Iowa City Made Its Buses Free. Traffic Cleared, and So Did the Air
Mood
informative
Sentiment
positive
Category
news
Key topics
Public Transportation
Sustainability
Urban Planning
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
29s
Peak period
50
Hour 2
Avg / period
16
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 23, 2025 at 5:06 PM EST
9h ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 23, 2025 at 5:07 PM EST
29s after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
50 comments in Hour 2
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 24, 2025 at 2:36 AM EST
15m ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
In America we have very few private intra-city buses, ridership is low, and the buses are very expensive when you consider how much goes to them in the way of subsidies.
I am surprised that the bus wasn't already free; in my college town and the one near it (both had their own bus line), fares are free for all undergraduates.
You need public transport in major cities. Not everyone can or should drive.
You need private transportation almost everywhere. Not everyone should be forced to ride public transport just because it exists.
As long as people have an actual choice that's not manipulated in some way then I think the system is fine. It has a public function and it provides immediate and secondary benefits.
Is it cheaper to lobby or to create an incompetent monopoly to ruin things?
While I have never lived in a place with free transit, I have lived in places where it was possible to board trains without passing through fare gates and certain busses through the rear exit. It is amazing how much faster boarding is. They probably face some lost fares, but the benefit of faster travel times outweigh the cost.
I also think that those criticizing free fares are disingenuous. None of those cities had problems with (insert stereotypical undesirable group) using public transit. If anything, there were fewer issues because everyone was more inclined to behave since there were more eyes on the trains and busses.
In my mind it would be a no-brainer for all the benefits you would get from free service, but 20% increase in cost is not an easy sell - especially when a lot of people paying tax on it never go to NYC
In any case, cities can engage in value capture for public transportation. Just direct some of the property taxes collected directed to public transit. Even better would be some sort of LVT, ideally but not necessary 100% of the economic rent from land.
In any case, public transit should also engage in value capture on their own property. If they own a train station, they should consider building on top or adjacent to it spaces that they can then rent out to tenants. It's not only efficient but also serve the public and the local economy and making public transit more economical to run due to higher ridership.
Almost every smaller station shows ads on walls, too, and every train carriers ads inside.
I don't see why the subway specifically could not be self-sufficient, or even a profit center. Sadly, this is not so, because of very large expenses, not because of low revenue.
And urban malls and chain stores are frankly often depressing — awkward layouts translated imperfectly from suburban sprawl, along with obviously underpaid and burned out staff.
Many companies in Tokyo prevent their employees from commuting by car (legally commute is covered by workers comp insurance, and many companies do not elect the more expensive car coverage option) - so even in the absence of workers paying for the commute, public transit (or bike/walk) would be the only realistic option.
Like airports in America. We should pursue a similar path for our rail stations and, frankly, ensure they are heading toward locations that are walkable and connected.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/health/trimet-max-fentanyl-...
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-08-13/carjacki...
Personally, I would rather be on a bus with someone high on drugs than be carjacked at gunpoint.
I’ve lived in two cities with free fare zones: Subsections of public transport where no fares are collected, but if you want to go outside of the zone you need to buy a ticket.
The free fare zones were far more likely to have people causing problems. It’s not just “undesirable groups”. It’s people stealing your stuff if you aren’t paying attention, stalking women, creating messes, or just harassing people who want to be left alone.
Then you’d leave the free fare zone and see almost none of that. It was night and day different.
I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss anyone concerned about this. Unless you have sufficient enforcement to go along with it and the enforcers are empowered to deal with people who are causing problems, having free fares can be a real problem.
This seems to be a symptom, not a cause. The free zone, let me guess, more densely populated, city center area, and the not free zone, a bit less urban? Smells like income disparity zoning.
I mean if you think about, doesn't it seem a bit off to suggest that the prevalence of crime would be affected by whether a bus is free or not? My instinct is to get further into why there's crime happening at all, on or off bus. Why does it happen there, and not e.g. here in Taipei? Or other places with tons of public transit going on and very low crime, like Japan? The PRC?
