Kansas City’s new Bus Riders Union says city hall and the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) need to listen to riders.
On that point, it is right.
For years, KCATA has made major policy decisions without clearly anchoring them to what riders consistently say they value most. The most consequential example was the move to eliminate fares.
In late 2019, the Kansas City Council voted to subsidize fare-free bus trips tied to city service. In March 2020, as a COVID-era public health measure, fares were suspended regionally across RideKC partners. The pandemic decision effectively made the fare-free policy far broader than the original city-centered framing.
But fare-free did not make bus operations cheaper.
Before 2020, several Missouri-side municipal contracts operated under a net operating cost model: KCATA calculated operating costs, subtracted passenger revenue, and allocated the remaining loss among funding partners. In the year before fares were suspended, passenger revenue covered roughly $9 million of operating costs.
The fare-free policy eliminated that recurring revenue stream, but it did not eliminate operating costs. Fare-collection expenses declined modestly, but those savings were far smaller than the forgone revenue, and additional pressures—including ADA complementary paratransit demand—complicated the balance sheet.
During the pandemic, federal funds offset the lost fare revenue. But as one-time COVID-era funding dwindled, the structural question reemerged: who permanently pays for free fares and full service?
Multiple forces drove the budget stress that followed—expiring federal relief, post-pandemic inflation, and negotiated cost-sharing changes. Fare-free was not the only cause of rising costs, but it was a significant one.
Removing a revenue stream embedded in cost-allocation formulas increased the amount that had to be covered by subsidies. Without a dedicated replacement source, the system became more financially fragile. That coincided with contract disputes, service cut threats, and regional withdrawals—all of which riders experience as instability.
Just as important, fare-free did little to address passenger concerns. It did not fix whether the bus shows up on time or is clean and safe. It may have worsened these issues.
Research across major transit systems shows a similar pattern: riders tend to rank frequency, reliability, and safety above fare reductions as the changes most likely to increase their use.
Kansas City has tested fare-free transit. It proved impossible to sustain without stable, dedicated funding, making the service less attractive to other neighboring municipalities.
If the Bus Riders Union wants to ensure riders are heard, the focus now should be on what riders consistently say they need: buses that run frequently, arrive on time, and feel safe.
Unfortunately, KCATA’s past policy missteps have made this more difficult.
