Argue both sides of free buses: every AI model's reply, tested

In two paragraphs of at most 90 words each, first argue that a city should make its buses free, then make the strongest case against it. The second paragraph must be as persuasive as the first. No headings.

Exactly what this prompt's replies are checked against, with every other prompt of our test runs.

1. GLM 5.3 Flash

   Failed: Graded 4.7 of 5 on average (lowest 4); but a paragraph of 92 words, over the 90 allowed.

   Free buses would transform the city overnight. Ridership would surge, cutting congestion, pollution, and parking demand as drivers leave their cars behind. Low-income residents, who spend the largest share of income on transportation, would gain real mobility—reaching jobs, schools, and clinics without a fare standing in the way. Fare collection itself costs money; eliminating it speeds boarding, simplifies routes, and lets drivers focus on driving. A city that believes in its future should treat transit as what it truly is: public infrastructure, free at the point of use.
   
   Yet free buses carry real costs that fall hardest on those who need service most. Without fare revenue, budgets strain, forcing route cuts and infrequent service—fewer buses help riders far less than cheaper ones. Free fares do nothing to expand capacity, so overcrowded routes stay overcrowded while money that could fund new lines vanishes. Studies of fare-free systems show many new riders previously walked or cycled, not drove, so congestion barely improves. Better to charge riders and reinvest every dollar into frequency, coverage, and reliability—the things that actually make transit worth taking.

   399 tokens in, 237 out (9 of them reasoning) · 11.2 s · $0.0001 · 1 message on Pro · answered by z-ai/glm-5.3-flash via AtlasCloud · September 27, 2026

2. DeepSeek V4 Pro

   Failed: Graded 4.0 of 5 on average (lowest 4); but a paragraph of 95 words, over the 90 allowed.

   Making buses free turns them into a genuine public good rather than a service you must pay to use. It removes the fare barrier that keeps low-income riders from jobs, medical care, and school, while also speeding up boarding since no one fumbles for change. Fewer cars on the road cuts congestion, pollution, and traffic deaths, and a fare-free system is cheaper to run because you eliminate fare collection machines, enforcement, and revenue handling. A city that values mobility and fairness should treat transit like libraries and sidewalks: open to everyone, paid for by everyone.
   
   Eliminating fares is a poor trade, however, because it spends scarce transit dollars on people who can already afford to ride while doing nothing to improve service for those who cannot. Free buses attract crowding and rowdiness, deterring paying-quality riders and raising security costs. The revenue loss forces cuts to routes and frequency, which hurts the very riders the policy claims to help. A better approach is means-tested fare discounts and fare capping, which target subsidies precisely while preserving the funding needed for reliable, frequent, and expanding service.

   395 tokens in, 263 out (41 of them reasoning) · 7.8 s · $0.0003 · 1 message on Pro · answered by deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro-0813 via StreamLake · September 27, 2026

3. GLM 5.3

   Failed: Graded 3.7 of 5 on average (lowest 3); but a paragraph of 92 words, over the 90 allowed.

   A city should make its buses free because the benefits ripple far beyond riders. Fare-free transit boosts ridership immediately, cutting car trips, congestion, and emissions while improving air quality. It saves low-income residents money, connects workers to jobs, students to schools, and seniors to care, and it eliminates fare enforcement disputes that disproportionately harm marginalized riders. Fares often recover only a modest share of operating costs anyway, so removing them trades a small revenue stream for a faster, fairer, more accessible city — a genuine public good like roads and libraries.
   
   Yet free buses carry real costs that advocates understate. Fare revenue funds service; eliminate it and the burden shifts to taxpayers, many of whom never ride, straining budgets already stretched thin. Free buses can overload the system — especially with vulnerable riders seeking shelter — degrading the experience for commuters who depend on reliability. Fare-free transit can also reduce pressure to improve service quality, since riders are no longer paying customers with leverage. And studies suggest it mainly attracts walkers and cyclists, not drivers, doing little for climate. There's no free lunch: someone pays.