The free fare zone was only included a subset of the city and only applied to certain modes of transportation.
> Smells like income disparity zoning.
Not really. I don’t see why it’s hard to believe that areas with no enforcement are a draw for people who want to e.g. ride a warm train than the areas with enforcement.
> I mean if you think about, doesn't it seem a bit off to suggest that the prevalence of crime would be affected by whether a bus is free or not?
No? It’s not just crime, it’s harassment, antisocial behavior, and other things that are not strictly crimes but you don’t want to be around. A lot of crimes are crimes of opportunity where someone strikes because they’re in the same place as you and see an opening. The more time they’re in the place, the more opportunities for those crimes.
Whats worse is that, theres a certain perspective, one of declining CBD use, where cross river rail makes a mountain of sense. But in that case we should be bypassing the CBD with a lot of room for expansion, ie, 8 lines worth of track. But this isnt being done either.
>When you have the electronic ticketing system already in place like Brisbane it makes sense to use it to monitor usage
This and being able to continue charging fines is why it was left in place 100%
IIRC the 50 cent fares allow them to still charge ridiculous fines for fare evasion, keeping the Queensland Rail rentacops in business.
Most non metro stations only have tap on pillars and no fare gates anyway, and I think the inner city fare gates that still exist are on the list for removal.
The 50 cents also allowed them to track the changing usage profile and justify it by the explosion of use. Its basically self reporting that you used the system, and the origin and destination of your trip. Otherwise they would need to install foot traffic counters at train and bus stations and still end up with incomplete data.
It wasnt just super popular, it was that the data showed such a dramatic uptick in usage, which carried over to numbers of cars removed from the roads etc.
Probably took 5 minutes out of my normal commute, and that's in reduced vehicle traffic, I don't use the system at all except to take my kiddo to the museum on weekends. Benefits tracked to all punters results in an absolutely untouchable policy change.
It has been so wildly popular, firing up restaurants, clubs in downtown that the business owners begged KC to keep it free.
Still free and I believe they are extending it.
Personally, the $1 commute from the Sunshine Coast has been very good. I occasionally drive in but the Bruce Hwy has been a constant process of widening each section as they barely keep up with the traffic increases.
I think what you will see is a lot more people moving out to residential areas north of Brisbane seeking cheaper housing as they can take advantage of the almost free travel. Especially if they eventually build the Rail/Light Rail through South Caloundra to Maroochydore.
Both bicycles & free transports would be even better !
Not an issue for cheap / free public transport in many other countries mentioned.
Perhaps the manner in which the US deals with the distribution of income and basic human needs could use a few tweaks.
Insisting that we charge everyone a bus fare because we think otherwise it might make it eaier to homeless people to use the bus is not only uninformed, but also heartless.
If you have problems with homeless people on buses, then figure out why those people aren't in a better shelter and solve that problem.
In Ithaca we recently built this place
https://mastodon.social/@UP8/115398619308992584
which is all low income housing on top of a conference center with maybe 1/4 of the units for people who had been unhoused. I think most of the people there are not criminally minded and keep to themselves but there are a few people there who are starting fires, dealing drugs, and causing damage. (Note a few windows in that image are busted out) Many homeless people have dogs that are important to them and wouldn’t be housed if they couldn’t bring their dogs, but… last year they had an outbreak of parovirus because dogs were having puppies and the puppies weren’t getting shots. A friend of mine got bit by a dog across the street from that place and thought it belonged to someone who lived there.
