Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework (2023)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

CHAPTER 2 Using the Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework This evaluation framework presented herein provides guidance for transit agencies and other interested parties on evaluating the feasibility of various fare-free transit alternatives. The evaluation framework has 10 steps that describe the process for getting organized, making a plan, and evaluating fare-free transit (Exhibit 2-1). Transit practitioners can focus on evaluating the impacts of fare-free transit across four themes: access, mobility, and equity; operational efficiency; financial health; and community impacts. Exhibit 2-2 shows these themes along with example questions that can guide the evaluation. Many of the steps include examples that are organized around these themes. These examples are not intended to be prescriptive but may be used as models. More information about the impacts, categorized by theme, can be found in Chapter 3. The framework can be used when a transit agency is interested in evaluating fare-free transit alternatives. It can be used from the beginning of this process up until the decision to implement (or not to implement) a preferred alternative. Because the framework follows the general prin- ciples of program evaluation, it may also be used after implementation to evaluate the long-term Get Organized Make a Plan Evaluate Step 1: Set the context Step 5: Set evaluation Step 9: Estimate Step 2: Assess the goals and objectives impacts existing conditions Step 6: Determine Step 10: Select Step 3: Review peer performance measures preferred alternative transit agencies Step 7: Establish Step 4: Identify selection criteria opportunities and Step 8: Select fare-free challenges transit alternatives Stakeholder and Public Outreach Exhibit 2-1. Evaluation framework steps. 10 

Using the Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework 11   Theme Evaluation Questions Access, Which fare-free transit alternatives best improve access, Mobility, & mobility, and equity? Equity How much will ridership increase on various transit services? Will ridership increases come from existing riders or new riders? Operational Is there capacity on transit services to accommodate Efficiency additional ridership? Will fare-free transit improve the operating efficiency of existing services? What will be the operational impacts of increased ridership on various transit services (e.g., service hours, on-time performance, employees)? What will be the capital impacts of fare-free transit (e.g., facilities, vehicles)? Without fare collection, how can the transit agency manage use of transit services by non-destination riders? Will there be additional safety and security impacts and costs? Will the elimination of fare collection affect the transit agency’s ability to collect ridership data? How does fare-free transit at one transit agency affect inter- agency transfers? How does fare-free transit on specific services affect intra- agency transfers? Do any federal requirements impact the transit agency’s ability to pilot or implement fare-free transit (e.g., Title VI)? Financial Health Are there any additional costs or savings that would result from fare-free transit (e.g., program administration, marketing)? Does the elimination of fare revenue restrict the transit agency’s ability to receive funding from external partners (e.g., employers, universities, schools)? What will be the net financial impacts, including the loss of fare revenue, savings on fare collection costs, and additional operating costs? How will lost revenue be replaced? Can fare revenue be replaced with a less-regressive funding source? Will fare-free transit make the transit agency eligible for additional funding? Will the loss of fare revenue threaten current or future service levels? Community Will fare-free transit result in any external impacts to the Impacts surrounding community (e.g., air quality, congestion, economic development, public health)? Is the community supportive of fare-free transit? Exhibit 2-2. Example framework questions. feasibility of fare-free transit. General guidance for using this evaluation framework after imple- mentation is provided. Whether the framework is being used before or after implementation, the project team should allocate sufficient time to complete the steps and plan the evaluation process accordingly. Two types of callouts are provided throughout the evaluation framework to share examples of how the framework was used in practice (“Framework in Practice”) and opportunities to carry out outreach to stakeholders and the public (“Outreach Opportunity”). See Exhibit 2-3 for examples of these callouts. 

12 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Framework in Practice Framework in Practice examples show full fare-free, partial fare-free, and not fare- free transit agencies at different points of the fare-free evaluation process. More details about each case study transit agency’s context, policy goals, evaluation, outcomes, and funding can be found in Chapter 4. Outreach Opportunity These callouts indicate opportunities to engage with stakeholders and the public and collect their feedback. Feedback is an essential input to all 10 evaluation steps. Outreach ensures the priorities of affected people and organizations are recognized and integrated into the evaluation process. Exhibit 2-3. Evaluation framework callout types. Get Organized At the onset of the process, those interested in evaluating fare-free transit alternatives should get organized with the following steps: • Step 1: Set the context for the evaluation of fare-free transit, including identifying relevant con- text and forming a project team. • Step 2: Assess the existing conditions of the transit agency. • Step 3: Review peer transit agencies that have considered, evaluated, and/or implemented fare-free transit policies or programs. • Step 4: Identify opportunities and challenges for fare-free transit policies and programs in your transit agency or community. Step 1: Set the Context Identify Relevant Context Those interested in evaluating fare-free transit programs and policies should start by docu- menting relevant context that is specific to the transit agency and surrounding community. This context will help guide the scope and design of the evaluation process. The following questions should be explored: • What goals does the transit agency have for transit service and/or fare policy? • Has the transit agency evaluated fare-free transit in the past? What were the outcomes? • What is the decision-making process for implementing fare-free transit? • Who are the local advocates for fare-free transit (e.g., elected officials, transit decision makers, transit agency leadership, transit agency staff, and community representatives) (see the dis- cussion in “Framework in Practice: MBTA Fare-Free Pilot”)? 

