Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework (2023) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Chapter 3 - Fare-Free Transit Evaluation in Practice
Chapter 3 - Fare-Free Transit Evaluation in Practice
Pages 34-49
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 34... ...
The fare-free transit evaluation framework presented in Chapter 2 of this report was developed based on qualitative and quantitative state-of-the-practice research described in the following. This research consisted of three primary methods: 34
|
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... ...
found in its fare-free transit evaluation that the antici pated ridership increase was expected to qualify the transit agency for approximately $275,000 in additional funding from the STIC funding program. STIC is a federal pro gram designed to reward high-performing small transit systems.
|
From page 40... ...
• Fare-free transit often results in lower operating costs and increased ridership, which reduces a transit agency's costs per passenger trip. • Fare-free transit expands funding opportunities that could become more reliable than fare revenue, including grants specific to fare-free transit, grants for increasing operating effi ciency, and community funding partnerships (Volinski 2012, Northern Virginia Transporta tion Commission 2021)
|
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... ...
. • Eliminating fare collection may restrict a transit agency's ability to collect ridership data without fareboxes and fare media (e.g., origin-destination data)
|
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... ...
These evaluation types can generally be described as • Feasibility Evaluation: Conducted before fare-free transit is implemented, to see if it is feasible for the transit agency. This type of evaluation typically focuses on estimating the likely benefits and costs of one or more types of fare-free transit.
|
From page 47... ...
Without this replacement revenue, some transit agencies decided against going fare-free, especially agencies with higher farebox recovery rates and larger operating budgets. • When transit agencies did identify alternative funding sources to make up for lost farebox revenue, they typically looked to taxes, municipal general funds, advertising, private partner ships, state and federal grants, or some combination of these and other methods.
|
From page 48... ...
in Olympia, WA, Intercity Transit committed to fulfilling its nine community-defined priorities, one of which involves making fare collection more efficient and in line with other peer agencies. After evaluating the impacts, the transit agency found that it was spending more to collect fares than it was receiving in fare revenue.
|
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.