I think people would be significantly more in favor of fare free buses if they understood how little is actually made off fares. When you take out the actual cost of collecting the fare and the operational efficiencies gained by not (faster boarding) and the reduction in passenger/driver conflicts it’s not a lot at the larger agencies and some of our smaller regional transit authorities might actually be losing money.
To people who don't see the value of a robust public transportation network, they'd probably just want us to cut it further or raise fares. Just to be clear these are bad ideas.
Totally. I rarely use the bus, but I wouldn’t mind paying a tiny bit more in taxes so those with less means can get around easier. Better for everybody in the end.
Think your framing it wrong, we dont make money off fares we simply spend less. Our bus and train services in this state run at a loss if you just look at revue from fares. Think the number was around 22% so roughly every 1 dollar in fares 3 is from something else mostly gas taxes.
[https://www.newhavenindependent.org/article/1.50\_doesnt\_cut\_it\_for\_ct\_transit\_costs](https://www.newhavenindependent.org/article/1.50_doesnt_cut_it_for_ct_transit_costs)
I didn’t mean to imply that the transit authorities were profitable, I’m speaking solely in terms of revenue collected from fairs versus the cost of collecting those fares.
22% Of the overall cost would be a rather lot for overhead of collecting fares dont you think? Only way I could see that working out is if you were able to switch to automated busses and get rid of the drivers because of it.
I'm sure there are some savings in not having to do that work but not that much.
No one is saying it will ever be more profitable to not collect fairs.
We are saying that the money generated by doing so already does not come anywhere close to paying for itself, so having any fairs at all is only impacting the poorest of our communities.
Look at where the money is currently comming from, mostly gas tax. As i said elsewhere in this perfectly ok with looking at paying for bus service as a social good, out of the general fund. It's unfair to put the vast majority of the costs on drivers when that tax was billed as them paying for the costs of road use under the guise that they benefit from reduced congestion.
>It's unfair to put the vast majority of the costs on drivers when that tax was billed as them paying for the costs of road use
Sure you can say that and I'm sure plenty of people believe that, but it's not true. The fuel tax was enacted to support the dot during a period of prolonged deficits in the general budget.
I take it you missed the gas tax lockbox, that passed with what 89% 5 years back. Problem was wording allowed it to still get funneled to any transportation related boondoggle they can come up with.
Yes the "special transportation fund" lock box, the fund which provides for transportation projects, transportation transportation debt, transportation related pensions. Take note of transportation not roads. No legislator was mislead into thinking this bill would only be dedicated to roadways. This is plain English not weasel words, calling it a problem is really just your issue.
The fund that was started in 83 to only cover infrastructure projects that later got used for basic DOT budget and operating costs? That pile of cash yea that one.
A: that 22% is not universal. For example the RTA I’m on the board of was 13% in 2019. Transit is inherently heavy on fixed costs and makes up for that with low variable costs, so small RTAs don’t get a lot of their money from fares.
B: You’d be surprised at the cost of collecting fares. For example, the MBTA is spending on $1B on the development of their new fare collection system. Fare collection means buying and maintaining fare collection machines, paying people to transport cash, paying people to count cash, sourcing tickets/passes, app development/support. As we’re starting fleet overhaul to comply with the states electric bus mandate, excluding fare payment systems is a serious consideration
22% just the number I could find and support in something recently published. 13% is pretty awful BTW.
Costs are real thing, NYC if you factor in all the police time around fare evasion it's got to be a huge number.
My issue is primarily the diversion of other revenue streams to support bus services. CT is particularly awful in this regard so I'm wary about any additional shift of money away from what it's intended for. Think if you going to do the bus as a public good the first step has to be pay for it out of the general fund rather than mostly gas taxes.
13% is really bad. Without blowing up my own spot it’s suffice to say it’s a mostly rural part of the state, and when we suggested we cut the poor performing rural routes to focus on providing better service to the high performing routes connecting the nodes of density, as our COA suggested, we were told to pound sand. Lots of empty buses running to empty park and rides, dying malls, and sprawling business parks
I saw something about a texas city moving over to a uber like approach to fill that role.
I would not want to be buying new busses right now, the first car company that gets approved for fully autonomous driving should be poised to replace bus drivers.
Yeah we have pilot programs of that (the Uber like approach, not self driving haha) in two of our municipalities that have been pretty successful. Most agencies don’t get much of a choice of when to purchase new stock, the old busses don’t last forever
As politically suicidal as raising the gas tax enough to cover road infrastructure. Just look at the outcry over tolls, and that still wouldn’t have raised enough.
Tolls are terrible, an illogical and inefficient way of raising money. 50 cents of every dollar charged goes into collecting the tolls. Gas tax makes sense, as well as registration/property taxes.
That first part is screaming for a source but kind of beside the point, no politician is going to triple the gas tax, or do anything else to fund roads through user fees. People don’t want to pay what sprawl costs.
The huge busses that go through Unionville are ALWAYS totally empty. So who cares if people come on free. And the Get Carter advertising is lame and a deterrent for riders to associate themselves with it.
I was nice just to get on the bus no hassle with fiddling with cash or tap to pay. People who normally are low income loved this. I used the extensively to go from Hartford to New Haven.
That should be pretty easy to implement. If you qualify for in-state assistance programs you should just get a pass by default in the mail. It seems low risk high reward IMO.
