MIT Study: High Fares Limit Low-Income Households’ Mobility

A team of MIT researchers today announced the results of a study that concluded that a discounted transit fare for low-income households could offer significant benefits to those households without necessarily contributing to peak-hour crowding in the MBTA system.

In a new whitepaper, “How Low-income Transit Riders in Boston Respond to Discounted Fares: A Randomized Controlled Evaluation,”researchers Jeffrey Rosenblum, Jinhua Zhao, Mariana Arcaya, Justin Steil and Chris Zegras outline the preliminary results of an experiment in which they recruited Boston-area participants from households in the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and analyzed the effects of discounted fares on their transit use.

Half of the experiment’s participants received a specialized CharlieCard that offered a 50% discount on all MBTA fares; the other half, a control group, received regular CharlieCards. Participants from both groups were then surveyed on a daily basis to learn why, and how often, they used the MBTA throughout the course of the study.

Unsurprisingly, people who paid half price for transit fares used transit more often: the group that received the discounted CharlieCard took, on average, about 30% more trips per week than the control group paying full price. Participants who received a discounted fare were more likely than their counterparts in the control group to use transit to get to healthcare and social services appointments.

While transit agencies might be concerned that offering a discounted fare to lower-income riders might increase crowding, the study’s data show that lower-income households (with and without the discount) were actually more likely to ride during off-peak times, especially in the early-morning hours before 7 a.m., and in the mid-day hours between 9:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.:

From “How Low-income Transit Riders in Boston Respond to Discounted Fares: A Randomized Controlled Evaluation” by Jeffrey Rosenblum et al, MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning

This evidence suggests that the benefits of additional ridership from discounted fares for low-income riders would largely occur at times when buses and trains have excess capacity.

Since lower fares increase ridership among low-income people for households’ medical and social services appointments, it’s reasonable to ask to what degree even higher fares would suppress those trips. Withanother MBTA fare hike taking effect on July 1, it’s a timely and important question.

The MIT study comes on the heels of a similar study last month from the Worcester Regional Research Bureau, which found a large decline in ridership from recent fare increases for buses in the Worcester region.

In response to this research, a number of advocates and some elected officials are calling for a statewide low-income fare program.

Rep. Adrian Madaro, a Massachusetts State Representative representing the 1st Suffolk district in East Boston, said in a statement that “I am excited about the new opportunity this study presents to increase transit equity while also increasing ridership. I look forward to working closely with all stakeholders to make our public transportation system fairer and more accessible to all.”

The MBTA’s Fiscal and Management Control Board is expected to discuss fare policy and the delayed “Automated Fare Collection 2.0” system at their regular weekly meeting today, and this study is expected to be a topic of discussion.

Streetsblog will update this story with the MBTA board’s response later today.

  • Pingback: Low-income T riders take mass transit more when fares are lowered, M.I.T. study says | Redline Boston()
  • LazyReader

    High fares come from transit agencies who expend vast amounts of money on projects that do little good. The decline in transit stems from the poor buying their own cars because
    they’re fed up with inferior service and not being able to go where
    they please. Cities that spend billions of dollars on light rail projects
    inevitably decrease or terminate bus services to pay for the
    construction cost overruns that inevitably rise beyond projected budgets when
    the projects were decided upon…case in point almost every light
    rail project in the last 30 years.

    Low-income transit riders are giving up on transit. They have been for
    years. Transit ridership has been steadily on the decline since 2014.
    Transit systems growing costs, declining service are shifting poor
    people into autos. Constant service cuts, the Billions in deferred
    maintenance debacles rail construction costs, decreasing
    quality and increasing lewd behavior and criminal activity have all
    played their part in transits slow decline. They cant fix it, they don’t
    want to fix it; at least Not without Federal or states bearing most of
    the burden which in the long run creates a more bureaucratic and
    incompetent city government that cant succeed in any endeavor without.
    Worker productivity among transit systems nationwide have also declined.
    In 1960, most transit agencies were private, transit carried
    ~60,000 trips per working employee each year. Today it is less than
    25,000. In an era in which employee productivity in most industries is
    rapidly growing, in transit it is declining. The transit industry has
    become more a bloated bureaucracy and rail tycoon empire than a
    transportation provider. Combine ALL this with the fact the industry has
    evolved into a taxpayer addict; where subsidies account for over 70% of
    it’s operating costs and nearly ALL it’s capital costs.