Using the Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework 13   • What are the advocates’ goals for fare-free transit (e.g., increase ridership, promote equity, reduce fare collection costs, and reduce emissions)? • Are the advocates backing a specific fare-free transit policy or program? Are they open to a variety of fare-free transit alternatives? • What do advocates, transit agency staff, decision makers, and community partners want to know? • What stakeholders should be involved in the evaluation process (see the discussion in “Outreach Opportunity: Stakeholder Identification and Engagement”)? Framework in Practice: MBTA Fare-Free Pilot For the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), fare-free transit was championed by members of the Boston City Council, including future Mayor Michelle Wu, starting around 2019. The political advocates saw fare-free transit as a tool to expand mobility and promote affordability in an equitable way. To support riders during the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of Boston decided to pilot free service on a single MBTA route using federal COVID-19 relief funds to cover foregone revenue. Route 28 was chosen due to its role as an essential travel con- nection and high-ridership route that primarily serves riders with low incomes and people of color. The project team evaluated the 3-month pilot across six goals and corresponding metrics that looked at social impact, changes in bus operations, and other key elements (see “Fare-Free Pilot Evaluation Results—MBTA”). Due in part to the results of the pilot, Mayor Wu was able to leverage the momentum to expand the pilot to two more routes for two additional years (currently scheduled until March 2024). Fare-Free Pilot Evaluation Results—MBTA Source: City of Boston—Transportation 2022 

14 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Outreach Opportunity: Stakeholder Identification and Engagement Internal and external stakeholder engagement is vital when setting the context for the evaluation of fare-free transit alternatives. Stakeholders are a vital source of information for identifying relevant historical and current context. Stakeholders from three key groups should be identified at the outset of the evaluation process: transit agency staff, decision makers, and community partners. Once formed, the project team should determine the appropriate engagement process for providing updates to and gathering feedback from stakeholders. Transit Agency Staff Transit agency staff at all levels should be engaged throughout the evaluation process to accurately represent the needs of the transit agency and its riders. Individuals within the transit agency have valuable insights into ridership, operations, finances, and decision- making processes. Transit agency staff are often the primary users of the evaluation framework. Their involvement can ensure that the evaluation of fare-free transit is both comprehensive and feasible. Example questions for transit agency staff during this step include the following: • What is the level of support for fare-free transit among transit agency staff? • What goals do transit agency staff have for transit service and/or fare policy? • Are there priorities among transit agency staff that align with or differ from those of decision makers or community partners? • Which transit agency staff should be included in the evaluation process and how should they be brought along? Decision Makers For transit agencies to implement fare-free transit, they will need decision-maker support from transit boards, council members, mayors, and legislators. Decision-maker feed- back and support can also provide valuable input to the evaluation process. The project team should identify the decision-making process for implementing fare-free transit, the level of support for fare-free transit service from different decision makers, and what decision makers will want to see from the evaluation for them to approve fare- free transit. Example questions for decision makers during this step include the following: • What is the level of support for fare-free transit among key decision makers? • What goals do decision makers have for transit service, in general? • What outcomes from the evaluation do decision makers want to see before approving fare-free transit? • How would decision makers like to be included in the evaluation process? 

Using the Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework 15   Community Partners To gather a diverse set of perspectives on the impacts of fare-free transit service on the community, the project team should engage a broad range of groups and orga- nizations, including but not limited to related organizations, community-based organiza- tions, advocacy groups, employers, and academic institutions. Related organizations may include municipal departments, MPOs, or neighboring transit agencies. This engagement may involve leveraging existing partnerships with community representatives or using the evaluation as an opportunity to forge new partnerships. Any engagement with community representatives should legitimize and respect the community’s lived knowledge. The evalu- ation should include a purposeful plan to use and legitimize information gathered through community representatives, including reporting back to participants on how the data they provided shaped the outcomes. Example questions for community partners during this step include the following: • How would community partners like to be included in the evaluation of fare-free transit? • What are the community priorities for improving transit quality and access? • What is the level of support for fare-free transit among community partners? • Has there been any existing work done by community partners around fare-free transit? What were the identified benefits and/or challenges? • What goals do community partners have for transit service and/or fare policy? Assemble Project Team Based on the relevant context, the transit agency should form a team of staff and community partners with the knowledge, resources, and time to complete an evaluation of fare-free transit (hereafter referred to as the “project team”). Valuable transit agency staff may include represen- tatives from multiple departments including operations, security, auditing, service planning, IT, communications, finance, civil rights, and labor relations. Useful community partners may include staff from municipal departments, MPOs, or neighboring transit agencies. The size and composition of the project team will be unique for each transit agency. The make-up of Los Angeles Metro Transportation Authority’s (LA Metro’s) project team can be seen in “Frame- work in Practice: LA Metro Fare-Less System Initiative Task Force.” Framework in Practice: LA Metro Fare-Less System Initiative Task Force To plan, implement, and evaluate a fare-free pilot program, LA Metro assembled a Fare-Less System Initiative Task Force. The task force included representatives from multiple transit agency departments and offices, including Planning, Management and Budget, Vendor/Contract Management, Congestion Reduction, Safety, Security & Law Enforcement, Office of Civil Rights & Inclusion, and Human Capital & Development. 

