Free Transit? Experts Are Wary
Tyee series sparks interest, and cautionary tales.
Two weeks ago, the Tyee ran a five-part series that made the case why transit should be free of charge to riders.
The response to the series' main argument -- namely that to fight global warming we must cut out cars and pull down barriers to taking the bus -- was dramatic. Traffic crashed our site, series author Dave Olsen went on national and local radio, versions of the article went viral on the Internet, and Atlantic magazine columnist Andrew Sullivan praised Olsen's argument as "a great idea." In a nutshell, the series hit a nerve.
"Should people really be paying for something that's benefiting society?" asks Lawrence Frank, an urban transportation expert at the University of British Columbia. If anything, it's drivers who should shell out more for their dirty deeds, the logic goes.
Timely as the argument is, it remains to be seen that free transit can work where it's needed most: in big cities. While taking out the fare box makes sense in smaller communities, where the costs of collecting fares often outweigh the benefits, in the city fees keep systems on their feet.
So could they really do without charging riders? Asking a number of experts, The Tyee set out to discover why past attempts to go fare-free city-wide failed in cities in New Jersey and Texas, degraded services in downtown Miami, succeeded in portions of Portland and Seattle, and might yet bear fruit in San Francisco.
Lost in Austin
Let's start with where it failed.
Both Stanton, New Jersey and Denver, Colorado, dabbled with fare-free in the 1970s; both tried it during off-peak hours and both quit one year into the experiment.
Austin, Texas, was the last American city to try ditching fares; they pulled out their fare-boxes between 1989-1990, something Joel Volinski says lead to "chaos."
Rowdy young passengers vandalized vehicles and scared off "core riders," said Volinski, who authored a major U.S. study in 2002 that concluded that citywide fare-free policies were a bad idea.
After one year, Austin bus drivers themselves rallied and had the program shut down.
Volinski saw a similar experiment fail when he was a director of a smaller transit system near Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Ridership soared when that system went fare-free, but it was soon carpe diem for hooligans there too.
"They'd jump on the bus, raise holy hell, then jump off two blocks later. They got a big kick out of that."
"It has something to do with the question of value," he believes, "when people pay nothing for something, they just don't think it has value and they treat it as such."
The Austin experiment, his report states, "left lasting impressions on transit operators throughout the country." Nothing on that scale has been tried since.
San Free-cisco
That may not be true for long. Under Mayor Gavin Newsom, San Francisco is currently taking a hard look at the viability of going fare-free. In a city beset by smog and congestion problems, Newsome recently wondered aloud if the costs of enforcing and collecting fares was worth it in a city where many skip out of paying fares in the first place.
"There's been a lot of different ideas floated here," says Peg Stevenson, San Francisco's chief services auditor.
Some of those ideas have to do with dredging up new sources of funding, which would be needed to replace the massive revenues that come from charging the city's riders. Fares add up to roughly a quarter of the system's current annual revenue, or $145 million. That's low, compared to the fare box yield in the Greater Vancouver region, where fares are more than one-third of Translink's funding sources, or $300 million per year.
By the same token, San Francisco has plans to expand transit services to outlying areas, and that has them wondering just how much new fare inspection equipment and enforcement systems will cost.
Will the city be able to afford the switch? Stevenson isn't sure -- the final report is due in August -- but she says that so far there hasn't been widespread support for the idea, nor is it clear if proposed new parcel and transit impact taxes, plus re-funneled parking tax monies, will cover it. Stevenson is also quick to point out that the normally expensive study is being carried out on the cheap since it's piggybacking a larger study on roads and service planning in the Bay Area.
Bear in mind, too as some reports have pointed out, that it is an election year in the City by the Bay.
Bus or shelter?
After sussing out the costs, managers in San Francisco will study the kind of riders a free service would invite.
Todd Litman thinks that, in Vancouver anyway, fare-free transit would attract the wrong kind of clientele.
"I have pretty significant concerns about transit vehicles becoming shelters for homeless people."
Fares, Volinski puts it bluntly, help keep off "the wacko element."
As the director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Litman argues that if the over-arching goal of promoting transit is to combat global warming, the concept of a free ride is wrong-headed.
"I think we need to be most concerned about the quality of public transit, not the cheapness," he said.
Reducing emissions boils down to luring people out of their cars, something that pits public transport directly against the private automobile.