Some of it is people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder can be almost impossible to live with if they aren’t getting treatment and I’m worried that deinstitutionalization will have a even more profoundly negative legacy seen 50 years from now than it already does. Not least, a 20 year old today spent many years of their life in a classroom where a ‘special’ kid sucked all the air out of the room and will probably be highly receptive to the notion that if we ‘get rid’ of 5% of people we can live in a utopia. If being in public means being in a space dominated by someone screaming at the demons they hallucinated then people will move to the suburbs instead of the downtown, they will not support public transit, they will order a private taxi for their burrito instead of eating out. They’ll retreat to Facebook.
It's not a shelter and it's not meant to be converted into one. To me it's an indication of an overworked and failing system that leaves people in bad situations because it has nowhere else for them to go.
Sure, you could argue that because there's currently no obvious major problems, that you could just leave it as is and be entirely unconcerned with it, or even go so far as to suggest that anyone who does want to fix it is doing so in bad faith. I think that's cruel and lazy.
The actual problem? These people need _real_ shelter.
that is exactly what homeless people be doing.
Honestly it’s not that big a deal if someone sleeps on the bus. Homeless, drunk, tired from work, whatever.
Ipso facto, eliminating fare collection eliminates crime. Fare evasion as a crime amounts to make-work for cops. Not all value, and often least of all value in public goods, is derived from charging at the point of use.
Why can't buses be regulated the same way?
I mean what on earth are you talking about. Go spread hate elsewhere.
It's always possible to make your substantive points thoughtfully, so please do that instead.
> also offer "free hotels inside of the free buses".
Is the inciting flamewar style spark. There is nothing in the article about this specific part. Is it not bad faith argument to insist that all buses every where are used as hotels just because of a few bad experiences? The way the commenter discusses all homeless as either dangerous, addicted drugs, smelly, etc. is incredibly flamewar intending to push stigma on the topic.
If the people who are pushing unfound truths can’t be called out for it, then I guess the FUD spreaders win. The community doesn’t need me. Please scramble this username to something random. I’m out.
Their username is literally trollbridge! I mean come on.
Similar questions get asked often enough. The problem is that there aren't any easy answers or solutions. Cities have tried different things but none that appear to work for medium to large sized cities.
If you see a city employ a workable solution that can used as a model and be deployed everywhere, that would be awesome.
I don't think "can" or can't" live is the right question.
Those filthy homeless folks are homeless because they're lazy, defective, worthless and less than human.
The correct question is "should" or "shouldn't" live. Obviously, the answer is "shouldn't."
Just do the cost/benefit analysis! USD$0.010/bullet (one time cost) vs. USD$35,000/annum to keep these "undesirables" incarcerated. The solution seems pretty obvious, no?
Go touch grass you psycho.
We know free transit works in many cases. There are plenty of examples. But it's rare to compare and contrast the contexts. (But, see, e.g., this 2012 National Academy of Sciences report: https://cvtdbus.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2012-07-TCRP-...) It's far easier to promote free transit than it is to address the underlying issues, like regulatory barriers to housing production, that might cause free transit to fail long-term.
> [The suspect's] mother told ABC News that [the suspect] was diagnosed with schizophrenia [...] and displayed violent behavior at home. His mother said that she had sought involuntary commitment, but that it was denied.
> Elon Musk criticized judges and district attorneys for allowing "criminals to roam free".
> U.S. President Donald Trump called the attacker a "madman" and "lunatic", and said that "when you have horrible killings, you have to take horrible actions. And the actions that we take are nothing", before blaming local officials in places like Chicago for failing to stop crime and denounced cashless bail.
> On the same day, the White House released a statement criticizing "North Carolina's Democrat politicians, prosecutors, and judges" for "prioritizing woke agendas that fail to protect their citizens".
> On September 9, the White House released a video in which Trump said that Zarutska was "slaughtered by a deranged monster".
> On September 24, U.S. Vice President JD Vance discussed the killing in a visit to Concord, North Carolina, blaming it on "soft-on-crime policies" and stating he was "open" to deploying the North Carolina National Guard to Charlotte if requested by Governor Stein and Mayor Lyles.
