I attend budget meetings or read the agenda packets. I don't think we can have nice things like free fare for K-12, low income fare cards (free rides), frequent service, if we don't charge the non poor for transit. We had fare-free buses during covid bc of Fed emergency funding, which ended
There's another question to ask here: whose budget should it be? If we want transit to provide a social service, maybe the money should come from the social services budget. Why don't we give a bus pass to everyone who receives TANF/SNAP, purchased by the social services agency at a bulk discount?
We do that in my region. It is called Clipper START.
Does this come from a social services budget or is it just the usual cross-subsidy between classes of riders? The MTC web site says it comes from state and agency-internal funding sources, which is very nearly the opposite of what I suggested.
"To implement the Clipper START pilot program, MTC committed roughly $17 million from the State Transit Assistance (STA) program, the statewide Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program and CARES Act funds. This will partially offset the loss of fare revenue for transit operators."
GoPass (free multiagency transit in LA County for K-14) is partially funded by CA Department of Education but the school district or community colleges have to kick in the other 60%.
The similar thing here in Boston (called, unfortunately, "Income Eligible Reduced Fares") is for now funded by a direct state appropriation to the MBTA, but like with Clipper START it's only a discount, not just giving monthly passes to people who need them.
(Holders can still *buy* a monthly pass, at the same reduced rate as seniors and other cross-subsidized users -- the T's fare collection system is too outdated to handle multiple classes of reduced fares so there's just one "reduced fare".)
The dedicated funding source helps some, but it would be much to an agency's benefit to have as many passengers as possible on monthly or annual passes rather than pay-per-ride, reducing costs of fare collection. (True even on PoP systems; there is ample evidence from Europe.)
Like most other niche "this should be free for poor people" issues, the easiest and fastest way to fund such things is via universally refundable taxes on motor fuel.
Buses should be free for everyone: unworkable simpleton idea. Gas should be $8/gal for everyone: based, genius material.
What if we taxed rich people more
A refundable gas tax would tax rich people more.
Lol
Poor people burn more gas per dollar they make, so it's a regressive tax, just like every sales tax.
A refundable gas tax means everyone gets a per capita share of the revenue in the mail every month, so if your hypothetical poor person pays no income tax then they also pay no gas tax, and if they burn less gas then the average person it's actually net new income. Thanks for coming to my talk.
Yeah I just gave up at that point
Like you'd need to make everyone not so dependent on cars
Unsurprisingly, many of us support that and no one in this thread is arguing against that.
And yet
A portion of CA cap and trade taxes on CO2 emissions from gasoline (paid at the pump) do go to transit. I think it should higher. Add VMT taxes. Bus lanes would significantly reduce operating cost of buses network. But the free parking lobby 🤦🏻♀️