In the U.S., for example, a national household survey concluded that pretty much everybody who can afford to drive a car already owns one. The challenge now is to charm those drivers back into the transit system. How? Echoing Litman, the report's authors say operators will have to improve quality of service by reducing wait times, and increasing convenience.
Litman points out that car manufacturers now spend most of their efforts improving motoring's creature comforts: Plush interiors, sound systems and cup holders are what sell cars these days.
Transit systems have no choice but to improve services, or else they could drive away the same drivers environmentally-minded planners are hoping to entice.
"It has to become consumer-oriented," notes Litman.
U-Pass, we wait
In Vancouver, for example, current bus conditions are anything but enjoyable for the city's transit-takers, according to David Hendry. And riders have seen four consecutive fare increases in less than 10 years.
Overcrowding, pass-ups, bullying transit cops, fare increases: as an organizer with the area's Bus Riders Union, Hendry says the city's Translink system is already way too embattled to go fare-free. He blames Translink's broken promises and cut-backs from senior levels of government.
"In terms of having a fare-free bus system I think it's important to have that vision, but we also have to do the work to stop the attacks that are happening right now."
Although a resounding success, officials and experts agree Translink's U-Pass program has stretched the system to its limit. The cheap annual student fare-card has jammed the major routes to the universities where the U-Pass is offered.
Vancouver's 'terrible problem'
But even with four fare hikes over eight years, general ridership continues to climb, bucking the drops in ridership that accompanied hikes in other cities.
"It seems as though everything we put out there gets used," says Trish Webb, spokeswoman for Translink, "so while I am sympathetic to people saying [that] higher fares make it difficult for people who have low incomes, we're not seeing a big drop in ridership."
Ridership figures for this year are tracking an increase of close to four per cent over last year.
"Vancouver has this terrible problem that all kinds of cities throughout the world would love to have, which is people want to ride transit and you're simply not providing enough service," says Litman.
Canada climbs aboard
In fact, the North American Urban Transit Association says Canadians are hopping on the bus en masse: ridership is rising by 57 million trips a year, about a three per cent increase.
Association president Michael Roschlau says the upward trend is expected to continue partly due to Canadians' concern about the environment.
Canada's big-city mayors get it, and are lobbying the federal government to help cash-stapped municipalities cope with the pressures.
"We don't have the capacity to expand our transit systems," Toronto mayor David Miller said to the CBC. "We don't even have the money to keep them going."
In the zone
Some say a high-grade free service operating in the downtown core, rather than citywide, could be the answer for cities battling emissions and traffic.
But even this has lead to mixed results in the U.S.
Portland and Seattle both have what appear to be workable systems, but Miami's MetroMover -- an elevated rail system servicing the city centre -- has seen cars trashed and abused since that city decided to make that part of its system free, according to Volinksi. The previous fare was a quarter, which meant collection costs outweighed revenues.
"Boy, I rode in it just a week ago and it was a shambles," said Volinski. Shot carpet, etched windows, graffiti came with a 60 to 70 per cent rise in ridership, he said.
"They may have discounted the fact that it was going to result in a lot more vandalism, now they're going to be paying tons to fix it up."
A comparable service in Seattle, on the other hand, seems to be doing well. The Seattle Post-Intellegencer reports that the fare-free zone downtown "allows Metro buses to move more quickly, but costs the city $370,000 a year, the difference between the lost fares and the savings in bus speed."
La fin
While Olsen's Tyee series detailed several success stories and sparked imagination and conversation in B.C. and beyond, it will take more pressure from citizens to generate the political will necessary to see fare free transit in the Lower Mainland.
"It's not a big topic around here," says Webb of Greater Vancouver's Translink system.
But, things are heating up, says UBC's Lawrence Frank, who insists that the Lower Mainland could afford to go fare-free if tolls were put up on bridges leading in and out of Vancouver.
Drivers get cranky when they're asked to subsidize transit, he notes, but they're also the ones "externalizing" the environmental and health costs of driving onto society at large.
"They don't seem to care about that, because they're getting away with it."
Related Tyee stories:
- No Fares!
Time for a free ride on public transit. (Series) - 'Chump Factor' Holding Us Back
People ready to sacrifice to fight global warming if they don't feel alone. - The Mayor Who Wowed the World Urban Forum
Bogota's Enrique Peñalosa's happy 'war on cars.'
