Albuquerque, NM, has become the largest U.S. city to permanently make public transportation free for everyone. The city found that fares didn’t cover the administrative fees, so they actually save money by making public transportation free.

@CRGonzalez @chrisjrn c’mon #Boston what are we waiting for?!

In particular, what’s going on with the bus system that was supposed to be updated in ‘23?

#MAPol #transportation

@CRGonzalez @tsyum @chrisjrn good transit systems actually do recoup serious money from transit fares - to remove fares in those cases would result either in cut service or additional taxes (that would probably be better spent on additional service)

for example, King County Metro (Seattle) covers 25-30% of its operating expenses with fares; that would mean making fares free would result in a cut to service of a quarter to a third

@streganil
Saying a system raised 30% of its costs with fares is not quite the winning argument you think it is.
@CRGonzalez @tsyum
@chrisjrn gonna be honest, I have zero idea what your point is. running a system costs money, and a lot of that money comes from fares in systems with a lot of ridership
@streganil @chrisjrn my guess would be that a good chunk of the cost involved in running a transport system is down to charging fares and protecting against non payment (payment systems, barriers, staff to check tickets, etc). Most if not all of that can be cut out if no fares are charged. What if the cost of doing that is greater than what you recoup from fares?

@streganil if 35% of its expenses are related to collecting and enforcing fares, and only 30% of its income is from the fares, then removing fares makes economic sense.

One small "downside": some people may use it who didn't use it when it wasn't free, to get to places they need or want to go - and that's fine too, it means they're not driving, which saves money on road maintenance and public health. It doesn't cost any more unless they all decide to travel at peak times and need more buses.

@hutchingsmusic ... right, if that were the case, then making fares free would in fact make sense, but that isn't the case for systems like KCMetro (it _is_ the case for systems like ABQ, so those systems should probably go fare free)

@hutchingsmusic @streganil excellently explained, but one minor proviso. I can't remember the exact multiplier, but I recall that because of their weight/size, buses are actually much harder on roads than cars, possibly by a factor of 10 or more. If that number is right, nobody should expect savings on road maintenance unless a given bus gets 10 cars off the road, which might be tall order.

[EDIT: OTOH, buses limit the damage to their specific routes]

@PaulDavisTheFirst @streganil yeah, main roads are usually built to cope with buses, and they drive carefully. They weigh more but they also have more, and bigger, wheels. As a result the pressure and wear on the road is a bit higher, but not 900% higher.
@PaulDavisTheFirst @streganil also the bus was there already. Any cars that it takes off the road are a bonus. The extra weight of a few passengers on a bus that's already on the road is basically a rounding error.

@hutchingsmusic @streganil when I lived in Seattle in the early 90s, the city was replacing the asphalt at every bus stop with concrete, because the accel/decel of the bus would literally warp the asphalt into waves. I've been back since, and that fix seems to have worked.

Quite a few places don't need the big buses, either, which will also help.

@chrisjrn @streganil @CRGonzalez @tsyum It is a pretty solid number, much lower and fare free makes more sense, King Country says it costs 10% to enforce, and the interesting arrangement with large businesses for 50% of costs might be hard to keep if free at point of use.

https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/about/budget/king-county-metro-fares-and-revenue.pdf

Greater Wellington where I live and where public transport is strongly used across all income bands budgets for 33% farebox recovery currently.