   422 tokens in, 234 out (11 of them reasoning) · 1.8 s · $0.0013 · 1 message on Pro · answered by z-ai/glm-5.3 via Wafer · September 27, 2026

4. Claude Sonnet 5.5

   Failed: Graded 4.7 of 5 on average (lowest 4); but a paragraph of 98 words, over the 90 allowed.

   Free buses make a city fairer, faster, and greener. Fares are a regressive tax on people who can least afford them, and dropping them instantly raises effective income for low-wage workers, students, and seniors. Boarding without payment cuts dwell time, so routes run quicker and more reliably. Cities that tried it, like Kansas City and Dunkirk, saw ridership jump, taking cars off congested streets and lowering emissions. Fare collection also eats money: machines, enforcement, and administration can consume a large share of what fares bring in. Free transit turns buses into a public good, like roads and libraries.
   
   Free buses sound generous but quietly damage the service riders depend on. Fares provide a dependable revenue stream, and replacing it means higher taxes or budget cuts elsewhere, often leaving transit chronically underfunded. Money is better spent on frequency, reliability, and coverage, which matter more to low-income riders than a zero fare. Much of the new ridership comes from people who would have walked or cycled, not drivers, so climate gains are modest while crowding worsens. Targeted discounts help the poor directly without subsidizing every rider, including wealthy commuters, and keep agencies accountable to the people they serve.

   522 tokens in, 401 out · 4.4 s · $0.0051 · 1 message on Pro · answered by anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5 via Anthropic · September 28, 2026

5. Gemini 3.1 Pro

   Failed: Graded 3.7 of 5 on average (lowest 3).

   Making city buses free is a powerful catalyst for economic equality and environmental sustainability. By eliminating fares, cities immediately remove a significant financial burden from low-income residents, improving their access to jobs, education, and healthcare. Furthermore, free transit incentivizes people to leave their cars at home, dramatically reducing traffic congestion and cutting harmful greenhouse gas emissions. This shift not only improves urban air quality but also reduces the long-term wear and tear on city infrastructure, ultimately creating a cleaner, fairer, and more accessible environment for all residents.
   
   However, eliminating fares fundamentally undermines the financial stability and quality of the transit system itself. Fares provide crucial revenue required for essential maintenance, route expansion, and driver salaries. Without this income, cities are forced to either slash service frequencies and coverage or drastically raise local taxes to cover the deficit. Consequently, free transit often results in overcrowded, unreliable, and dilapidated buses. Passengers ultimately prioritize speed, safety, and reliability over zero cost; a free bus is useless to a commuter if it never arrives on time.

   409 tokens in, 699 out (492 of them reasoning) · 9.1 s · $0.0092 · 1 message on Pro · answered by google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview via Google · September 27, 2026

6. Claude Fable 5.1

   Failed: Graded 4.7 of 5 on average (lowest 4); but a paragraph of 99 words, over the 90 allowed.

   Free buses remove the single biggest barrier to ridership: the fare. Every boarding becomes faster with no payment friction, cutting dwell times and making service more reliable. Low-income residents, who spend a disproportionate share of income on transport, gain immediate relief, expanding access to jobs, schools, and healthcare. More riders mean fewer cars, less congestion, and cleaner air for everyone. Fare collection itself costs money—equipment, enforcement, cash handling—that could be redirected to service. Cities like Kansas City and Tallinn show ridership rises and communities benefit.
   
   Fares typically cover a meaningful slice of operating costs, and abolishing them creates a permanent hole that must be filled by taxes or, more often, by cutting service. Riders consistently say they want frequency and reliability more than free trips; a bus that comes every eight minutes is worth more than one that's free but comes every thirty. Free systems in practice draw riders from walking and cycling, not from cars, so climate gains are marginal. Overcrowding, vandalism, and buses used as shelters have strained free networks. Targeted discounts for those in need deliver equity without sacrificing service quality.

