Implementation and Outcomes of Fare-Free Transit Systems (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 68-96
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 68... ...
69 ImplementatIon and outcomes of fare-free transIt systems 1. Why was a fare-free system considered or implemented versus one with fares?
|
From page 69... ...
70 fees we could carry large volumes of passengers and not worry about fares. Also, the cost of fare collection, counting, auditing, etc., was a deterrent.
|
From page 70... ...
71 • In 2008, the Sustainability Coalition, a group of organizations and citizens, held a series of town hall meetings where more than 500 citizens attended to gather public input on how to make the city an even more sustainable community. The result was the Community Sustainability Action Plan, containing more than 300 action items in 12 topic areas.
|
From page 71... ...
72 Public Transit Agency Respondents in Resort Communities • No fare was ever considered. There have been discussions of late regarding possibly making the system fee-based.
|
From page 72... ...
73 that bus takes a car off the road, which lessens the congestion for those who drive. That one hit pay dirt with him.
|
From page 73... ...
74 fuel only) , while the national park covered the expenses of maintenance and lease/purchase costs of the rolling stock.
|
From page 74... ...
75 area but all associated workers, night life, and other visitor amenities. Carrying exact change or bus passes was something that made travel more burdensome and also created difficulties for persons wanting to do linear trips with a lot of stops/destinations.
|
From page 75... ...
76 assumptions were made regarding loss of ridership (fare elasticity of demand) and costs of collection.
|
From page 76... ...
77 • Yes. (Two agencies provided this as their response.)
|
From page 77... ...
78 Public Transit Agency Respondents in Resort Communities • No. (Five agencies provided this as their response.)
|
From page 78... ...
79 system and did those sources change with the institution of fare-free service? Public Transit Agency Respondents in Rural and Small Urban Communities • When the system started, primary funding was from a 0.2% sales tax that was matched by our state.
|
From page 79... ...
80 approved an increase to 0.75% to extend service to 2 a.m. (given the amount of partying that goes on in town)
|
From page 80... ...
81 offered for free and had good ridership, which was paid for with a JARC grant. Once that ran out they charged $2 and ridership went to zero!
|
From page 81... ...
82 • The fare-free system is well received in the small communities we serve. The local option tax is supported by the hotels and they actively promote the transit system to their guests.
|
From page 82... ...
83 areas that offer free parking there have been occasional complaints about park-and-ride use. • There are typically no complaints about park-and-ride users.
|
From page 83... ...
84 • Staff is not aware of either positive or negative impact on parking and no survey has been done. • The free service encourages people to park their cars and ride.
|
From page 84... ...
85 perceived as a key component of livability. The system is, for fixed-income persons and seniors, a lifeline to a better quality of life.
|
From page 85... ...
86 borne pollutants is expected to be significantly greater in the 2011 study due to cleaner emissions buses and higher ridership. • The MPO performed an externalities analysis as part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation Appraisal Report.
|
From page 86... ...
87 and board the bus, they are turned away. That only happens one time.
|
From page 87... ...
88 permission to take their picture, and we distribute that picture among our bus operators. Much more often, we are very successful with the individual.
|
From page 88... ...
89 discussed putting a policy in place that would require the trip to be destination-based if this becomes a problem. • Students will be rowdy whether you charge a fare or not.
|
From page 89... ...
90 time to time, we have much less than other systems. We have found that the youth become more appreciative and respectful of the service.
|
From page 90... ...
91 • Yes. Questionnaires always tell us to keep it fare-free.
|
From page 91... ...
92 Public Transit Agency Respondents in Rural and Small Urban Communities • Fare-free portion of the system operates more efficiently than fare portion. Passengers can enter through all doors except for out-of-county riders who pay as they board.
|
From page 92... ...
93 flexible monies, and we were given state money to cover all our salaries and replace the student fee amount. We are now faced with increased demands and with our present model can only adjust parking fees.
|
From page 93... ...
94 work schedule. The city's Utility Billing division previously sold passes to the community.
|
From page 94... ...
95 mobility opportunities, less dependence on the automobile, decreased traffic congestion, and improved air quality for all people in the service area, riders and non-riders alike." • Contributions were solicited from area businesses to allow fare-free service. The fare-free image, the welcomeness to ride our system, helped us tremendously during our startup years.
|
From page 95... ...
96 Public Transit Agency Respondents in Resort Communities • N/A. (Ten agencies provided this response.)
|
From page 96... ...
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications: AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA Air Transport Association ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.