16 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework The task force worked together to collect internal and external feedback on internal pro- cesses, impact on customer experience, and connections to other transit-agency-wide initia- tives. The task force also collected feedback on how fare-free transit could support equity and benefit riders facing multiple barriers to economic security. The task force convened internal working groups to evaluate findings and conducted external stakeholder coordination. Step 2: Assess the Existing Conditions The project team should collect relevant information on the existing conditions of the transit agency and its fare collection system. The data collected in this step can be referenced to identify transit-agency-specific opportunities and challenges in Step 4, inform the selection of fare-free transit alternatives in Step 8, and estimate the impacts in Step 9. Potential elements of the existing conditions analysis include documenting recent ridership and performance trends, planned service or network changes, transit funding, fare structure and policy, fare usage, fare collection costs, and community demographics. The project team should determine the specific elements of the existing conditions analysis based on operating context and available data. It is easy to spend a lot of time analyzing existing conditions data, so the project team should aim to strategically identify necessary elements for the evaluation. Key existing con- ditions findings from Sun Tran’s fare study can be found in “Framework in Practice: Sun Tran Analysis of Existing Conditions.” Explore Ridership, Revenue, and Cost Trends Gathering and documenting performance data can help the project team set a baseline under- standing of how many people are using the transit system, how much services cost, and how much revenue the transit agency obtains through collecting fares. An analysis of performance trends over time (e.g., 5 years) provides an opportunity to predict future performance if the transit agency continues to collect fares. Example questions for this analysis are the following: • What are the trends in ridership, operating costs, cost per trip, fare revenue, and farebox recovery over the last 5 years? • What is considered farebox revenue, aside from passenger fares (e.g., local partnership contributions)? • How do the trends differ across various routes and services? • What is the forecasted ridership and farebox revenue for future years? • How is ridership and farebox revenue forecasted? Identify the Benefits and Challenges of Existing Funding Sources Fare-free transit results in a shift in the way that transit service is funded. The project team should document the existing funding structure, including the benefits and challenges of the various sources. Assessing the benefits and challenges should involve looking at whether the funding sources are stable, dependent on system performance (e.g., ridership, productivity, and farebox recovery), and regressive (i.e., place a larger financial burden on riders with low incomes). Additionally, the team can begin to identify funding opportunities for replacing fare revenue. 

Using the Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework 17   Example questions for this analysis include the following: • What are the funding sources and trends of transit agency funding aside from fare revenue (e.g., federal, state, local, and community sources)? • What are the benefits and challenges of each of these funding sources? • Have there been previously identified opportunities for alternative revenue sources at the federal, state, local, or community level? Measure Operating Efficiency Fare-free transit may result in increased transit ridership and changes in rider behavior, which may impact transit operations. These impacts may be positive (e.g., higher productivity) or negative (e.g., overloaded vehicles, late buses, and security issues). The project team should analyze existing operations data to determine where additional ridership may benefit or challenge the system. Addi- tionally, the project team should document how the transit agency currently collects rider data (which may be impacted by the elimination of fares) and what policies exist for guiding passenger behavior. Example questions for this analysis include the following: • What is the existing ridership productivity on the system? Does it differ across different services or routes? • Does the transit agency have any planned service changes? • Is there underused or limited passenger capacity? If so, where? • Is there operator and staff capacity to handle the potential need for increased service due to high ridership? What would be the cost of meeting operator staffing needs? • Does the transit agency currently have on-time performance issues (i.e., are buses often late or running early)? • How does the transit agency currently collect data related to passenger counts? Will this be affected by eliminating fareboxes? • What are the current rider policies that guide passenger behavior (e.g., codes of conduct, destination policies)? Consider Community Demographics Because fare-free transit can be a tool to promote more equitable access to transit, the project team should analyze existing community demographics to understand who would benefit from fare-free transit. The team should look at both service area and ridership demographics to identify how, if at all, the representation of certain populations will vary. For example, if a larger percentage of transit riders have low incomes than the population within the service area, then fare-free poli- cies and programs may have a positive impact on people with low incomes. If the transit agency has a Title VI plan, the team should focus on populations identified in that plan. Additional demo- graphic and socioeconomic factors such as race, age, ability, cost of living, and spending patterns on necessities like housing and transportation, should also be included. Example questions for this analysis are the following: • What percentage of current transit riders belong to historically marginalized populations (e.g., people with low incomes, people of color, those with no vehicle access, older adults, and persons with disabilities)? • Do rider demographics vary across routes and/or services? 

18 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework • What percentage of the transit service area population belongs to historically marginalized populations? • On average, what percentage of household income is spent on housing and transportation costs in the transit service area [the project team could consult the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) Housing and Transportation (H+T) Affordability Index]? Document Fare Structure and Policy The project team should document the existing fare structure, as well as any governing fare policy that dictates goals for fare collection or guidelines for making fare changes. The project team should identify any existing groups that are eligible for fare discounts or other local programs to benefit people with low incomes. Example questions: • What are the transit agency’s current fare structure and policy? • Which groups currently receive discounts or free fares? • How much is spent to administer existing discount programs? • Are there pass partnerships that exist that provide discounted or subsidized fares to certain riders (e.g., employer, school, and university partnerships)? • Are there other discount programs for people with low incomes among partner agencies (e.g., municipal utility programs and neighboring transit agencies)? • What are the fare structures of any neighboring and regional transit agencies? What are the transfer policies? Examine Fare Usage The project team should analyze how the different fare types are being used and their respec- tive contribution to the transit agency’s fare revenue. This analysis will give the project team an understanding of the proportion of fares that are already subsidized, who is receiving the various subsidies, and how existing discounts are being utilized. Example questions: • What percentage of riders pay full, discounted, or free fares? • What percentage of riders receive discounted or free fares from partnerships? • What proportion of eligible riders participate in existing discounted or fare-free programs? Are there potential barriers that are blocking participation? • What percentage of revenue comes from riders who belong to historically marginalized populations? • How many riders are transferring between neighboring transit agencies? Quantify Existing and Future Fare Collection Costs Determining the full cost of existing and future fare collection costs is an important element of evaluating the costs and benefits of full fare-free transit. When calculating the full cost of existing fares, transit agencies should consider the costs of administering, selling, collecting, counting, and securely transporting fares, as well as the hardware and maintenance required for farebox equipment. Direct expenses as well as the opportunity costs of staff time spent administering fares should be calculated. For future fare collection costs, transit agencies should calculate costs for any anticipated oper- ating and capital needs such as updated fareboxes, ticket vending machines, fare media, software, 