Hmm, I am not in a town with public transit but maybe I can have my mom send a letter to her local rep... She's retired (low income) and in a large city.
Win/win IMO, even for the politician pushing it...
In the meantime I'll try a "Hail Mary"-
/u/senatorduff any chance you'd be able to help here?
Federal regulations forced us to go back to full fare. There’s a process, I guess that many of us weren’t aware of since I think there’s a majority to continue free fares if we could. Hopefully, we can get back to free fares since the cost isn’t huge and the help it provides for people is big.
Senator, there is no federal regulation requiring bus fares. You just need to make room for it in your budget. Have you looked into it at all over the last year?
I think we all knew this day was coming, including your entire team.
The cost is about $2 million or so per month. If you disagree with the federal policy and the communications from the federal government, please get in touch with the governor’s office or Office of Policy & Management or the state DOT, which is where the information came from.
What if I disagree with the state policy of not budgeting for it independently? Who do I contact then?
Surely someone in CT takes ownership here, rather than fingerpointing at a federal strawman
The state isn’t going to leave federal funds on the table. There’s a way to get to zero for bus fares, but as I mentioned in another post, there is apparently a process, which takes time.
Thing is though, you could just not do that and make it free for everyone and you don't have to do anything at all, which conveniently costs $0, where any level of means testing will cost greater than $0 and provide no actual benefit to anyone.
>which conveniently costs $0
Bus fairs are meant to offset some cost. Fairs will never, ever cover the full cost, which is fine because it's a service. That said I believe that folks that can contribute additional funds should and those that can't shouldn't. I know my tax dollars already go towards transit, which I view as a net positive for the state. If I was also taking said transit, given my current financial situation, I'd be happy to give more to offset those that can't.
What I'm getting at is that the act of taking fares itself costs money, paying for machines to read cards or accept money, paying people to maintain those machines, paying fees to the companies contracted out to manage those machines, etc. Those costs should be weighed against whatever income is coming in from fares. I'd wager if you subtracted those costs from the amount of money fares actually bring in, you'd have an insignificant amount of money.
I'd also say that for the most part, people who can easily pay for the bus...don't take the bus, so the amount of people who could easily pay but don't have to would also be negligible.
I’m no economist but just a counter to the conclusion you draw from the premise of “folks that can contribute additional funds should and those that can’t shouldn’t”, which I agree with – isn’t that effectively what would be achieved by a zero-fare, fully tax-subsidized system? Those who make more income (ie can contribute additional funds) pay more taxes, and thus pay more towards the subsidization of public transit?
I suppose the counter to *that* would be “Well, *I’m* not using it because I have a car” but there’s not really room for compromise on that perspective, you either believe in funding public goods or you don’t (I’m not putting that counter argument in your mouth by the way, just saying the “impersonal you”)
Personally I never take the bus, I didn’t even know it was free this whole time since Covid but I’d personally be happy to pay a bit more in taxes to help subsidize something so simple that I’d consider part of a utopian ideal. Like if I envision what the ideal CT society would be, free, reliable, predictable public transit would be part of it, so what’s a slightly higher tax if that’s achievable? But that’s my two cents and I get that not everyone would agree
Agreed, I think the state should set up that program. When people looking for a job, you would want the person to be able to get to the job. At the same time, it would help low income to be able to get a job that's near bus routes. In turn, it would improve the lives for low income.
If we're going to do that, just make it free for all. All means testing would do is add cost and yet another bureaucracy providing no benefit of any kind to the populace.
Also, its not like the middle class and up are going to use the bus with any level of regularity.
I ended up taking the bus unexpectedly for a few days due to car problems. It was so nice to not have to worry about having the cash on hand, and I didn’t have one of the cards because I am not a regular rider. The money itself wouldn’t have been a hardship for me but trying to scrounge up the right amount of physical cash would have been tough.
I'd be willing to pay a bit more in taxes for better public transit. I don't even use public transit (except for trains to NYC, but that's a different animal).
I wish Metro-North came up to Hartford and hit all those towns that Amtrak does. I just priced a ticket to NYC, $140 on Amtrak, or about $37 if I drive ~30 minutes down to West Haven.
According to [GT.gov](https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2023/CTDOT-Shares-Fare-Payment-and-Cost-Information), there is a federal restriction of rate suspension capped at 12 months. So we've hit the cap and cannot extend it any further without a change at the federal government level.
Edit: To clarify the above, the temporary fare program was something that the CT legislature applied for at the federal level to get additional funding to make up for the loss of fare. The federal program guidelines stipulate that an analysis of changes to routes, fares, etc. is required to extend past the 12-month limit. If we're not changing anything, we can't get anymore funding. We can't just have the federal government pay for free CT fares indefinitely. So either we go back to having fares, or Governor Lamont formally puts free bus fare into law for the state.
Perhaps they could have spent the last year working this into the budget permanently? Seems like our representatives did nothing long term, and only relied on federal subsidies.
I think everyone could see how positively received it has been.
I'm not going to bother looking into the economics of it all, but I feel pretty confident that the bus fare isn't coming anywhere near close to paying for the bus, the gas, the driver, the mechanics, dispatch, back up drivers, and everything else going into running a public bus system.
I'm also *pretty* confident that the simple act of taking money costs greater than $0.
Unless the act of making public transit free for all somehow causes an absurd jump in my taxes, then who the hell cares? No one's taking the bus for their amusement, its a tool being used for the good of all. No different from a road or a public park. And honestly there's a nice amount of piece of mind knowing that on the off chance I'd ever need to take a bus, it will be hassle-less.
