Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Fares topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery County staff present fiscal comparison of four transit fare scenarios
Summary
County staff presented a fiscal analysis of four transit fare scenarios, saying a zero-fare model shows a multi‑year net cost while modest fares with enforcement produce long‑term positive fiscal impacts after capital investments.
Montgomery County staff presented a fiscal analysis of four transit fare scenarios and said a fare‑free option would produce a net cost over the modeled period while scenarios that keep modest fares with enforcement show larger long‑term fiscal benefits.
Mister Kenny, a presenter identified in the transcript, summarized the scenarios’ six‑year fiscal outcomes: “9,000,000 and $5,600,000 respectively. Then because we are not collecting any fair revenue and we're not having those savings on the capital costs, the net fiscal impact trends into the negative with what we're seeing as around $2,500,000 to $2,600,000 in net costs in FY '20 '8 through '30 '1.”
The county’s department staff (name not specified in the transcript) told council members the analysis contrasts short‑term capital costs against longer‑term fare revenue. The staff member said fares support “revenue diversity” and noted Secretary Wietefeld’s letter raising regional‑consistency and interoperability concerns. The staff member said fare systems can also “serve as a barrier to inappropriate or poor behavior on the vehicle” in some jurisdictions.
The presentation laid out four scenarios. According to the presenter’s summary, scenario 2 (zero fare) showed a negative net fiscal impact of roughly $2.5–$2.6 million over the modeled period. Scenarios that retain fares—scenario 3 with a $1 fare and scenario 4 with a $2.25 fare—showed positive net fiscal impacts over six years: “scenario 3, we're seeing $17,300,000 ... and $30,600,000 in scenario 4 where we are increasing fare to $2.25,” Mister Kenny said.
Department staff described the tradeoffs. They listed reasons to retain fare collection including regional consistency, interoperability and revenue diversity, and cautioned about behavioral issues when fares are removed. They also described the advantages of a fare‑free system: a lower barrier to use, improved access for riders who must weigh the cost of a trip, faster boarding and fewer payment disputes, and elimination of fare processing and some equipment maintenance costs. “It improves the speed of service. There's fewer issues with people boarding and trying to figure out how to pay the fares they get on the bus,” the staff member said.
Staff highlighted capital investment and technology risks. The presenter said payback periods vary and noted durability and obsolescence concerns for fare equipment: “there's a question about the durability, not the physical durability, but the durability technologically ... it's a little less clear ... that these systems that we're installing are going to live or be useful, for tens of years as we would need them to be, to match the life of a bus.”
No formal vote or action on a fare policy was recorded in the provided transcript segment. Staff answered questions and said they would follow up on data presentation and scenario details.
County officials and staff characterized the fiscal and policy tradeoffs as balanced: fare collection yields some revenue and interoperability benefits, while fare‑free service can improve access and reduce operating friction, but requires tradeoffs on capital and enforcement costs. The presentation concluded with staff offering to address detailed questions and further refine the scenario tables for council review.