Using the Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework 19   and maintenance. If no existing planning has been completed, transit agencies can look at how many years of useful life remain on existing fare collection technology to estimate when it will need to be replaced. To determine the costs of future upgrades, transit agencies can explore the costs of upgrading their current fare collection technology to a more recent model or look to peer transit agencies for best practices on advancing fare collection technology. Example questions: • What are the operating and maintenance costs of the existing fare collection system including staff time, services, and technology? • What is the remaining useful life of the existing fare collection equipment? • Does the transit agency have any plans to update the fare collection equipment and, if so, what are the estimated costs? • What percentage of revenue is or will be spent on fare collection? Framework in Practice: Sun Tran Analysis of Existing Conditions Sun Tran analyzed its existing conditions as part of a fare study that included an evaluation of fare-free transit. Some key findings from the existing condi- tions analysis are shown in the following: • Between 2014 and 2020, the transit agency subsidy per trip (cost per trip minus fare per trip) had been increasing. Farebox recovery was around 25%. • Over 50% of riders earn less than $25,000 per year, with the highest proportion of riders with low incomes using fixed-route bus service. • About 20% of riders that are eligible for Sun Tran’s fare program for riders with low incomes pay a full fare. This may indicate that riders with low incomes experience barriers to the program that they wouldn’t if fares were eliminated for all riders. • “2019 Annual Fare Collection Costs—Sun Tran” shows the agency’s itemized fare collec- tion costs. In 2019, the transit agency spent about $700,000 on fare collection or about 6% of fare revenue. 2019 Annual Fare Collection Costs—Sun Tran Fare Collection Element Annual Cost (2019) Farebox Tech Staff Costs $165,000 Economy Program Administration $225,000 SunGO Smartcards and SunGO ID Cards $200,000 GenFare Maintenance $100,000 Total Fare Collection Cost $690,000 Annual Fare Revenue $12,000,000 Percent of Fare Revenue Spent on Fare Collection 6% Source: Sun Tran Fare Study, City of Tucson, 2022. (Internal Document) 

20 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Step 3: Review Peer Transit Agencies The project team should look to peer transit agencies that have evaluated or implemented fare- free policies or programs to identify relevant fare-free context, goals, evaluation, outcomes, and program funding. The project team can look to transit agencies of similar sizes and in similar oper- ating environments (e.g., region, city size, community demographics, university town, or resort town) or those with noted best practices in fare-free evaluation. The project team can also reference the findings from the transit agency survey and case studies presented in Chapter 4 of this report. “Framework in Practice: Ride On Fare Study Peer Review” presents some of the findings from the peer review that was part of Ride On’s Ride On Zero & Reduced Fare Study (MCDOT 2021). Example questions the project team can explore during the peer transit agency review include the following: • What was the context that led to the evaluation or implementation of fare-free transit? Who advocated for the policy or program? What were the relevant existing conditions that facili- tated or impeded fare-free transit? • Did the transit agency identify any goals for fare-free transit? • Did the transit agency evaluate fare-free transit before implementation? If so, did it collect any notable data, make any assumptions, or utilize any interesting tools in its evaluation? What were the results of the evaluation? • Did the transit agency go forward with full or partial fare-free transit? What were the reasons for selecting one option or the other? If the transit agency implemented partial fare-free transit, has the transit agency thought about going fully fare-free? • After implementation, did the transit agency experience any benefits or challenges? Were these outcomes measured with qualitative or quantitative data? • How was the transit agency able to replace foregone fare revenue? Was funding secured before implementation of fare-free transit? Did the transit agency utilize any notable local, state, or federal funding sources? Did it form any new partnerships? Was the transit agency able to increase the local contribution from a governing municipality? Framework in Practice: Ride On Fare Study Peer Review As part of the Ride On Zero & Reduced Fare Study, the Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) completed a peer review of 22 peer transit agencies and identified five that had implemented or considered a zero- or reduced-fare policy. The five agencies were ABQ Ride in Albuquerque, NM; Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA); Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Denver, CO; San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) in San Mateo County, CA; and Utah Transit Authority (UTA). “Operational Peer Comparison—Ride On” shows the high-level summary of the peer policies. The project team looked at a comparison of median income, income for financial independence, and percentage of cost-burden households for the peer transit agency service areas and found that Ride On is more closely aligned with transit agencies that have implemented means-tested policies rather than full fare-free policies. 

