|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Queens assemblyman Zohran Mamdani’s surprising and convincing victory in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City in June has revived an idea that many believed was politically dead. As a part of his general campaign to make New York more affordable, Mamdani has promised to make the city’s bus service free for all. More generally, the idea that poverty and transportation costs are linked has also been discussed in the context of our own city of Rochester.
This raises two salient questions for public policy. First, should public transport in a city be free? Second, how does the question about whether public transport ought to be free depend on what a policymaker’s goal is? Examples of such goals include, for instance, a desire to improve employment outcomes or even a wish to improve the financial health of city residents. Let us find out what interesting new research tells us about these two questions.
This research investigates the effects of providing free public transportation to low-income individuals through what is known as a randomized controlled trial or RCT that was conducted in King County, Washington, where Seattle is located. The experiment aimed to determine whether eliminating transit fares could improve employment outcomes and other aspects of well-being for disadvantaged populations.
The RCT enrolled 1,797 participants from public assistance offices in King County. Participants were randomly assigned to either a so-called treatment group, which received six months of free transit (valued at approximately $200), or to a so-called control group, which received partially subsidized fares ($1.50 per ride). The analysis leveraged administrative data to track outcomes such as employment, earnings, public benefit receipt, health care use, arrests, and credit scores. The experiment took place in 2019 and early 2020 and it should be noted that some follow-up data were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The key findings from this research provide plenty of food for thought. First, as far as transit usage is concerned, the treatment group used public transit a lot more, with an average of six to seven additional boardings per week—a fourfold increase compared to the control group. This tells us that making public transportation free removes a major barrier to transit access for low-income individuals.
Second, what about employment outcomes? Contrary to expectations, free transit had no statistically significant impact on employment rates, hours worked, earnings, or job stability. For example, the treatment group worked only 1.6 hours more per quarter than the control group, which is a negligible difference. The authors of this research explored potential explanations, such as the temporary nature of the subsidy and labor force detachment among participants but found no evidence of non-random differences in effects.
Third, are there any non-employment impacts from fare elimination? There are four that deserve mention. As far as financial health is concerned, the treatment group demonstrated short-term improvements in financial well-being, with lower debt balances ($97 less) and higher credit scores (13 points higher), although these effects were not statistically robust over time. There was a health dividend in that free transit was associated with a 5.6 percentage-point reduction in health care visits, particularly non-emergency outpatient care, suggesting improved access or health behaviors. There was also a criminal justice component in that we see a modest reduction in arrests (1.5 percentage points), driven by declines in financially motivated crimes like theft and trespassing. Lastly, no significant changes were observed in residential moves, indicating that free transit did not influence relocation decisions.
The research under discussion is worth comprehending because it challenges the assumption that transit subsidies primarily enhance labor market outcomes. Instead, the results suggest that fare elimination benefits low-income individuals by facilitating non-work activities, such as shopping, health care visits, and social interactions, which may improve overall quality of life. We learn that transit costs are a greater barrier to these activities than to employment, possibly because job searches are less sensitive to fare changes or because the transit system’s limitations (e.g., coverage, connectivity) constrain labor market impacts.
Of course, this research is not the last word on the impacts of making public transport free primarily because longer-term or permanent fare-free programs may lead to different results.
That said, it is worth reiterating that although free public transit can enhance the lives of low-income individuals, this enhancement does not occur via improvements in employment outcomes. Therefore, when designing transit subsidies or when making public transport free, policymakers ought to focus on the ability of such actions to reduce financial strain, improve health, and even decrease contacts with the criminal justice system.
Amitrajeet A. Batabyal is a distinguished professor, the Arthur J. Gosnell professor of economics, and the head of the Sustainability Department, all at Rochester Institute of Technology, but these views are his own.
The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected].
This article really does a fantastic job exploring the nuances of making public transportation free, presenting both the compelling benefits around equity and environmental improvement alongside the significant financial hurdles. I appreciate how it clearly structures the ‘pros’ and ‘cons,’ leaving a lot to unpack for policymakers.
It makes me wonder, regarding the sustainability argument, how the proposed funding alternatives like carbon tax revenues or reallocated road expenditures would specifically cover increases in infrastructure scale and maintenance if ridership truly explodes. Is the assumption that general civic quality of life improvements (less traffic, pollution benefits) can directly translate to immediate cost savings elsewhere in urban budgets that can then be funnelled back into transit to keep it ‘excellent,’ not just free?
And considering the equity aspect, while fare removal certainly lowers barriers, are there studies indicating cities pursuing fare-free models simultaneously prioritize expanding routes into underserved areas or increasing frequency to truly make an impact on social mobility beyond just access to what’s currently available? It feels like the true positive impact might ride on how quickly existing systems can scale up their reach in tandem with the zero-fare policy. Great discussion points here!
Our highest priority for public transportation needs to be to improve service. This is especially true in Monroe County, were our once-great transit system has shriveled to a minimalist service with relatively low frequency. We need to re-grow our transit system, which will require more funding for operations. Free bus service will put a massive hole in the operating budget rather than growing it.
