The Consequence of Free Transit, Part 3 – Controlling Demand

The first two installments of this post dealt with the history leading up to free transit (the mode’s failure to attract ridership), and the second installment summarized the explosion in demand that is sure to follow. This installment will summarize the choices to control or stifle it, as well as the political consequences of doing so.

The most obvious consequence is the need for far more vehicles. As noted in the first post in this series, the skeletonization of Los Angeles County’s bus fleet in return for building a needless subway system led to a law suit in 1999 (BRU v LACMTA) whereby the court ordered the defendant to purchase 3200 additional buses. How many additional buses will Washington, D.C. need this coming July 1, 2023, when its transit agency (the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Commission) eliminates fares? Evidently, those tens of thousands of telephone calls to city councilmembers about buses passing would-be riders by because they were already overcrowded had little or no impact: Eight of the City’s then-15 city councilmembers voted to build the first three lines of the LACMTA subway system – after it was reconfigured to pass through their council districts.

In cities with subway and light rail systems, what will be needed to keep hoards of homeless people from sleeping on the train cars? Fortunately, D.C. has only about 4500 homeless residents. But will WMATA have to hire Pinkerton guards to beat them off the subway seats? (Having to pay fares or jump the turnstiles, far fewer could get to the trains.) Or would Putin’s African Wagner mercenaries be more cost-effective? And D.C.’s transit system recovered a full 25 percent of its operating costs from fares. What will Los Angeles do – recovering only nine percent – if it eliminated fares, with a homeless population of 69,000? Interestingly, there are sane and responsible solutions for housing many of a city’s homeless population on transit vehicles: New York City, for example, deploys 1500 motorcoaches in commuter/express service; most of them do not operating on evenings or weekends. With slightly-reclining seats, and one person per each pair of seats, these coaches could have housed 30,000 homeless residents – less than half NYC’s homeless population at the time this article was written.

Reducing the number of vehicles deployed or increasing their frequencies (known as “expanding headways” in transportation jargon) will only exaggerate the difference between supply and demand – and increase the likelihood of more class action lawsuits like BRU v. LACMTA. Keep in mind that, in most major cities, during some or most times of the day, many or most routes operate behind schedule. Many schedules are tight even during times of the day (or night) when there is barely any ridership (see https://transalt.com/article/tight-schedules-part-1-the-other-achilles-heel/; https://transalt.com/article/tight-schedules-part-2-lessons-from-the-nemt-sector/; https://transalt.com/article/tight-schedules-part-3-fixed-route-transit-service-2/; https://transalt.com/article/tight-schedules-part-4-complementary-paratransit-service/; https://transalt.com/article/tight-schedules-part-5-motorcoach-service/, and https://transalt.com/article/tight-schedules-part-6-schoolbus-service/. )?

Once more passengers are added to the vehicles (fixed route transit buses in this scenario), routes will run further and further behind schedule – and driver will realistically be forced (or “encouraged”) to commit more compromises of passenger, motorist, bicyclist and motorcyclists’ safety (see https://transalt.com/article/safety-compromises-part-1-introduction/; https://transalt.com/article/safety-compromises-part-2-on-board-slips-and-falls/; https://transalt.com/article/safety-compromises-part-3-wheelchair-and-passenger-securement/; https://transalt.com/article/safety-compromises-part-4-speeding/; https://transalt.com/article/safety-compromises-part-5-failing-to-kneel-the-bus-or-coach/; https://transalt.com/article/safety-compromises-part-6-failing-to-pull-to-the-curb/; https://transalt.com/article/safety-compromises-part-7-stopping-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-intersection/; https://transalt.com/article/safety-compromises-part-8-boarding-and-alighting/; https://transalt.com/article/safety-compromises-part-9-rolling-turns-and-sharp-turns/; https://transalt.com/article/safety-compromises-part-10-passenger-assistance-standards-practices-and-disincentives/; https://transalt.com/article/safety-compromises-part-11-wheelchair-and-passenger-securement/, and https://transalt.com/article/safety-compromises-part-12-conclusions/.) A shorter summary of these problems may be found at https://safetycompromises.com/.

Those passengers who already suffer the most – disabled passengers traveling on complementary paratransit service or on MediCare, Medicaid and other social service program’s non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) service will also find their vehicles’ schedules falling even further behind than they already are – since their fares (which used to be up to double the fixed route bus fares) will now be eliminated as the fares for bus transportation will be eliminated. NEMT passengers will fare the worst, and experience the most incidents, fatalities and serious injuries, particularly as most non-emergency transportation services are governed by brokers – a service dominated by two flagrantly-corrupt private companies: MTM and Motivcare (the latter formerly known as LogistiCare). In fact, one of these companies operates NEMT and other non-emergency transportation services in all or part of 45 states!

In a better society – for example, where the Rich paid taxes, and there was no such thing as a homeless person (see United States, 1950-1960) – I would be highly in favor of making public transportation free. (In contrast, I am not in favor of making music free, which we effectively have done in the last 15 years or so.) But in the United States, with its glaring inequities in income, shortages of affordable housing and polarized Federal government, eliminating transit fares will become problematic. There are plenty of other ways to make public transit require fewer subsidies. We just fail to implement them.