What’s going on…
Mamdani, newly-elected mayor of New York City, has made the idea of “free buses for everyone” a central plank of his platform. The aim: ease the burden of high living costs, reduce car traffic and pollution, and make transit more equitable. The Washington Post
The argument has intuitive appeal — public transit is essential, and many New Yorkers rely on it. Eliminating fares could help lower‐income riders afford what should arguably be a public good. City & State New York
Supporters say fare-free buses might also speed up boarding (allowing all-door boarding rather than front-door fare payment), reduce confrontations over fare evasion, and reduce the stigma or barrier for people who avoid or limit rides because of cost. amNewYork
What the critics (and The Post) argue
Fiscal sustainability is shaky
The Post editorial points out the economics: transit systems depend heavily on fare revenue. Eliminating fares — without a robust and sustainable replacement — risks starving the system of funds, which could lead to degraded service, poorly maintained buses, or canceled routes. The Washington Post
There is precedent: the free-bus experiment in Kansas City was eventually abandoned after revenue shortfalls undermined service quality. The Washington Post
Estimates for a citywide free-bus program in NYC suggest it could cost on the order of US$700–800 million annually, a significant fiscal burden, especially for a transit authority already stretched thin. Breitbart
New fares don’t come without administrative overhead. Fare collection, enforcement, and maintenance of payment systems all cost money and staff time. Removing fares eliminates that stream — but also those savings are often far smaller than lost revenues. Washington Square News
Increased ridership may slow things down, not speed them up
During a recent pilot — one free bus route per borough — ridership did increase. But most of that increase came from existing bus users riding more frequently, not significant numbers of new, car-driving transit converts. Washington Square News
That ridership bump had consequences: buses got slower, and travel times increased by around 4%, according to the transit agency studying the pilot. Washington Square News
There’s also a risk that free buses would attract riders for very short trips (people who would otherwise walk), which adds load without substantial benefit to congestion or overall mobility. Washington Square News
Equity and fairness — but also unintended burdens
Interestingly: many bus riders already earn significantly less than subway riders. A free-bus policy could improve equity — ensuring low-income or poorly paid workers aren’t priced out of mobility. City & State New York
But a broad “free for all” policy may be inefficient: some riders would pay fares even if they can afford it, meaning public subsidies would be spread across all income strata, not targeted to those who need relief most. Reddit
Also: if buses are free, then legally mandated services linked to bus fares — like certain paratransit services for disabled riders — might also have to be free. That adds more financial strain to transit budgets. Streetsblog NYC
Free buses are a cosmetic solution if system problems go unaddressed
The core problem for many American transit systems isn’t price: it’s service quality. Infrequent buses, long waits, routes that don’t go where people need, and inefficient infrastructure make public transit unattractive compared to driving. The Washington Post
Eliminating fares won’t fix those structural problems. Without investment in infrastructure — more frequent schedules, better routes, dedicated bus lanes, modern fleet — you still have a mediocre transit system. The Washington Post
In other words: fare-free transit without systemic improvement could be like giving someone a free ticket to a broken rollercoaster.
What research and advocates say
A recent academic working paper on fare-free transit policies (in contexts outside NYC) argues that properly designed fare-free zones can lead to increased ridership and reduced automobile use over time — which could cut emissions and improve social equity — provided demand uncertainty and demand-group differences are accounted for. arXiv
Another study suggests fare-free transit in some municipalities has been tied to modest gains: employment rose roughly by 3.2%, and emissions fell around 4.1%, evidently thanks to shifts from private car-use to public transit. arXiv
That said, the broader consensus among transit policy researchers seems to be: fare-free transit works best — in small or mid-sized cities, or as part of broader reforms (service upgrades, dedicated lanes, aggressive maintenance). In mega-cities with huge ridership demands (like NYC), fare elimination alone is unlikely to solve underlying issues. arXiv
Advocates for fare-free buses within NYC also propose a mixed strategy: combine fare elimination or deep discounts for low-income users (sometimes via expansion of existing programs like Fair Fares), while reinvesting saved fare-collection costs into service improvements — frequency, reliability, bus lanes. City & State New York
What seems most likely to work (at least in the near-term)
Based on the available data, expert opinion, and a dose of realism:
A universal free-bus program in a huge, complex city like New York — without deep structural transit reform and dedicated funding — is very risky. The danger: revenue loss, degraded service, slower buses, overcrowding.
A targeted approach (free or deeply discounted fares for low-income riders, expansion of Fair Fares, paired with improved service infrastructure) appears far more promising. That balances equity concerns, fiscal responsibility, and service quality.
Any attempt to make buses “free for all” needs to come with investment in speed and reliability: dedicated lanes, all-door boarding, more frequent service, better maintenance — otherwise fare savings become meaningless if the transit experience is bad.
Policymakers should treat fare-free transit as a tool — not a magic bullet. It can help reduce barriers, but by itself it won’t solve urban mobility, congestion, inequality, or climate concerns.
What happens next
With Mamdani in office, this debate over fare-free buses will shift from campaign slogans to budget realities. As one piece of a broader transit reform strategy, it could push for:
- negotiations between city and state funding sources to replace fare revenues;
- pilot programs or targeted fare relief first (rather than universal free rides);
- investment in bus-priority infrastructure (bus lanes, signal priority, newer buses);
- evaluation of impacts on ridership, maintenance costs, paratransit obligations, and service quality.
If handled clumsily — with optimistic slogans but no fiscal discipline — the result could be underfunded transit, degraded service, and disappointed riders.
If handled with realism — targeted subsidies, plus infrastructure, plus maintenance — cities might get closer to a transit system that’s equitable, efficient, and sustainable.
