative to private vehicle use.
lifeisstillgood 7y ago
I am trying to formulate a theory of wealth in modern society - I think that the vast vast majority of wealth resides in, or useless without, huge reservoirs of public wealth - from aqueducts still supplying Rome after 2000 years to public roads and rail. The active capitalist stuff going on, is mostly the frothy but as water fills up the reservoir - it the deep water is public, social wealth. It's a bit nebulous but I think it is worth us asking when is the right time to stop treating something as "frothy capitalism" and needs to be left of the free market and when it is deep water and needs to be just free to all.
- danans 7y ago
  > The active capitalist stuff going on, is mostly the frothy but as water fills up the reservoir - it the deep water is public, social wealth. Even privately held capital is underpinned by public, social "wealth" in the form of a system of property rights and the means to arbitrate those. Society, as manifested in government and the courts, is protecting all our claims to ownership of property with the threat of force. If it stops doing that, the value of much of our property/capital will plummet quickly.
  - lifeisstillgood 7y ago
    yes.. There are two attitudes to tax - one it is a service fee for government services, something short term to be haggled down, or it is a long term investment in this depp water wealth. Threat of force is technically what underpins all this but that needs to be a credible threat - just having force without knowing where and when to apply it leads to applying it in wrong place or as "encourage les autres". And knowing when to apply it is likely the job of civil servente. I think I am diving into late night undergraduate philosophy and economics - hmmm
nostromo 7y ago
Seattle used to have this for an area of the city. It was called the "Free Ride Zone" - and it had some unexpected consequences. The primary problem is that homeless people would get on the bus because it's warm, and would fall asleep. The busses became rolling homeless shelters. This caused other people to take the bus less, because of public safety concerns, as well as simple quality-of-life issues like unpleasant smells. Eventually it was scrapped. But this issue has been returning as it's now common knowledge that Seattle bus drivers are instructed not to collect fares from anyone that declines to pay.
- noobermin 7y ago
  That is essentially treating the symptoms, not the cause.
  - acchow 7y ago
    Right. So of course we're supposed to solve homelessness. Know how this can be accomplished in Seattle?
    - runarberg 7y ago
      You don’t need to solve it. But there are numerous tried and proven ways of significantly reducing homelessness. We could start by evaluating and employing some of these.
      - troydavis 7y ago
        That statement is the equivalent of inserting “just” into technical advice, as in “It’s just code” or “Just scale out.” If it was that simple, the problem would have been solved. Here’s the laundry list of things Seattle has tried and is trying: https://www.seattle.gov/homelessness https://www.seattle.gov/homelessness, https://www.seattle.gov/homelessness/addressing-the-crisis https://www.seattle.gov/homelessness/addressing-the-crisis
        7y ago
jayess 7y ago
Looks like KC transit ridership has been declining since 2014: https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/missouri/kansas-city-area-transportation-authority/ https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/missouri/kansas-city-are...
yegle 7y ago
The small town of my alma mater is entirely built around the university. There's school bus serves everyone in the town (not limited to student, no validation required), and is basically no-cost public transit. I suspect this applies to many other college towns across US.
- justinmk 7y ago
  Indeed. "No price signal[1]" is very different from "no cost". It will cost plenty. Any service priced at zero simply has no back-pressure mechanism to respond to demand, nor to forecast demand, nor to measure demand in relation to alternative transportation options. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    All of those problems already apply to any government program. The answer is to calculate demand and allocate supply based on factors such as ridership. That will be less efficient in a sense than pricing, but not necessarily so, because pricing in a market with network effects and significant fixed costs can also create significant inefficiency. Pricing, especially pricing that exceeds the variable cost or has to include the cost of a fare collection infrastructure, can reduce usage and thereby reduce the network effect. Which is a feedback loop that can lead to a death spiral. That's hardly efficient either. And ridership is effectively a price signal anyway, because even when there is no monetary cost there is still an opportunity cost.
msla 7y ago
What's their definition of "major"? Missoula has been offering no-cost buses for years now.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Whatever the definition might be, Missoula doesn't qualify. Missoula is #328 on the list of 384 metropolitan statistical areas in USA, just between Owensboro KY and Morristown TN.
rshnotsecure 7y ago
Quick question, has anyone here heard of a very odd company in Kansas City called...https://joesdatacenter.com https://joesdatacenter.com. All of the staff on LinkedIn exist...but there are only 3 of them and apparently the founder and CEO just got out of community college? They claim to have at least a few ten thousands of floor space, so that must be minimum $25 million in server capital assuming all are used. They also for some reason broadcast incredibly interesting weather data from the top of the building: https://joesdatacenter.com/hvac/ https://joesdatacenter.com/hvac/ I currently work in San Antonio as a short term contractor for a SOC (many military bases and sizeable banks here) and last night an incident was raised and a breach somewhat close to being declared and we are getting pinged is it Tsinghua? is it APT 17? to which we have to respond seriously on Slack...no it’s “Joes Datacenter” ASN 19969 out of Kansas City.
- tessla 7y ago
  Joe's Datacenter is known for hosting hackers and spammers.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Haha there's no way that weather data is right. They're reporting a high of "54.4°F" when it was snowing most of the day? Pull the other one. Maybe all the "APTs" should route through Joe's if they don't want a serious response?