   520 tokens in, 388 out · 9.3 s · $0.0246 · 1 message on Pro · answered by anthropic/claude-fable-5.1 via Anthropic · September 27, 2026

7. Claude Opus 5.5

   Failed: Graded 4.7 of 5 on average (lowest 4); but a paragraph of 93 words, over the 90 allowed.

   Free buses turn public transit into what it should be: a public good, like sidewalks or streetlights. Fare collection often recovers only a small share of operating costs, yet it slows boarding, requires costly equipment, and deters the riders who need buses most. Remove fares and ridership climbs, as Kansas City and Tallinn saw, easing congestion and cutting emissions. Low-income workers gain hundreds of dollars a year, drivers stop policing payments, and buses move faster. A city that funds roads without tolls can surely fund buses without fares.
   
   Free is not the same as good. Fares fund service, and losing them forces a choice between tax hikes and cuts to frequency, reliability, and coverage, which are the things riders say they want. Studies of fare-free systems find many new riders were pedestrians and cyclists, not drivers, so congestion and emissions barely budge. Some cities report more disruptive incidents, driving away commuters. Low-income riders are better served by targeted discounts, while the revenue preserved buys more buses, more routes, and shorter waits. A bus that never comes is worthless at any price.

   520 tokens in, 2,109 out (1,746 of them reasoning) · 22.5 s · $0.0443 · 1 message on Pro · answered by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 via Claude Platform on AWS · September 27, 2026

8. GPT-6 Luna

   Passed: Graded 4.3 of 5 on average (lowest 4).

   Making buses free would give every resident reliable access to jobs, school, health care, and daily necessities, regardless of income. It would also speed boarding, reduce fare-enforcement costs, and encourage people to leave cars at home—easing congestion, pollution, and parking pressure. A city that treats public transit as essential infrastructure, rather than a service people must qualify to afford, can build a more connected and equitable community.
   
   But “free” buses still have to be paid for, and the bill could divert money from more urgent improvements: frequent service, safer stops, cleaner vehicles, and routes to underserved neighborhoods. If buses remain slow, crowded, or unreliable, removing fares may do little to persuade drivers to switch, while reducing funds that could make transit genuinely useful. Targeted fare assistance can protect riders who need it most without subsidizing every trip, including those by people who can readily afford to pay.

   384 tokens in, 186 out · 2.5 s · $0.0001 · 1 message on Pro · answered by openai/gpt-6-luna via OpenAI · September 27, 2026

9. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

   Passed: Graded 4.3 of 5 on average (lowest 4).

   Free buses work. They cut car trips, congestion, and carbon, and they help the riders who need them most. Boarding speeds up, so routes run faster and cheaper to operate. The cost is modest—often less than a parking garage or a lane widening—and downtown shops gain customers. A city that charges nothing at the farebox treats mobility as a right, not a fee.
   
   But somebody still pays. Fares cover a real slice of operating costs, and replacing them means higher taxes or cuts elsewhere—often taxes that hit the poor hardest. Most riders already pay, so the subsidy flows to everyone, including the comfortable. Crowding slows buses, driving away choice riders. Better to means-test discounts, keep service frequent, and spend scarce dollars where they move the most people.

   423 tokens in, 282 out (122 of them reasoning) · 3.9 s · $0.0003 · 1 message on Pro · answered by deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash via StreamLake · September 27, 2026

10. Gemini 3.8 Flash

    Passed: Graded 4.3 of 5 on average (lowest 4).

    Eliminating bus fares instantly dismantles economic barriers for low-income residents, granting equitable access to jobs, education, and healthcare. Free transit slashes household transportation costs while significantly reducing traffic congestion and urban carbon emissions by incentivizing drivers to leave their cars at home. Moreover, removing fare collection speeds up boarding times, which improves route efficiency and eliminates costly ticketing infrastructure. By treating public transit as an essential public good like parks or libraries, a city can revitalize local commerce, curb pollution, and build a more connected, egalitarian community.
    