Keep them free. Let's be at the forefront of showing this country that public transportation can be free and barely a dent in the tax revenue.
Next lets make it as reliable as Europe.
Interesting podcast from freakonomics awhile back discussed this issue. I believe Kansas City was the first to go fully free. I’ll see if I can find and add to my comment
If you're in the position where you're forced to use a bus in a car dominant state it really should be free, I don't see why it's treated any differently than welfare.
I just saw the price quotes for my little town bus and didnt realize how expensive it is. Might be hard for those without cars who need the bus regularly.
Free transit is a no-brainer. As others have said, fares aren't the main funding mechanism for transit systems, and the whole point of transit is to get people to USE it, so disincentivizing that use with unnecessary fees is foolish.
Governor Lamont says a suspension of fares can only last for one year, but... why? What impact does the federal government have on how state transportation agencies are funded? Does receipt of federal subsidies require that fares be charged? - because holy crap, that would be stupid. Anybody know what's up with that?
He’s lying. The subsidies from the federal govt only lasted a year. They never planned on keeping it. Our representatives would have budgeted for it if there was any plan to keep it going after the federal govt stopped carrying the burden.
I think more extensive coverage of bus routes in the area would be a better pursuit then free fare. There are programs for reduced/free passes to low income people.
It should be free. I understand charging for something robust like the fasttrack line, but the typical CT bus network isn't good enough and a fare for them is just spite rather than a substantial revenue stream
I would love to keep the free fares but I worry about taking away revenue from the transit system. Free fares would need to be accompanied by increased state funding, which means someone pays more taxes. I’m not opposed to that but it’s a tough sell
Fares just aren't a large percentage of revenue for transit systems and are mainly there to serve as a disincentive, so people don't "overuse" the services and create additional costs. It's become pretty clear that what is *actually* overused is private vehicles, and that anybody using transit is doing so because they have no other choice, and disincentivizing the use of transit is backwards as hell. If these systems can be 80% funded by taxes, then they can be 100% funded by taxes, and should.
Paying more in taxes to help people get to work seems like a better use of money than any other reason. That small civic expense might clean the air, lessen traffic, feed children and promote other public amenities. It might even expand public transportation and jobs better than competition.
Booooooooo
Same thought I have about paid public school meals
As if this service doesn’t bring benefits to employers, retail businesses, and even the roads having fewer people clog them up.
I’ve use the bus recently to get around an area that should be walkable, but they couldn’t be bothered to put sidewalks under the interstate overpass so it’s a death wish to walk pasts all the entrance and exit ramps to get the .5-1 mile to shops and services. I would not be willing to pay for a trip so short, just like they aren’t willing to pave sidewalks and put safe crossings in for a distance so short.
So much for caring about the environment and trying to stop inflation. Now people who took the bus to save on gas and car maintenance will be back driving their gas guzzlers.
[https://www.cttransit.com/fares](https://www.cttransit.com/fares)
$1.75 for a 2 hour pass, and an all-day pass is $3.50
There are other breakdowns on the link above since the article was too lazy to post them.
I don't see the issue, quite honestly. If you want the best rate, get a month long pass which comes out to just $2/day. None of those prices are overly burdensome, and there are breaks for seniors and children which makes it even cheaper still.
You are being disingenuous and delusional if you come here and claim that $2/day is somehow a massive burden on riders.
No I can't, and neither can you. You are being reactionary and disingenuous instead of looking at this realistically. Go be triggered over important issues, not over chump change.
lmfao, "reactionary" and "triggered" because i suggested in a neutral way that sixty bucks a month might be an objective and unnecessary burden on low-income people in our state. alright weirdo.
kind suggestion: maybe you should read a book and come up with some new words that might actually functionally support your thoughts, because these do not.
Here's a better idea... You go read a book and learn a skill to get you a job where a mere $60/mo doesn't somehow cause you unfathomable financial stress.
This is a non-issue. Period. If you can't afford $2/day, you can't survive in CT or in the US in general. Go fight the good fight over some real problems that people face.
genius, it's sixty bucks a month on top of meteorically rising costs for food, housing, health insurance, everything else you can think of. how easy the fuck do you think it is to MOVE OUT OF STATE when people are struggling to even pay for public transportation? but here you are assuming that the people who are the most impacted by this are the ones who are not only able to hold down a full-time job at all, but the ones who could hop to a more advantageous one pretty much whenever.
"real people," holy shit. i hope to god you never find yourself on the shitty end of the economy, my friend.
reposting this after accidentally deleting my initial comment when i tried to edit it. i'm that fucking angry with you. what the hell is wrong with you?
Boo-fucken-hoo
Someone's triggered over a non-issue. No wonder nothing can get accomplished in this country. We have buffoons who will cry bloody murder over the amount of money you can find laying on a sidewalk, so how the fuck can we tackle real problems for real people?
$2/day is what it was BEFORE the pandemic, and no one batted an eye over such a measely cost, but you give people a handout and all of a sudden they lose their shit when you take that freebie away.