tomohawk 7y ago
Baltimore essentially has no-fare public transit. Anyone can get on the light rail without a ticket, and inspection is spotty at best. If you're caught, you just wait for the next train.
- brewdad 7y ago
  In Portland, you will be cited for non-payment and repeat offenders are "excluded", typically for 30 days. Meaning if you try to board a bus or train you can be arrested for trespass. Does Baltimore not do this?
  - astrodust 7y ago
    Imagine if they did this for parking infractions. 30 day license suspension. Heavy fines.
ngngngng 7y ago
I guess Salt Lake City must be too small to count. Or not qualify on some other metric. All the light rail trains in the city are free, but once you get outside of a certain region there is a charge.
- forthwall 7y ago
  This isn't true. (https://www.rideuta.com/Fares-And-Passes/Current-Fares https://www.rideuta.com/Fares-And-Passes/Current-Fares)
  - EForEndeavour 7y ago
    No, it is true that Salt Lake City passengers may ride buses and light rail for free within the Free Fare Zone mapped out here: https://www.rideuta.com/Fares-And-Passes/Free-Fare-Zone https://www.rideuta.com/Fares-And-Passes/Free-Fare-Zone
exabrial 7y ago
> “I believe that people have a right to move about this city,” KC Resident here. Of course you have a right to move about the city! You don't have a right for someone else to pay for it though. Interesting choice of words.
- smileysteve 7y ago
  There's significant thought that by helping people get to where they want (by not requiring a car, by not needing insurance to get somewhere, reducing traffic strategically) that transportation in many ways helps pay for itself. Much like how main streets with sidewalks get random foot traffic but mini-malls promote driving to a store, picking up and leaving. (this very much extends to uber eats and delivery canabalizing even mini malls)
- esoterica 7y ago
  And yet you believe you’re entitled to drive on the roads for free?
  - exabrial 7y ago
    Nice straw man
sjs382 7y ago
In Pittsburgh, travel within Downtown and the North Shore is free 24/7 on the "T" (light rail). Buses still aren't free and the "T" doesn't cover a ton of Downtown Pittsburgh, though. The "T" has been like this for 20+ years and is an awesome resource.
ur-whale 7y ago
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, 'no cost' is a physical impossibility. Someone does pay for transportation, and the question is, who does?
nwvg_7257 7y ago
Not really a major city, but Chapel Hill has done this for a long time. Bus service is frequent and reliable, and is used by people from all walks of life. High income professors and scientists will be on the same bus as the poor. It seems paradoxical that making the service free would lead the rich to use it, but it's good quality and receives substantial funding from the area's high property taxes. There's no stigma to the bus in Chapel Hill since everyone uses it.
noneckbeard 7y ago
In Gavin Newsom’s book Citizenville he talked about how, after becoming SF mayor, he discovered that fare collection cost as much as the revenue generated from fares. He started the process of making the bus free but was told by so many advisors that the busses would become “dumpsters on wheels,” from a combination of homeless people using them for shelter and people not respecting services that are free, that the plan was scrapped.
- carapace 7y ago
  > fare collection cost as much as the revenue generated from fares WTF!? That's freakin insane. If that's true, why do they keep raising the fares and upgrading the fareboxes!? If that's true, the SF city gov is effectively collecting money and lighting it on fire as a way to "throttle" bad behaviour on the bus!?
  - noneckbeard 7y ago
    Could be that they’re trying to turn fare collection into a revenue generator, but not sure. I recommend his book, it’s a pretty interesting read!
  - sitkack 7y ago
    > If that's true, why do they keep raising the fares and upgrading the fareboxes!? To pay for the new fareboxes, of course. Just as Uber is a way to get away from "bus people", fares are away to get away from "free bus people". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-iWBCL12Qg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-iWBCL12Qg
- asdff 7y ago
  Pretty asinine of him to back off at that. Homeless people aren't paying fares already. There are also 60k homeless in LA while 1 million people ride ride metro a day; even if every single homeless person boarded metro one day it would be a blip on your radar compared to everyone else. What fares hurt most are the working families in LA who pay $76 a month to ride the bus to work or school because there is no other choice. The fact that Newsom didn't connect this dot doesn't surprise me.
ogre_codes 7y ago
I don't think cost is the biggest problem with public transportation. It's almost always much much slower than any other way to get around. This is doubly so if your current location and destination are on different routes/ lines.
robsinatra 7y ago
Kansas was running on fumes for a long time by not taxing. Now, this? One group of idealists were replaced with another with no more sensibility than their counterparts.
- tubaguy50035 7y ago
  You're mistaking Kansas City, MO with Kansas City, KS. Kansas (the state) was running on fumes for a long time. Kansas (the state) also has nothing to do with this. These are literally the first three words of the article: "Kansas City, Missouri"
  - robsinatra 7y ago
    Close enough
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Kansas the state was named after Missouri's second city. I guess they were just clever enough not to name it "Joplin"...
- lizardking 7y ago
  Tax laws for the state of Kansas have nothing to do with public transportation policy in Kansas City, Missouri.
musgrove 7y ago
Nothing is "no-cost." Something must be given up by someone.
- gerbilly 7y ago
  Ugh. Won't even bother refuting.
8bitsrule 7y ago
"proponents of the plan say that helping marginalized communities move around more easily will translate into deeper benefits." Well yeah, we kept them marginalized, for some reason ... but right now we really need them. Later on, ...
akulbe 7y ago
How is this sustainable? It costs someone, right?
rurban 7y ago
Park City, Utah has this for years. It's a very rich ski resort, so they can afford it, and it solves the transport and parking problem. Many other rich ski resorts are doing the same for decades.