    However, zero-fare transit starves transit agencies of vital revenue needed to maintain service quality, frequency, and safety. Commuters do not avoid buses primarily because of fares; they avoid them due to unreliability, overcrowding, and long wait times. Eliminating farebox recovery forces cities to divert funding from network expansions or rely on volatile municipal budgets, leading to degraded vehicles and reduced routes. Ultimately, low-income riders suffer most when a "free" system becomes an unusable, neglected service, whereas targeted subsidies and reinvesting fare revenue directly enhance transit for everyone.

    409 tokens in, 220 out · 5.2 s · $0.0011 · 1 message on Pro · answered by google/gemini-3.8-flash via Google · September 27, 2026

11. Claude Haiku 4.5

    Passed: Graded 4.0 of 5 on average (lowest 4).

    Free buses reduce traffic congestion and emissions while improving public health through increased mobility. They eliminate collection costs and fare evasion losses, funding themselves partly through reduced road maintenance. Equity improves dramatically—low-income residents gain economic mobility and job access. Cities like Luxembourg prove feasibility. The modest expense is offset by economic productivity gains, reduced healthcare costs, and environmental benefits that create long-term savings.
    
    However, free transit strains already limited budgets without guaranteed ridership increases to offset costs. Maintenance deteriorates as systems become overcrowded without capacity expansion funding. Cities risk losing accountability—free services often receive less operational scrutiny. Revenue vanishes precisely when transit needs modernization most. Targeted subsidies for low-income riders prove more efficient than universal free fares. Better solutions include congestion pricing for private vehicles and progressive fare structures, reserving resources for quality service rather than unsustainable giveaways.

    414 tokens in, 195 out · 3.4 s · $0.0014 · 1 message on Pro · answered by anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5 via Amazon Bedrock · September 27, 2026

12. GPT-6 Sol

    Passed: Graded 4.3 of 5 on average (lowest 4).

    A city should make its buses free because a fare can keep people from jobs, classes, and medical appointments. Removing it would make every trip easier, especially for residents with the least money. Boarding would be faster without payment, and some drivers might leave their cars at home, easing traffic and pollution. Funding buses through taxes treats mobility as a public service: everyone benefits when more people can reach what they need.
    
    But free fares are not free service. Fare revenue helps pay for frequent, reliable buses; lose it without secure replacement funding, and riders may face longer waits and crowded routes. Even with new taxes, a city could spend that money on more drivers and better coverage instead. A zero-dollar fare does little for someone whose bus rarely comes. Targeted discounts for low-income riders would protect access while preserving resources to make the service worth taking.

    384 tokens in, 173 out · 4.2 s · $0.0025 · 1 message on Pro · answered by openai/gpt-6-sol via OpenAI · September 27, 2026

13. Kimi K3

    Passed: Graded 4.7 of 5 on average (lowest 4).

    Free buses would transform urban life. Fares raise little revenue after collection costs, yet they deter the very riders—low-income workers, students, the elderly—who depend on transit most. Eliminating them speeds boarding, cuts traffic congestion, reduces emissions, and functions as targeted economic relief for households struggling with costs. Cities like Tallinn and Kansas City show ridership climbs sharply when fares vanish. A city that wants cleaner air, less gridlock, and genuine mobility equity should treat buses like libraries or parks: a public good, free at the point of use.
    
    Yet "free" transit is never free—someone pays, and often it's riders themselves. Forgoing fare revenue means cutting service frequency, deferring maintenance, or raising taxes on residents who never ride. Crowded, deteriorating buses push people back into cars, worsening congestion. Studies show riders value reliability far more than zero fares; a bus that comes every five minutes beats a free one that comes hourly. Scarce funds spent subsidizing middle-class commuters could instead expand routes to underserved neighborhoods. Better to invest in service quality than in a populist gesture.

