Alexandria, Virginia, makes municipal bus system fare free - The start of a trend?

[Manitopiaaa]

My city - Alexandria, VA - just voted to make bus fares a thing of the past for the city's DASH system. They also voted to approve a new network system that will vastly increase frequencies in TOD and low-income, high-density corridors.



The new maps with planned 2022/2030 service are here: https://www.alexandriava.gov/tes/default.aspx?id=104193

Current route map (DASH routes start with 'AT' and would be free starting 9/5): https://www.alexandriava.gov/uploade...g_Peak_ATV.png

Is this the start of a trend? Have any other sizable cities done this? Alexandria, VA, isn't a small town by any means. It would be the largest city in 10 states with 159,428 people.

NEWS ARTICLE: https://wtop.com/alexandria/2021/05/...sh-buses-free/

The Northern Virginia city will overhaul its 37-year-old bus system to focus on increased access. Fares on the DASH buses will be free starting Sept. 5. Buses, which have seen low ridership since the pandemic, will run more frequently in the midday, evenings and weekends under a planned overhaul of the system that will change some routes.

The DASH bus system changes will increase the percentages of the low-income and minority residents who are within walking distance to bus stations. For low-income residents, all-day bus access will increase from 29% to 73% and from 22% to 70% for minority residents. Access also will increase for senior citizens.

[Pedestrian]

San Francisco has been talking about this. I hope they don't do it. There are many downsides in a major city that may not apply in an upscale inner ring suburb like Alexandria. For one thing, busses will become more like dormitories for the homeless than they already are (they already are because fare evasion is rampant). It will also encourage all sorts of other riders who are problematic for the general public such as those seeking a captive audience for panhandling, pocket picking and much else. I've been on busses that became rolling drug sales events already (again: fare evasion).

Finally, it's just yet another form of wealth transfer: Tax the non-riders to provide free service to the riders. The reason to do it, they claim, is to bring ridership back after COVID. I don't see that the city government should feel the need to encourage ridership or discourage it. It's their job to provide the service for those citizens who want to use it, not sell it like it was a commercial product and they were the company management. And while fares do not fully pay for that service and likely never will, they partly pay for it and not charging them just means either the service will decline in quality or other income sources will have to be found (back to the wealth transfer).

[dave8721]

Coral Gables has had free city busses/trolley busses for 10+ years. Miami and Miami Beach have tried on a limited basis as well. Miami-Dade's Metromover has been free for almost 20 years as well.

[woodrow]

Kansas City did this in December 2019. Biggest city to date to do so. I know others are looking at the possibility, but had no idea a system as big as SF was considering it.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by woodrow

Kansas City did this in December 2019. Biggest city to date to do so. I know others are looking at the possibility, but had no idea a system as big as SF was considering it.

Op-Ed: Free Muni Would Cost Riders
By Jon Bate
Apr 6, 2021

The following submission is a response to D-5 Supervisor Dean Preston’s editorial in the San Francisco Examiner recommending that Muni launch a fare-free pilot as the city eases out of the pandemic.

Supervisor Preston’s proposal for a fare-free Muni is a well-meaning attempt to support low-income workers as we recover from the pandemic. Sadly, it’s a proposal that would ultimately result in the decimation of our transit service, causing serious hardship to those who need it the most.

Preston cites Kansas City and Fresno as examples of cities that have made transit free, and questions why this would not be possible here. But cities with few transit riders can afford to abandon fare collection.

Kansas City forgoes $8 million in fare revenue annually and Fresno forgoes $6.5 million. By contrast, San Francisco collected over $200 million in fare revenue annually before the pandemic. Losing this revenue would cut SFMTA’s budget by 20 percent, which broadly speaking means 20 percent fewer buses and trains on the streets compared to before the pandemic.

Nevertheless, Preston claims that free transit would increase ridership, citing a study that looks at the impact of removing fares on small transit systems with plenty of empty buses to carry new riders. That is not Muni, which had little spare capacity before the pandemic and has even less now. The overcrowding we experienced pre-pandemic, exacerbated by COVID-era service cuts and social distancing requirements, would turn away those potential new riders who were enticed by free transit, as wait times increase and crowded buses pass them by.

In fact, this same study notes that no large transit system in the US has free transit, as none has found a way to replace the lost fare revenue; and that “if service quality decreases, gains in ridership will be offset by a defection of passengers with other mobility options.”

The Newsom-era study on Free Muni that Preston mentions also backs this up, concluding that “fare elimination alone may actually make public transit a less viable alternative to other modes of travel.” And the Washington DC study he cites as evidence that high fares are deterring late-night riders actually concludes that the problem is lack of service, a conclusion mirrored by San Francisco’s own studies on late-night transit.

As the city races towards full vaccination and workers start to return to offices, we need as much transit capacity as possible to get people to work on time. If Muni service is poor, riders will abandon Muni for rideshare.

