Fare-free programs that apply to buses and not trains create a fragmented transit system and encourage more people to use slower, less efficient modes.

The idea of fare-free transit is nothing new, and has been gaining more traction in cities around the country in the last few years. However, Jarrett Walker, writing in Bloomberg CityLab, calls attention to what Walker believes could be a troubling trend: making fare free on buses, but not trains. “If that trend spreads, we should expect some bad consequences,” Walker writes.
As Walker explains, Washington, D.C. and Boston are both exploring free bus transit, but have kept fares on their train systems. According to Walker, “A certain kind of capitalist would say this is fine: The train is faster, so it should cost more. But when people use a slower service rather than a faster one, it’s not just bad for them. It’s also bad for the transit agency budget, which means it’s bad for everyone who uses transit or benefits from it.”
Buses, which are smaller, will reach capacity more quickly. “Trains, on the other hand, are much more likely to have surplus capacity, especially now that so many suburban commuters who used to pack them are working from home, so they could be serving many of the same people at lower cost.”
At the same time, the distinction between buses and rails also raises questions about who each mode serves. Additionally, many trips require combining both bus and train, and lower-income riders are more likely to have more dispersed travel patterns that are often better served by buses. For these and other reasons, Walker argues, the free fare debate should take place around the whole transit network. “An efficient and therefore liberating urban transit network encourages people to think about the total network, and to use buses or trains according to which is better for each part of their trip.”
FULL STORY: When Buses Are Free But Trains Aren’t

Planetizen Federal Action Tracker
A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.

Canada vs. Kamala: Whose Liberal Housing Platform Comes Out on Top?
As Canada votes for a new Prime Minister, what can America learn from the leading liberal candidate of its neighbor to the north?

The Five Most-Changed American Cities
A ranking of population change, home values, and jobs highlights the nation’s most dynamic and most stagnant regions.

San Diego Adopts First Mobility Master Plan
The plan provides a comprehensive framework for making San Diego’s transportation network more multimodal, accessible, and sustainable.

Housing, Supportive Service Providers Brace for Federal Cuts
Organizations that provide housing assistance are tightening their purse strings and making plans for maintaining operations if federal funding dries up.

Op-Ed: Why an Effective Passenger Rail Network Needs Government Involvement
An outdated rail network that privileges freight won’t be fixed by privatizing Amtrak.
Urban Design for Planners 1: Software Tools
This six-course series explores essential urban design concepts using open source software and equips planners with the tools they need to participate fully in the urban design process.
Planning for Universal Design
Learn the tools for implementing Universal Design in planning regulations.
New York City School Construction Authority
Village of Glen Ellyn
Central Transportation Planning Staff/Boston Region MPO
Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS)
City of Grandview
Harvard GSD Executive Education
Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
Toledo-Lucas County Plan Commissions