Colorado’s free-fare public transit initiative didn’t reduce ground-level ozone, but may have other benefits

Grant Webster is a giant fan of public transit—he takes the bus a number of occasions every week from his dwelling in east Boulder to the CU Boulder campus, the place he is engaged on a Ph.D. in economics.

So, two years in the past, when he heard about Colorado’s new “Zero Fare for Better Air” marketing campaign, he was intrigued.

The premise was easy: Through the month of August 2022, the state’s Regional Transportation District (RTD) waived fares for all bus and practice rides. With this free perk, state leaders hoped to encourage Coloradans to depart their automobiles at dwelling and take public transit as an alternative. They anticipated this incentive to scale back ground-level pollution throughout peak ozone season.

As a bus rider, Webster was optimistic, too. However as an economist, he needed to see the info.

“When they came out with this policy, I was like, ‘Hey, I ride the bus, I think that’s a cool idea,'” he says. “But I was also curious. Has anybody studied whether these policies actually work?”

Now, he has a solution to that query. “Zero Fare for Better Air” didn’t considerably cut back ozone pollution in Colorado, Webster reviews in as new paper revealed within the journal Transportation Analysis Half A: Coverage and Observe.

Utilizing air air pollution, climate, ridership and visitors information, Webster discovered that public transit ridership did improve in the course of the month of free fares—by roughly 15% to twenty%. However regardless that bus and practice journey obtained a lift, automotive visitors volumes stayed roughly the identical.

“The increase in ridership doesn’t seem to be reducing the number of cars on the roads,” he says. “It might just be transit users taking more rides, or people using RTD that weren’t going to take the ride to begin with.”

Informing coverage

Roughly 2% of commuters within the Denver metro space use public transit as their principal day by day type of transportation—and the proportion is probably going even smaller in different components of the state. So, whereas public transit ridership noticed a large bump percentagewise, this bump wasn’t sufficient to scale back ozone air pollution.

For Colorado to see a 1% lower in ozone air pollution, public transit ridership would wish to extend by 74% to 192%, Webster finds.

“Even if we had this big increase in ridership, it’s still such a small proportion of commuters, in terms of total pollution contributors, that we wouldn’t expect a huge decrease in ozone pollution overall,” he says.

“The transit infrastructure, the whole environment we live in here in Colorado … people are really reliant on their cars. You’d need a much bigger switch of people’s transit behaviors for this policy to be affecting overall air pollution.”

The findings are a little bit of a bummer, however Webster says they’re vital nonetheless. They may assist policymakers use their restricted {dollars} in several methods—ones that may be simpler at lowering air pollution.

The “Zero Fare for Better Air” marketing campaign was funded by Colorado Senate Invoice 22-180 and supplied in partnership with the Colorado Vitality Workplace. RTD introduced again the marketing campaign for a second 12 months in 2023 and expanded it to incorporate each July and August, whereas Webster’s analysis was nonetheless underway. However, in 2024, it axed this system, citing state price range constraints.

Webster additionally factors out that, whereas the marketing campaign did not cut back ozone air pollution as supposed, it might have had different economic benefitscorresponding to making public transit extra inexpensive for low-income people or introducing new riders to the system.

Additionally, his findings solely apply to Colorado, the place total ridership is comparatively low. The image would possibly look very totally different in cities and states with extra sturdy transit infrastructure and the next proportion of public transit commuters, he provides. So, policymakers elsewhere should not utterly rule out related initiatives of their locales.

“In places like New York City or Washington, D.C., this type of policy might have completely different implications,” he says.

Contemplate different incentives

Total, the findings recommend that, when deciding whether or not to drive or take public transit, the price of the fare isn’t crucial think about commuters’ decision-making course of. And that is an vital takeaway: To vary commuters’ conduct, policymakers may have to think about different, extra compelling incentives.

“When you talk about getting to work, there are so many factors at play,” Webster says. “What’s traffic going to be like? How far away is the bus station? How long do I have to wait? Can I leave in the middle of the day to go run an errand?”

Extra broadly, as policymakers search for novel methods to gradual or halt human-caused local weather change, the examine additionally demonstrates the worth of contemplating potential options by way of an financial lens.

“Economics provides a lot of good tools for studying these types of environmental policies,” Webster says. “Can we incentivize people to change their behavior and, as a result, change an environmental outcome? It’s a super important time to focus on the environment and our human impacts on it. And economics can play a role in studying these issues.”