Community Discussions

What is the best way to fund public transit operations? Should riders be changed a direct user fee (fares) or should transit be funded as a bundled good similar to roads and highways?

Main Post:

Public transit funding is always a hot topic, with different cities taking vastly different approaches. I have heard arguments on both sides of the "free" transit debate, but I am curious to know what all of you think. I know the level of government-funded support varies drastically around the world with some agencies requiring more farebox revenue to operate than others, but does one funding structure yield better outcomes?

While there likely isn't a once-size-fits-all solution, I'm curious if society as a whole would benefit more if transit was "free" and funded similarly to how roads and highways were funded. Are there benefits to fare revenue collection other than to regulate supply (capacity) and demand (ridership)? Would a community get on board with "free" transit if it meant some sort of tax increase or can funds generally be reallocated from other line-items to support public transit? At what point does fare enforcement and operating a fare payment system hurt a transit agency? Should there be a difference in how capital investments, maintenance, and operations are funded?

I really don't have a stance on this topic and I'm trying to formulate an opinion.

Top Comment: Government (i.e., public) funds the construction and large scale maintenance. Operations and small scale maintenance funded by fare and other operational revenue (e.g., advertisement, storefront rent). -- That's how highways and roads are funded in my country as well. Highway maintenance is supported by tolls levied on a distance basis; while general public roads are supported via a tax included in fuel price. Interestingly, this has led to debate that EVs aren't paying their fair share of road maintenance fees, but so far the government has downplayed the issue by considering it as an EV incentive.

Forum: r/transit