I don’t have a car. I am entirely dependent on public transit and mooching rides from my friends to get anywhere beyond Main South. In the summer of 2023, I had to take buses operated by Worcester Regional Transit Authority (WRTA) for about two and a half hours every weekday. I worked on the opposite side of town at a summer internship with the transit department of the Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission. All this to say, I am personally invested in good buses in Worcester.

Free public transit seems like a good idea! Ease of access around your city is one of the most important factors of urban space. On a surface level, free fares increase ease of access by reducing both the amount of thought required to ride public transport, and obviously, it lowers the financial burden to riders.

However, we must consider what the goals of a transit provider are. To me, the goal is simple: to run a system that can provide the most possible riders with the most possible trips. Contrary to popular belief, free fares are not in line with this goal. A fareless system discourages the WRTA from running popular services and forces it into a precarious financial spot, which jeopardizes the long-term future of the organization. Essentially, a free thing is worthless if the thing you get is shit.

Proponents of free fares argue that free fares allow riders to just turn up to a bus stop and hop right on. Riders do not have to worry about having the right change, or a fare card, or anything. This, in theory, allows for more spur-of-the-moment trips, leading to more trips for more riders.

I disagree. This argument assumes a good level of service with frequent buses, which is not what we have. Clark is on the single busiest bus-corridor outside of downtown Worcester throughout central Massachusetts – Main Street. We have three different bus routes running along this street, all going to Union Station. Yet, often, there are still 30 minutes to an hour in between buses. The low frequency of buses here discourages these turn-up-and-go-style trips. This idea of spur of the moment trips falls apart even further when we consider that almost nowhere else in Worcester receives even this pitiful level of service.

To actually use the WRTA regularly, one must look at a live map of where buses are (which often glitches) and guesstimate how long it would be before the next bus turns up at your stop. Ideally, you could just check the schedule, but anyone with experience with the WRTA knows those are practically useless.

The argument I hear promoting free fares the most is equity. Proponents claim that free fares decrease the financial burden on those who are likely already some of those facing a difficult time making ends meet. On the surface, this sounds appealing.

However, there are ways to institute free fares for the people who need it AND charge those who can pay. I would suggest that, using census data, you could distribute free fare cards to those who are most likely to use them. Introducing fares for those who can pay while maintaining the free fares for those who cannot would allow the WRTA to afford to run more service. Essentially, instituting a paid fare system for some and a free system for others allows the best of both worlds: free services for those who need it, and increased services for all. This increase in service would then encourage ridership, leading to a virtuous cycle of fare box revenue.

I hear this argument a lot, particularly from my fellow Clarkies. I would like to remind Clark students that, on average, we are richer and whiter than the average Worcester resident. Frankly, Clark students should be paying fares to support a system that could then provide better service to those who need it around all of Worcester. Introducing fares in the method I have laid out above would significantly increase transit equity in Worcester.

Currently, with no revenue from fares, the WRTA is completely dependent on funding from the state and federal governments. This funding often comes in large grants for capital funding (new buses, increased stops, etc.). Very rarely, however, does this grant funding support simple operations of the system. Nothing about introducing fares would preclude the WRTA from applying to the same grants they depend on today.

This kind of large but infrequent funding spurts can and has in several instances, lead to a system where the infrastructure is excellent, but the level of service is quite poor. Fare revenue provides a clear solution to this problem, increased ridership from increased service levels goes to supporting further increases in service. This is how almost all transit systems (and every single very successful system) work.

The best argument for free fares in my opinion, is that of dwell-time. Dwell-time is how long a bus waits at a particular stop to board or de-board riders. If there is a particularly busy stop for instance, the time it takes for all the riders to get on and off the bus would take more time than a quiet stop. In general, the lower the dwell-time, the more efficient a bus system can be. The less time a bus is stopped, the more time it is actually transporting riders to where they need to go.

Fareless buses do significantly reduce dwell-time. Riders do not have to fiddle with change, an app, or their wallets to get on a bus, allowing them to board faster. This is something that the WRTA does quite well actually. At each stop, buses are usually stopped for a pretty brief period of time. That said, the marginal efficiency gain of this is drastically outweighed by the loss in efficiency that low service levels provide.

Public agencies such as the WRTA have a moral obligation to provide the public with the best possible service. By keeping free fares, the WRTA is not providing the most possible riders with the most possible trips. Re-introducing fares for those who can afford it on the WRTA would result in  better service, better equity, and a better Worcester.