Should public transit be free for Bay Staters?

What does the word “public” mean in our democracy?

The answer to this question has important societal and economic repercussions, as it determines what we value and how we choose to allocate our resources. 

Throughout the United States and the Commonwealth there are many public services that we consider free and accessible to all. 

Public libraries ensure that everyone has access to intellectual resources and broadband internet. Public parks serve as natural refuges for us to recreate in. Public schools provide free educational opportunities for our youth to learn and grow, while public road maintenance ensures that we are all able to get where we need to go.  

Boston is home to the oldest free public elementary school in North America, the Mather School in Dorchester. Boston can also claim the country’s oldest public park, Boston Common, originally established in 1644, as well as America’s first free municipal library, founded in 1848.

These foundational public establishments are not only essential to the wellbeing of many Bay Staters, they are also integral to Massachusetts’ identity as a founding state in America’s democracy, which at its core is by the people and for the people. 

One question many in the Commonwealth have been asking recently is – why don’t we treat public transit similarly to the way we treat these other public services?

Public transit gives Bay Staters access to the things they want and need without owning a vehicle. Through an interconnected transit system, Boston has been able to turn it’s small physical footprint into a dense and diverse mecca of healthcare, academic excellence and financial prowess. 

More people riding on subways, buses and ferries instead of alone in their private vehicles, which sit idle for the majority of the day, also means less harmful pollution in the air we breathe and less climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions. 

Instead of supplying regular, even if sometimes meager, funding based on state and local taxes as we do with our public school, parks, libraries and roads, we have decided to fund our public transit providers using a mix of government investment and fare revenue, also known as “farebox recovery.” 

Some in the Bay State transit world, like former Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation Jim Aloisi, have argued that using farebox recovery to measure the success of public transit agencies in the Commonwealth, especially compared with other agencies nationwide, doesn’t stand scrutiny due to the varying amount of services they provide.

The large role that fares play in public transit’s bottom line have also led to historic underinvestment within the Bay State, as the MBTA and 15 Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs) have struggled to modernize their infrastructure over the last few decades while maintaining service without raising fares.

Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has further exposed transit’s fragile funding system, as ridership has plummeted to only a fraction of normal levels, causing massive budget shortfalls and service cuts that could be felt for years to come.

Consequently, certain local policymakers and transit advocates have asked whether there is another way to measure and fund public transit in the Commonwealth so that it’s more robust, reliable and convenient for all Bay Staters. 

Two Boston City Council members, Michelle Wu and Andrea Cambpell, who are both now running for mayor of Boston, have added their voices to the growing call for fare free public transit. 

Wu has repeatedly argued for the need to prioritize free public transportation in Massachusetts, claiming that it is the foundation for economic and racial justice. Wu has also pointed to the success of public transit providers in over 100 cities across the world, including a few in the U.S., that have abandoned fares in an effort to increase ridership, mitigate traffic congestion and further their climate goals.

Meanwhile, Campbell has argued that Boston must least by example on transit and climate justice by electrifying buses and making trips free of charge. 

LivableStreets, a local transit advocacy organization in Boston, has asserted that in addition to being more equitable to low-income communities, fare free bus service is also more cost-efficient given that the costs of fare collection are often higher than the fares collected by those same transit services, citing the MBTA’s $935 million plans to upgrade their fare collection system as evidence. 

While these bold proposals to transform public transit user fees in Massachusetts align with the Commonwealth’s historic value of public service accessibility, how can we possibly conceive of a large-scale reinvestment in the Bay State’s transportation system during a pandemic when ridership remains at an all time low? 

Even amidst the growing public health crisis, declining revenue and stretched budgets, the MBTA and 15 RTAs have continued to serve as essential lifelines for the Commonwealth’s frontline healthcare workers, as they seek to quell the Bay State’s worst COVID-19 surge to date while simultaneously distributing a vaccine. 

Instead of putting transit into a death spiral, maybe the COVID-19 pandemic could be an opportunity to reexamine how we view public transit in the Commonwealth?

Jan Yost, president of the Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts, has urged the the Worcester Regional Transit Authority (WRTA), which instituted a fare-free pilot program during the COVID-19 health crisis, to use the pandemic as an “opportunity to reimagine itself as a transit model based on free fares.” 

Although a fare-free approach might prove successful, one important question remains – where would these additional funds to support fare free transit come from?

While fares have been used to cover a sizable portion of the Commonwealth’s public transit costs in the past, a variety of alternate funding models have recently been proposed. Ranging from revenue generated by increased gas taxes, congestion pricing, and additional TNC fees leveled on Uber and Lyft, there has been a growing call to reassess public transit funding in Massachusetts from a multitude of angles.

Just last week, members of the MBTA’s Fiscal Management Control Board (FMCB) asked for new revenue for the MBTA in their 2020 annual report. Without additional funding – be it from fare increases or alternate sources identified by the state Legislature – FMCB members argued that the MBTA would not be able to provide enough affordable service to its riders nor reach its climate goals over the coming years.

Although the future is uncertain, multiple vaccines are being distributed and public transit ridership will in all likelihood return even as Bay Staters reassess their transit habits. In the meantime, it may be worth asking ourselves how much we value public transit and how we want to treat it, along with the rest of the Commonwealth’s historic and treasured public services.

From reducing asthma rates and climate-damaging emissions to increasing access to equitable economic opportunity and essential needs, sustainable, adequate, long-term investment in the MBTA, as well as the RTAs, could have a massive positive ripple effect across the Commonwealth for decades to come. 

Many hope that this is an inflection point for transit in Massachusetts and that this is the moment during which the Bay State will lay the foundation for a 21st century transit system that will power an equitable and sustainable economic recovery for the Commonwealth.  

As the Massachusetts Legislature begins reviewing Governor Baker’s proposed fiscal 2022 budget, many Bay Staters feel it is important that legislators ask themselves what role public transit should play within the Commonwealth, both now and in the years to come.