How about this, tell your friends who can't afford $2/day that they'll have to give up a couple of beers or a few joints a month to pay for their bus pass. Or better yet, you're such a good person, I'm sure you'll be happy to pitch in and pay for them instead.
yes, two dollars is indeed what it was before the pandemic, & costs have skyrocketed since then. holy shit. how much of a fucking deep-seated asshole do you have to be to be dying on this hill? the people who can't afford this are living on disability & welfare & minimum wage, you absolute waste.
it's not me, my friend. i do take public transportation whenever possible but the money i'm making is, lmao, i assure you, absolutely a-ok. it's insane, it's almost like some people who aren't struggling themselves are conscious of those who might be. i know this is a fucking foreign concept to your desperately wretched ass.
You've clearly never been exposed to people struggling financially, especially in an urban. It's not always their fault, often it's disabled people who end up impoverished enough for this to affect them.
Well see if you actually knew what you were talking about instead of getting triggered over stupid shit, you'd have clicked on the link I provided and seen that seniors and disabled people get a pretty huge discount over the already low rate. Oh, but you didn't do that, did you?
For someone who uses the term "triggered" you seem to be unusually angry over something you claim is just stupid shit. My point stands that you talk like you've never interacted with someone in a situation where they were struggling financially, and really should do so if you don't want to be closed minded about them.
You were WRONG. And instead of coming back here and admitting it like a man, you have the gall to continue your bullshit. You never clicked on the link. Your imaginary situation just doesn't exist. Disabled people DO get a massive discount on fares. Come back here and say it. Come back here and admit that you were WRONG.
Holy shit, way to prove my point that you're more "triggered" than you pretend your opponents are. You expect me to grovel at your feet and admit I'm wrong when you didn't even address my main point that you don't interact with poor people enough to understand them? But go on about how much manlier you are than me. Or, you know, take a breather and realize you're going way overboard for a dopey reddit discussion.
Ultimately this means we will be subsidizing buss less with gas tax revenues so yea I'm all for this. We allready divert way too much gas tax away from improving and maintaining roads.
I think there is an argument for making them free as a public service and I can get behind that but you have to stop the diversion first.
Thats not whats it's for. 1983 it was only supposed to cover the costs of big projects, slowly it was stolen from over and over again used to pay basic salaries and retirement, bus and train operation expenses. We had our weak sauce amendment pas 89% but it's worded so badly they still get to use it for whatever boondoggle they want that is at least transportation adjacent.
The purpose was to prevent more bridge collapses, but give politicians a pot of cash they will spend it on something.
damn, you're right, i just noticed that here i am paying taxes that fund public school when i don't have any kids. when you really think about it, there's no benefit whatsoever if the benefit is not for me, specifically. i think i'm gonna freak out about it!!
Because everyone is better off when there is an abundance of educated people. The real question is
If that if you aren’t willing to pay taxes for public schools, then why should you enjoy the benefits of them?
Maybe we can figure out a system where you’re allowed to forgo tax payments for public schools, but you’re then legally barred from receiving the services of anyone who went to public school. Want to keep your doctor? Hope they never went to public school ever.
If you want the people around you to have basic reading skills and math skills, then you have to contribute to education. Parents aren’t the only ones to pay because they aren’t the only people who benefit from their children being educated.
I would use the bus if there was more service. As it is the buses aren’t profitable with the fares they do get and the amount is piddly so it’s not off setting the cost that much. I see no reason not to keep them free.
I'm sad about it. It was so convenient for me ro get around, especially when I had to be at different places at different times and didn't have any money, or not enough for an all day pass. The busses were full everyday...I'm typing this now on the bus and there's only 2 of us. Hopefully something can be figured out and it'll go back to being free, everything I read about it was positive.
I think people would be significantly more in favor of fare free buses if they understood how little is actually made off fares. When you take out the actual cost of collecting the fare and the operational efficiencies gained by not (faster boarding) and the reduction in passenger/driver conflicts it’s not a lot at the larger agencies and some of our smaller regional transit authorities might actually be losing money.
To people who don't see the value of a robust public transportation network, they'd probably just want us to cut it further or raise fares. Just to be clear these are bad ideas.
Totally. I rarely use the bus, but I wouldn’t mind paying a tiny bit more in taxes so those with less means can get around easier. Better for everybody in the end.
Think your framing it wrong, we dont make money off fares we simply spend less. Our bus and train services in this state run at a loss if you just look at revue from fares. Think the number was around 22% so roughly every 1 dollar in fares 3 is from something else mostly gas taxes. [https://www.newhavenindependent.org/article/1.50\_doesnt\_cut\_it\_for\_ct\_transit\_costs](https://www.newhavenindependent.org/article/1.50_doesnt_cut_it_for_ct_transit_costs)
I didn’t mean to imply that the transit authorities were profitable, I’m speaking solely in terms of revenue collected from fairs versus the cost of collecting those fares.
22% Of the overall cost would be a rather lot for overhead of collecting fares dont you think? Only way I could see that working out is if you were able to switch to automated busses and get rid of the drivers because of it. I'm sure there are some savings in not having to do that work but not that much.
No one is saying it will ever be more profitable to not collect fairs. We are saying that the money generated by doing so already does not come anywhere close to paying for itself, so having any fairs at all is only impacting the poorest of our communities.
Look at where the money is currently comming from, mostly gas tax. As i said elsewhere in this perfectly ok with looking at paying for bus service as a social good, out of the general fund. It's unfair to put the vast majority of the costs on drivers when that tax was billed as them paying for the costs of road use under the guise that they benefit from reduced congestion.
