LA Mayor Karen Bass revives the ‘free transit’ debate
By Sal Rodriguez | October 2, 2026
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has revived the conversation about “free” public transportation.
Upon assuming the role of chair of the Los Angeles Metro Board in July, the mayor declared her intent to “develop a long-term financial strategy and plan for Metro to finally be fare-free.” She reiterated it more recently.
This is not the first time Bass has declared her support for “free” transit.
In 2022, when first running for mayor, she said, “I support the move towards fare-less transit, which will give people the freedom of mobility with no barriers to entry. Free transit can boost safety by getting more eyes on buses and trains, and for those who rely most on transit, it can save families thousands of dollars per year.”
Ironically, Metro has already experienced something resembling a de facto honor system, as fare enforcement declined sharply in recent years and fare evasion became widespread. The results have not been pretty, particularly when it comes to two things transit riders care about: safety and reliability. Both remain significant challenges for Metro.
According to Streetsblog, “Metro’s pre-pandemic 2019 farebox recovery ratio was 14.6%” and plummeted to as low as 4.8% in the 2022 fiscal year. Fare checks plummeted from hundreds of thousands per month in 2018 to an average of 5,000 per month in 2025, according to Metro data. Though these numbers have improved, with Metro reporting about 20,000 checks in May 2026, they remain far below what they used to be.
These numbers reflect Metro’s move over the last decade to bring fare enforcement in-house from the sheriff’s department, a shift that was followed by the decision to suspend fare enforcement during the coronavirus pandemic and only gradually restore it afterward.
Metro riders have extensively documented the consequences of this. The volunteer group Enforce the Fares argues that along with declining fare collection came crime and disorder. Indeed, as the USC Dornsife LABarometer found in 2024, “84% of L.A. residents think riding Metro trains is currently unsafe — up from 76% pre-pandemic.”
“While it’s not easy to talk about, the other likely reason that LA Metro struggles with public perception is the reality that regular riders, especially off-peak commuters, find themselves on a vehicle filled with the smell of urine and feces at least once a week,” Enforce the Fares noted in a 2025 report. “This is not just a matter of cleaning the vehicles, because the issue stems from individuals in severe crisis who are living with untreated mental illness, substance use disorders or both.”
In addition to these safety concerns, Enforce the Fares notes that simply restoring fares and keeping them up to inflation would raise enough revenue to increase bus service by 13%-15% or restore frequent train service after dark. If such estimates are anywhere close to accurate, they reflect the tradeoffs Metro has made in foregoing revenue that could have been used to improve service.
In fact, prior to Bass taking office, Metro staff already contemplated the idea of what a universal fareless system might cost. In 2021, as part of its “Fareless Transit Initiative,” staff outlined various options for expanding access to K-14 students and low-income residents through a pilot program. As part of their assessment, they explicitly recommended against a universally free system, noting that such a move would impact Metro and local transit partners to the tune of $1.1 billion a year.
Stepping back, experiments in free transit have been a mixed bag, for easily predictable reasons.
Indeed, just this year Kansas City, Mo., ended its six-year experiment in free buses amid financial and service pressures. As the Washington Post editorial board further noted, “Bus drivers in K.C. complained that when the fares were removed, people used them as mobile shelters to stay out of the weather, and safety deteriorated. Even added security and the general ebbing of crime didn’t make the buses as safe as they were before the zero-fare initiative, according to the president of the local transit union.”
Closer to home and on a much smaller scale, the city of Tucson has maintained a fare-free bus system since 2020, though it too has faced ongoing debate about its financial sustainability, as well as concerns about safety. According to one survey by the local transit authorities, a large proportion of bus riders report feeling “unsafe” or “very unsafe” on city buses.
As with any other public policy matter, the debate over free transit comes down to tradeoffs.
Free transit isn’t free and requires someone to pay the cost. While a fareless system can entice more people to ride transit, it also entails sacrificing revenue that could be put toward transit system improvements and expansion. Balancing access with reliability and security doesn’t come cheap.
That’s why even Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson, a former leader of the local transit riders union, has taken a more incremental approach of pushing for expanded service and aid for low-income and other targeted groups.
Perhaps the most high-profile champion of free buses, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, has had to contend with the costs of delivering on this campaign promise of fast, free buses. He’s faced pushback from, among others, MTA CEO Janno Lieber, who has raised concerns about the costs of foregoing fares and potential capital costs that might be necessary if service demand increases. While Mamdani has, with the aid of the governor, made progress on expanding bus services, the “free” part is proving much harder to deliver.
What sounds appealing as a campaign promise isn’t necessarily the best policy once the costs and tradeoffs come into focus.
Ultimately, while the allure of free public transit might excite some, it’s one of those ideas that cities — including Los Angeles — should back away from. In a twist on that old P.J. O’Rourke quote, “If you think transit is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”
.