Using the Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework 21   Operational Peer Comparison—Ride On Source: MCDOT 2021 Step 4: Identify Opportunities and Challenges The project team should identify the opportunities and challenges for the transit agency related to fare-free transit policies or programs. These opportunities and challenges should be informed by transit agency context, existing conditions, and the peer review. Example opportu- nities and challenges can be seen in Exhibit 2-4. The project team can engage the public in this step to ensure the team accurately reflects the needs of the community (see “Outreach Oppor- tunity: Public Engagement”). Outreach Opportunity: Public Engagement Outreach at this step in the evaluation provides an opportunity to inform the public about the evaluation and gather data on public opinions on fare-free transit alternatives. The public participation process will vary across transit agencies but should be informed by stakeholder engagement and any transit agency requirements, such as the Title VI Public Participation Plan. Informational materials should include high-level findings from the evaluation to date. If the project team has identified any relevant trade-offs (e.g., between adding service and eliminating fares), they should ensure that the public is informed of potential trade-offs when asking for feedback. Example discussion or survey questions include the following: • Do you support the idea of fare-free transit? • What are the most important benefits of fare-free transit? 

22 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework • What concerns do you have about fare-free transit? • How would fare-free transit affect your transit use? • If you had to choose, would you prefer the transit agency to improve service or eliminate fares? To ensure the project team is gathering feedback that represents community needs, the team should verify that respondent demographics match those of the service area. Additionally, when analyzing feedback, it is important to disaggregate data by variables such as race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, and income to look at how different groups respond differ- ently to different questions. This disaggregation will allow the project team to understand how feedback and the perception of fare-free transit differ across different groups. For example, a survey showing that most residents with low incomes support the idea of fare-free transit can guide the evaluation toward an alternative that meets the needs of a target population. Theme Opportunities Challenges Access, Increased ridership Reduction to current Mobility, & Increased accessibility service and constraints to Equity for riders who face adding additional service financial barriers Mobility and access may More equitable transit be difficult to monitor funding with potential loss of fare media data Operational Improved service Additional fixed-route Efficiency efficiency and paratransit service, Faster boardings fleet, and staffing Elimination of farebox Impacts to the system conflicts by disruptive passengers Financial Health Fare collection cost Loss of farebox revenue savings Securing long-term More stable transit sustainable funding funding Community Increased community Negative perception of Impacts pride transit subsidy Reduction in automobile trips Exhibit 2-4. Example opportunities and challenges. Make a Plan To ensure the evaluation is appropriate for the transit agency’s context, the project team should design an evaluation plan based on the identified opportunities and challenges. This planning includes the following steps: • Step 5: Set evaluation goals and objectives to guide the scope of the evaluation. • Step 6: Determine performance measures for each objective. • Step 7: Establish selection criteria for determining feasibility. • Step 8: Select fare-free transit alternatives to evaluate. 

Using the Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework 23   Step 5: Set Evaluation Goals and Objectives The project team should set appropriate goals and objectives to define the scope of the evalua- tion based on the opportunities and challenges identified in Step 4 and feedback from stakeholders. When setting evaluation goals and objectives, the project team can look to external guidance from the FHWA’s Performance-Based Planning and Programming Guidebook (Guidebook) (Grant et al. 2013). The Guidebook outlines a framework for public-sector agencies to use “performance information to make decisions that are more effective and efficient and lead to improved outcomes.” The Guidebook defines the following performance management terms that are relevant to the evaluation framework for fare-free transit: • A goal is a broad statement that describes a desired end state. When developing goals, transit agencies should be focused on intended outcomes, rather than specific policies. • An objective is a specific, measurable statement that supports achievement of a goal. A good objective should include or lead to development of a performance measure that can be tracked over time and is used to assess different investment or policy alternatives. • A performance measure is a metric used to assess progress toward meeting an objective. Performance measures can be used in strategy analysis to compare different investment or policy alternatives and can be used to track actual performance over time. • A target is a specific level of performance that is desired to be achieved within a certain time- frame. A target can be used as a basis for comparing progress over time to a desired outcome or for making decisions on investments. Example goals and objectives related to the four themes in fare-free transit impacts can be seen in Exhibit 2-5. Examples of implemented goals and objectives used during Iowa City Transit’s evaluation of fare-free transit are in “Framework in Practice: Goals and Objectives in Iowa City’s Transit Fare Study.” Goals Objectives Improve Increase overall transit ridership Access, Increase mobility of specific rider groups Mobility, & Promote equitable transit funding Equity Ensure Accommodate increased fixed-route service demand Operational Accommodate increased paratransit service demand Efficiency Improve operational efficiency Ensure safety of riders and transit operators Promote Maintain existing external funding sources Financial Health Access additional funding sources Reduce additional costs Support quality levels of service Minimize additional rider subsidy Encourage Reduce dependence on single-occupancy vehicles Positive Increase local economic stimulation Community Meet community needs for the transportation system Impacts Exhibit 2-5. Example goals and objectives. 

24 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Framework in Practice: Goals and Objectives in Iowa City’s Transit Fare Study Iowa City Transit’s Fare Study evaluated the implications of multiple fare scenarios, including full fare-free transit. The study’s project team developed four goals and corresponding objectives to guide the analy- sis (see ”Fare Study Goals and Objectives—Iowa City Transit”). The goals and objec- tives were informed by transit agency goals, community feedback, and conversations with transit agency staff. Fare Study Goals and Objectives—Iowa City Transit Increase ridership while balancing revenue goals Double ridership in 10 years Maintain farebox revenue Improve passenger experience Simplify fare pricing Remove barriers to transit Streamline fare structure and policies Look for opportunities for fare integration Improve coordination between agencies Make transit an affordable option Consider low-income and disadvantaged populations Source: City of Iowa City 2020 Step 6: Determine Performance Measures For each objective, the project team should determine which performance measures they want to include in the evaluation. These should be metrics that can be measured by the project team within the evaluation timeline and with available data. Performance measures for the example goals and objectives can be seen in Exhibit 2-6. The project team can engage the public and stakeholders during this step to gather feedback on appropriate measures. See an example from the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) in “Framework in Practice: KCATA Evaluation Outreach.” For each of the selected performance measures, the project team should plan how they will measure impacts across the alternatives. This planning will help the team identify additional data needs, as well as any evaluation tools or processes needed to develop or access (e.g., ridership models, operating models, financial models, or regional travel models). 

