By Adam Pagnucco.
In his recommended FY26 operating budget, County Executive Marc Elrich has come out in favor of zero fares for the county’s Ride On bus service. But in addition to loss of revenues, Elrich faces a big obstacle:
Opposition from the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), which provides far more state aid to Ride On than the system earns in fares.
First, let’s review Elrich’s reasons for making Ride On free.
*****
The FY26 Operating Budget makes Ride On a fare-free transit system, which prioritizes transit by making our bus system even easier to use for current riders while encouraging ridership growth. From a budget perspective, a zero-fare policy eliminates the need to replace the obsolete fareboxes on Ride On buses or develop a fare enforcement system, which would burden County residents who can least afford fines. Ride On has seen consistent ridership growth but also increased fare evasion, such that in FY25, fare revenue is expected to be $1.6 million. This represents a $1.2 million decline year-over-year and an $18.9 million decline from FY19. With annual fare collection costs of $557,000 and a $19 million farebox technology capital expense needed across FY26 and FY27, a zero-fare policy is cost-efficient over the next six years. The “inform not enforce” policy, which was instituted due to the high cost of staffing enforcement officers on buses, has not been effective for fare collection. Zero fares support the County’s equity goals, while also boosting ridership, increasing service and operational efficiency, and providing the potential to shift more trips to transit, in support of climate and sustainability goals.
*****
First, Elrich is incorrect when he claims that “Ride On has seen consistent ridership growth.” According to the county’s County Stat website, Ride On ridership was 23 million in 2017, 10 million in 2021 (during the pandemic) and 18 million in 2024. It was nearly 30 million in FY08. So Ride On ridership is in long-term decline. That doesn’t mean Elrich is unjustified in wanting free fares – one could argue that they might boost ridership, something that Ride On needs.
Elrich is also not giving up a lot of money with free fares. Ride On fare revenues were decimated during the pandemic and have not been much better since. Consider this:
FY23 fare revenue was originally budgeted at $9.8 million. It actually turned out to be $3.6 million.
FY24 fare revenue was originally budgeted at $8.6 million. It actually turned out to be $2.8 million.
FY25 fare revenue was originally budgeted at $4.8 million. Currently, it’s estimated at $1.6 million.
Prior to FY19, the county often collected more than $20 million a year in fare revenues. Ride On fare revenues are disappearing.
Now comes MDOT Secretary Paul Wiedefeld. As a former general manager of WMATA and a former administrator of the Maryland Transit Administration, Wiedefeld has a ton of experience in transit. On April 9, Wiedefeld wrote a letter to the county council opposing free Ride On fares. After affirming MDOT’s support for transit programs, Wiedefeld pointed out “the interconnected nature of Ride On with other transit systems” and made this argument against free fares.
*****
Fare payment is a critical source of revenue supporting Maryland’s significant transit investment. A reduction to this revenue source, particularly in a time of fiscal limitations, would jeopardize not only the State’s transit investment capacity, but also resources for transportation funding across the board. This reality is most aptly demonstrated with the Purple Line, which is being delivered under a Public Private Partnership that includes a 30-year maintenance and operations phase. Central to the project’s underwriting is an assumption of certain ridership revenues. Should those revenues miss projections arising from non-payment, additional State funds will be required to fill the gap. This would further strain future MDOT budgets, requiring increasingly challenging budget decisions that would limit the State’s overall investment in transportation, resulting in undesirable transportation outcomes.
Similarly, WMATA’s budget picture is emerging from a dire state, thanks to strong revenues from ridership growth and fare enforcement. Maryland, which provides nearly $1 billion in annual funding to WMATA, called for WMATA to address fare evasion, and WMATA acted. On the rail system, stepped up enforcement and improved fare gates led to an 82 percent reduction in fare evasion. The WMATA more recently turned its attention to bus fare enforcement, engaging in a focused enforcement campaign, beginning in December 2024. Across the WMATA system, a reestablished culture of fare payment is yielding higher fare revenues that are, in tum, resulting in lower operating subsidies as well as reinvestment back into operations for new and expanded service. This win-win of public cost savings and better service is only possible because of fare revenues.
Consistent fare policy and clear fare payment expectations are essential for preserving fare revenues and the critical service these revenues support. The County’s fare free proposal runs contrary to this approach. Specifically, it risks undermining the concerted efforts to rebuild a culture of fare payment that many in the region have painstakingly been rebuilding in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Consistency is particularly important in a place like Montgomery County, which is served by several transit providers, all at least partially funded by MDOT, including WMATA, Ride On, MARC, and, soon, the Purple Line. In this dynamic transit environment, it is common for riders to use multiple transit systems daily. Intentionally or not, differential fare policies stand to invite fare evasion across all systems.
*****
Wiedefeld then offers this prediction: “With annual increases in operating costs, a somewhat modest operating outlay in FY26 to pay for a fare free program can balloon and impede the County’s ability to invest in other areas of need.”
Wiedefeld is more than a distant bureaucrat. He and the state have leverage over the county coming from their provision of more than $40 million a year in aid to Ride On, nearly a fifth of its operating expenditures. What happens if the county goes to the state asking for more aid to cover its free fares?
That’s a concern for the future. Right now, the county council – which approves county transportation fees – must weigh in. Whose argument will win out? Elrich? Wiedefeld? Or will the council do what politicians often do and split the middle by reducing but not eliminating fares?
It will be a significant debate in Rockville with the eyes of the state watching intently.
Wiedefeld’s letter can be downloaded below.
Secretary Wiedefeld Letter to MC on Fare Free Proposal April 2025