Free mass transit: Second thoughts?

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's proposal to make his city's mass transit system free of charge to riders is creating buzz. But The Chronicle found that the track record for free rides is decidely mixed:

In the 1970s, Trenton, N.J., and Denver tried a no-fare policy during off-peak hours. The last large transit agency to try it was Austin, 17 years ago. That project, which lasted 15 months, resulted in a 75 percent jump in ridership, but part of the increase was attributed to an expanded service area. At the same time, complaints about vandalism and drunken and rowdy riders increased.

Right now, free fares in cities like Portland and Seattle are limited to downtown minibus services. Interestingly, the City of Commerce transit line down here in L.A. doesn't charge. "Fare-free transit really benefits the public. People can just hop on and off the bus,'' said Commerce Transit Director Dan Gomez. (The Commerce transit system seems pretty extensive -- and no signs of massive vandalism!).

What do you think? Hit the COMMENT button and have your say!

Comments

[Michael]

I don't understand the rational behind free fares in Los Angeles. The price is not the problem. The problem is that it takes twice the amount of time to get to work on the bus than if you drove. I truly belive that if you can make people's commute quicker than if they took their car, they would hit the Metro system in droves. Only rail lines and bus only lanes will accomplish this feat.

[Peter McFerrin]

Free-fare systems are a bad idea in Los Angeles because homeless bums will sit on the buses all day harassing riders. (It'd be even worse in San Francisco, I'd imagine.) It's for this reason that DASH charges a quarter--it's about as cheap as a fare can get while still being costly enough to discourage bums from riding it.