1. What is the public and political goal for transit in the first place? If there is a pro-transit ethic that sees it as an economic engine despite being a financial drain, then go for it. And you can find ways for businesses and business partnerships to buy-in and support, so public subsidies (investment?) could be lowered.

2. Knowing how woefully inefficient transit is in the first place, if farebox recovery is already really low, as it often is, why not reduce losses by discarding all money and fare collection services and costs?

If you create a fare-free zone, but not a totally fare-free system, it can increase ridership and revenue, even with the loss of fares in some areas, usually the downtown core of course. By introducing many to the transit system, it can boost public support. Eliminating fares can also speed up the system and reduce “dwell time”. I still believe the best way to do this is with buy-in from businesses who can financially support such a system so the public subsidy does not rise.

Thank you Paul Foer
http://www.annapoliscapitalpunishment.blogspot.com

I believe one potential added benefit for introducing fareless lines is that folks in that city will begin to regard the service “as a right”, and their envious neighbors will begin to demand it.

We need to be more expressive and outspoken, as planners and designers, about stressing the convenience and quality of life amenity of transit. This is what drove the expansion of streetcar lines in the old days. People directly tied their notions about quality of life to the availability of transit. Today they think about the car in those terms…But this need not be! You just need to get them to see the value of the alternative.

Today’s new multi-generational lifestyle centers represent for us a tremendous opportunity. I believe that where we have the most latent capacity to change the thinking around transit among Americans is by creating more of these family oriented TOD’s…Which create an option that induces envy among the exurb and separated use populations. One of the finalist teams for the ULI/Hines competition this year (from NCSU) is proposing “Family Oriented Development” as a model to spur market demand by collocating uses that families associate with a higher quality of environment for their kids. Free transit could be part of that package of consolidated choices which promote broader changes in capital markets, such as the way the health care industry today is slowly but surely turning its attention to lifestyle centers. If the health care service provider can change their thinking about how they approach real estate decisions, just think about the broad implications! How will grocery stores respond? How will Pharmacies??

That’s just the middle class cutting off its own nose to spite its face.

The middle class will have every opportunity to use or not use the system. They won’t be means-tested by the driver.

The big problem with fare-free transit is that it has to be kept at a scale to ensure that the service won’t be more popular than the service available.

We have a system in Southern California that illustrates this point. The City of Commerce runs a free bus system that’s fundamentally for its residents but anybody can use it. It’s also, as you would expect, a highly popular service.

It’s not something that can be scaled, though.

Things you must know about the Commerce bus system:
1. There are five routes, but all of them are designed to make only one trip type possible: going to and from the Commerce Center shopping center. Most of the ridership is mothers and their children.
2. All but one route only serves the residences of Commerce. Commerce’s residential uses are only 30% of the land use in the city limits. The rest is industrial, with limited retail.
3. Buses only run once an hour, and the system shuts down at noon so the drivers can have lunch. Coincidentally, the trips immediately before and after the break are the busiest.

It’s good for what it is, but can’t be anything more.

Medical care for pay isn’t really quaint – it’s happening right now in the US. Somehow, the copays and deductibles haven’t prevented the US from having twice the per capita health care expenditure of countries where health care is free or nearly free.

“First, I think that is a pretty pathetic basis for making a major public policy decision.”

No, the prediction that homeless will loiter in fareless buses is an observation of an unfortunate consequence of this idea.

The objection to this policy is rooted in the common-sense principle: make something “free” and people will over-use and oversubscribe. Which results in higher costs all around and accompanying limits in service.

There are abundant examples in today’s world. Here’s one pulled out of the news: employer (or government) provided health insurance which makes employees less price-conscious and so it seems freeish (even with co-pays) and they overuse.

That is interesting that you mention “fareless” municpal services such as police and fire. I often wonder if we are best served with having _fire_men’s main job as responders to auto accidents. And then having a fire engine accompany an ambulance to simple medical emergencies. Gotta wonder about escalating public sector inefficiencies.

Some of us still remember quaint things like subscription libraries, pinkertons, turnpikes, saving 20% downpayment on homes…