To bring more riders onboard Muni we must be able to accommodate them, and that means running more service, not less. A survey conducted by the SFMTA in 2018 found that the top two improvements San Franciscans wanted to see were more frequent service and better on-time performance, and San Franciscans who do not ride Muni cited trips taking too long and being too complicated as their biggest barriers to using transit. Free or reduced fares did not make the top ten for either group . . . .

Supervisor Preston says this isn’t about the money, but it is. For his proposal to be taken seriously he must identify a dedicated funding source to offset the service impacts of Free Muni, one which does not place additional burden on the poorest in our city. Otherwise, a Free Muni would be a slower, more crowded, less reliable, and less equitable Muni.

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2021/04/0...d-cost-riders/

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by woodrow

Kansas City did this in December 2019. Biggest city to date to do so. I know others are looking at the possibility, but had no idea a system as big as SF was considering it.

LA is seriously considering it too and i hope they dont for reasons stated above.

People dont appreciate anything thats free and the system will be full of homeless, crazy people and would basically stop most people from using the system. Reduce the fare to 50 cents or something nominal, but dont make it free

[lio45]

My hometown, a university town of 200,000+, has made public transit free for university students some ~15 years ago, and so far, AFAIK, there's been no downside.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by lio45

My hometown, a university town of 200,000+, has made public transit free for university students some ~15 years ago, and so far, AFAIK, there's been no downside.

Student discounts or passes, senior discounts or passes, disabled discounts or passes are pretty common. Again, SF has them. But it all reduces revenue.

IMHO the university ought to pay the transit system to provide its students free rides if it values that service (it might recoup the money by raising tuition just as the transit system probably recoups by raising fares for the non-subsidized).

[Crawford]

I think this is dumb, mostly for reasons already mentioned. They'll become mobile homeless wards (see free Metromover in Miami), the system will be starved of funds, it won't do much to improve ridership (are most people really unable to pay $2?) and will further stigmatize transit as a charity service for poors.

The U.S. needs to stop conceptualizing transit (especially bus transit) as a redistributive or social justice initiative. It should be an essential piece of national mobility for average Americans, as in most other first world nations. If anything, they need to raise fares, which tend to be very low relative to other nations.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think this is dumb, mostly for reasons already mentioned. They'll become mobile homeless wards (see free Metromover in Miami), the system will be starved of funds, it won't do much to improve ridership (are most people really unable to pay $2?) and will further stigmatize transit as a charity service for poors.

The U.S. needs to stop conceptualizing transit (especially bus transit) as a redistributive or social justice initiative. It should be an essential piece of national mobility for average Americans, as in most other first world nations. If anything, they need to raise fares, which tend to be very low relative to other nations.

I think you're a little out of touch. 2 bucks twice a day/ 5 days a week is $80 a month...which to you or I might not seem like much but is to someone making minimum wage living from paycheck to paycheck. I don't think they should let anyone on unchecked for free but hand out passes to weed out the bums looking for a mobile toilet.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by JManc

I think you're a little out of touch. 2 bucks twice a day/ 5 days a week is $80 a month...which to you or I might not seem like much but is to someone making minimum wage living from paycheck to paycheck. I don't think they should let anyone on unchecked for free but hand out passes to weed out the bums looking for a mobile toilet.

In SF, employers are encouraged to give transit passes to employees. This seems a better solution to me than a free system. It costs employers, not the general public and it does not reduce system revenue.

There's no free lunch or transit, however. For employers, this would be just an increase in labor costs which they would be tempted to take out of other costs like take-home pay or other benefits. But I suspect they would absorb some of it.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

In SF, employers are encouraged to give transit passes to employees. This seems a better solution to me than a free system. It costs employers, not the general public and it does not reduce system revenue.

There's no free lunch or transit, however. For employers, this would be just an increase in labor costs which they would be tempted to take out of other costs like take-home pay or other benefits. But I suspect they would absorb some of it.

For someone with a decent job, yeah that might be a perk (my last job offered that) but I doubt Walmart or many other minimum wage jobs will be handing out passes to their employees.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by JManc

I think you're a little out of touch. 2 bucks twice a day/ 5 days a week is $80 a month...which to you or I might not seem like much but is to someone making minimum wage living from paycheck to paycheck. I don't think they should let anyone on unchecked for free but hand out passes to weed out the bums looking for a mobile toilet.

He has a good point though, and this thing in Virginia is a SJ initiative.

If we want to give poor people better access, we can have them apply online for a free or extremely low cost yearly pass (that is paid monthly). We do this in Chicago for the DIVVY bike system (I think they pay 5 dollars a year!).

Besides things that could be fixed with money, like more routes and more buses, the biggest issue in America and public transit is the idea that it just for the poor. This only makes that idea concrete.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

He has a good point though, and this thing in Virginia is a SJ initiative.

If we want to give poor people better access, we can have them apply online for a free or extremely low cost yearly pass (that is paid monthly). We do this in Chicago for the DIVVY bike system (I think they pay 5 dollars a year!).

Besides things that could be fixed with money, like more routes and more buses, the biggest issue in America and public transit is the idea that it just for the poor. This only makes that idea concrete.

