麻豆影院

New research by CU 麻豆影院 PhD student Grant Webster finds that the free-fare public transit initiative didn鈥檛 reduce ground-level ozone, but may have other benefits

is a big fan of public transit鈥攈e takes the bus multiple times a week from his home in east 麻豆影院 to the CU 麻豆影院 campus, where he鈥檚 working on a PhD in economics.

So, two years ago, when he heard about Colorado鈥檚 new 鈥溾�� campaign, he was intrigued.

The premise was simple: During the month of August 2022, the state鈥檚 Regional Transportation District (RTD) waived fares for all bus and train rides. With this free perk, state leaders hoped to encourage Coloradans to leave their cars at home and take public transit instead. They expected this incentive to reduce ground-level pollution during peak ozone season.

As a bus rider, Webster was optimistic, too. But as an economist, he wanted to see the data.

鈥淲hen they came out with this policy, I was like, 鈥楬ey, I ride the bus, I think that鈥檚 a cool idea,鈥欌�� he says. 鈥淏ut I was also curious. Has anybody studied whether these policies actually work?鈥�

Now, he has an answer to that question. 鈥淶ero Fare for Better Air鈥� did not significantly reduce ozone pollution in Colorado, Webster reports in published in the journal Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.

Using air pollution, weather, ridership and traffic data, Webster found that public transit ridership did increase during the month of free fares鈥攂y roughly 15% to 20%. But even though bus and train travel got a boost, car traffic volumes stayed roughly the same.

鈥淭he increase in ridership doesn鈥檛 seem to be reducing the number of cars on the roads,鈥� he says. 鈥淚t might just be transit users taking more rides, or people using RTD that weren鈥檛 going to take the ride to begin with.鈥�

Informing policy

Roughly 2% of commuters in the Denver metro area use public transit as their main daily form of transportation鈥攁nd the proportion is likely even smaller in other parts of the state. So, while public transit ridership saw a sizable bump percentagewise, this bump wasn鈥檛 enough to reduce ozone pollution.

For Colorado to see a 1% decrease in ozone pollution, public transit ridership would need to increase by 74% to 192%, Webster finds.

鈥淓ven if we had this big increase in ridership, it鈥檚 still such a small proportion of commuters, in terms of total pollution contributors, that we wouldn鈥檛 expect a huge decrease in ozone pollution overall,鈥� he says.

鈥淭he transit infrastructure, the whole environment we live in here in Colorado 鈥� people are really reliant on their cars. You鈥檇 need a much bigger switch of people鈥檚 transit behaviors for this policy to be affecting overall air pollution.鈥�

The findings are a bit of a bummer, but Webster says they鈥檙e important nonetheless. They could help policymakers use their limited dollars in different ways鈥攐nes that might be more effective at reducing pollution.

The 鈥淶ero Fare for Better Air鈥� campaign was funded by and offered in partnership with the Colorado Energy Office. RTD brought back the campaign for a second year in 2023 and expanded it to include both July and August, while Webster鈥檚 research was still underway. But, in 2024, it axed the program, .

Webster also points out that, while the campaign didn鈥檛 reduce ozone pollution as intended, it may have had other economic benefits, such as making public transit more affordable for low-income individuals or introducing new riders to the system.

Also, his findings only apply to Colorado, where overall ridership is relatively low. The picture might look very different in cities and states with more robust transit infrastructure and a higher proportion of public transit commuters, he adds. So, policymakers elsewhere shouldn鈥檛 completely rule out similar initiatives in their locales.

鈥淚n places like New York City or Washington, D.C., this type of policy might have completely different implications,鈥� he says.

Consider other incentives

Overall, the findings suggest that, when deciding whether to drive or take public transit, the cost of the fare is not the most important factor in commuters鈥� decision-making process. And that鈥檚 an important takeaway: To change commuters鈥� behavior, policymakers may need to consider other, more compelling incentives.

鈥淲hen you talk about getting to work, there are so many factors at play,鈥� Webster says. 鈥淲hat鈥檚 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?鈥�

More broadly, as policymakers look for novel ways to slow or halt human-caused climate change, the study also demonstrates the value of considering possible solutions through an economic lens.

鈥淓conomics provides a lot of good tools for studying these types of environmental policies,鈥� Webster says. 鈥淐an we incentivize people to change their behavior and, as a result, change an environmental outcome? It鈥檚 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.鈥�

Top image: Riders board a city bus in Denver. (Photo: RTD)

Did you enjoy this article?听听Passionate about economics?听Show your support.

听