Latest News & Current Happenings

At the end of last year, Kansas City, Missouri’s City Council voted unanimously to make the city’s bus system fare-free. The plan was meant to increase transportation equity in the region and was a priority of the city’s recently elected Mayor, Quinton Lucas and newly elected council member, Eric Bunch. Several cities in the U.S., including Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, and Denver have considered implementing free-transit systems, but each area has had its own internal debate about how to best offer a free service, limiting their ability to put forth formalized proposals.

The initiative in Kansas City has since sparked discussion among city officials and transit leaders across the nation around whether free transit is the solution they’ve been seeking to make public transportation a more accessible — and preferred — mode of transit. At a time when competition from ride-hailing services, bikes and scooters, and, of course, personal vehicles is increasingly threatening public transportation ridership, Kansas City’s willingness to experiment with new ideas to revamp transit service is intriguing — but will it work?

Fare-free transit certainly has its benefits

There’s no denying the potential benefits of fare-free transit, especially when considering how it could help marginalized communities move around more freely. This is certainly the hope among Kansas City lawmakers and transportation officials. In making its bus system free, the city hopes that it will be able to increase mobility overall, and thus, support equal access to jobs while also boosting economic activity in the city’s center. This is particularly important, as that anticipated increase in activity and revenue would help the city recoup the loss of ticket sales.

Research suggests that the success of fare-free transit is dependent on the size of both the city and transit agency. Several smaller cities in the U.S., including ski centers such as Vail, Colorado, currently offer fare-free transit and have experienced strong ridership growth as a result. In Europe, many cities currently operate fare-free transit systems with even greater success. For example, when the French city of Dunkirk introduced the concept of fare-free transit in 2017, it saw bus ridership increase by more than 60 percent on weekdays and more than double on weekends, with 48 percent of riders saying they now leave their cars at home. Especially as city leaders continue to face heightened pressure to reduce carbon emissions and get people out of their cars, incentives like this are promising — but for most cities, the fix isn’t as simple as making service free.

Free fares also enable another major shift in fare collection and policing fare-evasion. There are obvious operational benefits in reducing the administrative burden of farebox maintenance, cost of revenue collection, and reduced dwell time. A moral benefit exists as well. Free-fares can replace discrimination in fare-evasion enforcement; a civil rights challenge plaguing many major transit systems. Studies across various U.S. cities have shown that fare enforcement disproportionately targets minorities, and these minorities face steep penalties when they are stopped. Providing free-fares alleviates the need for fare enforcement which in turn reduces inequality in access to public transportation.

Making public transit free doesn’t necessarily make it better

Although there are case studies to support how fare-free transit can work successfully, it’s not the ultimate solution to improving ridership or service gaps. While free transit can certainly reduce barriers to access, we can’t overlook the reality that many cities are currently operating transit systems that don’t meet the needs of their citizens. Whether it’s an issue of routes not running frequently enough, or current systems not being capable of servicing people based on real-time demand, simply reducing barriers to access isn’t enough. In fact, a recent study by TransitCenter suggests most low-income bus riders see lowering fares as less important than improving the quality of the service.

Making the bus free is a great incentive to encourage people to ride more in theory. However, for many cities the desired impact of fare-free transit — increased ridership — often fails in achieving the goals of reduced congestion and greenhouse-gas emissions because ridership increases only marginally overall. Mostly people already willing to walk or ride transit take advantage; free fares do not entice those who otherwise would drive. Free transit doesn’t fix the lagging transit infrastructure required to make transit services more desirable. This in turn actually drives a larger gap between those that depend on public transit and those that do not; again, reinforcing a stigma about public transit’s viability and effectiveness.

Either way, the decision is still significant

Regardless of whether you support fare-free transit models or not, Kansas City’s initiative is impactful. The city’s decision comes at a time when a willingness to experiment with new transit ideas is necessary. The rise of more predictable and convenient services like Uber and Lyft is not a trend that will go away any time soon. Cities and transit agencies need to be willing to challenge the status quo and experiment with new, outcome-based models if they want to improve ridership, expand access, and ultimately enhance the vibrancy of their city. More than anything, it’s Kansas City’s entrepreneurial spirit that other cities should be embracing.

