To replace revenue lost by ending fares would be about $100 per year per person in areas served added to current public transit budgets. A one-percent saving in a handful of areas such as health costs, collisions, and traffic congestion would more than cover this amount. See free-is-cheaper.
The benefits would start immediately with reduced traffic congestion, cleaner air, fewer collisions, more exercise, etc. See 100 reasons.
Ridership would increase, so this number would go up to pay for more equipment and service. At the same time the benefits would also increase.
What is the cost of NOT removing fares, in other words, continuing to restrict use of public transit? More spent on cars leads to more cars--an increase in public cost, with no benefit to the public. A subsidy to private profit.
Think of it this way. Adding insulation to a poorly insulated house in a cold climate gives the immediate benefit of comfort, lower costs, and public benefits from reduced waste of energy. But encouraging more cars is like ripping out the insulation that you already have, increasing costs and waste.
The benefits would start immediately with reduced traffic congestion, cleaner air, fewer collisions, more exercise, etc. See 100 reasons.
Ridership would increase, so this number would go up to pay for more equipment and service. At the same time the benefits would also increase.
What is the cost of NOT removing fares, in other words, continuing to restrict use of public transit? More spent on cars leads to more cars--an increase in public cost, with no benefit to the public. A subsidy to private profit.
Think of it this way. Adding insulation to a poorly insulated house in a cold climate gives the immediate benefit of comfort, lower costs, and public benefits from reduced waste of energy. But encouraging more cars is like ripping out the insulation that you already have, increasing costs and waste.
