Is making public transportation free a good idea – Rochester Beacon

Report on the Socio-Economic Impacts of Fare-Free Public Transportation and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

Recent policy discussions, notably in New York City and Rochester, have renewed interest in implementing fare-free public transportation systems. This report analyzes the findings of a key research study to evaluate the efficacy of such policies, with a specific focus on their contribution to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The central inquiry is whether eliminating transit fares for low-income populations primarily serves as a tool for economic advancement or if its benefits align more closely with broader social and urban sustainability objectives.

Research Methodology: The King County Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in King County, Washington, to assess the impact of free public transit on disadvantaged individuals. The study’s design provides a robust framework for evaluating policy outcomes.

• Participants: 1,797 individuals from public assistance offices were enrolled.
• Group Allocation: Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups:
  1. Treatment Group: Received six months of fully subsidized, free public transit.
  2. Control Group: Received partially subsidized fares at $1.50 per ride.
• Data Analysis: Administrative data were used to track outcomes across employment, finance, health, and criminal justice metrics. The experiment was conducted in 2019 and early 2020.

Key Findings

The research yielded several critical insights into the effects of fare-free transit, challenging conventional assumptions about its primary benefits.

1. Transit Usage: The treatment group exhibited a fourfold increase in public transit use, with an average of six to seven additional boardings per week. This demonstrates that cost is a significant barrier to mobility.
2. Employment Outcomes: Contrary to expectations, the provision of free transit had no statistically significant effect on employment rates, hours worked, earnings, or job stability. The treatment group worked only 1.6 more hours per quarter, a negligible difference.
3. Non-Employment Impacts: Significant effects were observed in several areas related to well-being and quality of life.
   • Financial Health: Short-term improvements were noted, including an average debt reduction of $97 and a 13-point increase in credit scores for the treatment group.
   • Health Outcomes: Free transit was associated with a 5.6 percentage-point reduction in healthcare visits, particularly for non-emergency outpatient care.
   • Criminal Justice Interaction: A modest but notable reduction in arrests (1.5 percentage points) was observed, primarily driven by a decline in financially motivated crimes.
   • Residential Stability: No significant impact was found on participants’ decisions to relocate.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The study’s findings indicate that fare-free transit policies are powerful instruments for advancing multiple SDGs, though not necessarily in the ways commonly presumed.

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): By alleviating the financial burden of transportation, free transit directly contributes to poverty reduction. The observed decrease in debt and improvement in credit scores demonstrate a tangible impact on the financial well-being of low-income individuals, thereby reducing economic inequality.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The reduction in healthcare visits suggests that free transit enables better access to preventative care, pharmacies, and healthier food options, or reduces stress-related health issues. This directly supports the goal of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The dramatic increase in ridership supports the objective of creating inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable cities. Shifting travel from private to public modes reduces congestion and emissions, making urban environments more sustainable.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The reduction in arrests for financially motivated crimes like theft indicates that meeting basic needs, such as mobility, can contribute to more peaceful and just societies by reducing economic desperation that may lead to contact with the criminal justice system.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The research challenges the assumption that free transit is a primary driver for employment. The lack of impact on labor market outcomes suggests that while transit is essential, fare elimination alone may not be sufficient to overcome other barriers to employment, such as the geographic mismatch between jobs and housing or the quality of the transit network itself.

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

The evidence from the King County study suggests that the justification for fare-free public transportation should be reframed. While its impact on direct employment metrics (SDG 8) appears limited, its contributions to broader social and environmental goals are substantial.

Policymakers should design and advocate for fare-free transit programs by emphasizing their proven ability to:

• Advance poverty reduction and reduce inequality (SDG 1, SDG 10).
• Improve public health outcomes (SDG 3).
• Enhance urban sustainability and inclusivity (SDG 11).
• Promote safer and more just communities (SDG 16).

