Across major cities in the United States and India, a spirited debate is unfolding over the future of public transit fares. From New Delhi’s pink ‘Saheli’ smart card to pilot programs in New York City and King County, Washington, the question is the same: Should public buses and metros be free, and if so, what does that mean for equity, safety, and the financial sustainability of transit systems?
This October, the Delhi government is set to launch its pink ‘Saheli’ smart card, offering free metro and bus travel for women and transgender citizens starting October 23, 2025—the festival of Bhai Dooj. According to News18, the initiative, led by Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, aims to provide greater convenience and mobility, replacing the pink paper tickets first introduced in 2019. The smart card is designed as a permanent, lifetime pass for eligible residents, with a phased rollout depending on the chief minister’s directions. The transport department has already completed backend integration for the new card, ensuring a smooth transition for Delhi’s female and transgender commuters.
But while the move has been praised for its inclusivity and potential to ease daily commutes, it has also sparked a lively debate online. Some Delhi residents question the scope of the program, asking why free travel is not extended to economically disadvantaged men as well. Others raise a more pressing concern: safety. As one commenter put it, “I’d rather pay money to have safe transport.” Another echoed, “They are giving power to travel freely but where is the safety?” These voices highlight a recurring tension in transit policy—balancing affordability with the need for reliable, secure service.
The debate in Delhi mirrors conversations happening thousands of miles away in New York City. There, the question of free transit has become a flashpoint in the mayoral race, with Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani pledging to make all city buses both fast and free. Last year, a pilot program temporarily eliminated fares on five bus lines, including the Bx18 in the Bronx, drawing widespread support from riders frustrated by the $2.90 fare. “Why not? Yes, it definitely should,” one mother told NPR as she waited for her bus. For many, the cost of transit is a real burden, and the promise of free rides is tantalizing.
Yet, even among transit advocates, there’s no consensus. Charles Komanoff, a longtime New York transit supporter, argues that free buses could speed up boarding and attract new riders—especially if paired with infrastructure improvements that allow boarding through all doors. “When you make the buses faster, that also incentivizes people to ride the bus who might otherwise now be taking an Uber, taking somebody’s car, you know, taking a taxi or whatever,” he told NPR.
Others, like Eric Goldwyn of NYU’s Marron Institute of Urban Management, are more skeptical. Goldwyn’s research suggests that reliability and frequency matter more to riders than cost. “The way you get people on the bus is by making it faster, more frequent and more reliable,” Goldwyn said. He believes that investments in service improvements would yield greater benefits than eliminating fares alone.
Funding, predictably, is another sticking point. The experience of Kansas City, Missouri, offers a cautionary tale. The city eliminated bus fares in 2020, but as councilman Eric Bunch explained to NPR, they “never found a sustainable funding source to replace the $10 million a year out of the fare box.” While ridership remained stable, concerns about security and the presence of more homeless individuals on buses surfaced, though it’s unclear if safety for other riders was compromised. Ultimately, Kansas City’s transit authority plans to reinstate fares in spring 2026, underscoring the challenges of maintaining fare-free service without dedicated revenue streams.
Meanwhile, in King County, Washington, the conversation is just heating up. On October 15, 2025, Councilmember Rod Dembowski proposed a fare-free pilot program for King County Metro, set to begin in 2027 on at least two bus routes. The idea comes as fare revenue has steadily declined since the Covid-19 pandemic—Metro expects to spend $24.5 million on fare collection in 2025 to recoup $80 million, down from $163 million in 2019. The proposed budget includes $3.9 million over two years to transition Metro to a cash-free system, which could cut costs associated with fareboxes and cash handling.
Dembowski sees fare-free transit as a way to “increase ridership and improve equity within transit-dependent parts of the county,” as reported by The Urbanist. He points to the administrative burdens and disputes over reduced fare programs, suggesting that eliminating fares could make life easier for low-income riders. “All of the barriers we put up for the free ticket program, for the ORCA fare card program, it is just: if you’re trying to get through life, and you’re on the lower end of the economic scale, and the bus is an important piece of your life. If we take away all that… you could build a system, or even maybe some routes, where folks’ life gets a lot easier.”
But as with Boston’s fare-free pilot on select bus routes, the benefits are not always straightforward. While ridership on Boston’s fare-free routes rebounded to pre-pandemic levels and even surged on certain lines, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) found that only 5% of new trips replaced car journeys. Most new riders had previously walked or biked. The MBTA’s report to the state legislature cautioned against expanding fare-free service without permanent funding, warning that “route-specific pilot programs are geographically inequitable, difficult to communicate, and work against MBTA goals of providing equitable and consistent transportation.”
Another anticipated benefit—reduced dwell time at stops—did not materialize in Boston, as increased ridership offset the time saved from not collecting fares. In King County, the shift to ORCA-only electronic payment is expected to bring the greatest reductions in dwell time, a move already in progress.
Equity remains a central concern. In King County, business accounts make up more than half of fare revenue but only account for about a quarter of boardings, meaning that removing fares would disproportionately benefit employers who provide passes for their workers. At the same time, surveys show that what most riders want is more frequent, reliable service—not just free rides.
Safety, too, is never far from the conversation. In Delhi, the rollout of the pink ‘Saheli’ card coincides with ongoing calls for safer transit, particularly for women. In King County, the County’s Transit Safety Task Force has recommended beefing up security, and the proposed budget includes funding for 275 Transit Service Officers, whose roles would likely shift from fare enforcement to broader safety functions if fares are eliminated.
As more cities experiment with fare-free models, the lesson seems clear: while free transit can boost ridership and ease burdens for the most vulnerable, it is not a panacea. Sustainable funding, service improvements, and robust safety measures are all critical to making public transportation work for everyone. The debates in Delhi, New York, and King County may play out differently, but the core questions—who pays, who benefits, and how to keep riders safe—are universal.
With pilot programs and policy proposals still in play, the future of fare-free transit remains uncertain. But one thing is sure: the conversation has only just begun, and cities everywhere will be watching closely to see what comes next.