A growing controversy is sweeping across New York City as Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani pushes forward his ambitious proposal to eliminate fares on the city’s extensive bus network.
While his supporters call it a visionary step toward transportation equity, critics are sounding the alarm — warning that the term “free” is misleading, the cost burden massive, and the potential fallout disastrous.
According to city budget analysts, Mamdani’s plan would cost New York taxpayers an estimated $650 million every single year, money that critics say the city simply does not have.
“Wake up, New York,” says Michael Cummings, a transit economist and former advisor to the MTA. “Nothing in this city is free. Every dollar that doesn’t come from the fare box will come from the taxpayer’s pocket.”
Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist representing parts of Queens, has been a vocal proponent of fare-free public transit, framing it as a matter of racial and economic justice.
In press conferences and social media posts, he argues that public transit should be treated as a basic human right, not a commodity. “Free buses mean freedom,” Mamdani tweeted earlier this month. “Freedom to move, to work, to live — regardless of income.”
But beneath the idealism lies a sobering financial reality. According to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), bus fares generate roughly $650 million annually in revenue — revenue that currently helps sustain operations, pay drivers, maintain vehicles, and invest in much-needed upgrades. Eliminating that income without a replacement funding source, critics argue, would throw the city’s already fragile transit budget into deeper turmoil.
The use of the word “free” has become a flashpoint in the debate. “Calling it ‘free’ is dishonest,” said Councilmember Eric Dinowitz, a Bronx Democrat who has broken with Mamdani on the issue.
“You’re not abolishing the cost — you’re just shifting it. And when that shift happens, the burden falls on working New Yorkers through higher taxes or reduced services.”
Dinowitz is not alone. A coalition of city budget watchdogs, transit analysts, and moderate lawmakers has warned that New York is still recovering from pandemic-era deficits and can’t afford to lose one of its most dependable revenue streams.
The city already faces mounting costs for education, public housing, and emergency services. Adding a $650 million gap in the transit budget, they say, would mean forcing cuts elsewhere — or raising taxes on already stretched city residents.
Even more troubling for some is the concern that “free” bus rides could lead to lower service quality. Without the discipline of fare-based revenue, skeptics argue, the MTA may struggle to invest in schedule reliability, fleet modernization, and hiring qualified drivers.
“We don’t want to repeat the mistakes of cities that slashed fares only to degrade service,” said MTA board member David Jones.
Opponents of Mamdani’s plan are also pointing to Kansas as a cautionary tale. In 2019, Kansas City, Missouri became the first major U.S. city to implement free public bus service citywide.
Advocates there made the same arguments now heard in New York: increased access, improved ridership, and reduced inequality. But the reality, critics say, fell far short of the promise.
Initial ridership numbers did increase slightly — but within a year, the city struggled to find stable funding for operations. By 2022, Kansas City was forced to scale back several key routes and delay maintenance. Without the revenue from fares, the system became increasingly dependent on unpredictable city subsidies, many of which were later redirected to other priorities.
“Politicians promised free transit, but what we got was unreliable buses, long waits, and frustrated riders,” said Tina Rogers, a Kansas City resident who now drives instead of riding the bus. “You can’t build a great system without sustainable funding. And fares were a part of that.”
Indeed, many analysts say the Kansas City model proved that fare elimination without a solid long-term financial plan is a recipe for decay. “It’s a feel-good policy that collapses under its own weight,” said transit consultant Alex Zhang. “You can’t cut revenue and expect service to stay the same.”
For critics, the most dangerous aspect of Mamdani’s proposal is not just its fiscal irresponsibility, but its political appeal. “It sounds great in a tweet,” said Assemblymember Kenneth Zebrowski, who represents Rockland County. “But when you get down to the budget math, it’s just not viable. And pretending it is does a disservice to real transit reform.”
Zebrowski and others argue that rather than eliminating fares altogether, the city should expand and improve its reduced-fare programs for seniors, low-income workers, and students. “Let’s target the help where it’s needed most,” he said. “Instead of giving free rides to millionaires, let’s ensure the most vulnerable can afford to ride.”
Supporters of Mamdani’s plan, however, remain defiant. They argue that the city already subsidizes drivers through free roads and parking infrastructure, and that public transit deserves similar treatment. Some have even floated the idea of funding the fare-free system through new taxes on corporations, luxury real estate, or high-income earners.
But Mayor Eric Adams has so far resisted those calls. “We need to be honest with people,” Adams said in a recent press conference. “We support equitable transit. We support fairness. But we also support fiscal sanity. Right now, we need to invest in making the system faster, safer, and cleaner — not in fantasy economics.”
The fate of Mamdani’s proposal is still uncertain. While it has energized progressive activists and some union supporters, it faces an uphill battle in Albany, where lawmakers remain cautious about committing to unfunded mandates.
Behind closed doors, budget officials have reportedly warned legislative leaders that the plan would require either a massive infusion of new revenue — or significant cuts to essential services.
Public opinion appears split. A recent NY1/Siena poll found that while 57% of New Yorkers support fare discounts for low-income residents, only 33% support eliminating bus fares for everyone. Among those opposed, the top concern was that the program would be too expensive and lead to worse service.
Transportation experts, meanwhile, are urging lawmakers to think beyond slogans. “We should absolutely be having a conversation about equity in transit,” said Shalini Mehta, a researcher at the NYU Rudin Center for Transportation. “But equity doesn’t just mean ‘free.’ It means reliability. It means safety. It means access to routes that actually get you to where you need to go.”
Mehta and others have advocated for targeted solutions like fare capping, mobile discounts, and investment in transit deserts — measures that don’t blow a $650 million hole in the city’s operating budget.
Ultimately, the “free bus” proposal may become a defining moment in the broader ideological battle over the future of New York’s governance. Mamdani and his allies represent a growing progressive movement that wants to radically restructure public services and challenge traditional budget priorities. Their opponents, including many moderate Democrats, warn that such proposals — however noble in intention — risk pushing the city toward fiscal crisis.
“We’ve seen this before,” said political commentator Jonathan Marcus. “Big ideas, no budgets. New York isn’t a test lab for slogans. It’s a real city with real needs.”
As the debate intensifies, one thing is clear: there is no such thing as a free bus. Someone, somewhere, will have to pay. Whether that burden falls on taxpayers, riders, or future generations remains to be seen. But for now, critics of the plan are urging New Yorkers to look past the promises — and follow the money.