> The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary held a field hearing in Charlotte on September 29 on safety in public transit systems and the treatment of repeat offenders.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Iryna_Zarutska#Reac...
It took no boosting or Trump ramblings to see that they didn't give a shit because she was some white girl.
This is straight up racism right here. Not even trying to hide it.
See, that’s something I would never say to anyone.
A one-time event of a black person killing a white person is not enough for me to hate black people. For you it seems to be little more than the reason you care to type out.
You are the problem here. Not anyone that’s black. People like you are who I’m afraid of. And I’m confident you’re the most violent demographic in the US.
It's pathetic white leftist Wojaks who expose everyone to these threats through their crime-tolerant political ideologies. You will never change until you understand the consequences first hand.
Some people and places consistently appeal to greater and greater draconian use of force, other places and people resort first to social policy to take tempretures down and to not regard schizophrenics as "subhumans".
Neither of them have been arrested 72 times nor convicted 15 times. Neither of them have set a random woman on a train on fire, either.
I consider someone who does that subhuman, yeah. Schizophrenics can and do experience empathy and go out of their way not to hurt others.
I hope you aren't insinuating this is my position? That man is a subhuman. He is lesser than a rat. I wish him nothing but unending torment and fear for many years to come. In no way is my contempt for him universally applicable to all schizophrenics. I judge the man by his actions not his condition.
I wonder how much the traffic would improve in/out of SF if BART is cheaper.
It adds up super fast; even “kids ride free with parent” would go a long way.
On a side note we should drop the public bit of this because it implies a bus is “publicly funded” but highways aren’t. Both are subsidized by the taxpayer.
Arguably, neither of them should be. Give poor people money, instead of giving free highway access (and bus transit) to rich and poor alike. Rich people don't need our help, and poor people would rather have the money to spend as they wish instead of other people deciding for them what alms they should consume.
Individual cars have worse externalities than busses, so that means we should tax them more than busses. Though I suspect once drivers of cars and busses are paying non-subsidised prices for road access and fuel, busses will naturally look better in comparison, no extra tax differential needed.
> In economics, a public good (also referred to as a social good or collective good)[1] is a commodity, product or service that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous [...]
That's because roads are rather excludable (see toll roads), and if you've ever been in a traffic jam, you'll notice that road use is rivalrous.
It's independent of the argument against giving well-off people free stuff.
How the "Users Pay" Myth Gets in the Way of Solving America's Transportation Problems
Road Taxes and Funding by State, 2025
Most states fail to collect enough in user fees to fully provide for roadway spending. This necessitates transfers from general funds or other revenue sources that are unrelated to road use to pay for road construction and maintenance.
Only three states—Delaware, Montana, and New Jersey—raise enough revenue to fully cover their highway spending. The remaining 47 states and the District of Columbia must make up the difference with tax revenues from other sources.
The states that raise the lowest proportion of their highway funds from transportation-related sources are Alaska (19.4 percent) and North Dakota (35.1 percent), both states which rely heavily on revenue from severance taxes.There are benefits too and all, just saying we don’t really have a full cost readily available for comparison because it’s hard to measure, never mind the literal dollars and cents that go into funding.
Small amounts of cost sharing are a useful technique for incentivizing people to make wise decisions in general, so there’s some value in having token small fares. It’s the same difference that shows up when you list something for $10 in your local classifieds as opposed to listing it as FREE. Most people who use classifieds learn early on that listing things for free is just asking for people to waste your time, but listing for any price at all seems to make people care a little more and put some thought into their decisions. I’ve often given things away for free after listing them for small amounts in classifieds because it filters for people who are less likely to waste your time.
Strong Towns talks quite a bit about how especially suburban roads are not financially sustainable.
US cars get 1 cent per passenger mile.
US Transit gets $2.39 per passenger mile.
https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=22027
Also look up the Farebox Recovery Ratio.
There are values for many US cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio#United_...
From :
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01660...
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.