444 points by jonbaer 7y ago

Great to see. Our tax money subsidizes car ownership (quite massively) already, glad to see some equity here. Everyone kicks and screams about transit systems "paying for themselves" but nobody asks the same of huge highways in the middle of nowhere.

huebomont 7y ago
The problem is there's no additional investment into the system to make it attractive to riders. The KC transit system is poorly designed and making it free isn't going to make it good. Better to keep charging the fare and use the revenue to improve service, then reevaluate when ridership is growing. Transit investment has a LOT of catching up to do to even get close to the types of subsidizing and handouts we give drivers in every corner of this country.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  Past experience shows generally that things like tolling or road pricing only become politically palatable if an alternative with existing capacity already exists. But funding such alternatives is hard and usually road pricing is proposed in part for the funding. So it's a very chicken vs egg situation.
  - huebomont 7y ago
    It's not a hard chicken/egg situation though - put money into making transit a viable alternative for these roads, then start charging for the roads when there's another option. We don't think twice about spending billions eternally digging up and reconfiguring our highways, so we could do the same to transit, for much more bang for the buck.
    - bobthepanda 7y ago
      The main issue is that historically in the US, transit operational funding is a strictly state and below matter, but the feds are happy to stump much of the bill for highways. And states and cities generally have fewer resources. With such a strong urban-rural political divide these days, and suburban views of transit ranging from apathetic to hostile, federal support for transit operations is unlikely. Personally, I would be a fan of devolving transport funding entirely to solve this issue.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        The reason for the distinction is that federal highways are interstate. Neither New York nor San Francisco is going to be willing to pay for highways to connect the two cities, but we all benefit from being able to get from one side of the country to the other. But arguing that states and cities have fewer resources is ridiculous. Cities have more resources than anybody -- they're where the highest income people live. It's the rural areas that have no money, but mass transit is useless there anyway, because it's too spread out and there is no need for it there because those areas have no traffic congestion. The cities are where mass transit works as the cities are where the money is. It's only a matter of popular will.
        bobthepanda 7y ago
        Cities give a lot more in federal taxes than they get, hence the "less available resources." Things like eliminating the state and local tax deduction have also hurt urban areas. If transportation taxes were devolved to the states or the localities then there would be a lot more public transportation funding.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        Cities give a lot more in federal taxes than they get, but the percentage of what they give that goes to transportation funding is negligible. >75% of the federal budget is social security, medicare/healthcare and the military, and the next biggest category after that is interest on the debt. Transportation is only ~2%, and almost half of that is things like aviation, railroads and funding for local public transit. If you want more local money in the cities then there's a lot more to be had by e.g. raising the retirement age than by eliminating federal highway funding, which we still kind of need unless you want to stop maintaining the interstate highways. Or if you really want to restore state fiscal control, transfer social security and medicare entirely to the states, and make the National Guard constitute more of the military.
- baddox 7y ago
  > The problem is there's no additional investment into the system to make it attractive to riders. It seems to me that public transit probably follows the law of demand fairly strongly, and reducing the price will almost certainly make it more attractive to riders. Of course this won't fix all problems with public transit, and I don't think that's the goal. It sounds like the goal is to increase ridership (and specifically to increase access to people who cannot easily afford the fares). > Better to keep charging the fare and use the revenue to improve service Or...use tax revenue to improve the service. That's the point, and is exactly what happens with most public roads.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    The question is whether or not $9M annually would be better off making more useful transit. As it stands, very little of KC is covered by frequent transit throughout the day, and in fact much of it is covered by services that don't run the entire day. https://ridekc.org/assets/uploads/route-maps/SystemMap.pdf https://ridekc.org/assets/uploads/route-maps/SystemMap.pdf A free bus that runs every hour is still going to screw you over if you mistime your walk to the bus stop and it leaves without you. The bus not being available at noon is not made better because it is free, because there's still no bus to take.
    - baddox 7y ago
      But the point is to offer rides for free and use other money (presumably tax money) to maintain (and hopefully invest in more) infrastructure. I don't see how the current quality of the KC infrastructure is relevant: if it's bad, then they clearly the $9m in fare revenue isn't cutting it, and they already need tax revenue to make it better. If they can't or don't get the tax revenue they need, then that's definitely a problem!
      - huebomont 7y ago
        You leave out the possibility that they could run much better service with the money they have and they need to plan better. I don't know if that's the case here, but it's always the first thing to ask. Too many poorly run transit systems skip right over that to dumping more money into a poorly planned system and wonder why it doesnt work.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Being free makes it a hell of a lot more attractive to a lot of people.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > Transit investment has a LOT of catching up to do to even get close to the types of subsidizing and handouts we give drivers in every corner of this country. That’s completely untrue. Yes we spend more on vehicles than transit. But way more people drive than use transit. There is not even a comparison. In 2016 federal and state spending on road, transit, and water infrastructure was $416 billion: https://www.bidnet.com/resources/business-insights/us-government-spending-highway-infrastructure-en.jsp https://www.bidnet.com/resources/business-insights/us-govern.... Water is about 1/3 of that, leaving $276 billion for transportation. Spending on transit was $65 billion, or 1/4 the transportation spend. Transit, however, accounts for just 5% of commutes: https://www.bts.gov/content/commute-mode-share-2015 https://www.bts.gov/content/commute-mode-share-2015. 85% is driving alone or in a car pool. So we spend 3x as much on road infrastructure, but 17x as many people drive to work as take transit. If you run the numbers on a cents of subsidy per passenger mile basis, busses and subway trains come out to $0.50+ per passenger mile. Roads are just $0.02 per passenger mile. Even adding in CO2 footprint and pollution (assuming that cars are all ICE) puts you at about $0.25. Transit is incredibly expensive.