The idea of advocates is that free service for all increases ridership.

My argument is it's likely just the opposite, at least in terms of ridership for the intended purposes. If you want to drive the middle class away from transit, what you do is make it less safe, less comfortable, less efficient and reliable and stress-free. That's exactly what a totally free system would do in a big city. Transit vehicles would become full of the sleeping unwashed, taking up extra seats with their possessions. I would also expect increased numbers of rowdy teens fighting and rough-housing with each other as already happens when school lets out (because they already get low cost rides to and from school). And the panhandlers, scam artists (I have watched "sheep games" in progress on busses) and drug salesman touting their wares.

If you lose middle class ridership, you lose the support of the taxpayers and if that happens public funding--not just firebox revenue--will deteriorate because people and their representatives will not support what they don't use.

Successful systems charge fares that approximate in value what the service provides and they use multiple revenue sources to provide reliable, frequent and safe service. I don't think a service that's free system-wide would be any of those things.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The idea of advocates is that free service for all increases ridership.

My argument is it's likely just the opposite, at least in terms of ridership for the intended purposes. If you want to drive the middle class away from transit, what you do is make it less safe, less comfortable, less efficient and reliable and stress-free. That's exactly what a totally free system would do in a big city. Transit vehicles would become full of the sleeping unwashed, taking up extra seats with their possessions. I would also expect increased numbers of rowdy teens fighting and rough-housing with each other as already happens when school lets out (because they already get low cost rides to and from school). And the panhandlers, scam artists (I have watched "sheep games" in progress on busses) and drug salesman touting their wares.

If you lose middle class ridership, you lose the support of the taxpayers and if that happens public funding--not just firebox revenue--will deteriorate because people and their representatives will not support what they don't use.

Successful systems charge fares that approximate in value what the service provides and they use multiple revenue sources to provide reliable, frequent and safe service. I don't think a service that's free system-wide would be any of those things.

Oh, I agree.

Many who are blind to this fact. All they think about is social "justice" and never think of the negative consequences to their ideas. In fact, most people never even consider the pros and cons to an idea, they only see the pros and run with it. Public policy should not be dictated in this way.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Besides things that could be fixed with money, like more routes and more buses, the biggest issue in America and public transit is the idea that it just for the poor. This only makes that idea concrete.

Exactly. If there is truly a transit affordability problem, target the demographic rather than making transit free for everyone. We don't make food or housing free for everyone because some have trouble affording such goods.

NYC has half-price transit for low income residents, as well as heavily subsidized CitiBike membership. Most employers subsidize monthly transit passes, and there are federal pretax benefits.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

He has a good point though, and this thing in Virginia is a SJ initiative.

If we want to give poor people better access, we can have them apply online for a free or extremely low cost yearly pass (that is paid monthly). We do this in Chicago for the DIVVY bike system (I think they pay 5 dollars a year!).

Besides things that could be fixed with money, like more routes and more buses, the biggest issue in America and public transit is the idea that it just for the poor. This only makes that idea concrete.

Free for everyone is bad business model...totally agree but if something like this is even in the table, they are better off letting lower income folks ride for free and keep fairs as they are for everyone else. I just dismiss the notion that something which might seem negligible to us also applies to someone making minimum wage as well.

Outside our densest cities, cars will remain the preferred mode of transportation as well as the stigma of not having one.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Besides things that could be fixed with money, like more routes and more buses, the biggest issue in America and public transit is the idea that it just for the poor. This only makes that idea concrete.

I agree that transit is stigmatized as a service for the poor, but I don't think making transit free would worsen that perception. I could see a scenario where the opposite happens, tbh. In fact, when buses in NYC were free last year because of the pandemic, I'm pretty sure they had much higher ridership than the subway system.

Personally, I don't use the buses in NYC a lot, but I might use them more if there were no fare. One reason I don't use buses is because it's not that easy to use them. Until this past year, there were two ways to pay for most bus rides in NYC: you could either pay by MetroCard, or you could pay your fare by using exact change. This should be easy, but the MetroCard system was designed to be convenient in the subway system, not the bus system. You can get a MetroCard at literally any subway station in the system, but MetroCards aren't readily available near most bus stops in the city.

After like 30 years, the MTA finally started to somewhat resolve this paradox with the Select Bus Service routes. Those routes have kiosks set up at each stop to allow riders to purchase/refill MetroCards. But most regular bus routes are still just as inconvenient.

[Pedestrian]

^^New York is one of a tiny number of American cities with such extensive rail transit systems that busses are an adjunct, like feeder airlines, not the backbone of the system. Since we’ve already established that San Francisco is America’s second densest city, it’s maybe the best example of one where busses are the critical part of the system and rail (light rail mainly) is nice when it takes you where you want to go but for most trips, some part is going to be on a bus.

You can live carless and mostly avoid busses in NYC but not in SF.

But this talk of free transit wouldn’t just apply to busses. It would be the whole system. In NYC that would be the subways too.

[biguc]

On the other hand, sometimes people need to get to work but don't have any money.