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
G West
29-07-2007
c'est ne pas ça, c'est quoi alors?
regardez-la, s’il vous plaît, Monsieur le Realisticman:
Drivers get cranky when they're asked to subsidize transit, he notes, but they're also the ones "externalizing" the environmental and health costs of driving onto society at large.
"They don't seem to care about that, because they're getting away with it."
Free transit is not a BAD idea - except with the people who've been having a free ride until now.
Make the opportunists pay up for the damage they've already done. The problem is that the masters of the universe NEVER want to pay their fair share and they get their knickers in a twist the moment anyone suggests it should be otherwise.
What else is new? Time for the 80% to start using their majority to bring this 'gilded age' to an end.
And, given the situation that's rapidly developing below the 49th, it may not be too long before that starts to happen. Even the venture capitalists who've enabled the spate of leveraged buyouts - which never contribute any jobs, any increases in productivity, or any 'real' assets to the companies they take over - are starting to understand that it's time to pay the piper.
Sadly too late for all the lives and families and futures they've ruined along the way. if things go sideways much further in the US, they may soon be asking that socialist head of the IMF for help to re-float the American economy...
il sût quel choix il devait faire
Bring on the free transit and maybe save the environment into the bargain.
realisticman
29-07-2007
if tolls were put up on bridges leading in and out of Vancouver.
...Thant completes his quote. Maybe one day. The logistics around the east and Gastown would be interesting. As well as the 2nd Narrows instead of the Lions Gate, becoming the sneak-around. There's also Main and Pacific Boulevard versus Cambie. He suggests tolls going out too? Also interesting. We read that the results are usually buses that are vandalized, loaded with louts and filthy. The costs would have to be passed on to the consumers making the city even more expensive to live in. I can imagine an administration that would be voted off the island pretty quickly!
Chris H
30-07-2007
It's about capacity
"Although a resounding success, officials and experts agree Translink's U-Pass program has stretched the system to its limit. The cheap annual student fare-card has jammed the major routes to the universities where the U-Pass is offered."
If people are seriously considering a fare free transit sysytem, they need to first concentrate on capacity. There is no way we could make that work system wide and keep it functioning.
Other cities, like Calgary, have allowed downtown areas to go fare free. Why not try Waterfront to Metrotown? See what impact that may have. I believe that busses are just too expensive to operate in making a completely fare free transit system work.
Grumpy
30-07-2007
Want to talk about modern public transport philosopphy........
........talk to the Light Rail Committee.
If you want to attract ridership, especially the motorist from the car, one must design the transit system to accommodate the wants of the consumer.
That's right, the consumer, for in the 21st century, public transport is seen as a product and if the consumer deems the product poor, the consumer will not use it.
The much vaunted U-Pass is nothing more than a gimmick for TransLink to artificially increase the 'dog and pony show' of monthly ridership statistics, not to bring better transit to the masses.
U-Pass was created to put 'bums' on empty seats, a problem our bus system doesn't have, but then TransLink counts every U-Pass as a daily rider!
Grumpy did consult with those in the know about free transit and the greatest potential problem that 'real' experts raised is that if transit were free, politicians and bureaucrats would treat public transport as a 'social service' and as a 'social service' will operate it on a 'bare bones' budget, providing the most austere and basic transit service, where taking the car, for many, be a far better option.
If you want to attract the all important motorist from the car, the formula is there (as practiced in over 200 cities around the world, since 1980), build modern LRT, on-street/at-grade on as many routes as one can afford and not build proven 'poor in attracting new ridership. elevated and underground metro systems such as RAV and SkyTrain.
This is the debate that needs to be aired, not free transit, just ask the 'real' experts.
Grumpy
30-07-2007
Capacity 101
Capacity is a function of headway.
If a bus route offers 10 services an hour and with each bus has a capacity of 75 (all seats filled and standing patrons at 4 persons per sq. metre) persons, capacity is said to be 750 persons per hour on the route.
(As an aside, all those who are 'agin' the Arbutus route, compare the hourly capacity (2002) of Arbutus and Cambie St., peak hour capacity offered by TransLink was a mere 375 persons per hour more, 5 buses, than Arbutus. Hardly the capacity that would demand a subway!)
Now if only 600 persons an hour use the route, all is happiness, as there is enough 'spare' capacity to ensure there is a space for the customer.