  - kasey_junk 7y ago
    I’m not disagreeing with your broader point but none of those studies account for space utilization issues. Transit uses space better due to lack of parking and more density per track. No idea how that impacts the actual dollar numbers but it’s worth noting.
    - weberc2 7y ago
      The cost per passenger per mile is two orders of magnitude lower for roads than for public transit; I can’t imagine parking space accounting for that.
      - kasey_junk 7y ago
        Parking space and the tracks/roads/right of ways themselves? I don’t expect it brings them to parity but I expect it’s non-trivial.
mrep 7y ago
> Everyone kicks and screams about transit systems "paying for themselves" If you mean paying for themselves with fares, then no, as most public transportation does not cover the costs with just fares [0]. For example, I'm in Seattle currently and the fares only cover 20-40% of costs [1]. Not that I am complaining as I take the bus to work everyday, but it's not a slam dunk case of invest more because it has a positive return on investment. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio [1]: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/fare-revenue-annual-report-2017.pdf https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/fare-revenu...
- milkytron 7y ago
  I think what the original commenter meant was that people get upset because they don't want to subsidize transit systems, and would rather have them break even or turn a profit. What a lot of those same people don't understand, is that taxes pay for the road systems. The people that understand public transit realize that it's hard to recover the costs without assistance (taxes).
  - runarberg 7y ago
    I think exactly that happened in the last Washington state election. The state legislator put on the ballot a measure that would limit the amount the state could tax each car owner. Proponents would claim that the tax was going towards public transit infrastructure (like Sound Transit 3) and that it was unfair to tax car owners for that. The measure was approved.
    - julienb_sea 7y ago
      The measure was sold largely as a general flipping of the bird towards King and neighboring counties by the rest of the state. Generally there is opposition from eastern Washington for car tabs going to fund Sound Transit's investments on the western corridor, which doesn't really do anything to benefit those that don't live in the western corridor. And yes, I am aware that King net exports money to the east. I'm not sure how impactful that argument is for a minimum wage worker living far away from Seattle paying $500 a year on car tabs, for a car that they have no alternative but owning in order to get to their job.
stretchwithme 7y ago
I'd rather see nothing being subsidized. If you want to help the poor afford public transit, lower their taxes. Maybe not taking a substantial their working capital and giving it back to them when their old isn't such a bright idea either.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  One could cease to provide social security as it is structured if one replaced it with an alternative. We already know from US history that it is unwise (in a humanitarian sense) to trust the public to just save enough to retire comfortably (including having the foresight to keep their savings in assets that don't diminish in value before they are needed to offset continued life without labor into the system).
  - weberc2 7y ago
    I thought postwar America was known for investing in real estate to great wealth-building effect? I’m not sure how worthwhile other time periods are for comparison as our economy is so much different.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Approximately 65% of Americans own their home.
      - weberc2 7y ago
        I’m not sure what point you’re making, if any. Care to elaborate?
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        If the up-thread reference to American real-estate investment implied Americans use real-estate ownership as a retirement nest-egg, the numbers do not bear out that hypothesis---or at least, do not show it's a solution much of America avails itself of. ... and that's ignoring that shocks like the mortgage crisis can happen, which indicates that home ownership isn't as stable a store of value as, say, the US dollar.
Koremat6666 7y ago
> but nobody asks the same of huge highways in the middle of nowhere. Building roads should move from government to fully private entities for the same reason. California has built roads from nowhere to nowhere for no reason other than local assemblyman was focused on getting them done. On other hand critical roads that would have helped commute distance, improved public transporation systems are in a bad state.
scarejunba 7y ago
Well, marginal dollar on road yields greater than marginal dollar to economy. Current political structures in the US means that marginal dollar on passenger rail is absorbed by the agents in charge of ensuring the rail existence. i.e. the $500 million railway and the $1 billion version of (say) the Central Subway will both yield probably the same economic benefit. Rent-seekers know that they can extract a large amount of economic rent because of government propensity to spend and political reasons that require governments to chase sunk costs. Because of the large amount of roadway in America, the number of parties you can call to get more road built is pretty big (as Thiel says, competition is the enemy of profit). And the primary place you put more road is out where there's nothing. Because of the existence of a large network of roads, you could build roads where there is nothing and it's easy to get to where there's something. Personally far prefer public transit so I'm pretty interested in ideas that change the structure of the interactions to pursue efficient construction.
- andys627 7y ago
  Do you have any sources for this info?
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    I have not kept them handy.
clairity 7y ago
it's true that public transportation has a net societal benefit, and that portion of the benefit should be paid for by all (through taxes or whatnot). however, fares shouldn't be zero. riders should pay too, not just because we should bear our portion of the direct benefit (we should), but also because it gives us a sense of ownership for the system. those fare revenues give transit agencies funds to improve service, and riders legitimacy in demanding better service. public transit needs to get better in every dimension: frequency, timeliness, coverage, capacity, cleanliness, etc.
throwaway894345 7y ago
Are you really willing to give up affordable transport (outside of your metropolis, anyway) and commercial goods? I know cars are Not Very Utopian or whatever, but public infrastructure has to have one of the better returns on investment with respect to tax dollars.
randyrand 7y ago
Another example SFO adds an additional ~$5 fee to leave or enter on BART, but drivers can arrive and drop off for free. Cars are massively subsidized.

