Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 137-157

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 137...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-6 Washington Area Metro Transpiration Authority Greater Washington DC ✓ Go Durham Durham NC Utah Transit Authority Wasatch Front UT ✓ Not Fare-Free King County Metro* King County WA ✓ Metropolitan Transportation Commission Bay Area CA New Jersey Transit Statewide NJ ✓ Sun Tran Tucson AZ ✓ The Rapid Grand Rapids MI ✓ TriMet Portland Metro OR ✓ Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation*
From page 138...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-7 Figure A-2 Map of Surveyed Transit Agencies by Fare-Free Classification and Response Type
From page 139...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-8 Transit Agency Statistics To understand the context in which each transit agency operates, surveyed transit agencies were categorized into six main community types based on ridership levels, the population and density of the service area, the population of the overall urban area, modes operated by the transit agency, relationship with other transit providers, and social context. These types are not prescriptive or exact, but rather provide general guidelines for understanding differences in fare-free systems.
From page 140...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-9 Area Regional Transit St. Lucie County FL 800,000 6,000,000 1%*
From page 141...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-10 Houston METRO Houston TX 90,000,000 574,300,000 11% Large Urban Regional Mountain Rides Ketchum ID 600,000 2,900,000 13% Resort Community North Central Regional Transit District North Central Counties NM 300,000 10,400,000 1% Small Urban/Rural Ride On Montgomery County MD 20,600,000 124,600,000 16% Urban Local Denver Regional Transit District Denver CO 105,200,000 644,400,000 24% Large Urban Regional San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency San Francisco CA 223,300,000 855,800,000 23% Urban Local Sandy Area Metro Sandy OR 100,000 1,400,000 6% Small Urban/Rural Southeast Vermont Transit Wilmington VT 400,000 4,300,000 3% Small Urban/Rural Steamboat Springs Transit Steamboat Springs CO 1,100,000 3,600,000 4% Resort Community Summit Stage Summit County CO 1,700,000 10,600,000 1% Small Urban/Rural Utah Transit Authority Wasatch Front UT 44,600,000 311,000,000 16% Large Urban Regional Not Fare-Free King County Metro King County WA 128,700,000 910,200,000 26% Large Urban Regional New Jersey Transit Statewide NJ 267,300,000 2,265,100,000 43% Large Urban Regional The Rapid Grand Rapids MI 10,500,000 48,300,000 20% Mid-Sized Regional TriMet Portland Metro OR 96,600,000 531,000,000 22% Large Urban Regional Sun Tran Tucson AZ 15,700,000 79,500,000 17% Mid-Sized Regional Other
From page 142...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-11 Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation Statewide VA NA NA NA NA * Source: National Transit Database (2019)
From page 143...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-12  Increasing ridership: This was the most common goal of a transit agency partially or fully going fare-free with almost 40% of respondents stating it as one of the main reasons they chose to eliminate or not implement fares. Even those that did not state increasing ridership directly had goals that would be the result of increased ridership, such as decreasing demand for parking, supporting local business, or reducing pollution.
From page 144...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-13 Figure A-4 Reasons for Implementing Fare-Free Transit N=23 Partial Fare-Free Considerations Fifteen transit agency survey respondents offer partial fare-free transit, including for a promotional or limited period, customer groups, routes, zones, and service types. For these agencies, partial fare-free transit was a strategy to help advance transit agency goals without large impacts to farebox revenue.
From page 145...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-14  Equity: Transit agencies looking to advance equity tend to provide free fares to specific groups of riders. This does not tend to increase overall ridership, but rather provides a financial benefit to current transit riders.
From page 146...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-15 Specific transit agency examples of alternate funding sources to fares include:  Mountain Line (Missoula, MT) is an example of utilizing external funds to get farefree transit off the ground.
From page 147...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-16 go full fare-free. Many decision makers were deterred by the cost of the program and the inability to fill the funding gap left by the loss of farebox revenue.
From page 148...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-17 Program Outcomes Ridership All transit agencies that eliminated fares before the COVID-19 pandemic experienced large increases in ridership, seen especially among youth, low-income individuals, and people experiencing homelessness.  Given the large increase in ridership experienced by full fare-free transit agencies, some struggled to keep up with demand.
From page 149...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-18  The Rapid discontinued free-fare service because of continued conflicts and belligerent passengers. Public Response For many transit agencies, there was a general sense of support of fare-free transit from community members, but there was a lack of sufficient data to make overarching claims about public opinion:  Only a handful of transit agencies conducted public engagement after implementation and understanding of public support is mostly based on anecdotal reports.
From page 150...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-19  High level data review: Most transit agencies considered high-level impacts to system ridership and revenue when evaluating the move to fare-free transit  Evaluating program success: − Aside from ridership and revenue, other examined metrics varied depending on the context and goals, including boarding times, additional service needs, passenger destinations, and public opinion. − Only four of the respondent transit agencies conducted formal evaluations after implementation beyond looking at high level ridership and revenue data.
From page 151...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-20 management strategy, and ensuring funding for marketing and promotion were examples of issues transit agencies wished they had considered. For transit agencies that do not currently have fare-free transit, this type of resource would be helpful if they were to consider a fare-free program.
From page 152...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework A-21 Existing Research Gaps Between the two surveys, there is still room for future study on fare-free systems, especially given the lack of data available from many transit agencies. Some of this information could be gathered from further interviewing of transit agencies, such as the process of decision-making and specific implementation plans.
From page 153...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework B-1 Appendix B Transit Agency Survey Instruments TCRP J-11/Task 39: EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR FARE-FREE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Survey of Transit Agencies with Existing Fare-Free Service Nelson\Nygaard has been retained by the Transportation Research Board/Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) to develop a framework for evaluating fare-free public transportation.
From page 154...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework B-2 with your transit agency colleagues to complete the survey. Individual names and titles will be anonymized prior to the publication of the framework, but survey responses may be associated with your transit agency.
From page 155...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework B-3 6. Did the transit agency establish goals and objectives that support fare-free service?
From page 156...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework B-4 12. When will the additional fare-free transit service be implemented?
From page 157...
... Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework B-5 Community Support and Equity 21. Was community outreach (polling, surveys, etc.)

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.