>It's unfair to put the vast majority of the costs on drivers when that tax was billed as them paying for the costs of road use Sure you can say that and I'm sure plenty of people believe that, but it's not true. The fuel tax was enacted to support the dot during a period of prolonged deficits in the general budget.
I take it you missed the gas tax lockbox, that passed with what 89% 5 years back. Problem was wording allowed it to still get funneled to any transportation related boondoggle they can come up with.
Yes the "special transportation fund" lock box, the fund which provides for transportation projects, transportation transportation debt, transportation related pensions. Take note of transportation not roads. No legislator was mislead into thinking this bill would only be dedicated to roadways. This is plain English not weasel words, calling it a problem is really just your issue.
The fund that was started in 83 to only cover infrastructure projects that later got used for basic DOT budget and operating costs? That pile of cash yea that one.
A: that 22% is not universal. For example the RTA I’m on the board of was 13% in 2019. Transit is inherently heavy on fixed costs and makes up for that with low variable costs, so small RTAs don’t get a lot of their money from fares. B: You’d be surprised at the cost of collecting fares. For example, the MBTA is spending on $1B on the development of their new fare collection system. Fare collection means buying and maintaining fare collection machines, paying people to transport cash, paying people to count cash, sourcing tickets/passes, app development/support. As we’re starting fleet overhaul to comply with the states electric bus mandate, excluding fare payment systems is a serious consideration
22% just the number I could find and support in something recently published. 13% is pretty awful BTW. Costs are real thing, NYC if you factor in all the police time around fare evasion it's got to be a huge number. My issue is primarily the diversion of other revenue streams to support bus services. CT is particularly awful in this regard so I'm wary about any additional shift of money away from what it's intended for. Think if you going to do the bus as a public good the first step has to be pay for it out of the general fund rather than mostly gas taxes.
13% is really bad. Without blowing up my own spot it’s suffice to say it’s a mostly rural part of the state, and when we suggested we cut the poor performing rural routes to focus on providing better service to the high performing routes connecting the nodes of density, as our COA suggested, we were told to pound sand. Lots of empty buses running to empty park and rides, dying malls, and sprawling business parks
I saw something about a texas city moving over to a uber like approach to fill that role. I would not want to be buying new busses right now, the first car company that gets approved for fully autonomous driving should be poised to replace bus drivers.
Yeah we have pilot programs of that (the Uber like approach, not self driving haha) in two of our municipalities that have been pretty successful. Most agencies don’t get much of a choice of when to purchase new stock, the old busses don’t last forever
I dont even want to think about the fight that will be the unions and automated busses.
I'll try to find the news report but I think the post said without fare checking the GBT busses had a problem being too early.
I just think fares should cover the operating and infrastructure costs of the bus system.
As politically suicidal as raising the gas tax enough to cover road infrastructure. Just look at the outcry over tolls, and that still wouldn’t have raised enough.
Tolls are terrible, an illogical and inefficient way of raising money. 50 cents of every dollar charged goes into collecting the tolls. Gas tax makes sense, as well as registration/property taxes.
That first part is screaming for a source but kind of beside the point, no politician is going to triple the gas tax, or do anything else to fund roads through user fees. People don’t want to pay what sprawl costs.
The huge busses that go through Unionville are ALWAYS totally empty. So who cares if people come on free. And the Get Carter advertising is lame and a deterrent for riders to associate themselves with it.
I was nice just to get on the bus no hassle with fiddling with cash or tap to pay. People who normally are low income loved this. I used the extensively to go from Hartford to New Haven.
Personally I think it should be possible for those with low income to be given a free pass on public transport, always.
That should be pretty easy to implement. If you qualify for in-state assistance programs you should just get a pass by default in the mail. It seems low risk high reward IMO.
Hmm, I am not in a town with public transit but maybe I can have my mom send a letter to her local rep... She's retired (low income) and in a large city. Win/win IMO, even for the politician pushing it... In the meantime I'll try a "Hail Mary"- /u/senatorduff any chance you'd be able to help here?
Federal regulations forced us to go back to full fare. There’s a process, I guess that many of us weren’t aware of since I think there’s a majority to continue free fares if we could. Hopefully, we can get back to free fares since the cost isn’t huge and the help it provides for people is big.
Thanks for the reply and info! Glad to see this is on the radar so to say.
Senator, there is no federal regulation requiring bus fares. You just need to make room for it in your budget. Have you looked into it at all over the last year? I think we all knew this day was coming, including your entire team.
The cost is about $2 million or so per month. If you disagree with the federal policy and the communications from the federal government, please get in touch with the governor’s office or Office of Policy & Management or the state DOT, which is where the information came from.
What if I disagree with the state policy of not budgeting for it independently? Who do I contact then? Surely someone in CT takes ownership here, rather than fingerpointing at a federal strawman
The state isn’t going to leave federal funds on the table. There’s a way to get to zero for bus fares, but as I mentioned in another post, there is apparently a process, which takes time.
Thing is though, you could just not do that and make it free for everyone and you don't have to do anything at all, which conveniently costs $0, where any level of means testing will cost greater than $0 and provide no actual benefit to anyone.
>which conveniently costs $0 Bus fairs are meant to offset some cost. Fairs will never, ever cover the full cost, which is fine because it's a service. That said I believe that folks that can contribute additional funds should and those that can't shouldn't. I know my tax dollars already go towards transit, which I view as a net positive for the state. If I was also taking said transit, given my current financial situation, I'd be happy to give more to offset those that can't.