kodablah 7y ago

> The hope among lawmakers and transportation officials is that the city will recoup that expense, and more A poor goal that's hard to quantify and often not met (especially for social services at smaller community levels). Just consider it a sunk cost up front and be honest about it. Then the debate can at least be about whether it's a worthy cost socially. Putting a monetary recoup hope unhelpfully moves the debate away from the social obligation side.

bobthepanda 7y ago
Compare this to Intercity Transit in Olympia, WA, which is going fare-free mostly because it needs to replace the fare collection system on older buses and install them on new ones, but - the regional pass is on a path of deprecation in favor of a new system. So they'd need to buy two sets of fare collection systems in the span of a few years - the cost to install these fare collection systems even once is more than what the agency currently collects in fares - the fares only make up 1.5% of revenue anyways, so the impact is not as large as it would be in, say, New York where fares are north of 40% of revenue https://www.intercitytransit.com/zerofare https://www.intercitytransit.com/zerofare

newmac 7y ago

On my first visit to Seattle, you could ride the bus anywhere downtown for free. It seemed like a great way to provide mobility to those in need, while still having a paid option for those in the outer areas of the city to get home to their suburbs. The first conversation I had with someone on the bus there was with someone going to an employment counselling office. Not sure why that struck me, but it always stuck with me. No I see that the free ride zone has been gone since 2012. Too bad!

Pfhreak 7y ago
I think it was a logistical nightmare, because you had to pay your fare entering before the free ride zone, and exiting leaving the free ride zone. Unless you were transferring. And not all lines ran through it. I wish we'd gone the other way and just made the whole thing free ride.
reaperducer 7y ago
IIRC, the reason Seattle instituted the free fares downtown scheme was to reduce bus boarding times, especially in the tunnel beneath downtown where buses would often get backed up. /No longer live in Seattle, so I may not be remembering this correctly.
- tzs 7y ago
  The free ride zone predated the tunnel by 17 years. The original reason for it was to entice people to use the bus. From the 1973-09-09 NY Times [1]: > “I make a flat prediction,” said Mayor Wes Uhlman, who conceived the plan. “With the E.P.A. [Environmental Protection Agency] breathing down the neck of all of us, every major city in the country will be providing free transit within two years. > “The downtowns are becoming congested and polluted, and we simply have to reclaim them for people away from the automobile.” [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1973/09/09/archives/seattle-joining-movement-for-free-bus-rides-10-increase-in-riders.html https://www.nytimes.com/1973/09/09/archives/seattle-joining-...

