> Big-city transit has an equilibrium point, and it is incredibly stable. Every serious transit city in the world ends up in the same place

You're cherry-picking your own examples. It worked in Iowa City.

Y Combinator and much of SV would be out of business if innovators followed that thinking. One reason is that people do come up with new ideas; that's how the world changes. The other is that the world changes, and what didn't work before now works - costs change and value changes, and now it's worthwhile. For example, with congestion pricing and other rapidly increasong costs of NYC car ownership, there's more value in free transit.

Oddly, it's the thinking advocated by many HN posts, denigrating the innovation under discussion as impossible, useless, etc.

> without sustainability, a political shift will kill it

That can be said of many things. A political shift could kill military funding in the US.

For what it's worth, the New York Times has spent most of this year actively trying to dissuade people from voting for the mayoral candidate in New York that had free buses as one of the more widely known parts of his platform. I'm not saying there's not an agenda in them publishing this article, but I suspect it has a lot less to do with a predilection for "solutions journalism" as much as trying to backtrack their pretty noticeable opposition to the incoming mayor that ostensibly came from them not being as far leftward as he is.

You are making a lot of assertions. Meanwhile, I travel globally for work and my preferred mode of transportation is walking and public transport(ideally tram).

There are BIG DIFFERENCES between how well different cities handle this. There is no "equilibrium", only wise(or unwise) governance.

How do you explain Luxembourg? They've had free public transport for 5 years now.

Consider the case of roads as a system of transit. Fuel taxes and licensing costs don't remotely cover the infrastructure costs, and roads predated them by decades. They're obviously scalable. They're not remotely sustainable financially (and effectively free to access) yet they remain stubbornly resilient even in the face of massive political shifts.

Why is that equilibrium impossible for other transportation infrastructure?

I mostly agree.

> You can pick free, or scalable, or financially sustainable (and without sustainability, a political shift will kill it), but you cannot have all three at once.

Real polities are of finite size, so you don't need (infinitely) scalable.

Here in Singapore we could sustainably afford to make public transport free, if we wanted to.

However I agree with you that charging for public transport is the right thing to do. (And to charge users of government provided services in general for everything, and to give poor people money.) If nothing else, you at least want to charge for congestion at peak hours, so that there's always an epsilon of capacity left even at rush hour, so any single person who wants to board the train at prevailing prices can do so.

> Big-city transit has an equilibrium

Iowa City isn’t a big city. Most American cities aren’t.

I lived in New York. We had paid subways and busses and that didn’t stop them from being abused like park benches—enforcement did. (And to be clear, the minority creating a mess for others were all over the place. Homeless. Hooligans. Mentally ill who got lost.)

I now live in a small Wyoming town. We have free downtown rideshare. (It’s just slower than Uber.)

As somebody who grew up in the area, Iowa City has a near-nil homelessness problem.

> financially sustainable (and without sustainability, a political shift will kill it)

Fiscally sustainable is a BS excuse often put forward by conservatives to not fund the things they don't want funded. Most things the government runs are not fiscally sustainable on their own, but they provide some sort of societal value. See things like the military, police, fire departments, etc...

A political shift could certain still kill it, but let's not pretend it has anything to do with fiscal policy.

Paved roads fails your test but we have those in abundance. I'm not sure this is a useful way to dismiss things.

It didn't work out well when the NYC MTA tried fare free rides. https://www.mta.info/document/147096 Dwell time and customer journey time decreased. The bus speeds were lower on the fare free routes.

If public transport provides value to people, they should pay for some of it. 30 day unlimited ride pass in only $132.

>That equilibrium is stable for a reason. Every major city that tries free transit at scale will eventually snap back to it

What about US school bus programs. They have existed in many areas for decades.

Bangalore(+State of Karnataka) is currently having free transit, but only for women.

Which seems to have drawn anger from Meninist circles.

People who support this say, it gives more mobility to women from poor and lower middle class households, and hence better employment opportunities, increased family incomes and by the effect taxes as well.

People who criticise this say, the expenses for free rides are offloaded to already burdened tax payers, who quite honestly in the Indian system get nothing in return. These forever increasing free perks for sets of people who won't contribute anything back, at the expense of ever increasing burden on people who are expected to pay without expecting anything in return, won't end well.

Milwaukee hop

Without nominal costs, buses turn into mobile benches for unhoused people and druggies. It’s the same story as what happens with libraries.

SF's budget doesn't contain $15B of money it can use for whatever it wants. Most of it isn't discretionary, either because of voter mandates or by federal/state government requirements and has to go to specific programs. A good chunk is actually city businesses (hospitals, airport, utility, port, etc.) which mostly break even.

