Why Is Fare-Free Transit The Exception Rather Than The Rule?

Extracted from an article by Dave Olsen.

Transit agencies spend a lot of money to make money. In many cases,
the amount spent equals or even surpasses the amount they bring in
from fares.

Hasselt, a small city in Belgium, is one of the best examples of how
to convert existing fare-based systems, especially run-down or
underfunded systems, to Fare-Free. Not surprisingly, the decision to
convert to Fare-Free was a political one. The new mayor and council
decided that pouring more money into the endless money pit we call
roads and highways was not going to get them re-elected.

Instead of spending billions more on a third ring-road/freeway, they
commissioned a complete transportation plan that took space away from
the already congested car driver and gave it to the timid cyclist,
nature- and shopping-loving pedestrian, and eternally patient bus rider.

For a year, they expanded their transit system. They added routes
(from 3 in 1996 to 11 in 2007), buses and trams, more stops, bus-only
lanes, and more frequency (from 18,000 service hours in '96 to 95,000
in 2007). Then, on July 1st, 1997, they took out the fare boxes.
Ridership jumped 783% that first day, 900% that first year, and 4
years later it was up 1223% and continues to climb. Becoming Fare-Free
got residents and visitors alike onboard, while the planned increase
in capacity kept them coming back.

Before start-up, their first executive director of a transit agency in Washington State did some comprehensive
research into the costs of collecting fares. He discovered that the
costs were similar to the projected revenues, so they decided to stay
true to their mandate: to get people onto public transit.