Using the Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework 25   Goal Objectives and Performance Measures Improve Increase overall transit ridership Access, – Fixed-route ridership Mobility, & – Fixed-route rider trip frequency Equity – Paratransit ridership – Paratransit rider trip frequency Increase mobility of specific rider groups – Ridership by rider group (e.g., riders with low incomes, students, older adults) – Ridership by geographic area (e.g., downtown zone, specific neighborhood) Promote equitable transit funding – Disparate impact of funding on riders with low incomes Ensure Accommodate increased fixed-route service demand Operational – Fixed-route service needs (e.g., revenue hours) Efficiency – Fixed-route capital needs (e.g., vehicles, facilities) – Fixed-route staffing needs (e.g., operational, administrative, maintenance) – Fixed-route on-time performance Accommodate increased paratransit service demand – Paratransit service needs (e.g., revenue hours) – Paratransit capital needs (e.g., vehicles, facilities) – Paratransit staffing needs (e.g., operational, administrative, maintenance) Improve operational efficiency – Fixed-route productivity – Fixed-route cost per trip Ensure safety of riders and transit operators – Ability to manage rider behavior Promote Maintain existing external funding sources Financial Health – Revenue from employer fare subsidies – Revenue from other external sources (e.g., local, state, federal) Access additional funding sources – New funding opportunities through local partnerships, as well as state and federal funding Reduce additional costs – Additional administration costs (e.g., marketing, eligibility verification) – Additional safety and security costs Support quality levels of service – Total financial impact (foregone fare revenue, fare collection cost savings, additional operational costs, additional funding opportunities) Minimize additional rider subsidy – Total cost per new fare-free rider Encourage Reduce dependence on single-occupancy vehicles Positive – Vehicular traffic Community – Community mode split (e.g., driving alone, taking transit, Impacts biking, walking) – Vehicle emissions Increase local economic stimulation – Monthly transit expense savings – Regional gross domestic product Meet community needs for the transportation system – Percent supportive community members – Percent supportive transit riders – Percent transit riders with low incomes Exhibit 2-6. Example performance measures. 

26 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Framework in Practice: KCATA Evaluation Outreach When evaluating fare-free transit after the policy had been implemented in 2020, the KCATA project team reached out to key stakeholders and the public for three purposes: 1. Gather input to determine the evaluation performance measures 2. Obtain perspectives and viewpoints from diverse audiences on qualitative and quan- titative benefits and costs 3. Develop an audience with whom to communicate results Outreach included a rider survey and stakeholder interviews with 13 area leaders from local government and nonprofits. The primary purpose of stakeholder interviews was to identify additional performance measures. To gather this information, stakeholders were asked the following questions: • What are your priorities for public transportation in greater Kansas City? • What are your impressions of how “zero-fare” has been implemented in 2020? • Has “zero-fare” impacted you, your organization, or its customers, and if so, how? • What factors do you think we should consider as we evaluate the impacts of “zero-fare”? • Which of these factors is most important to you? • How should public transportation priorities be funded in the future? Step 7: Establish Selection Criteria The final step in designing the evaluation plan is to establish appropriate criteria for determin- ing the feasibility of a fare-free transit alternative. This gives the project team a chance to define thresholds for the performance of the alternatives across various performance measures. The level of detail included in the selection criteria will vary based on the program context, feedback received from stakeholders, and the transit decision-making process. A range of approaches can be seen in Exhibit 2-7. More detail on how to engage stakeholders at this step can be seen in “Outreach Opportunity: Stakeholder Input into Evaluation Plan.” Level of Effort Low: No definitive Medium: Screening based High: Scoring matrix. selection criteria. on performance measure The project team scores The project team measures thresholds. each alternative based on the impacts of the The project team develops performance. The alternative alternatives using the thresholds for the with the highest score is performance measures and performance measures that selected. The project team presents the benefits and the alternatives must meet to can weight the performance costs of each alternative. be selected as the preferred measures based on priority. alternative. Exhibit 2-7. Example selection criteria. 

