Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework (2023) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 15-49
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 15... ...
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.
|
From page 16... ...
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)
|
From page 17... ...
Additionally, 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.
|
From page 18... ...
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?
|
From page 19... ...
• "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.
|
From page 20... ...
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.
|
From page 21... ...
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.
|
From page 22... ...
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.
|
From page 23... ...
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.
|
From page 24... ...
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.
|
From page 25... ...
– 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)
|
From page 26... ...
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.
|
From page 27... ...
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.
|
From page 28... ...
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 *
|
From page 29... ...
• 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.
|
From page 30... ...
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.
|
From page 31... ...
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)
|
From page 32... ...
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.
|
From page 33... ...
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)
|
From page 34... ...
• Transit agencies with low farebox recovery ratios are most likely to implement fare-free transit. • Some funding sources reward transit agencies for operating fare-free.
|
From page 35... ...
All full fare-free respondent transit agencies served small urban, rural, resort, or university-dominated communities, with smaller ridership, lower farebox recovery, and lower operating expenses than systems in larger metro areas. The partially and not fare-free respondents represented a wide range of transit agency sizes in terms of passenger trips provided, operating expenses, and farebox recovery.
|
From page 36... ...
These costs and benefits are borne by different stakeholders; riders, non-riders, transit agency staff, local government, non-profit organizations, and the broader community are all affected. The impacts of fare-free transit were commonly cited by survey respondents and interviewees as the primary way transit agencies organized their evaluation and/or monitoring of fare-free transit.
|
From page 37... ...
Costs May lead to overcapacity on some trips and require additional service May increase paratransit demand and require additional service May restrict a transit agency's ability to collect ridership data May increase the presence of disruptive passengers and result in additional security costs and impacts Financial Benefits Health Reduces or eliminates fare collection costs May reduce overall cost per passenger trip May expand transit agency eligibility for new funding sources Costs Eliminates farebox revenue, which may be considerable for many transit agencies Likely to require new revenue sources, such as taxes, municipal contributions, or private partnerships Community Benefits Impacts May reduce traffic congestion May reduce local pollution and greenhouse gas emissions May catalyze development and/or increase land value May increase community pride Allows riders to spend money in the community that they would have spent on transit Costs May increase public criticism of transit agency and its fare policy Note: Impacts noted in this chart may vary by type of fare-free transit. For example, a partially fare-free transit system may not completely eliminate farebox equipment, which would not allow the transit agency to benefit from reduced operating and maintenance costs associated with fare collection equipment.
|
From page 38... ...
Survey respondents and interviewees also reported that fare-free transit is assumed to improve social equity outcomes, as passengers with low incomes save money they might otherwise have spent on transit. More specific survey and interview findings related to access, mobility, and equity benefits of fare-free transit include the following: • Transit agencies that went fare-free before the COVID-19 pandemic saw an increase in fixed route ridership from 20% to over 100% in the first 2 years, especially among those who are young, those with low incomes, and those experiencing homelessness.
|
From page 39... ...
More specific survey and interview findings related to operations benefits of fare-free transit include the following: • Because fare-free transit almost always increases ridership, it also typically leads to increased productivity, in terms of boardings per revenue hour. This and other efficiency measures can make transit agencies eligible for additional funding, such as STIC funding (FTA n.d.)
|
From page 40... ...
2021, Figure 5-5 Financial Health Fare-free transit can have financial benefits for transit agencies, such as reductions in fare collection costs, lower operating costs per passenger, and access to more stable funding. More specific survey and interview findings related to the financial benefits of fare-free transit include the following: • Under full fare-free transit, transit agencies save on existing and future costs of collecting fares including producing and selling fare media; operating and maintaining fareboxes; counting, securing, and transporting cash; and upgrading fare technology.
|
From page 41... ...
More specific survey and interview findings related to external community benefits of fare-free transit include the following: • Community members who do not ride transit can also benefit from the ridership increases caused by fare-free transit, as mode shift to transit may reduce carbon emissions and traffic congestion (Baxandall 2021, Kębłowski 2020)
|
From page 42... ...
Specific survey and interview findings related to access, mobility, and equity costs of fare-free transit include the following: • Some transit stakeholders think transit agencies should keep their primary focus on providing higher-quality service, especially to people with low incomes or people living in underserved com munities. To these stakeholders, the focus on fare-free transit is misplaced; some argue that making a service free is not as important as making a low-quality service better, even if it costs a fare.
|
From page 43... ...
4 TCRP Synthesis 121: Transit Agency Practices in Interacting with People Who Are Homeless (Boyle 2016) noted that transit agencies do not have enough resources to meaningfully help people who are experiencing homelessness who are riding the system.
|
From page 44... ...
The impact of fare-free transit on costs and revenues varied widely across the transit agencies surveyed and interviewed, depending on existing ridership, transit agency size, alternate funding sources, and previous fare systems. Specific survey and interview findings related to the financial costs of fare-free transit include the following: • Full fare-free transit has proven more viable for small- to mid-sized transit agencies than for large transit agencies, as revenue from systems with a lower farebox recovery rate is more easily replaced.
|
From page 45... ...
Although some transit agencies have seen an increase in public criticism, they also typically see an increase in public compliments following fare-free implementation. The prevalence of different responses may vary based on the transit agency's messaging.
|
From page 46... ...
Full fare-free transit particularly improved the mobility of residents with low incomes. In the years since fare free transit was implemented, survey respondents have reported improved access to employment opportunities and a significant increase in overall satisfaction with local public transportation (Cats et al.
|
From page 47... ...
• Savings from eliminating fare collection • Ridership Impact • Revenue sources and amounts • On-time performance • Fare-free transit's impact on parking (e.g., utilization, cost, provision) Some transit agencies also used qualitative metrics to evaluate fare-free transit's costs and benefits, such as • Community feedback: compliments, complaints, and general sentiment • Bus operator feedback: benefits, challenges, and general sentiment • Issues with "problem passengers" Feasibility Evaluation In general, only a few transit agencies have systematically evaluated the feasibility of implementing fare-free transit before implementation.
|
From page 48... ...
In many cases, transit agencies have found that fare-free transit feasibility evaluations provide only high-level estimates of likely outcomes. With the uncertainty associated with these esti mates in mind, several transit agencies found it prudent to advance a pilot fare-free transit pro gram, giving the transit agency time to perform a blended feasibility and post-implementation evaluation that produces more information for decision makers.
|
From page 49... ...
The post-implementation evaluations that were completed were noted as especially useful in guiding decision makers, such as transit agency leadership or government officials, on whether to continue the program. Examples of Post-Implementation Evaluation Multiple surveyed transit agencies have continued to monitor ridership, transit agency operations, finances, and the community after implementation: • Area Regional Transit (St.
|
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.