    471 tokens in, 248 out (11 of them reasoning) · 3.6 s · $0.0049 · 1 message on Pro · answered by moonshotai/kimi-k3 via Together · September 27, 2026

14. Claude Sonnet 5

    Passed: Graded 4.0 of 5 on average (lowest 4).

    Free buses would boost ridership, cut traffic congestion, and reduce emissions by encouraging drivers to switch to transit. Lower-income residents, who rely most heavily on public transportation, would benefit enormously from eliminated fare burdens, improving access to jobs, education, and healthcare. Free transit also simplifies operations, speeding boarding times and eliminating costly fare collection infrastructure. Cities that have tried this, like Kansas City, saw ridership increases and stronger community mobility, suggesting free buses are both an equity tool and a practical urban planning solution.
    
    However, fares provide crucial revenue that funds maintenance, expansion, and service reliability. Eliminating them shifts costs entirely onto taxpayers, straining budgets already stretched thin, potentially forcing service cuts elsewhere. Free buses often attract overcrowding without corresponding investment in more vehicles, degrading service quality for existing riders. Critics also note that the poorest riders may already receive subsidized passes, making universal free fares a regressive policy that primarily benefits wealthier occasional riders. Better targeted subsidies, they argue, would achieve equity goals more efficiently than blanket free fares citywide.

    518 tokens in, 401 out · 6.6 s · $0.0050 · 1 message on Pro · answered by anthropic/claude-sonnet-5 via Claude Platform on AWS · September 27, 2026

15. Grok 4.7

    Passed: Graded 4.3 of 5 on average (lowest 4).

    Making buses free would remove the fare barrier that keeps low-income riders from jobs, clinics, and schools, and it would cut the cost and delay of collecting fares. More people would leave cars behind, easing congestion and pollution while filling seats that already run half empty. A city that treats transit as a public service, like streets or parks, can fund it through broad taxes and gain mobility, equity, and cleaner air in return.
    
    Free buses sound generous, but they shift a real cost onto taxpayers who may never ride, while inviting overcrowding, slower trips, and service that cannot keep up with demand. Without fares, agencies lose a direct signal of what routes people value and a revenue stream that pays drivers and buys buses. Cities that have tried fare-free service often face vandalism, disorder, and cuts elsewhere. Mobility is better served by targeted discounts for those who need them and reliable, frequent service that people will pay to use.

    1,618 tokens in, 1,159 out (968 of them reasoning) · 12.1 s · $0.0065 · 1 message on Pro · answered by x-ai/grok-4.7 via xAI · September 27, 2026

16. GPT-6 Astra

    Passed: Graded 4.7 of 5 on average (lowest 4).

    A city should make its buses free because mobility is a gateway to work, education, and healthcare—not a privilege reserved for those who can afford each trip. Eliminating fares delivers immediate relief to low-income households, speeds boarding, and removes costly fare enforcement. Funded through progressive taxation, free buses spread the cost fairly while making public transport an easier choice. A city already pays for streets everyone can use; it should support shared travel that uses those streets more efficiently.
    
    But a free bus that arrives late—or never comes—is no bargain. Cities should spend scarce transit funding on frequent, reliable service before subsidizing every rider, including those who can comfortably pay. Lost fare revenue must come from higher taxes, other public services, or the transit budget itself. Targeted discounts can protect people who need help without sacrificing coverage and capacity. To persuade drivers to switch, buses must compete on convenience and reliability, not merely price; better service may deliver greater social and environmental benefits.

    384 tokens in, 197 out · 7.2 s · $0.0137 · 1 message on Pro · answered by openai/gpt-6-astra via OpenAI · September 27, 2026

• Announce a second bakery shop on LinkedIn
• A product announcement with five rules
• Rewrite corporate jargon in plain words
• Decline a meeting and offer two times
• The best AI for writing