brianzelip 7y ago

In Baltimore, the Charm City Circulator (bus) is free. https://www.charmcitycirculator.com/ https://www.charmcitycirculator.com/

downerending 7y ago

This is awesome. And also in stark contrast with progressive Portland, which recently hired a gaggle of new fare-enforcement workers: https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2019/10/trimet-beefing-up-fare-enforcement-will-rely-less-on-uniformed-police.html https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2019/10/trimet-beefing-...

noodlesUK 7y ago
The sad thing is, TriMet (Portland public transit) used to be free downtown as well...
steeef 7y ago
As recently as last week it seems, TriMet's board has been discussing how free fares might work: https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2019/12/is-trimet-discussing-a-free-transit-system-2-board-members-say-yes.html https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2019/12/is-trimet-discu...

gamechangr 7y ago

Great to visualize, even if it is not entirely successful. Seems like this needs to happen.

lacker 7y ago

Unfortunately, I think this is a step backwards. According to the US Census, about 1% of commuters in Kansas City use public transportation. https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US28140-kansas-city-mo-ks-metro-area/ https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US28140-kansas-city... It's hardly "public" transportation at all, if it's only useful to 1% of residents. If public transportation is going to make any impact on the lives of Kansas City residents, it first has to be providing a useful service to them. That probably means expanding its reach, and putting more vehicles on existing lines. Making it free means that any expansion has become more expensive, and is now less likely to happen.

kick 7y ago
"Free" is an incentive to use it: cities outside of the US have had great results by making public transit free. Also, you misread the statistic. That's commute to work, and only people who are 16 and up. Work is not the only thing public transportation is useful for.
- asdff 7y ago
  Some people struggle paying for the monthly pass that they need. Other people have no idea how to pay for transit at all, and don't take it out of ignorance. Free helps both of these groups.
reaperducer 7y ago
If public transportation is going to make any impact on the lives of Kansas City residents, it first has to be providing a useful service to them. Why does that have to be "first?" Why not make it free, and also make it useful? If the goal is to increase ridership, making the rides free lowers the barrier for people in transit-served areas. Then you can subsequently or simultaneously expand it. It makes no sense to keep charging during the expansion to some mythical point in the future where it will suddenly become free because it's reached a certain number of users.
- edmundsauto 7y ago

zozbot234 7y ago

Doesn't literal "no cost" public transportation lead to issues with folks abusing the service as a place to hang out? Also, does the service never get congested in other ways? I'd argue that public transportation should be paid for when congested, so that users are incented to shift their use to other times.

npo9 7y ago
Points against charging extra for public transit during congested times. 1. It’s much better for someone traveling during congestion to use public transport than to use a private vehicle. 2. Traveling during congestion almost always is accompanied by increased travel times —- a natural incentive to adjust travel times. 3. Keeping fare prices consistent and simple makes the system easier for everyone to understand and less confusing to new users.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > It’s much better for someone traveling during congestion to use public transport than to use a private vehicle. Sure, but charging a nominal price for public transit wouldn't meaningfully affect the incentive to avoid traffic congestion outside of it. i.e. by and large, the users aren't going to move back to private vehicles, because shifting the time of use is often easier.
kiliantics 7y ago
Oh no, people hanging out in public spaces! People making use of the space they literally own, how terrible! Couldn't you make the same argument for cars? We should stop people hanging out in their cars and congesting our public roads!
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > We should stop people hanging out in their cars and congesting our public roads! And indeed, we should work on that too. Road pricing is a thing, after all - and it's finally becoming somewhat popular in congestion-prone city downtowns. Free public transit will help this, by providing a clear alternative to private vehicle use.

lifeisstillgood 7y ago

I am trying to formulate a theory of wealth in modern society - I think that the vast vast majority of wealth resides in, or useless without, huge reservoirs of public wealth - from aqueducts still supplying Rome after 2000 years to public roads and rail. The active capitalist stuff going on, is mostly the frothy but as water fills up the reservoir - it the deep water is public, social wealth. It's a bit nebulous but I think it is worth us asking when is the right time to stop treating something as "frothy capitalism" and needs to be left of the free market and when it is deep water and needs to be just free to all.