But, if 900 people use the transit route per hour, all is unhappiness as there isn't enough capacity to cater to customers and many will be passed by by 'at-capacity buses.
TransLink's trick.
TransLink arbitrarily increases vehicle capacity (bus and SkyTrain) from the industry standard of all seats filled and standing @ 4 persons per sq. metre, to all seats filled and 6 or 8 persons standing per sq. metre.
This creates, on paper, much higher capacity but not practical capacity, as TransLink doesn't count boardings on buses, rather loadings at key points, ridership estimations are 30% to 40% higher than real figures. Add overcrowding because of the U-Pass and TransLink can fudge transit ridership figures by 30% to 40%!
The U-Pass is a cynical attempt to increase ridership by imaginary figures to impress an rather dull, no I go further, a totally ignorant TransLink Board!
What is needed is an independent audit of our transit system every 2 years, including an Dependant audit of ridership. Only then, will one see the true 'transit' picture.
NoLeftNutter
30-07-2007
What's free?
I’m skeptical of the expert who can’t see the difference between individual user payment and collective payment…..
Grumpy
30-07-2007
Transit 201
Light rail vehicles, of course, have a greater than buses, but what is more, they are more efficient at their job. Studies in Europe indicate that simple streetcars or trams are about 10% faster than buses operating on street. This means 1 tram can carry more passengers during a workday than a bus. This translates into heavily used transit routes using less trams to carry a stated amount of ridership than if buses were used.
Now enter true LRT operating articulated cars on reserved rights-of-ways, where one modern articulated vehicle (1 driver) is as efficient as six to eight buses (6 to 8 drivers). Now, for every bus or tram operated, one needs four to five people to drive, maintain, and manage them.
So let's say a transit route needs 60 buses (240 to 300 personnel) to operate to meet demand. The same route would only need 10 or less trams (40 to 50 personnel) to operate ate the same efficiency.
Added to this, one light rail vehicle operate for about 40 years, while buses last about 15 years.
Now a transit route using LRT has much less operating costs, when compared to buses over a 20 to 25 year period. Simple accounting practices would show this most easily.
TransLink's hype and hoopla about purchasing more buses, and building more rapid transit has no economic basis, rather it is a desperate attempt to provide any sort of transit service at any cost to suit political needs.
You want more affordable public transit, build with real light rail, not subways, not elevated metros, or buying more trolley buses.
steveleenow
30-07-2007
Transit is getting expensive...
I'm not sure I support a free system - but I'd definitely support lowering the fares.
Why not start by abolishing the zones? We are one of the few cities in North America that has this kind of system. They make no sense and they really hurt people who live on a zone boundary and have to travel less than a block or so over that boundary.
I've heard they are looking to change it to a system where you pay by how far you are travelling, which could be fair.
But why not just a flat rate? $2 for 2 hours, wherever you want to go in Vancouver? It's a cheap enough base rate that you wouldn't need to worry about having reduced fares for seniors or students (passes are a different issue). It's also very easy to remember.
With passes, I'd like to see these U-PASS programs go away. I can see how Translink likes U-PASS - it gives them a lot of revenue each year guaranteed, whether or not people use the system. But a lot of time and money is spent on negotiating it, and even then - students have to vote on accepting it.
You can still have your monthly passes, but at about $60 or $70 a month. And perhaps a lowered rate at $40 a month for seniors / students. The seniors passes could be sold everywhere.
It would make doing up the advertising cheaper, it would make the cost of producing the various passes cheaper as you're only advertising one rate - no need for four or five passes to be produced. The non U-PASS schools would then not need those stickers that turn a one zone pass into a three zone pass for full time students. The student passes could be sold exclusively on campuses in bookstores and student unions - that way you have some control over ensuring just students buy them.
Finally, the last thing you would probably want to keep are those day passes - which I think are $8 for the entire day. That's a good option for tourists, etc.
I also would lobby for some kind of better check at skytrain stations. I like how you insert your tickets into the current machines translink uses as it probably does a great job of measuring how many times someone uses their ticket. Now, if you had to swipe your bus pass each time you used it to board something then Translink could collect a lot more solid data about how often someone with a pass actually uses it. So then they would know that 12,000 people buy a monthly pass, but that those people use it xxx,xxx times.