SF was able to spend money trying to getting rid of RVs because it was living on emergency money from the state and shifting capital expenditure priorities around (capital expenditures costs are offset mostly by the asset you're buying, at least in the short term).

That emergency money is gone now, so now we're living in an era of budget cuts, though given SF's history, I full expect it to spend money recklessly and hope revenue turns around, but even they aren't so far gone to add $300M in operating expenditures to make MUNI free with no plan for a source of revenue to make up the difference.

SF Muni is literally so deep in a financial hole, service may be cut in half next summer if they don't pass a sizable spending measure (the last two both failed). SFMTA faces a deficit of about $320 million starting next year... and that will grow. The system has already been bailed out by the state. We now going to get a $750 million loan is just to keep the system functioning until the measure has a chance to pass.

This platitude of "Muni should be free" has no bearing on reality when the system is literally collapsing as we speak.

https://www.sfmta.com/project-updates/sfmtas-financial-crisi...

https://sfstandard.com/2025/09/10/routes-eliminated-trains-o...

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/bay-area-transit-ba...

> Example: the City has been trying to get rid of the RVs parked illegally on the streets, dumping their effluents and engine oil all over the City streets. To get these RVs off the streets, the City is spending $36M+ (and counting). So money can be found for the homeless, the RV dwelllers, etc. but not for the city's lawful residents and taxpayers.

I'd have to assume that the ones who are driving the political political pressure for this money to be spent as it is are the so-called "lawful residents and taxpayers"; I'm sure the groups you mention facing extra scrutiny would be happy for that money to go towards the buses instead. It's not hard to imagine that certain issues like RV parking get outsized attention pretty much for the exact same reason that the buses don't.

The net revenue would be lower than $200M. There are substantial costs associated with ticket revenue collection, from the % payment gateways charge, the maintenance and replacement cost the devices and turnstiles hardware, all the software and people who have to manage and enforce the system.

The issue with SF (unlike Iowa city) is that free for all everybody is going to be harder sell to voters when there is large amount of out of city traffic -travelers and greater Bay Area residents who do not pay city taxes.

What is more realistic is extend subsidies to all residents of the city beyond the current programs for youth/seniors/homeless/low income etc.

> That means, 5/6th of the budget is subsidized by the taxpayers of SF. There is no reason why Muni can't be free.

You'd still want to charge for congestion. Ie when a particular bus (or rather bus route) is reliably full at a particular time of the day, gradually raise prices until it's just below capacity.

Basically, you want to transport the maximum number of passengers while making it so that any single person who wants to get on the bus (at prevailing prices) still can.

Instead of a bespoke dynamic system that adjust prices dynamically, you might want to keep it simple and just have a simple peak / off-peak distinction.

> There is no reason why Muni can't be free. Surely a city with a budget of $15B can find $200M (about 1.5% of budget) to make up for the shortfall?

How many other $200M projects should they just "find" budget for? Only the one you like?

> So money can be found for the homeless, the RV dwelllers, etc. but not for the city's lawful residents and taxpayers.

But it's those lawful residents and taxpayers paying for it if you make it free anyway. They're just paying through their taxes rather than through fares. So still all taxpayer money, just non-riding taxpayers subsidizing riding taxpayers. Why is that better?

Kansas City added a single light rail line through downtown and made it, initially, free.

It has been so wildly popular, bringing happy Kansas Citians to the restaurants and clubs downtown that the business owners begged KC to keep it free.

Still free and I believe they are extending it.

I would love to see K.C. bring back some of the jazz nightlife that once charged downtown. (Though it might have been the availability of liquor there during Prohibition too.)

I think the cost saving will be realised by not having to expand the road network as quickly if they convince people to use public transport. The cost of land acquisition/resumption along with the improbability of widening some central bottlenecks like Coronation Drive, the SE Arterial and the hell-hole that is Hale Street.

Personally, the $1 commute from the Sunshine Coast has been very good. I occasionally drive in but the Bruce Hwy has been a constant process of widening each section as they barely keep up with the traffic increases.

I think what you will see is a lot more people moving out to residential areas north of Brisbane seeking cheaper housing as they can take advantage of the almost free travel. Especially if they eventually build the Rail/Light Rail through South Caloundra to Maroochydore.

The real benefits come from eliminating fares.

While I have never lived in a place with free transit, I have lived in places where it was possible to board trains without passing through fare gates and certain busses through the rear exit. It is amazing how much faster boarding is. They probably face some lost fares, but the benefit of faster travel times outweigh the cost.

