Can the state afford to move to a fare-free transit system? Boston City Councillor Michele Wu thinks so.

“Fare-free transit is about the idea that we should be setting big goals to match how big and how urgent our challenges are,” she told the Reporter this week.

For the moment, Wu is more focused on halting the proposed MBTA fare hikes, which will take effect July 1, 2019 if adopted. Last Wednesday, she presented a petition opposing the fare hikes at a public hearing in downtown Boston. Wu was the first among more than 50 people to speak against charging people more for public transit.

“Over the last months, I’ve heard from thousands of residents who rely on the T and will face hardships as a direct result of this fare increase,” she said in her remarks. “I heard from a mother in Dorchester, whose teenagers constantly worry about running late to school as a result of T delays. I heard from a thirty-year resident of South Boston who told me they love Boston for the convenience and low cost of the T and are concerned that poor service and fare increase have lowered our standard of living.”

Earlier that day, Wu stood inside Park Street Station by the stairs connecting the Green line and the Red Line. She was there — along with her staff and three volunteers— handing out palm cards about her petition and talking to T riders. It was day three of “campaigning” against the rate hike.

Wu is one of several Boston city councillors who are taking a hardline stand against the fare increase. One of her colleagues— Althea Garrison, newly seated to fill the vacancy left by Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley— has suggested that Boston refuse to pay into a fund that helps to subsidize the agency. Other speakers at last week’s public hearing included riders from all walks of life—state representatives, community advocates, students, professionals, people with disability. Most railed against the proposed fare hikes while Steve Poftak, the MBTA’s general manager, sat and listened.

Despite the diverse backgrounds, most speakers cited equity and climate change as the main reasons they oppose the fare increases. Sarah Levy, an organizer from GreenRoots, Inc., a community organization in Chelsea and East Boston, argued that the MBTA’s equity analysis, part of MBTA’s report on fare changes, is not representative of the ridership. The data, she said, are based on a survey in which 99 percent of the responses were in English.

Rev. Fred Small and Rev. Leslie Sterling, board members of Faith Science Alliance for Climate Leadership, a coalition of scientists and faith leaders, made a joint speech. They noted that Massachusetts ranked No.6 in nationwide income inequality and questioned why MBTA would raise fares to “drive more people into their cars” instead of fighting climate changes.

“We have the money to pay for free transit if everyone pays their free share. No fare hike, free the T!” Sterling said.

Joe Pesaturo, the spokesperson for the MBTA, said revenues from the last fare increases contributed to the funds used towards repairs and upgrades and the MBTA’s “five-year, $8 billion investment plan to make systemic improvements.” New RIDE vehicles, upgraded bus fleet, new ferries, ongoing replacement of the Orange Line fleet and new Red Line cars are all part of the investment. Improved services include late-night and early-morning bus service, extended Silver Line to Chelsea, dedicated bus lanes to avoid congestion and more scheduled trips on the commuter rail, Pesaturo said.

Closer to home, the MBTA just opened a brand new, $19 million station in Mattapan at Blue Hill Avenue, the latest in a series of investments into the Fairmount commuter line.

But for some riders, these improvements do not justify fare hikes.

“Pretty much every transit agency in the US needs more revenue to make their systems as good as people want them to be,” said Rosalie Ray, a Columbia urban planning PhD candidate and former economist for the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Ray said beneficiaries, such as universities, could pay the MBTA in exchange for free passes for their workers and students. Boston could learn from Seattle, where the city purchases service from the transit agency through increased fees on residents. Another model, used in Paris, France, is that different regions of the city have different levels of payroll tax to fund the transit system, she said.

Wu’s push for an eventual fare-free system is possible, Ray says. But increased ridership is often the result of both the elimination of fares and massive improvement to the transit service. A 2017 study of the fare-free public transit system in Tallinn, Estonia, a city populated by 438,874 people, concluded that the policy has not attracted large numbers of new riders or pulled drivers away from their wheels. Instead, the increased trips on public transportation tend to be walkable trips, meaning that people hop on free buses instead of walking or biking.

Both Ray and Wu said the revenue raised through fare increases will not address the MBTA’s needs. Instead of squeezing money from riders, Wu said there need to be conversations about investing in public transportation. She also suggested congestion pricing, surcharges of ride-hailing services and gas taxes.

“We are not going to find the $430 million tomorrow to replace the revenue that bus and subway fares bring in,” says Wu. “But rather than talk about a six percent increase versus three percent or nine percent, we should be talking about ways to get closer to that vision of fare-free transit.”

In lieu of a quick and unlikely shift to a fare-free T, Wu says that the MBTA should at minimum create a free youth pass and make student and senior passes free. As the T moves towards a cashless fare collection system, she said, bus lines serving communities of people with financial barriers, such as the 28, should be designated as fare-free lines. An MBTA community meeting in downtown Boston is scheduled on that day from 6 to 8 p.m.