What a waste. There is no place in the US so poor that the vast majority wouldn't choose better service over free. They should have given the transit the increase in budget and kept the fares and used the extra to add more service in some way. Transit should be about where you can get, and no place in the world has service so good there isn't need for more.
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
27 points (96.6% liked)
Massachusetts
427 readers
5 users here now
Welcome to the Massachusetts sublemmy!
A place to connect, share, and discuss all things Massachusetts. Whether you're a local, a visitor, or just curious about the Bay State, this community is here for you.
Feel free to post about local events, news, history, landmarks, university events, politics, and anything else related to Massachusetts. Let's celebrate the rich culture, diverse communities, and stunning landscapes that make this state so special. Please remember to follow our sublemmy rules, be respectful towards each other, and keep discussions civil. Let's foster a positive and inclusive environment where everyone feels welcome.
Explore the wonders of Massachusetts with us and join the conversation. Welcome aboard!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Interesting. Is there a history of this phenomena? Does free ridership have a tendency to stagnate a system? I don't have anything against free transit, but I do worry that it can devalue it. I am definitely not the target audience, so it is hard to have a definitive opinion.
Comparative only. People who rode before continue but almost no new riders come. If you improve service more people will ride.
you long term stagnate the system because it is harder to get enough money to run when budgets are cut. But the bigger concern is they found the money equal to whatever the fares were and don't make the system better with that money.