Most transit systems throughout the US are facing a crisis in operating budgets post-COVID. This while likely result in massive cuts in service. We need additional revenue streams just to maintain current levels of service. If we can obtain revenue beyond that, the best use will be to increase service.
In Monroe County, our shrunken transit system no longer provides access to a majority of jobs. The core problem with the intersection of transportation costs and poverty is that many low-income households need the heavy expense of a car in order to get to work. Free buses aren’t going to impact that. Monroe County already has a program to provide free fares for some EBT card holders.
Free transit service may be the cause celebre in some circles, but it is a cause that is out of touch with our real needs. It is the equivalent of providing “free ice cream for everybody” by taking away funding from badly-needed nutrition programs.
To the person talking about the U of R and bus routes – they are actually a good case study. The U of R provides a free bus pass (Don’t know what or if they pay RTS – that’s a good question to ask because if we’re subsidizing free buses for the U of R with tax dollars, maybe the U of R should be helping out wiht that cost – I don’t know anything about that contract though) for employees without a parking pass. This would be an excellent group to study for at least THAT location (U of R campus). It would also be useful to study how many people accept a job there BECAUSE they can get there and back by bus for free. I know people complain about parking there all the time because you generally don’t end up parking anywhere near where you work if you have a car, and in many cases there is a cost invovled not reimbursed by the university.
While interesting I would point out that whether free public transit is going to affect employment depends a LOT on where the person lives, and how convenient it is to use public transit to get to any job they are qualified for. In Rochester especially the public transit routes are not geared towards full access and you may still need to walk or bike significant distances to get to a bus stop (our only option) and from a bus stop to your place of business where the job exists. To properly analyze this you’d need to cross reference people’s place of residence and the availability of jobs within a reasonable distance of the public transit system. If you’re potential work is on a campus it would take you 1-2 hours to reach in each direction by the time you factor in ALL the transit required it won’t affect job placement if people still can’t make it to that job in a reasonable timeframe using the public transit system.
Public transit in Rochester particularly suffers from limited routes and availability and a very limited set of routes that don’t terminate in the city – where jobs are rapidly disappearing vs the suburbs where they are growing. In general routes go to major locations like colleges, and malls, not to factories and other industries. Check these two maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1faKrThBFsiwjLGKAQOkCObQh4I6WoEY&ll=43.15738404917338%2C-77.48239149999998&z=11
https://maps.app.goo.gl/57A3mugRWESVrCJA8
The first map is the bus routes in Monroe RTS system. The second is manufacturing facilities (certainly not all the employers but you get an idea of the mismatch).
Free public transit would be of benefit to the community IF it were readily available. Unfortunately, public transportation in Monroe County has deteriorated to where service is available only in the city and more populated close-in suburban areas.
When I moved to Perinton years ago, I was able to commute by bus to downtown where I worked. There were three buses daily in each direction during commuter hours, and the direct trip via routes 31 and 490 took 22 minutes. More recently, there has been only one bus in each direction and for a while, it was impossible to commute to work because the bus to downtown left at 6:30 AM and the return was at 7:30 PM. The hours have since improved, but there is still only one bus each way and it is necessary to change busses along the route, making the trip longer. Given the time to follow normal daily routines and to get to and from the bus stop, someone working normal business hours would have had less than 8 hours to sleep.
While there is more frequent bus service to the Village of Fairport, most of the town of 48.000 people have NO public transit whatsoever. Seniors or people with disabilities have only volunteer transportation for “essential” activities such as health care and shopping, and thus no way other than expensive taxis or ride shares to get to recreational or social activities. The reason cited for the poor service is lack of funds. If public transit were free, how much less service would we have?
There must be a contest in Rochester to see who can come up with the Worst Possible Project Proposal. Any trophy probably could have been retired after Bill Johnson’s Less-Than-Fast-Ferry brainstorm imploded. But recently that fiasco has had MAJOR competiton. First from the plan to rip out the vital Broad Street Bridge and replace it with a concrete park. Then with the bright idea to have the city take over RG&E. Now here’s a new entry, free public transportation. With the above exception (a well-thought out and honest critique) what Bill’s Barge and the other proosals have in common is that each has garnered cheerleaders (many in the media) to hype the alleged benefits and downplay or censor any embarrassing facts.
If I’m not mistaken, one of the goals of making it free is also to make it more efficient and faster. If the drivers don’t have to worry about people paying, buses will load faster and be able to complete their routes faster. That makes taking a bus less time consuming and it may attract more riders, perhaps reducing car traffic.
The concept is intriguing, but undertaking a longer-term study in Monroe County and the City is warranted. Six months isn’t enough, especially since I suspect that the winter months might have an impact on ridership. Route design might also play an essential role in our area, since many medical offices may not be on existing bus routes. The nagging question is how much this extra benefit costs, since most public transit systems are heavily subsidised already. I often see empty buses running their routes, which is a concern. While New York City is a unique transit environment with a long history of public transit use, would Rochester benefit more from subsidized ride-sharing for medical transportation? It would also be worthwhile to poll URMC, as the area’s largest employer, as to how many employees use buses, and whether they would be willing to help subsidize transportation costs as a benefit.