I also think that those criticizing free fares are disingenuous. None of those cities had problems with (insert stereotypical undesirable group) using public transit. If anything, there were fewer issues because everyone was more inclined to behave since there were more eyes on the trains and busses.

EDIT: it's also worth noting that collecting money costs money. That's especially noticeable when upgrading to (or to new) electronic fare systems, but it's also true when using things like tickets and cash. It probably doesn't mean such in the cities I've lived in ($3+ fares), but I'll bet it accounts for a lot more in cities that charge $0.50 or $1 fares.

So many public transit options just absolutely fall about if you have more than the standard 1.5 kids.

It adds up super fast; even “kids ride free with parent” would go a long way.

If you have any transfers as part of that to muni or other services you'll be happy to know that they'll be much cheaper/free starting in December.

https://clipper2.hikingbytransit.com/

This is misleading. How far is your drive from home to your destination in SF? I bet the total cost of ownership per kilometer driven far exceeds the BART fare.

When I had a solar-charged EV, taking transit to SF only made sense if I was going by myself and didn't need to do any transfers. Any additional people or modes and it was always better to drive.

We just need to subsidize public transport like we subsidize roads.

https://www.icgov.org/government/departments-and-divisions/t...

Most of the routes run Monday thru Saturday. Schedules are something that are easily changed to support demand.

So there is nothing to learn her at all?

Good thing there are plenty of other cities with free bus lines and no one saying “no we have to do everything exactly like Iowa City”!

I just love cycling in Paris (apart from winter...) the experience is amazing, and the city is beautiful. It's a joy to experience the city this way.

Both bicycles & free transports would be even better !

Irish Rail wants to charge me €15-€20 for a single trip from Wexford to Dublin, a 150km trip that would cost roughly €5 when taking my EV and can be an hour quicker with nice traffic. Buses aren't much better.

Sure, parking and wear/tear on my car needs to be factored in, but the moment I'm not travelling alone, the public transport costs are completely blown out the water. A trip to the big city for me and my wife will be €60 when taking the train, and with the car it will be about €20-€30 depending on where I park.

It's crazy frustrating, because I would LOVE to take public transport more.

> if you're a group of 2-5 adults

even a taxi or ride share may come out cheaper than public transit too.

Part of it is public transit like trains and trams have to maintain their own infrastructure.

Not sure about buses, I would guess these are way cheaper to operate. In many parts of the world they are cheap, private and profitable, e.g. https://old.reddit.com/r/Detroit/comments/1l5pt2a/detroit_th...

Because you're paying humans' wages to operate the system, and there isn't a carbon tax.

Not only that, it can be infeasible for a single-passenger as well. There's only the train available here, and I need to be ~400km away every couple months. Most of the time tickets are ~40€, but sometimes they're 200€+ one-way, even if you book weeks in advance. It makes it infeasible to plan anything when prices may fluctuate so wildly.

As a comparison, my 2009 diesel gets me there at around 4,7L/100km, but let's round it to 5, at average cost of fuel 1,65€/L that's 33€, for a single passenger, and I can leave whenever I want, have any sort of holdup and just go.

Iowa City is in Johnson County. A 2024 point-in-time count of the chronic homeless population--the highly visible population noticeably encountered in public spaces--in Johnson and Washington Counties combined is less than 200 people. See https://opportunityiowa.gov/media/5390/download?inline#page=... There are also only 13 bus routes, and it's a college town with a significant percentage of price-sensitive student ridership (i.e. highly elastic demand) that either wouldn't qualify or wouldn't bother applying for fare subsidies or passes (common in major metro regions). The context is incomparable to major coastal cities.

We know free transit works in many cases. There are plenty of examples. But it's rare to compare and contrast the contexts. (But, see, e.g., this 2012 National Academy of Sciences report: https://cvtdbus.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2012-07-TCRP-...) It's far easier to promote free transit than it is to address underlying issues, like regulatory barriers to housing production and infrastructure projects, that limit organic improvements to social welfare and which are likely to cause free transit to fail long-term in large, diverse metro areas.

I live there in that city. There are hardly any homeless at all here. Not like other cities at least. I could see it being a major problem in other places.

Last time I visited New York I was lucky to have a companion who knew all the ways to get around including the free bus lines. The people using these buses were no different from those using buses and other public transportation that charged fares.

Ipso facto, eliminating fare collection eliminates crime. Fare evasion as a crime amounts to make-work for cops. Not all value, and often least of all value in public goods, is derived from charging at the point of use.

Having a fare wouldn’t affect this much. It’s not too hard to get someone to spot you a couple of bucks at a bus stop.

