Editorial Board Critiques Zoran Mamdani’s Fare-Free Bus Proposal

The Washington Post Editorial Board has openly criticized Zoran Mamdani, the Democratic Socialist candidate for mayor of New York City, for his ambitious yet costly plan to abolish bus fares. They argue that such a proposal seems primarily beneficial to the city’s homeless and substance users.

In a sharply worded editorial released on Sunday, the board remarked, “Vagrants and drug users seem to occupy New York’s buses for most of the day, particularly during the colder months.”

The editorial went on to express concerns about how this fare-free initiative might deter parents from allowing their children to ride the buses independently, predicting parents would understandably be anxious about that.

Moreover, the piece pointed out the hefty price tag associated with Mamdani’s plan, estimating it would cost the city nearly $800 million each year. They likened this figure to “$50 million less than what the state spent on the construction of a new Buffalo Bills stadium.”

With a hint of sarcasm, the editorial added, “Oh, that’s it?” They highlighted that Mamdani has proposed other expensive upgrades for the bus system, such as improvements in services, new loading zones, and dedicated bus lanes throughout the city.

“So, add up these costs, assuming they’re not hindered by political issues related to road congestion, which was a concern under Mayor Eric Adams when he tried to expand bus routes,” they noted.

The board also referenced similar fare-free initiatives in other U.S. cities, like Portland, Oregon, which ended its fare-free transit policy in 2012 due to rising crime and vandalism that followed the change.

In another example, they cited Olympia, Washington, which reduced bus fares in 2020 by raising local sales taxes, thereby distributing the costs among both riders and non-riders.

“The quality of services provided tends to decline when they are offered ‘for free,'” the editorial board stated.

This recent critique isn’t the first instance of the paper taking aim at Mamdani. Earlier this year, following significant changes within the paper’s management, the editorial board expressed doubts about Mamdani’s potential impact, suggesting his candidacy could lead New York into a period of dysfunction.

In June, they declared his run “bad” for both the city and the Democratic Party as a whole, warning that his approach might tarnish the reputation of a new generation of party leaders.