The MTA called the experiment a failure. Its own numbers tell a more interesting story, and the mayor who now runs the city was one of its champions
Five Routes, One Year, Thirty-Eight Percent: What the Free Bus Pilot Actually Showed
The MTA called the experiment a failure. Its own numbers tell a more interesting story, and the mayor who now runs the city was one of its champions
NEW YORK – Before he was mayor, Zohran Mamdani was an Assembly member from Queens who made free buses a signature cause. The best evidence for what free fares do in New York is a pilot that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority ran and then let lapse. amNY’s report on the pilot sets out the facts.
The MTA ran a yearlong fare-free pilot on five bus routes: the Bx18, B60, M116, Q4 and S46/96. It ended on Sunday, Sept. 1, 2024, after state lawmakers declined to reauthorize it and the MTA judged it a failure. The agency had been allocated $15 million for the experiment, which could run up to a year.
What the Numbers Showed
Ridership on the free routes rose by as much as 38 percent. About 12 percent of riders on the free buses were new to transit, a figure the MTA considered underwhelming. About 11 percent of those new riders had previously driven or taken taxis, which lawmakers said would reduce emissions. The largest ridership increase came from people earning less than $28,000 a year. The routes were chosen to link disadvantaged communities with business districts.
The MTA argued that too few riders were new to justify spending more on free fares, either on the existing routes or on new ones. MTA chief Janno Lieber had criticised the pilot before it ended, saying he preferred “targeted affordability” over broad programmes and that free fares sent the wrong message while the MTA tackled bus fare evasion. Demetrius Crichlow, then interim president of MTA New York City Transit, said the pilot did not achieve its goal of moving drivers onto buses.
The Other Reading
State Sen. Michael Gianaris and Assembly Member Mamdani led the criticism of the MTA’s verdict on Sept. 3, 2024. They argued that the metrics the agency cited as failures were in fact signs of success. That is not a trivial claim. A 38 percent increase in ridership on some routes, concentrated among riders earning less than $28,000, is exactly what a policy aimed at working people would hope to see. The MTA measured the programme against a different goal: persuading drivers to leave their cars. That was never the main argument for free buses, which is that low-wage workers should not have to pay to get to work.
It is also fair to note what the pilot did not show. A single year on five routes is a small sample. The cost of extending free fares across the whole network would be substantially greater than $15 million, and any such proposal would have to explain where the money comes from. The mayor has lived with that problem since taking office; the budget fights described in amNY’s budget coverage make clear how tight the city’s finances are.
Transit as a Public Good
The case for free buses rests on a simple idea: that a city’s streets are shared, and the cost of using them should not fall on those least able to bear it. We do not charge people to use a library, or a public park, or a fire engine. A bus is the same kind of thing. It is a collective answer to the question of how a big city moves, and charging at the door is a choice, not a law of nature.
Seen that way, fare evasion is not just a problem of enforcement. It is a signal that a significant number of riders cannot or will not pay, and that the system spends resources collecting a fare that costs a great deal to enforce. A fare-free network would remove that friction, and would help the households most squeezed by the cost of living.
The Next Step
Whether the mayor can deliver on free buses depends on the state, the MTA and the budget. The pilot is the best evidence available, and it points in a direction the left should embrace: more riders, mainly lower-income, at modest cost. The Mamdani Post will follow the debate as it develops.
The World Is Watching the Housing Question
The argument over whether a home is a right or an asset is not confined to New York. The comic press has been working the same seam from three angles: Manila News on the slump in condominium sales in Cebu, the London Prat on British pensioners being asked for referees and a letter from the vicar before they can buy (the piece is at https://prat.uk/cebu-estate-agents-demand-character-references/) and Bohiney on an Ohio realtor whose beachfront showings now last two hours. The jokes land because the underlying logic is recognisable: when housing is priced and traded like a share, the mood of the market matters more than the people who need to live somewhere. Readers can find more of this coverage at prat.uk and bohiney.com.
For readers who like their housing politics with a laugh, the British comic press is always open: the Daily Squib.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/cebu-realtor-cant-sell-beachfront-listings/