Implementing a fare-free bus system isn’t the only innovative approach the city has taken to revamp transportation in the region. Take a look at RideKC microtransit. The service has been incredibly successful since launching in Johnson County. In its first three months alone, the service moved 24X the number of rides that Bridj completed in the region before it folded. In a survey of RideKC users, 31 percent of respondents said that if the service weren’t available, they would have taken an Uber/Lyft, while 12 percent wouldn’t have made the trip at all.

Delivering transit alternatives like this is a viable solution to closing gaps in service and ensuring all citizens have equal access to navigate their city. While free transit can certainly be an element within a holistic transit ecosystem, it cannot be delivered at the expense of good service overall. Cities have to maintain a focus on continually bettering transportation, and part of that requires them to think creatively about how to align service with the needs of modern riders. At the end of the day, there needs to be an emphasis on outcome-based transit planning among transit officials nationwide. If that means creating fare-free services, it also means ensuring fast, reliable, and frequent transit. Kansas City has proven to be a positive example of this type of innovative thinking.

Q: What new technology/service are you now offering/planning
to offer at your agency?

Vicki L. Shotland

Vicki L. Shotland, Executive Director
Greater Hartford Transit District
Hartford, Conn.

The Greater Hartford Transit District has been a Trapeze-licensed user for many years. Providing over 500,000 trips annually to our ADA paratransit riders has also created the need to advance the implementation of software that is available to us. The next step over this upcoming year will be to add EZ-Wallet, which is a Trapeze module that is designed to allow riders to prepay their fares, print usage reports, and examine historical transactions. The bottom line for us is that this component will allow the riders to travel without the need to have a fare ticket or cash. Many transit systems are already using this module, and we are excited to move in this direction for all of the anticipated benefits that EZ-Wallet brings.

Kevin Corbett

Kevin Corbett, Executive Director
New Jersey Transit
Newark, N.J.

Access Link, NJ TRANSIT’s paratransit system, recently introduced several upgrades. Access Link Online allows customers to make reservations online, monitor vehicle arrivals, cancel rides, and use the cashless electronic fare option, EZ-Wallet. Additionally, Access Link riders are enjoying a new interactive voice-response telephone system, which features enhanced-communication options for Access Link customers who do not have the use of a computer or the internet. And, a pilot program for our bus customers is underway with new validators, which scan barcodes on paper and mobile tickets and sets the stage for our future contactless fare program.

In December, passengers on the inaugural Snowstang to the Arapahoe Basin ski area spent around five hours getting to the slopes and even longer returning to Denver. During the Martin Luther King holiday weekend, drivers reported trips upwards of six hours from Denver to Silverthorne. Our governor, Jared Polis, reported a six-hour return trip from Vail on a Sunday evening last year.

Every weekend, there is another traffic meltdown on the Interstate 70 corridor to the mountains. There is frustration, road rage, defeat, and at times calls from the Colorado Department of Transportation to avoid that road altogether. Regardless of whether or not you make regular trips to mountain destinations, our economy and quality of life hinge on those trips. Something’s gotta give.

There is tourism and all of its economic impacts. The I-70 corridor is a vital economic lifeline for the state. Tourism supports more than 174,000 jobs in Colorado, according to Visit Denver’s 2018 statistics. Because of the $1.4 billion in state and local taxes paid annually by visitors, every Colorado households save hundreds of dollars annually in taxes. The outdoors, recreation, and enjoyment of the mountains are chief among the reasons to move and stay here.

The reality is that we have outgrown that highway. At the time it was planned and built in the 50s and 60s, the anticipated population growth was 3 million statewide by the 1980s. We have doubled that, and we continue to grow at a rate of 7% per year. The Colorado Department of Transportation estimates that westbound I-70 travel times will triple by 2035; eastbound drivers should expect their commutes to quadruple. It’s bleak and something’s gotta give.