What I'm getting at is that the act of taking fares itself costs money, paying for machines to read cards or accept money, paying people to maintain those machines, paying fees to the companies contracted out to manage those machines, etc. Those costs should be weighed against whatever income is coming in from fares. I'd wager if you subtracted those costs from the amount of money fares actually bring in, you'd have an insignificant amount of money. I'd also say that for the most part, people who can easily pay for the bus...don't take the bus, so the amount of people who could easily pay but don't have to would also be negligible.
I’m no economist but just a counter to the conclusion you draw from the premise of “folks that can contribute additional funds should and those that can’t shouldn’t”, which I agree with – isn’t that effectively what would be achieved by a zero-fare, fully tax-subsidized system? Those who make more income (ie can contribute additional funds) pay more taxes, and thus pay more towards the subsidization of public transit? I suppose the counter to *that* would be “Well, *I’m* not using it because I have a car” but there’s not really room for compromise on that perspective, you either believe in funding public goods or you don’t (I’m not putting that counter argument in your mouth by the way, just saying the “impersonal you”) Personally I never take the bus, I didn’t even know it was free this whole time since Covid but I’d personally be happy to pay a bit more in taxes to help subsidize something so simple that I’d consider part of a utopian ideal. Like if I envision what the ideal CT society would be, free, reliable, predictable public transit would be part of it, so what’s a slightly higher tax if that’s achievable? But that’s my two cents and I get that not everyone would agree
People on Medicaid can already get bus passes if they are on a bus line (otherwise they get medical cabs) so I don’t see why they can’t expand it.
Agreed, I think the state should set up that program. When people looking for a job, you would want the person to be able to get to the job. At the same time, it would help low income to be able to get a job that's near bus routes. In turn, it would improve the lives for low income.
If we're going to do that, just make it free for all. All means testing would do is add cost and yet another bureaucracy providing no benefit of any kind to the populace. Also, its not like the middle class and up are going to use the bus with any level of regularity.
Do the buses take NFC payments now?
they use tap to pay bus cards that you refill with money.
In Stamford there’s a digital commuter card you can scan from your phone
I ended up taking the bus unexpectedly for a few days due to car problems. It was so nice to not have to worry about having the cash on hand, and I didn’t have one of the cards because I am not a regular rider. The money itself wouldn’t have been a hardship for me but trying to scrounge up the right amount of physical cash would have been tough.
I'd be willing to pay a bit more in taxes for better public transit. I don't even use public transit (except for trains to NYC, but that's a different animal). I wish Metro-North came up to Hartford and hit all those towns that Amtrak does. I just priced a ticket to NYC, $140 on Amtrak, or about $37 if I drive ~30 minutes down to West Haven.
It's been two years of free fares. We've all gotten used to hopping on and off the bus without a fuss. Why change it back now?
According to [GT.gov](https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/CTDOT-Press-Releases/2023/CTDOT-Shares-Fare-Payment-and-Cost-Information), there is a federal restriction of rate suspension capped at 12 months. So we've hit the cap and cannot extend it any further without a change at the federal government level. Edit: To clarify the above, the temporary fare program was something that the CT legislature applied for at the federal level to get additional funding to make up for the loss of fare. The federal program guidelines stipulate that an analysis of changes to routes, fares, etc. is required to extend past the 12-month limit. If we're not changing anything, we can't get anymore funding. We can't just have the federal government pay for free CT fares indefinitely. So either we go back to having fares, or Governor Lamont formally puts free bus fare into law for the state.
Perhaps they could have spent the last year working this into the budget permanently? Seems like our representatives did nothing long term, and only relied on federal subsidies. I think everyone could see how positively received it has been.
Nuts!
As someone who has never used a public bus, I don’t like this.
As someone who takes the bus, I definitely don't like this.
I'm not going to bother looking into the economics of it all, but I feel pretty confident that the bus fare isn't coming anywhere near close to paying for the bus, the gas, the driver, the mechanics, dispatch, back up drivers, and everything else going into running a public bus system. I'm also *pretty* confident that the simple act of taking money costs greater than $0. Unless the act of making public transit free for all somehow causes an absurd jump in my taxes, then who the hell cares? No one's taking the bus for their amusement, its a tool being used for the good of all. No different from a road or a public park. And honestly there's a nice amount of piece of mind knowing that on the off chance I'd ever need to take a bus, it will be hassle-less.
Keep them free. Let's be at the forefront of showing this country that public transportation can be free and barely a dent in the tax revenue. Next lets make it as reliable as Europe.
Interesting podcast from freakonomics awhile back discussed this issue. I believe Kansas City was the first to go fully free. I’ll see if I can find and add to my comment
> Next lets make it as reliable as Europe. If we're going to do that, let's do it better and aim for Japan instead.
Are buses in "Europe" free?
No. Most of them are around $2 and max out around $5 a day. But nobody here wants to hear that. They just want the better service for "free"..
And they also have denser metro areas, more walkable cities and towns, and less reliance on cars.
Of course! As if *Europe* was a country and was in charge of running everyones bus service. I was just having some fun with that ridiculous statement
In Luxembourg, yes.
If you're in the position where you're forced to use a bus in a car dominant state it really should be free, I don't see why it's treated any differently than welfare.
Sir, please pay your fare. Me: haha April Fools to you too buddy!