danans 7y ago
> The active capitalist stuff going on, is mostly the frothy but as water fills up the reservoir - it the deep water is public, social wealth. Even privately held capital is underpinned by public, social "wealth" in the form of a system of property rights and the means to arbitrate those. Society, as manifested in government and the courts, is protecting all our claims to ownership of property with the threat of force. If it stops doing that, the value of much of our property/capital will plummet quickly.
- lifeisstillgood 7y ago
  yes.. There are two attitudes to tax - one it is a service fee for government services, something short term to be haggled down, or it is a long term investment in this depp water wealth. Threat of force is technically what underpins all this but that needs to be a credible threat - just having force without knowing where and when to apply it leads to applying it in wrong place or as "encourage les autres". And knowing when to apply it is likely the job of civil servente. I think I am diving into late night undergraduate philosophy and economics - hmmm

nostromo 7y ago

Seattle used to have this for an area of the city. It was called the "Free Ride Zone" - and it had some unexpected consequences. The primary problem is that homeless people would get on the bus because it's warm, and would fall asleep. The busses became rolling homeless shelters. This caused other people to take the bus less, because of public safety concerns, as well as simple quality-of-life issues like unpleasant smells. Eventually it was scrapped. But this issue has been returning as it's now common knowledge that Seattle bus drivers are instructed not to collect fares from anyone that declines to pay.

noobermin 7y ago
That is essentially treating the symptoms, not the cause.
- acchow 7y ago
  Right. So of course we're supposed to solve homelessness. Know how this can be accomplished in Seattle?
  - runarberg 7y ago
    You don’t need to solve it. But there are numerous tried and proven ways of significantly reducing homelessness. We could start by evaluating and employing some of these.
    - troydavis 7y ago
      That statement is the equivalent of inserting “just” into technical advice, as in “It’s just code” or “Just scale out.” If it was that simple, the problem would have been solved. Here’s the laundry list of things Seattle has tried and is trying: https://www.seattle.gov/homelessness https://www.seattle.gov/homelessness, https://www.seattle.gov/homelessness/addressing-the-crisis https://www.seattle.gov/homelessness/addressing-the-crisis
      - 7y ago

jayess 7y ago

Looks like KC transit ridership has been declining since 2014: https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/missouri/kansas-city-area-transportation-authority/ https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/missouri/kansas-city-are...

yegle 7y ago

The small town of my alma mater is entirely built around the university. There's school bus serves everyone in the town (not limited to student, no validation required), and is basically no-cost public transit. I suspect this applies to many other college towns across US.

justinmk 7y ago
Indeed. "No price signal[1]" is very different from "no cost". It will cost plenty. Any service priced at zero simply has no back-pressure mechanism to respond to demand, nor to forecast demand, nor to measure demand in relation to alternative transportation options. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  All of those problems already apply to any government program. The answer is to calculate demand and allocate supply based on factors such as ridership. That will be less efficient in a sense than pricing, but not necessarily so, because pricing in a market with network effects and significant fixed costs can also create significant inefficiency. Pricing, especially pricing that exceeds the variable cost or has to include the cost of a fare collection infrastructure, can reduce usage and thereby reduce the network effect. Which is a feedback loop that can lead to a death spiral. That's hardly efficient either. And ridership is effectively a price signal anyway, because even when there is no monetary cost there is still an opportunity cost.

msla 7y ago

What's their definition of "major"? Missoula has been offering no-cost buses for years now.

jessaustin 7y ago
Whatever the definition might be, Missoula doesn't qualify. Missoula is #328 on the list of 384 metropolitan statistical areas in USA, just between Owensboro KY and Morristown TN.

rshnotsecure 7y ago

Quick question, has anyone here heard of a very odd company in Kansas City called...https://joesdatacenter.com https://joesdatacenter.com. All of the staff on LinkedIn exist...but there are only 3 of them and apparently the founder and CEO just got out of community college? They claim to have at least a few ten thousands of floor space, so that must be minimum $25 million in server capital assuming all are used. They also for some reason broadcast incredibly interesting weather data from the top of the building: https://joesdatacenter.com/hvac/ https://joesdatacenter.com/hvac/ I currently work in San Antonio as a short term contractor for a SOC (many military bases and sizeable banks here) and last night an incident was raised and a breach somewhat close to being declared and we are getting pinged is it Tsinghua? is it APT 17? to which we have to respond seriously on Slack...no it’s “Joes Datacenter” ASN 19969 out of Kansas City.

tessla 7y ago
Joe's Datacenter is known for hosting hackers and spammers.
jessaustin 7y ago
Haha there's no way that weather data is right. They're reporting a high of "54.4°F" when it was snowing most of the day? Pull the other one. Maybe all the "APTs" should route through Joe's if they don't want a serious response?

tomohawk 7y ago

Baltimore essentially has no-fare public transit. Anyone can get on the light rail without a ticket, and inspection is spotty at best. If you're caught, you just wait for the next train.

brewdad 7y ago
In Portland, you will be cited for non-payment and repeat offenders are "excluded", typically for 30 days. Meaning if you try to board a bus or train you can be arrested for trespass. Does Baltimore not do this?
- astrodust 7y ago
  Imagine if they did this for parking infractions. 30 day license suspension. Heavy fines.

ngngngng 7y ago

I guess Salt Lake City must be too small to count. Or not qualify on some other metric. All the light rail trains in the city are free, but once you get outside of a certain region there is a charge.

