Zohran Mamdani, fresh off his recent victory in the Democratic mayoral primary, has become a focal point for discussions surrounding his ambitious policy agenda impacting New York City, particularly his transportation plans.
Among his proposals are vital reforms aimed at improving food truck permits and expanding library access, which have garnered positive attention. However, his flagship transportation initiative—eliminating bus fares—raises significant concerns and controversies. Critics argue that any funds allocated to this plan could be better utilized by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) for more pressing needs.
The concept of fare-free public transit is not new. Various cities around the world, including Tallinn, Estonia, which introduced fare-free public transportation in 2013, and Kansas City in 2019, have tested the waters with similar ideas. In the U.S., Michelle Wu, the progressive mayor of Boston, initiated fare-free programs during her tenure. Previously, Mamdani himself supported the temporary cessation of fares on MTA bus lines while serving as a New York Assembly member.
There are recognized benefits to a fare-free system. Studies show that total ridership typically increases when passengers are not required to pay. Safety for operators might also improve, with fewer assaults reported, as passengers no longer need to engage in financial transactions during boarding. Quick access to public transit ranks as a top priority for many users, particularly low-income individuals who would benefit most from fare elimination due to their reliance on public transportation.
Nonetheless, historical implementations of fare-free transit provide valuable insights and cautionary tales. Most observed increases in ridership often come from existing transit users taking more frequent trips or habitual walkers and bikers switching to the bus rather than significantly affecting vehicle use. In fact, in Tallinn, there was a noted uptick in private car usage that accompanied the elimination of fares.
If fare-free transit fails to decrease car dependency, it may also do little to alleviate pollution or greenhouse gas emissions—an outcome contradicting the environmental goals tied to many of these initiatives.
Fares play a critical role in funding transit systems. The MTA generates over $800 million annually from bus fares, a significant slice of its financial framework, surpassing revenue from New York City’s new congestion initiative slated to bring in approximately $500 million this year. Mamdani’s proposal estimates annual costs between $600 million to $800 million, although many consider these figures to be on the conservative side, particularly when factoring in the additional infrastructure and operational demands needed to accommodate a projected increase in ridership.
Cities like Olympia, Washington, recently converted to fare-free transit due to the high costs of fare collection compared to revenues generated. However, this reasoning does not hold up for New York City, which accounts for a significant portion of the country’s transit trips.
Supporters of Mamdani’s fare-free proposal, including advocacy groups like the Riders Alliance, defend the approach as a worthy investment in public good. While taxpayer funds are indeed often allocated to various beneficial public services, skeptics question whether eliminating fares represents the best use of substantial financial resources.
Many transit advocates argue for better buses and improvements in service speed and reliability rather than a fare elimination. According to transportation expert Eric Goldwyn from the NYU Marron Institute of Urban Management, the priority for many bus riders isn’t free rides but rather timely and dependable transit. If a bus rider earning $20 an hour experiences a reduction in travel time, the value represents significantly more than the cost of a fare.
Goldwyn suggests that focused initiatives like creating bus lanes, implementing signal prioritization, and enhancing bus routes could lead to substantial improvements, all at a fraction of the cost of going fare-free. A separate initiative aiming to provide six-minute service across all subway lines could be realized with an annual investment of $350 million—considerably less than eliminating bus fares.
A significant concern arises over the sustainability of funding for a fare-free system. If implemented, would future leaders continue to support the extensive financial commitment required to compensate for lost farebox revenues? Although currently benefiting from state funding, shifts in budget priorities could jeopardize these commitments, particularly for policies that demand ongoing public financial support.
The current budget crisis faced by Philadelphia’s SEPTA transit agency underlines these concerns. Following the withdrawal of state financial support, the agency is planning drastic service cuts, which could create a cycle of declining ridership and fare revenues. Without sustainable income, a fare-free system risks becoming vulnerable to operational strains.
Interestingly, the political landscape indicates that the hurdle to enact a fare-free transit system under a future Mayor Mamdani could be significant. Beyond securing City Council approval for substantial expenditures, collaboration with New York state officials may prove challenging—Gov. Kathy Hochul has not shown enthusiasm for these financial outlays.
Despite these economic and logistical barriers, Mamdani appears genuinely invested in improving public transportation for all New Yorkers. He has demonstrated an ability to push for practical measures, such as implementing bus-mounted cameras to penalize drivers obstructing bus lanes—much more manageable endeavors that could significantly enhance the current transit landscape.
Mamdani’s approach to transportation reflects an understanding of its far-reaching implications, from job accessibility to public health and overall living costs. While many of his transportation reforms are viewed positively, the suggestion to eliminate bus fares stands apart as one calling for reconsideration.
In conclusion, as discussions about New York City’s public transit system evolve, it remains essential to weigh the merits of eliminating bus fares against the pressing operational, financial, and public service needs currently facing the MTA and its riders. The consequences of abandoning fare revenues could have far-reaching impacts on the bus system’s capacity to meet the needs of all New Yorkers effectively.
image source from：slate