Honestly it’s not that big a deal if someone sleeps on the bus. Homeless, drunk, tired from work, whatever.

When I was younger and lived near Iowa City homelessness was nearly unseen. Not sure what it's like these days.

Whenever I hear about this criticism of free public transit I always wonder why the question isn't "how do we keep homeless people from living on our busses" and is instead "why don't these homeless people have some place to live that isn't a bus?"

Homeless people aren’t living in the bus. Cool your stigmas. It’s weird your biggest concern is the people who need the most help. Life must be pretty good for you to attack those in need.

That's how we lost public transit the first time. Here's hoping local government knows their history.

United States vs National City Lines, Inc. 1947.

Is it cheaper to lobby or to create an incompetent monopoly to ruin things?

Corvallis, Oregon is another college town where buses are free within the city and also to some other cities including Eugene and McMinnville.

> ... It feels like there could be some societal benefit to similarly reducing the number of busses and just making them free. (Today most busses are only at 10-30% capacity). ...

Public transit systems need to consider a lot of trade offs when they plan how to use the resources they have.

Optimizing for cost like this can make the busses less practical to use and less attractive to potential riders.

If a bus stop is only visited by a bus once an hour, then the average amount of time someone needs to wait for a bus to visit that bus stop is 30 minutes (assuming a uniform distribution for when that person arrives at the bus stop). If the bus stop is visited by a bus every 20 minutes, then that person would only need to wait at that bus stop for an average of 10 minutes.

The average time of a trip on this bus will be roughly equal to: the time to walk to the bus stop + the time spent waiting for the bus + the time the bus takes to reach the closest stop to the destination + the time to walk to the destination.

From that, reducing the number of busses that visit that bus stop increases the average amount of time for trips which originate from that bus stop.

A factor which impacts usage of public transit system is how quickly it can get someone to some arbitrary destination.

So, cutting the amount of busses a public transit system runs can reduce costs but also reduces how attractive that public transit system is to potential riders because of the increase in the amount of time an average trip takes.

That increases the use of other forms of transportation, assuming that people don't forgo trips entirely (e.g., staying home instead of going to a bar and getting a DUI, or eating at a hotel's restaurant to avoid spending $60-80 on taxis or Uber for a single meal).

This would happen naturally except that most US cities have made it illegal to build anything without gobs of parking attached, so car drivers like myself get a government handout.

In Tokyo, parking is managed by the market, so it’s incredibly expensive. So it’s always cheaper to take public transit without artificially low public transit prices.

From experience, $1 is not enough to keep out the people who spend the whole trip talking about where they want to go to jail for the winter.

And $1 is already expensive enough that if the destination is within 5-10 miles, driving is cheaper if you already have a car and parking, so you are keeping that class of people out.

Though really I find the main reason people don't take the bus is that there aren't enough buses (in time or space) for where/when people really want to go. This is an `m×n` problem.

Or maybe you could take serious steps for the homeless as well.

What would happen if you had to tap a card/phone to get in to the subway system (and this was enforced, no jumping turnstiles), and then have to tap it to get out too.

Then if someone is habitually in the system for a significantly longer time than it reasonably takes to travel from point A to B, deactivate their access.

In Portland they make the busses free in the central area but charge a bit outside that, partly to stop homeless sleeping in the busses.

Why do we want to prevent people from walking?

why not go in the other direction and get them housing and healthcare so they can be treated like people and will also not disrupt your ride

people from outside the US often think it’s a land of fabulously rich ppl and are aghast at how we treat our citizens

I'm conservative. I think buses should be free. Then they'll actually get used and all the secondary benefits they were supposed to bring will be much more easily realized.

You need public transport in major cities. Not everyone can or should drive.

You need private transportation almost everywhere. Not everyone should be forced to ride public transport just because it exists.

As long as people have an actual choice that's not manipulated in some way then I think the system is fine. It has a public function and it provides immediate and secondary benefits.

Iowa City is the bluest of Iowa cities. It's a university town.

That is a particularly fine line to walk for the modern conservative. Government should not be picking winners, except for the very targeted tariffs that just happen to benefit company X or Y.

The truth that nobody wants to admit is that if you build a system that anybody can use, nobody will want to use it.

"More taxes on everyone" also is dishonest. Every individual is paying more in "taxes", but the net amount of money collected from the population of the city for the cost of providing transit is decreased. (Since the cost of fare collection disappears. Or if the net amount of money doesn't decrease, they're presumably spending what was formerly spent on fare collection on additional service.)

I agree. You can't compare the transit system of Iowa City (population less than 75,000) to that of New York City (population 8,500,000).