forthwall 7y ago
This isn't true. (https://www.rideuta.com/Fares-And-Passes/Current-Fares https://www.rideuta.com/Fares-And-Passes/Current-Fares)
- EForEndeavour 7y ago
  No, it is true that Salt Lake City passengers may ride buses and light rail for free within the Free Fare Zone mapped out here: https://www.rideuta.com/Fares-And-Passes/Free-Fare-Zone https://www.rideuta.com/Fares-And-Passes/Free-Fare-Zone

exabrial 7y ago

> “I believe that people have a right to move about this city,” KC Resident here. Of course you have a right to move about the city! You don't have a right for someone else to pay for it though. Interesting choice of words.

smileysteve 7y ago
There's significant thought that by helping people get to where they want (by not requiring a car, by not needing insurance to get somewhere, reducing traffic strategically) that transportation in many ways helps pay for itself. Much like how main streets with sidewalks get random foot traffic but mini-malls promote driving to a store, picking up and leaving. (this very much extends to uber eats and delivery canabalizing even mini malls)
esoterica 7y ago
And yet you believe you’re entitled to drive on the roads for free?
- exabrial 7y ago
  Nice straw man

sjs382 7y ago

In Pittsburgh, travel within Downtown and the North Shore is free 24/7 on the "T" (light rail). Buses still aren't free and the "T" doesn't cover a ton of Downtown Pittsburgh, though. The "T" has been like this for 20+ years and is an awesome resource.

ur-whale 7y ago

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, 'no cost' is a physical impossibility. Someone does pay for transportation, and the question is, who does?

nwvg_7257 7y ago

Not really a major city, but Chapel Hill has done this for a long time. Bus service is frequent and reliable, and is used by people from all walks of life. High income professors and scientists will be on the same bus as the poor. It seems paradoxical that making the service free would lead the rich to use it, but it's good quality and receives substantial funding from the area's high property taxes. There's no stigma to the bus in Chapel Hill since everyone uses it.

noneckbeard 7y ago

In Gavin Newsom’s book Citizenville he talked about how, after becoming SF mayor, he discovered that fare collection cost as much as the revenue generated from fares. He started the process of making the bus free but was told by so many advisors that the busses would become “dumpsters on wheels,” from a combination of homeless people using them for shelter and people not respecting services that are free, that the plan was scrapped.

carapace 7y ago
> fare collection cost as much as the revenue generated from fares WTF!? That's freakin insane. If that's true, why do they keep raising the fares and upgrading the fareboxes!? If that's true, the SF city gov is effectively collecting money and lighting it on fire as a way to "throttle" bad behaviour on the bus!?
- noneckbeard 7y ago
  Could be that they’re trying to turn fare collection into a revenue generator, but not sure. I recommend his book, it’s a pretty interesting read!
- sitkack 7y ago
  > If that's true, why do they keep raising the fares and upgrading the fareboxes!? To pay for the new fareboxes, of course. Just as Uber is a way to get away from "bus people", fares are away to get away from "free bus people". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-iWBCL12Qg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-iWBCL12Qg
asdff 7y ago
Pretty asinine of him to back off at that. Homeless people aren't paying fares already. There are also 60k homeless in LA while 1 million people ride ride metro a day; even if every single homeless person boarded metro one day it would be a blip on your radar compared to everyone else. What fares hurt most are the working families in LA who pay $76 a month to ride the bus to work or school because there is no other choice. The fact that Newsom didn't connect this dot doesn't surprise me.

ogre_codes 7y ago

I don't think cost is the biggest problem with public transportation. It's almost always much much slower than any other way to get around. This is doubly so if your current location and destination are on different routes/ lines.

robsinatra 7y ago

Kansas was running on fumes for a long time by not taxing. Now, this? One group of idealists were replaced with another with no more sensibility than their counterparts.

tubaguy50035 7y ago
You're mistaking Kansas City, MO with Kansas City, KS. Kansas (the state) was running on fumes for a long time. Kansas (the state) also has nothing to do with this. These are literally the first three words of the article: "Kansas City, Missouri"
- robsinatra 7y ago
  Close enough
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Kansas the state was named after Missouri's second city. I guess they were just clever enough not to name it "Joplin"...
lizardking 7y ago
Tax laws for the state of Kansas have nothing to do with public transportation policy in Kansas City, Missouri.

musgrove 7y ago

Nothing is "no-cost." Something must be given up by someone.

gerbilly 7y ago
Ugh. Won't even bother refuting.

8bitsrule 7y ago

"proponents of the plan say that helping marginalized communities move around more easily will translate into deeper benefits." Well yeah, we kept them marginalized, for some reason ... but right now we really need them. Later on, ...

akulbe 7y ago

How is this sustainable? It costs someone, right?

rurban 7y ago

Park City, Utah has this for years. It's a very rich ski resort, so they can afford it, and it solves the transport and parking problem. Many other rich ski resorts are doing the same for decades.