Politics & Current Events

How Zero‑Fare Buses Could Reshape NYC’s Economy

By: Yaseen Ahmed

New York City’s public transportation system is one of the largest and most heavily used in the world. Operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), it includes subways, buses, and commuter rail lines that residents rely on daily to travel to work, school, etc. Currently, most riders must pay a base fare for buses and subways. In recent years, rising living costs, service disruptions, and concerns about fairness have fueled debates over whether public transit should be more accessible—leading to renewed calls for free MTA buses. Bayside High School sophomore Andrew Liu shares, “I believe that free buses would benefit NYC. It might affect daily lives by causing people to rely more on buses while also causing buses to be overcrowded.”

The idea of free bus service has gained traction among city officials and transit advocates, who argue that fares place a disproportionate burden on low-income residents and communities of color, particularly in outer boroughs where bus use is highest. Proposed policies generally focus on eliminating fares on local bus routes while keeping subway fares intact. Supporters suggest that the lost fare revenue could be replaced through city or state funding, new taxes, or reallocating existing transportation funds. By removing fares, buses could allow faster boarding, reduce fare enforcement costs, and encourage more frequent use of public transit. However, some do not want to pay even more in taxes. For instance, Bayside High School sophomore Angelo Bacuku says, “New Yorkers already pay so much in taxes so adding more taxes to fund free buses would just cause a greater burden on people.”

Economically, free buses could have mixed effects. On one hand, the MTA would lose a direct source of revenue that helps fund operations and maintenance. Bayside High School sophomore Ethan Lin shares, “There are already a lot of maintenance problems on buses and trains so the MTA having less money would only worsen those problems.” 

On the other hand, supporters argue that increased ridership could stimulate local economies by making it easier for people to reach jobs, shops, and services. Free buses could also reduce household transportation costs, effectively acting as a financial relief measure for working-class New Yorkers. From an equity perspective, the policy could help narrow gaps in mobility access by ensuring that cost is no longer a barrier to transportation. Bayside High School sophomore William Chen said, “Free buses would help people move around the city and get to their jobs faster and better.”

Cities around the world have already experimented with fare-free public transit, offering insight into how such a policy might work in New York City. For example, in Dunkirk, France, buses became free in 2018 and saw a significant increase in ridership, particularly on weekends, which helped boost local commerce, according to an EU Urban Mobility Observatory study. 

Additionally, Tallinn, Estonia, introduced free public transit for residents and experienced moderate ridership growth, though studies found limited reductions in car use according to Science Direct. To add on, Luxembourg became the first country to make all public transit free nationwide, increasing passenger numbers but not dramatically easing traffic congestion, according to the Public Transportation of Luxembourg official website. These examples suggest that while free transit can encourage use, it is most effective when paired with frequent, reliable service and policies that discourage driving.

Overall, making MTA buses free could reshape daily life in New York City by improving access, promoting equity, and easing financial pressure on residents. However, without a clear and stable funding plan, the policy could strain an already challenged transit system. As the debate continues, the central question remains whether New York is willing to invest in free buses, not just as a symbolic gesture, but as part of a broader commitment to improving public transportation for all.

Mapping Fare Evasion: Where It Happens and Why

By: Andrew Liu

In major cities such as New York City, a public transportation system exists as an easy and accessible option to travel. One example of this is the NYC Subway system, which currently requires a fare of $3.00—previously priced at $2.90. Fare evasion is the act of riders using public transit without paying the fare, which makes public agencies lose millions of dollars annually. 

Critics against fare evasion argue that these fares are essential to maintaining the systems that New Yorkers rely on daily. The revenue obtained from the fares are used for many purposes: paying for repairs, staff salaries, etc. Many problems occur when funds are insufficient: trains get delayed, quality services are lowered, fare price inflation, etc. These burdens are then placed on every New Yorker using public transportation. On the other hand, some believe that fare evasion is a product of economic hardship. When costs accumulate overtime, individuals may feel drawn to avoid fares because of how expensive they can get. 

In New York City, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has upgraded its stations to lower fare evasion rates. For example, turnstiles now have metal fins/spikes to stop individuals from jumping over and gate guards are deployed at emergency exits.  The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) implemented workers known as “fare engagement representatives” at gates to check for people’s fare. 