Using the Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework 27   Outreach Opportunity: Stakeholder Input into Evaluation Plan Feedback from stakeholders should help shape the evaluation plan from developing goals and objectives, to choosing performance measures, to establishing selection criteria and selecting alternatives. Engagement in these steps allows stakeholders to contribute to the development of the evaluation plan to ensure that it aligns with the needs and expectations of the community. If stakeholders are not engaged, important elements or values may be missed. This may create a barrier to obtaining buy-in of the evaluation result and/or subsequent implementation and admin- istration of the preferred alternative. When establishing the selection criteria, stakeholder input is critical, particularly from transit decision makers. The project team should ensure they understand any expectations decision makers have for the performance of alternatives on the performance measures. Based on these expectations, the project team should determine the appropriate selection criteria. For instance, they may not support any alternative that has a net cost to the transit agency, requires any additional service, or is not supported by the community. Additionally, the results of certain performance measures may be more important to decision makers. For example, if decision makers’ top priority is increasing ridership, then the project team should develop selection criteria that give higher weight to ridership measures than other factors (e.g., total cost, community support). Finally, the project team should gather information about expectations for how the results of the analysis are to be presented. Step 8: Select Fare-Free Transit Alternatives After designing the evaluation plan, the project team should select which fare-free policy or program to evaluate. Based on findings in the previous steps and engagement with stakeholders, the project team can identify opportunities to implement fare-free transit, whether it is full or partial fare-free transit for specific riders, services, routes, times of day, or geographies. For example, transit agencies with low farebox recovery and those with a large majority of riders who have low incomes, who are older adults, who have a disability, or who are student riders may want to evaluate full fare-free transit. Transit agencies with higher farebox recovery or with significant revenue from local employer pass programs may choose to evaluate partial fare-free transit. For some project teams, the evaluation context will lead them to evaluate only one alternative. Other project teams may be interested in exploring multiple options like fare-free transit for all and fare-free transit for riders with low incomes. Regardless of the number of alternatives, all should be evaluated against a baseline alternative. The baseline alternative should look at the impacts of no change to fare collection across the performance measures. For all alternatives, the project team should define the details of the proposed policy or program. For transit agencies that are interested in taking a data-driven approach to measuring success after implementation, the project team should explore defining the alternative as a pilot. The length of the pilot should be determined through conversations with stakeholders and available 

28 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework funding. Some transit agencies may determine that permanent fare-free transit is a viable approach for them based on the evaluation context or an identified long-term funding source. For any partial fare-free alternatives, the project team should define details for each alternative. Details should include the following: • Who is eligible for fare-free transit? How will eligibility be verified in advance or upon boarding? • How will a fare-free program be administered? What will be the cost to administer the program? Are there any additional technology requirements? • Where, when, and how can riders access fare-free transit? An overview of the process for identifying fare-free policy and alternatives at DASH in Alexandria, Virginia, is in “Framework in Practice: DASH Fare Program Scenarios.” Framework in Practice: DASH Fare Program Scenarios For the City of Alexandria Low-Income Fare Pass Assessment (City of Alexandria 2021), DASH identified a range of fare program options (see “High-Level Evaluation of Fare Program Options and Final Fare-Free and Reduced Fare Scenarios—DASH”). The transit agency then narrowed down the options by comparing how each was able to achieve the study goals using findings from a case example review, literature review, and stakeholder interviews. The transit agency decided on three final scenarios that were fully evaluated as part of the study. High-Level Evaluation of Fare Program Options and Final Fare-Free and Reduced-Fare Scenarios—DASH *Both options are rated “highest.” One is highest due to free access to both services (DASH and WMATA), the other due to being more accessible because of the lack of a certification process, which creates a barrier to entry for potential participants. 

Using the Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework 29   Source: City of Alexandria 2021 Evaluate After planning, the project team should evaluate the feasibility of the alternatives. This evalu- ation includes the following steps: • Step 9: Estimate impacts of the alternatives using the evaluation plan. • Step 10: Select preferred alternative using the selection criteria and appropriate decision- making process. Step 9: Estimate Impacts The project team should gather credible evidence across the various performance measures for each alternative and compare the impacts across the alternatives. Gather Credible Evidence To compare the impacts of the alternatives, the project team should first gather credible evidence per the evaluation plan. Credible evidence includes reliable, accurate, and trusted data. This evi- dence may be pulled from the results of the existing conditions assessment (e.g., fare collection costs) or gathered and analyzed specifically for the evaluation (e.g., ridership model, community survey). A sample process for estimating the impacts is shown in Exhibit 2-8. An overview of the steps the Link Transit project team took to evaluate full fare-free transit can be seen in “Framework in Practice: Link Transit Analysis Process.” Compare Alternatives After gathering credible evidence across the various performance measures, the project team should compare the impacts of the alternatives and apply the selection criteria as established in Step 7. These results should be presented in a clear format that can be easily interpreted by various stakeholder audiences. The project team may choose to present various levels of detail to different stakeholders. For instance, higher-level decision makers may only be able to interpret the relative impacts of the various alternatives as opposed to interpreting specific quantitative data. Transit agency staff, on the other hand, may want to see detailed results of the analysis to inform decision- making. An example of how Ride On shared the results of the Ride On Zero & Reduced Fare Study (MCDOT 2021) as prepared for MCDOT (Maryland) can be seen in “Framework in Practice: Ride On Alternatives Comparison.” 

30 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Steps Elements Step 1: Estimate Fixed-route ridership increase based on peer transit agencies Ridership or internal data Increase Paratransit ridership increase based on peer transit agencies or internal data Annual transit rider savings as a percentage of income Step 2: Estimate Transit vehicle capacity and maximum load Operational Boarding times and on-time performance Impacts Fixed-route paratransit revenue hours Fixed-route and paratransit vehicles, staff, and facilities Transit ridership productivity Step 3: Estimate Foregone fare revenue Net Annual Fare collection cost savings Costs Program administration costs Additional operating costs Additional funding opportunities Safety and security costs Impact on cost per passenger trip Step 4: Estimate Effects on automobile trips, congestion, and emissions Community Local economic benefits Impacts Community support Exhibit 2-8. Example analysis process. Framework in Practice: Link Transit Analysis Process Using fare study goals of attracting ridership, improving operational effi- ciency, and reducing the costs of collecting fares, Link Transit completed an evaluation of full fare-free transit across multiple performance mea- sures including fixed-route ridership, fixed-route productivity, fixed-route operating costs, paratransit operating costs, foregone fare revenue, fare collection costs, additional funding opportunities, and annual change in operating costs. The project team started by estimating ridership increases on fixed-route transit and paratransit. The estimated increase in fixed-route ridership was expected to qualify Link for additional funding from the Small Transit Intensive Cities (STIC) funding program. The evaluation culminated in a calculation of the net change in annual operating costs (see “Estimated Annual Change in Operating Costs—Link Transit”). Estimated Annual Change in Operating Costs—Link Transit Annual Cost Item Low High Ridership Increase Ridership Increase Estimate Estimate Foregone Farebox Revenue (Fixed $640,000 $640,000 Route + Demand Responsive) Fixed-Route Operating Cost Increase $0 $0 LinkPlus ADA Paratransit Operating $710,000 $881,000 Cost Increase 