Focusing on these multifaceted benefits provides a more accurate and compelling case for investing in accessible public transportation as a cornerstone of equitable and sustainable urban development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses several issues that directly and indirectly connect to a range of Sustainable Development Goals. The analysis of providing free public transportation to low-income individuals touches upon economic, social, and urban development themes. The following SDGs are addressed:

• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article’s central theme is the link between transportation costs and poverty. The experiment focuses on low-income individuals from public assistance offices and aims to alleviate their financial strain.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The research explicitly measures the impact of free transit on health outcomes, noting a reduction in healthcare visits, which suggests an improvement in well-being.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: A primary hypothesis of the study was that free transit would improve employment outcomes, such as employment rates, hours worked, and earnings, which are core components of this goal.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The article is fundamentally about urban public transportation. It explores making bus service free and accessible, which is a key element of creating sustainable and inclusive cities.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The study found a connection between free transit and a reduction in crime, specifically a decrease in arrests for financially motivated crimes, which relates to creating more peaceful and just societies.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the specific interventions and outcomes discussed in the article, the following SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 1.4: “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services…”
   • Explanation: The initiative to provide free public transportation is a direct attempt to improve access to a basic service (transport) for the poor and vulnerable, as identified by the study’s focus on “low-income individuals” from “public assistance offices.”
2. Target 3.8: “Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.”
   • Explanation: The article notes that free transit led to a “5.6 percentage-point reduction in health care visits, particularly non-emergency outpatient care.” This suggests that removing the financial barrier of transit costs improves individuals’ ability to manage their health, potentially by facilitating access to preventative care or other non-work activities that improve overall well-being, thus impacting their use of health-care services.
3. Target 8.5: “By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.”
   • Explanation: The research was designed to test whether free transit could “improve employment outcomes.” It specifically measured “employment rates, hours worked, earnings, or job stability,” which are central to this target, even though the study found no statistically significant impact.
4. Target 11.2: “By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all…notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations…”
   • Explanation: This target is the most direct link. The entire article revolves around making public transportation more affordable and accessible, from Zohran Mamdani’s proposal for free city bus service to the King County experiment providing free transit to low-income individuals. The study’s finding of a “fourfold increase” in transit use by the treatment group demonstrates the impact of affordability on access for vulnerable populations.
5. Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.”
   • Explanation: The article links the economic relief from free transit to a “modest reduction in arrests (1.5 percentage points), driven by declines in financially motivated crimes like theft and trespassing.” Reducing crime and interactions with the criminal justice system, especially for vulnerable populations, is a component of promoting the rule of law and justice.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions several specific quantitative and qualitative indicators used in the King County randomized controlled trial, which can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets.

• For Target 1.4 (Access to services and financial health): The article provides direct financial indicators. Progress can be measured by tracking changes in the financial well-being of low-income individuals.
  • Indicator: Reduction in debt balances (the study found “$97 less”).
  • Indicator: Improvement in credit scores (the study found “13 points higher”).
• For Target 3.8 (Access to health care): The impact on health-related behaviors was measured directly.
  • Indicator: Change in the number of health care visits (a “5.6 percentage-point reduction”).
• For Target 8.5 (Employment): The study used standard labor market metrics to assess progress, even though the results were negligible.
  • Indicator: Employment rates.
  • Indicator: Hours worked per quarter (the treatment group worked “1.6 hours more per quarter”).
  • Indicator: Earnings and job stability.
• For Target 11.2 (Access to public transport): The article provides a clear indicator for measuring access and usage.
  • Indicator: Public transit usage, measured by boardings per week (an increase of “six to seven additional boardings per week”). This directly relates to the official SDG indicator 11.2.1 (Proportion of population that has convenient access to public transport).
• For Target 16.3 (Justice): The study measured the effect on the criminal justice system.
  • Indicator: Rate of arrests (a “1.5 percentage points” reduction).
  • Indicator: Type of crime (decline in “financially motivated crimes like theft and trespassing”).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: rochesterbeacon.com