(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

By Senator Pat Jehlen

Last week, the Senate passed another climate bill, An Act Driving Climate Policy Forward.  WBUR had a good summary of its many provisions.  Combating climate change is an issue that so many people in our communities have written, called, and met with us about, and the bill takes important steps.  Among the provisions of the bill which people asked me to support:

• creates a $100 million fund to develop clean energy infrastructure
• allows 10 communities to restrict use of fossil fuels in new developments; Cambridge has filed a home rule petition for this
• increases rebates for electric vehicles and funds creation of charging stations
• prevents new biomass facilities from receiving clean energy incentives
• requires new MBTA buses and leases to be electric by 2028
• keeps the price cap on off-shore wind

I proposed an amendment to require creation of pilot programs of fare-free bus routes on the MBTA and the state’s 15 Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs).  It would have provided up to $20 million to reimburse any net costs.  While the amendment was not adopted, I will continue to work with advocates to pass the bills Rep. Christine Barber and I filed for fare-free pilots.

The amendment was appropriate for the climate bill because free bus programs encourage people to leave their cars for transit.  Transportation is the largest and fastest growing source of global warming emissions in Massachusetts.  Shifting from cars to public transit is a powerful means of reducing those emissions.  

Pilot programs in Worcester, Merrimack and Franklin RTAs as well as Boston are teaching us about the benefits and costs.  Additional pilots could attract more people to transit, reduce traffic congestion and pollution, and allow us to gather information about costs and benefits as we plan next steps.

These are some reasons to have more fare-free pilots:

More people could decide to travel by bus instead of by car. 

This could reduce traffic, pollution, and commuting time for everyone.  Several RTAs, including Worcester and Lawrence, as well as Boston, have had fare free services during the pandemic.  Lawrence saw a 40% increase in ridership.  Boston’s route 28 pilot had a 22% higher increase than other routes as people returned to work.

Commuting will be faster and more reliable. 

There will be less “dwell time,” as buses won’t have to wait while passengers pay, and people can get on through all doors.  The National Association of City Transportation Officials estimates that the time it takes to pay fares is 1/3 of the time a bus spends en route.  Dwell time in the Boston pilot was reduced by 20%. 

This video is a dramatic demonstration of all-door boarding on the Silver Line. 

Eliminating fare collection reduces commuting time and  increases reliability and predictability, making transit more attractive.

The loss of net revenue would be small because most of the revenue from fares is spent collecting them.

Bus fares are less than 10% of RTA revenue and only 5% of MBTA revenue.   The cost of the new contract for MBTA fare system is $1 billion, and years away from completion.  The new system is estimated to cost $33 million in annual costs to operate. 

The Merrimack Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) says that fare collection is a clunky, inefficient way to generate revenue.  For every dollar they collected in fares, they only saw 23.9₵ when the full cost of fare collection was factored in (e.g., operating money room, hiring armored car, maintenance & repair of fareboxes).  Including hardware upgrades that would have been required this year, the true amount they would have seen for every dollar collected would have dropped to 8.1₵. 

Lawrence has paid the MVTA for fare free buses on three routes for four years.  The cost for four years has been $450,000.

The Worcester Research Bureau concluded from its study of the pilot that “Making the WRTA fare-free is not charity. It is a way to increase the efficiency of a key government service in a creative and compassionate way…The loss of $3 million in fares would be mitigated by the elimination of fare collection costs, and the operational benefits could make that price a bargain.”

Bus riders are more likely to be low-income and people of color. 

For example, the MVTA says 65% of their bus riders are people of color and more than half have an annual household income of less than $36,000.  In the Boston pilot, 97% of riders were low-income, older, and people of color.   So fare free buses can contribute to reducing inequality and increasing economic survival for those workers.  

Some say “only 21% of the Boston riders saved more than $20 a month.”  For a low income family, $20 is significant.

Fighting climate change requires getting more people to choose public transit as well as cycling and walking. 

What will get them to shift to transit?  Polls report reliability, affordability, frequency, and crowding are the main concerns people have about shifting.  All of these are improved with fare free systems and will attract people to shift to transit.  Getting more riders is especially important for RTAs, whose federal funding depends on ridership numbers.

Thanks to MassBudget.for this graphic summary.  For more information on fare free buses, see this leaflet from Livable Streets Alliance.

Despite all these advantages, the MBTA General Manager has said he won’t expand pilots unless state or cities pay for them.  

This is the right time for fare free pilots.  Implementing them is a very appropriate use of ARPA funds, or state surpluses, in helping public transit recover from the loss of ridership during the pandemic.  It is also a crucial time, as commuting patterns and work patterns are changing, so it may be more possible to change those patterns.  

Reduced low-income fares are also important especially for subway and commuter rail.  Pilots of both low income fares and fare free buses can help determine the costs and benefits af each, and where they might be appropriate.