I don't know why we have to have such a complex system of fares - it probably costs a lot to administer. What could ever be wrong with simplifying it?
steveleenow
30-07-2007
oh...
I also support vehicle users paying more for the luxury of driving. Why not have tolls at all our bridges? And why not bring back that vehicle levy - have it based on usage (pleasure, for work, etc.) and how much you drive each year. Come up with a separate deal for professional drivers who depend on their vehicles for a living (your shipping trucks and taxis), and you'll be okay. Maybe not as simple as the flat fee structure I proposed for transit, but if taking transit becomes easier and cheaper, perhaps people will do that.
Grumpy
30-07-2007
I must repeat myself
The auto levy and bridge tolls demonstrate that our public transit system is very poor. If one has to tax people onto transit, demonstrates a very poor product.
We lack the real transit experts and are left with charlatans selling snake oil and bureaucrats safeguarding their paychecks.
To get people out of their cars, we have to design the transit system that is attractive, affordable, and efficient. Today we don't and are suffering from a transit system designed by people who could not plan for an outhouse, let alone understand its function.
Jay Currie
30-07-2007
Ass Backwards
Do we want everyone to ride the bus for free? Or is the goal to allow specific, targetted, groups to use the bus without paying.
The former devalues the benefits of transit; but the latter might well make a substantial difference in how people conduct their lives.
Start with free service for seniors, the handicapped and welfare recipients. Then march it outwards to include people getting full Child Tax Benefit. Then Elementary School kids (I seem to recall that one of the perks of going to school forty years ago was a tattered bit of cardboard the colour of a manila file folder which got me onto the bus for a dime.)
Then send free transit passes to the people out in Maple Ridge and South Delta and the rest of the outlying burbs. Send a schedule along with the pass and declare children to 12 free with an adult.
If you are trying to relieve road congestion - and the cost of new capacity - (not to mention the bogus greenhouse gas arguments) you want to target the people who make the longest car trips first.
The trade offs here are obvious: x million in new highway construction and y million in pollution costs vs what goes into the fare box. There are a variety of potential solutions but most will tend to favour the very poor and the very distant.
RickW
30-07-2007
I said it before......
....and I'll say it again: Transportation across the nation should be free. It would more than pay for itself when people find that travelling to where the jobs are, is not the complicated and angst-ridden trial it has come to be. Heck, Canadians taking holidays IN CANADA (what a novel concept!) simply because getting from east to west to north is a breeze, will pay for the system all by itself.
But this means that cities and provinces will actually have to talk to one another, and not butt heads over "turf wars". It's called co-operation, folks! And it's called moving into the 21st century.
Say.....Anyone seen our maglev bullet trains? By gosh but they must be fast, 'cause they're sure hard to spot!
Oh BTW, about that "wacko element", look to the New York solution..............
DNA
30-07-2007
Rides should be comfortable
Like many people, I can take transit if I wish, or take the car. I'll take transit if its relatively convenient, I can get a seat, and I don't have to make too many transfers. I note however the new Vancouver trolley buses have a lot fewer seats than the vehicles they replaced - seats have been replaced with standing room. I don't want to use transit if I often have to stand for a long time. It seems to me Translink's philosophy is to crowd people into buses as cheaply as possible. That will work for people who have no options (the poor, the young, the elderly), but it won't lure people who otherwise would drive. And those who ride uncomfortable buses will want to get an automobile as soon as they're able. I think this is short sighted as public policy.
realisticman
30-07-2007
It already exists
Translink would receive a lot less money if transit were free. As it is now Translink receives a chunk of the tax on gasoline sales. The governments also receive money since if one is driving on business the deductions for business travel have to be justified and records of business related trips are required. Kilometers traveled must be recorded daily by those claiming the deduction. The system is already set up to tax more those not traveling on business, whether in a car, truck or whatever - and simply going to and from work does not qualify. Any drivers not traveling on pure business are paying in millions in taxes through gasoline purchases and other vehicle related expenditures and Translink is a beneficiary.
Cycling Commuter
31-07-2007
Diesel exhaust combines with blood cholesterol to attack health.
Diesel exhaust combined with blood cholesterol can create "dangerous synergy" that "wreaks cardiovascular havoc" far beyond what either health menace could do alone, says Dr. Andre Nel of UCLA in a study published on July 26, 2007.