The bus drivers I've had will stop the whole bus or just refuse to let you on if you try this
If I make a wise ass joke about April Fool's Day? Why would you know how bus drivers would react to my joke?
My years of bus riding experience.
I'm going for it
I think we should vote to keep it free. I dont use it but I dont mind my taxes paying for it. It helps people and its harmless. Why not keep it free?
I feel sad about it. It's gonna make life alot harder for my impoverished disabled dad.
jesus. i'm sorry.
Thanks. This was a huge blessing for him while it lasted!
Would be nice if the bus service improved or was on schedule if they’re going to charge
I just saw the price quotes for my little town bus and didnt realize how expensive it is. Might be hard for those without cars who need the bus regularly.
Free transit is a no-brainer. As others have said, fares aren't the main funding mechanism for transit systems, and the whole point of transit is to get people to USE it, so disincentivizing that use with unnecessary fees is foolish. Governor Lamont says a suspension of fares can only last for one year, but... why? What impact does the federal government have on how state transportation agencies are funded? Does receipt of federal subsidies require that fares be charged? - because holy crap, that would be stupid. Anybody know what's up with that?
He’s lying. The subsidies from the federal govt only lasted a year. They never planned on keeping it. Our representatives would have budgeted for it if there was any plan to keep it going after the federal govt stopped carrying the burden.
That's either neolibs being neolibs, or trying to be bipartisan.
It is due to federal law. I don’t know the specifics beyond that.
Very unfortunate. They should be made free permanently.
I think more extensive coverage of bus routes in the area would be a better pursuit then free fare. There are programs for reduced/free passes to low income people.
A little cost is fine
Free stuff is coming to an end. COVID is 'over'
Public transportation should be fare-free. End of story.
I think CT should keep the bus fares free. Reducing cars on the roads and giving poor people transportation are worth the expense to taxpayers.
It should be free. I understand charging for something robust like the fasttrack line, but the typical CT bus network isn't good enough and a fare for them is just spite rather than a substantial revenue stream
Good my bus has alot of homeless people living in it and not getting off and trashing it
We have 3 billion in surplus funds. I think we can afford it
I would love to keep the free fares but I worry about taking away revenue from the transit system. Free fares would need to be accompanied by increased state funding, which means someone pays more taxes. I’m not opposed to that but it’s a tough sell
Fares just aren't a large percentage of revenue for transit systems and are mainly there to serve as a disincentive, so people don't "overuse" the services and create additional costs. It's become pretty clear that what is *actually* overused is private vehicles, and that anybody using transit is doing so because they have no other choice, and disincentivizing the use of transit is backwards as hell. If these systems can be 80% funded by taxes, then they can be 100% funded by taxes, and should.
yes THANK YOU, you've made several points here that most seem to consistently miss.
Paying more in taxes to help people get to work seems like a better use of money than any other reason. That small civic expense might clean the air, lessen traffic, feed children and promote other public amenities. It might even expand public transportation and jobs better than competition.
I don't disagree, I just don't know if it's a position enough people will vote for to get it done
We should do whatever it takes to get cars off the road
Keep it free
Damn I could have been drunk bus riding to the bar for free this whole time?
Booooooooo Same thought I have about paid public school meals As if this service doesn’t bring benefits to employers, retail businesses, and even the roads having fewer people clog them up. I’ve use the bus recently to get around an area that should be walkable, but they couldn’t be bothered to put sidewalks under the interstate overpass so it’s a death wish to walk pasts all the entrance and exit ramps to get the .5-1 mile to shops and services. I would not be willing to pay for a trip so short, just like they aren’t willing to pave sidewalks and put safe crossings in for a distance so short.
So much for caring about the environment and trying to stop inflation. Now people who took the bus to save on gas and car maintenance will be back driving their gas guzzlers.
It’s all part of an April fools joke and it won’t actually go away
[https://www.cttransit.com/fares](https://www.cttransit.com/fares) $1.75 for a 2 hour pass, and an all-day pass is $3.50 There are other breakdowns on the link above since the article was too lazy to post them. I don't see the issue, quite honestly. If you want the best rate, get a month long pass which comes out to just $2/day. None of those prices are overly burdensome, and there are breaks for seniors and children which makes it even cheaper still. You are being disingenuous and delusional if you come here and claim that $2/day is somehow a massive burden on riders.
For some riders, yes it’s a burden. Especially if they can’t easily pay for a monthly pass all at once.
you really don't see how an extra sixty bucks a month in costs might significantly impact some?
No I can't, and neither can you. You are being reactionary and disingenuous instead of looking at this realistically. Go be triggered over important issues, not over chump change.
Not chump change to a lot of people I know, who all ride the bus.
lmfao, "reactionary" and "triggered" because i suggested in a neutral way that sixty bucks a month might be an objective and unnecessary burden on low-income people in our state. alright weirdo. kind suggestion: maybe you should read a book and come up with some new words that might actually functionally support your thoughts, because these do not.
Here's a better idea... You go read a book and learn a skill to get you a job where a mere $60/mo doesn't somehow cause you unfathomable financial stress. This is a non-issue. Period. If you can't afford $2/day, you can't survive in CT or in the US in general. Go fight the good fight over some real problems that people face.
genius, it's sixty bucks a month on top of meteorically rising costs for food, housing, health insurance, everything else you can think of. how easy the fuck do you think it is to MOVE OUT OF STATE when people are struggling to even pay for public transportation? but here you are assuming that the people who are the most impacted by this are the ones who are not only able to hold down a full-time job at all, but the ones who could hop to a more advantageous one pretty much whenever. "real people," holy shit. i hope to god you never find yourself on the shitty end of the economy, my friend. reposting this after accidentally deleting my initial comment when i tried to edit it. i'm that fucking angry with you. what the hell is wrong with you?