The temptation is to widen the road, yet history proves that single-mode, single-path transportation — cars, buses, shared rides or even driverless vehicles all relying on the same highway — is unsustainable and impractical. All of our eggs are in one basket, a few-lane basket that traps all drivers and passengers whether they ride in the Snowstang or a single-occupancy SUV.

Rail is a proven, cost-effective alternative that moves a high volume of people in a reliable way over significant distances. The most advanced transportation systems in the world focus on modern rail as the most effective, environmentally responsible way to move people at scale. China has added 20,000 miles of high-speed rail (to 500 in the U.S.) while Germany recently committed $70 billion to modernize its rail system to combat climate change.

It is tempting to throw our hands up in the air and say we cannot do that mostly because the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) passed in 1992. TABOR paralyzes government spending on infrastructure. It is also tempting to say that voters have rejected the last three ballot measures that addressed transportation. But we cannot afford to do that. Coloradans don’t like blank checks to an agency like CDOT, and they were never asked to invest in a train to the mountains. It may be time we ask the specific question, and it may need to be focused on only some of the taxpaying population of the state that will more directly benefit from such a project. A success story is Fastracks, a transit specific ballot initiative that was overwhelmingly approved by the voters in 2004.

The good news for a project like that is that we don’t need to start from scratch. The train line to Winter Park provides a great jumping-off point. The most expensive section of track under the continental divide is already in place and the opportunity is there to build a line to Silverthorne with potential additional spurs to other mountain towns.

The train to Winter Park sold a record 19,200 tickets last season. Service expanded this year. Amtrak’s double-decker express takes snow enthusiasts from Union Station to Winter Park in two hours, dashing through 31 tunnels over 66 miles of tracks. Those arriving at Denver International Airport can take the 37-minute A Line rail service to Union Station for $10.50. This is currently the only situation in North America where you can fly into an airport and take rail all the way to the slopes.

An added opportunity of this existing train is to quickly relieve traffic by improving the existing train and increasing service. Each train carries more than 500 passengers. Currently, service operates between January 10 through March 29 with one departure each way per day, on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Investing in modern features, from internet, usb and power outlets, dining and bar cars, and offering more options on timing will be money well-spent in the effort to take more cars off the road between Morrison and Empire on I-70. Subsidizing part of the cost of the tickets to keep it accessible to all, will further incentivize ditching one’s car.

The train does not replace the current bus service. The Snowstang is a welcome addition to the limited options, but its impact is minimal. The 51-seat buses to Loveland and A-Basin have been running 49% full, with the bus to Steamboat running 30% full, according to CDOT. Only 40% of costs are covered through rider fares, the rest being subsidized by the ski areas involved, a move that should be replicated to some extent for a train service.

The difference between trains and buses+ is reliability, the potential for frequency, along with significantly more capacity to actually make an appreciable impact on traffic counts.

Broader benefits of a train are not to be overlooked: fewer cars lead to better air quality at a time when clean air is a major priority for our state. Fewer cars will also be a relief for small mountain towns currently overrun with them, crippled by the traffic and parking shortages they create. Unlike a road expansion, building a train will not place additional pressures on traffic and the surrounding communities as a result of construction crews.

Technology hounds drool over big shiny ideas like the Hyperloop. That is not a solution for our I-70 woes. The concept is not as revolutionary as originally presented, not proven, and not designed to move significant numbers of passengers but rather as a side-kick project to Tesla automobiles. Pursuing partnerships with operators who have an interest in investing in infrastructure can be one answer to our funding gaps. One such operator is Virgin and its project in Florida is an example. As service takes off from Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach and beyond, Florida will likely have the fastest rail travel in the United States. We could too.

During the State of the State address earlier this month, Gov. Jared Polis aptly described our charge as Coloradans: “By investing in our infrastructure and providing more affordable and convenient transportation options, we can relieve traffic congestion, reduce harmful emissions that blacken our skies, and also boost our entire economy.” A train to the mountains fits the bill. Let’s encourage, empower, and support our leaders to get it done.