Using the Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework 31   Estimated Annual Change in Operating Costs— Link Transit (Continued) Annual Cost Item Low High Ridership Increase Ridership Increase Estimate Estimate Existing Fare Collection Costs ($57,000) ($57,000) Additional STIC Funding (approx.) ($275,000) ($275,000) Net Change in Operating Cost $1,018,000 $1,189,000 Source: Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 2021, Figure 5-6 Framework in Practice: Ride On Alternatives Comparison The Ride On Zero & Reduced Fare Study (MCDOT 2021) evaluated four fare-free and reduced-fare alternatives across seven goals and respective performance measures including magnitude of benefit to riders with low incomes, increase in ridership from riders without vehicle access, change in net operating support ($NOS), increase in annual passenger miles, productivity, average operating speed, reduction in vehicle miles traveled, and range and cost of fare program administration (see “Alternatives Comparison—Ride On”). Alternatives Comparison—Ride On Source: MCDOT 2021 Note: $NOS is the portion of annual system operating and maintenance costs not covered by fare revenues. 

32 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Step 10: Select Preferred Alternative In the final step, the project team should guide the selection of a preferred alternative. This process will depend on the decision-making process identified in Step 1 but may involve engag- ing various stakeholders to confirm the recommended approach (see “Outreach Opportunity: Sharing Findings with Stakeholders and the Public”). If a fare-free transit alternative is selected as the preferred alternative, the project team will want to solidify details before implementation (e.g., timeline, funding, eligibility, program administration). Decision makers may also choose not to implement a fare-free transit policy or program in this step (see “Framework in Practice: Houston METRO’s Decision to Maintain Fares”). Outreach Opportunity: Sharing Findings with Stakeholders and the Public In the final step, it is important for the project team to share analysis findings with relevant stakeholders. If the project team needs decision- maker approval to select a preferred alternative, results should be presented in a clear format that shows the costs and benefits of the alternatives. The project team should also share results with other key stakeholder groups to provide a final opportunity for feedback. This is particularly important for transit agency staff and other community partners that will take part in any subsequent implementation and administration of the preferred alternative. Finally, the evaluation process should be properly documented and made publicly available to ensure transparency. Additionally, information about the evaluation process may be valuable to other transit agencies looking to evaluate fare- free transit. Framework in Practice: Houston METRO’s Decision to Maintain Fares Houston METRO completed an evaluation to examine the impacts of six full and partial fare-free transit alternatives [see “Estimated Annual Operating Cost Impact (in Millions)—Houston METRO]. The transit agency’s goals for fare-free transit were to attract ridership while minimizing the financial impact. The study found that free fares would have fulfilled the stated goal of increasing ridership, but the costs of the alternatives with the highest ridership increases would be too high for METRO given its budget and administrative constraints. As a result, METRO decision makers decided not to implement full fare-free transit. 

Using the Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework 33   Estimated Annual Operating Cost Impact (in Millions)— Houston METRO P&R = Park and Ride. Source: METRO 2020 Implement and Monitor Program After deciding to implement a preferred fare-free transit alternative, the project team should take additional steps to ensure that evaluation continues past implementation. This evaluation differs in purpose from the evaluation steps in the evaluation framework. The evaluation steps in the evaluation framework focus on determining the feasibility of potential fare-free policy and program alternatives whereas the post-implementation evaluation focuses on determining the success of fare-free transit. This evaluation is especially important if the preferred alternative is a pilot to determine long-term viability. Suggested steps include the following: • Design an evaluation plan. Design a plan to evaluate the success of a fare-free transit policy or program. This process should follow steps similar to the previously discussed Steps 5 through 7, including setting goals and objectives, determining performance measures, and establishing decision-making criteria. • Implement fare-free transit. Take logistical steps to implement the fare-free transit policy or program including the following: – Make operational changes to halt fare collection, temporarily or permanently (e.g., stop printing fare media, revise driver and customer service training, decommission fare boxes and ticket vending machines, implement alternative ridership data gathering methods) – Adjust transit agency policies (e.g., change fare policy, strengthen rider codes of conduct, tighten paratransit eligibility) – Secure alternative funding sources (e.g., apply for grant funding, pass tax referendum, build partnership program) – Market fare-free transit (e.g., community education about benefits, informing riders) – Complete Title VI fare equity analysis to assess the impacts of any fare change on people of color and people with low incomes • Evaluate fare-free transit. Gather credible evidence to support the evaluation plan. • Determine success and long-term feasibility. Use the findings from the evaluation to determine whether the transit agency should continue to operate fare-free or adjust the policy or program. • Continue to monitor and adapt. Continue to collect data to measure positive and negative impacts on ridership, transit agency operations, finances, and the community. Data collection methods may need to be adjusted if the system no longer relies on fare media.