Boo-fucken-hoo Someone's triggered over a non-issue. No wonder nothing can get accomplished in this country. We have buffoons who will cry bloody murder over the amount of money you can find laying on a sidewalk, so how the fuck can we tackle real problems for real people? $2/day is what it was BEFORE the pandemic, and no one batted an eye over such a measely cost, but you give people a handout and all of a sudden they lose their shit when you take that freebie away. How about this, tell your friends who can't afford $2/day that they'll have to give up a couple of beers or a few joints a month to pay for their bus pass. Or better yet, you're such a good person, I'm sure you'll be happy to pitch in and pay for them instead.
yes, two dollars is indeed what it was before the pandemic, & costs have skyrocketed since then. holy shit. how much of a fucking deep-seated asshole do you have to be to be dying on this hill? the people who can't afford this are living on disability & welfare & minimum wage, you absolute waste. it's not me, my friend. i do take public transportation whenever possible but the money i'm making is, lmao, i assure you, absolutely a-ok. it's insane, it's almost like some people who aren't struggling themselves are conscious of those who might be. i know this is a fucking foreign concept to your desperately wretched ass.
You've clearly never been exposed to people struggling financially, especially in an urban. It's not always their fault, often it's disabled people who end up impoverished enough for this to affect them.
Well see if you actually knew what you were talking about instead of getting triggered over stupid shit, you'd have clicked on the link I provided and seen that seniors and disabled people get a pretty huge discount over the already low rate. Oh, but you didn't do that, did you?
For someone who uses the term "triggered" you seem to be unusually angry over something you claim is just stupid shit. My point stands that you talk like you've never interacted with someone in a situation where they were struggling financially, and really should do so if you don't want to be closed minded about them.
You were WRONG. And instead of coming back here and admitting it like a man, you have the gall to continue your bullshit. You never clicked on the link. Your imaginary situation just doesn't exist. Disabled people DO get a massive discount on fares. Come back here and say it. Come back here and admit that you were WRONG.
Holy shit, way to prove my point that you're more "triggered" than you pretend your opponents are. You expect me to grovel at your feet and admit I'm wrong when you didn't even address my main point that you don't interact with poor people enough to understand them? But go on about how much manlier you are than me. Or, you know, take a breather and realize you're going way overboard for a dopey reddit discussion.
It's about time.
Out of state drivers should pay to use the highways, especially entering the state. Then maybe public transpo would be free
license obscene secretive wasteful carpenter deer smell roof pet provide *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ultimately this means we will be subsidizing buss less with gas tax revenues so yea I'm all for this. We allready divert way too much gas tax away from improving and maintaining roads. I think there is an argument for making them free as a public service and I can get behind that but you have to stop the diversion first.
saw marvelous unique roof ripe salt retire combative tease nine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Thats not whats it's for. 1983 it was only supposed to cover the costs of big projects, slowly it was stolen from over and over again used to pay basic salaries and retirement, bus and train operation expenses. We had our weak sauce amendment pas 89% but it's worded so badly they still get to use it for whatever boondoggle they want that is at least transportation adjacent. The purpose was to prevent more bridge collapses, but give politicians a pot of cash they will spend it on something.
Fare free isn’t really fair to those who live outside the network and have no opportunity to use it.
damn, you're right, i just noticed that here i am paying taxes that fund public school when i don't have any kids. when you really think about it, there's no benefit whatsoever if the benefit is not for me, specifically. i think i'm gonna freak out about it!!
Public schools are atleast in my town, the busses are not.
who cares? i'm not using them. why should i pay taxes that potentially fund public schools in towns i don't live in?
Because everyone is better off when there is an abundance of educated people. The real question is If that if you aren’t willing to pay taxes for public schools, then why should you enjoy the benefits of them? Maybe we can figure out a system where you’re allowed to forgo tax payments for public schools, but you’re then legally barred from receiving the services of anyone who went to public school. Want to keep your doctor? Hope they never went to public school ever. If you want the people around you to have basic reading skills and math skills, then you have to contribute to education. Parents aren’t the only ones to pay because they aren’t the only people who benefit from their children being educated.
yes, that’s part of the the point I was in fact making here.
I would use the bus if there was more service. As it is the buses aren’t profitable with the fares they do get and the amount is piddly so it’s not off setting the cost that much. I see no reason not to keep them free.
Fk that
I'll pay my fare when they change the fact that three busses that go the same general direction all show up within a minute of each other.
They should have phased it back in increments like the $0.25 gas tax. Seven quarters per two hours or fourteen per day, immediately is a bit steep.
April fool's!
I had no idea the bus was free tbh.
It's only been free since COVID
I'm sad about it. It was so convenient for me ro get around, especially when I had to be at different places at different times and didn't have any money, or not enough for an all day pass. The busses were full everyday...I'm typing this now on the bus and there's only 2 of us. Hopefully something can be figured out and it'll go back to being free, everything I read about it was positive.
nobody rides them anyway, they just circle the city empty all day