Local opinion: The farebox is not a piggy bank

As we debate the sales tax increase in Prop 414, some suggest looking to the transit farebox for revenue. Making the case for collecting fares requires not just a generic call for “belt-tightening” but a clear-eyed assessment of the likely benefits, costs, and harms.

How much revenue could result? What would it cost to collect? Who would pay? The first two are hard to know; the last one isn’t.

Claims that reinstating fares would yield $9.4 to $13.2 million a year, based on past fare revenues, don’t account for system costs and ridership loss. Modern fare-collection systems are expensive; they must accommodate everyone, from “unbanked” riders who rely on cash to those who expect to pay by credit card or phone. Fare-capping, which lets riders pay the lowest available fare, adds expense and reduces revenue. Free or discount fare programs for low-income riders, youth, and veterans are becoming more common, but they are costly to administer. Technology, staff, vendor contracts, public information campaigns, operator training (more than half of current Sun Tran drivers have never collected fares), enhanced security: all would offset fare revenues, yet these costs are never subtracted when critics decry the expense of maintaining zero fares.

Who would pay? 76% of Sun Tran riders surveyed in 2022 reported household incomes below $35,000. In 2019 around 40% of those eligible for economy fares were paying full price. Low and very low-income riders pay the lion’s share of fares. It’s puzzling that some (not all) opponents of Prop 414 cite concern about the regressive nature of sales tax while suggesting we supplement the budget with transit fares: It’s hard to conceive of a tax more regressive than a bus fare.

Tucson’s fare-free public transportation has brought tremendous benefits for riders, their employers, and the community. It eases the growing financial burden of transportation for tens of thousands of Tucsonans in difficult times. It gets students to school and leaves their families with more to spend on other needs. It helps our most vulnerable residents access health care and other services. It makes our streets safer by making non-auto travel more accessible; it enables broader participation in Tucson’s economy. That’s why dozens of organizations, from Primavera to AARP Arizona, have asked the Mayor and Council to make it permanent.

Our fare-free policy, along with the commitment to maintain service at close to pre-pandemic levels, has also brought about a remarkable recovery in transit ridership, far exceeding national averages. In 2023, Sun Tran and Sun Link passenger trips numbered 107% of those in 2019. (By comparison, Phoenix-area bus and rail ridership in 2023 was 53% of 2019 trips.) In fall 2024, Tucsonans’ transit trips were 129% of the same period in 2019, after trending downward from 2014 to 2019. This shift portends a reduction in dependence on auto travel, which––with its greater expense, environmental impact, and risk––should be a choice, not a requirement for a satisfying life in our city.

With all this in mind, Mayor Romero listed among 2024’s accomplishments the Council’s decision “to ensure that transit will remain free and is fully funded through June 2026.” This is farsighted on the mayor’s part. Planning for future funding of our transit system should focus on sharing the cost of this public good across the community (including our visitors), not on reverting to a pay-by-the-ride approach.

In midsize cities like ours, transit ridership is around 80% of pre-pandemic levels. This hints at the ridership drop we could anticipate with a new fare system, and that has costs too: foregone shopping trips, missed work and health care, exposure to traffic and heat. Nonprofits again struggling to buy bus passes for clients. Those costs are hard to quantify, but no rigorous estimate has been made of what would be gained, and lost, by resorting to fare collection.

If the City of Tucson and Pima County are serious about their joint Prosperity Initiative and committed to climate resiliency, they should partner on the project of permanently fare-free public transit.