According to a GBH News article by Jeremy Siegel,  “MBTA begins issuing fines for fare evasion. Riders have mixed feelings”, “Those caught fare skipping are met with a formal warning and a citation. If actions persist, fines can range from $50 to $100, which ultimately helped increase fare collection by 35% within weeks”. The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) has addressed fare evasion in many ways. In 2024, SEPTA began issuing criminal citations for fare evasion, resulting in nearly 6,000 citations, over 700 arrests and a 33% drop in serious crime. Similarly to MTA and MBTA, SEPTA is also switching to full height fare gates to completely eliminate the option to jump over the gate. 

According to an NBC article by David Chang, “Jumping a turnstile at a SEPTA station could cost you $300”,  instead of a maximum of a $100 dollar fine, riders who are caught skipping fares receive citations with fines up to $300 and options for payment, community service, or disputing the citation in court. 

At Bayside High School opinions on fare evasion vary. Bayside High School sophomore William Chen shared, “I think it isn't a serious issue as the administrations should spend the money on other aspects besides security. The majority of riders do pay their fare and those who avoid paying probably lack the funds.” 

Another Bayside High School sophomore Yaseen Ahmed said, “I think fare evasion isn't a serious offense since it’s a victimless crime. I think that the current solutions are ineffective as there is still mass fare evasion.” 

To add on, Bayside High School sophomore Ethan Lin says, “Despite the measures, people can still jump the new turnstiles.” 

On the contrary, Bayside High School sophomore Daniel Oh said, “Subway fare evasion is wrong because it causes the cost of fares to inflate for paying riders and decreases public transportation funding. However, it also shows economic inequality—rather than enforcing payments, it should be made more accessible.”

Fare evasion affects public transportation by reducing funding and inflating prices for riders, but it also shows the inaccessibility of the subway for many New Yorkers. While enforcement of fares has shown to be effective in some areas, a different approach might be needed as fare evasion persists. 

The Memeification of Politics in American Media

By: Daphne Mazuera

Kirkification. Flowgenkirkuenly. Genkirkunely. These are words sparking attention on  TikTok in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination on September 10th, 2025. Influencers and users alike have normalized the act of “Kirkifying” words: using words that are used in everyday life and replacing crucial syllables with “Kirk”. This sudden explosion in memeifying (turning a person, image, event, or phrase into an internet meme) an act of political violence is new, but the sentiment has always been there.

Political humor has long been part of public life. As far back as the 1700s, political cartoons and satirical essays mocked leaders and institutions. However, according to HKS, in “The Evolution of Political Internet Memes”, Ofra Klein wrote that political memes have been around since the early 2000s, starting with a meme in 2004 that mocked George W. Bush’s mispronunciation of the word “internet”, saying it as “internets”. That moment marked the beginning of political meme culture—and, more broadly, the memeification of American politics.

These memes have shaped how seriously the public treats political events. Political memes typically consist of either mocking or downplaying a political climate out of frustration and needing an outlet, coping, or simply not taking the situation lightly. A prime example of this would be the assasination of conservative influencer and debater Charlie Kirk; Charlie Kirk’s assassination was immediately deemed a tragedy by the Trump administration, but the media perceived it differently. Instagram user, Dripking, posted a video with the description reading, “There were many [takes Charlie had] that I disagreed with completely, but we’ve lost a sense of humanity in this generation”—referring to the Charlie Kirk memes that had spread like wildfire shortly after his death.

The death of Charlie Kirk is not the only thing that American media has ran with and turned into a massive joke—the media has also turned Israel into a meme, with the popular saying, “The _____ was promised to them 3000 years ago,” in mockery to Israel’s perceived entitlement, and their belief that their land is deserved by divine right. 

Netizens have reported on social media that America has officially become the laughing stock of the world. With running jokes calling former President Joe Biden “Sleepy Joe”, Americans and non-Americans alike having a running joke that President Donald Trump has a horrible spray tan, and many more. Over time, this constant stream of humor has chipped away at the seriousness with which American politics is viewed.

When a handful of Bayside students took a survey in regards to how they view American politics with all of these memes going around, Bayside High School sophomore Anna Espinola shared, “Our country’s politics are a disaster. Especially with our current president, nothing could make me care less. These political memes don’t change my opinion.” 

This was a statement that many students resonated with: Tachi Navoa, a Bayside High School sophomore said, “I think that overall, American politics have always been taken less seriously by foreign countries. Our current generation is also much more "unserious" compared to past generations.” Bayside High School sophomore Alexandra Okafor adds, “I feel like it's been less serious as a way to bring a positive spin on hard conversations.”

The memeification of politics in American media signals a deeper cultural shift. As political events become punchlines, public engagement and seriousness appear to be fading.