Title: Air-pollutant chemicals and oxidized lipids exhibit genome-wide synergistic effects on endothelial cells.
Authors: Ke Wei Gong , Wei Zhao, Ning Li, Berenice Barajas, Michael Kleinman, Constantinos Sioutas, Steve Horvath, Aldons J Lusis, Andre Nel and Jesus A Araujo.
Publication: Genome Biology 2007, 8:R149 doi:10.1186/gb-2007-8-7-r149
Publication Date: 26 July 2007
See full-text at: http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/7/R149
Speaking of noisy diesel buses, a German study from a few years ago found that exposure to noise raised the risk of heart attacks for men by 50%. The risk for women was tripled by noise. A Japanese study from about 6 years ago found that diesel exhaust is incredibly carcinogenic.
Diesel bus evangelists want to tax us even more in order to further increase the already massive amount of health and environmental damage caused by buses.
Small electric commuter cars such as the one at http://www.twike.ca are much better for the public health and environment than expensive, noisy, smelly, polluting, road-destroying diesel buses. And a lot more time-efficient too.
Massive amounts of time are wasted waiting for buses to arrive. More time is wasted as buses takes indirect, zig-zag routes to riders' destinations. Time is wasted as a bus constantly stops and starts while picking up and dropping off passengers. Even more time is wasted when a bus finally arrives, but is so packed that passengers are left behind. Most rational people who recognize the value of their time wouldn't bother taking a bus even if they were paid to do so.
This series of diesel bus evangelist stories should have been illustrated with a drawing of taxpayers being held upside-down above a giant toilet labelled "public transit" and shaken vigorously so as to cause all the cash in their pockets to fall into the toilet bowl.
JP
31-07-2007
Finally a real article
Where was this article during the original series? There's actual original research done here. Thank you tyee for finally shedding some real light on this issue.
As for getting people to ride transit, you can make it as convenient as possible, ie taxis, and people will still skip it. Providing people with the carrot of comfortable transit, isn't enough if the stick of inconvenient commuting isn't there, be it congestion, or taxation.
Many people will own a car regardless of if they use transit or not, so the cost of commuting is marginal in their opinion. But make it the same cost as a bus fare and people will reevaluate their options.
ov
31-07-2007
what about parking
When it comes to the cost and convenience argument for taking the car I'd like to see some numbers on the subsidized cost of parking. I've heard that in cities like Boston and New York the monthly rental for a parking spot is higher than what a poor person pays for accommodation. If a person had to pay twenty bucks a day to park their car it would change the economics, wouldn't it. If a person had to drive around the block for an hour or more to find a free parking spot it would change the convenience, wouldn't it.
It wouldn't take that many city parkades, converted to meager but warm and safe accommodation to allow all the homeless people to come in out of the cold. But oh no, we couldn't do that, it might inconvenience all the lard asses that can't pull their butt out of a car. Where's the money going to come from? How about a fat tax on overweight people to encourage them to get a little exercise, and as a bonus we could reduce our health costs.
Grumpy
31-07-2007
JP wrong!
JP stated, "To attract the ridership, exclusive rights-of-ways are required, which means elevated or buried lines in most parts of Vancouver"
In fact studies (Prof. Carmen Hass-Clau, etc.) have shown it is not speed that attracts ridership, but the overall ambiance of the system. Buried (subways and elevated transit lines have proven to be a disincentive to attract riderships. The majority of use comes from 300 metres around each stop.
Your statements are very 1950's, which is not surprising as it mirrors TransLink's.
Note no one has copied TransLink's transit operation, nor bought into SkyTrain.
Avicenna
31-07-2007
"manditory" universal pass for all
What seems the best course would be to have a payment structure - like the MSP based on tax bracket and income - that everyone living within the area that Translink services contributes to and gets an ID card that guarantees them a seat on the bus, skytrain, coach or seabus. This is essentially a U-pass for everyone in the GVRD - and the windfall of funds this would generate can go towards ensuring that our pathetic transit system gets the overhaul it needs to provide satisfactory service to everyone on all routes. Those who "have to" drive can take the opportunity to not drive all the way into downtown. Just reducing the number and lengths of car trips would be worth it. Right now it is easier and cheaper to just drive to the local theatre or grocery stop when the need arises then to take transit. If one is already paying for public transit and it is free to jump on board, it would surely change the way we move about town.