The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 50-74

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 50... ... Information was gathered from the survey responses, transit agency interviews, news articles, and press releases. Purpose of Case Studies To inform evaluation framework development and provide more detailed examples of how fare free transit has been evaluated at transit agencies of different sizes across the United States, the project team developed 23 case studies. Read the entire page →
From page 51... ... Lucie County, FL Small Urban/Rural Cache Valley Transit District Cache Valley, UT Small Urban/Rural Corvallis Transit System Corvallis, OR University Community DASH Alexandria, VA Urban Local GoLine Indian River County, FL Small Urban/Rural Greater Richmond Transit Company Greater Richmond, VA Urban Local Intercity Transit Thurston County, WA Small Urban/Rural Kansas City Area Transportation Authority Greater Kansas City, MO Mid-Sized Regional Link Transit Chelan & Douglas Counties, WA Small Urban/Rural Mountain Line Missoula, MT University Community Partial Fare-Free Denver Regional Transportation District Greater Denver, CO Large Urban Regional Houston METRO Greater Houston, TX Large Urban Regional Iowa City Transit Iowa City, IA University Community Los Angeles Metro Los Angeles County, CA Large Urban Regional Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Greater Boston, MA Large Urban Regional Ride On Montgomery County, MD Urban Local San Francisco Muni San Francisco, CA Urban Local Sandy Area Metro Greater Sandy, OR Small Urban/Rural Steamboat Springs Transit Steamboat Springs, CO Resort Community Utah Transit Authority Wasatch Front, UT Large Urban Regional Not Fare-Free King County Metro King County, WA Large Urban Regional Sun Tran Tucson, AZ Mid-Sized Regional The Rapid Grand Rapids, MI Mid-Sized Regional Exhibit 4-1. Case study transit agencies by service area and agency type. Read the entire page →
From page 52... ... Survey Respondent and Case Study Transit Agencies by Fare-Free Classification Full fare-free agency survey respondent Partial fare-free agency survey respondent Not fare-free agency survey respondent Case study agency Exhibit 4-2. Map of survey respondent and case study transit agencies by fare-free classification. Read the entire page →
From page 53... ... * Data provided by Area Regional Transit KEY TAKEAWAYS Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Read the entire page →
From page 54... ... • Ridership increased among people with low incomes, retired people, and older people with higher incomes. Program Funding • FDOT provided funding for the 3-year pilot project and the county budget covered the addi tional cost when the pilot was extended. Read the entire page →
From page 55... ... miles Passenger Trips: 1 million Operating Expense: $3 million Farebox Recovery: 0% KEY TAKEAWAYS Corvallis Transit System (CTS) implemented full fare-free transit in 2011 with funding from a Transit Operations Fee on utility bills. Read the entire page →
From page 56... ... • The success of the program is measured quantitatively through ridership and qualitatively through informal community feedback. Outcomes • The transit agency saw a 39% increase in ridership in the first year, particularly among indi viduals with low incomes and people experiencing homelessness. Read the entire page →
From page 57... ... • The transit agency estimated that upgrading its fareboxes would cost an estimated $3 to $4 million. Program Funding • The Alexandria City Council approved an additional $1.7 million annual operating subsidy for FY2022. Read the entire page →
From page 58... ... miles Passenger Trips: 1 .3 million Operating Expense: $4 .1 million Farebox Recovery: 0% KEY TAKEAWAYS GoLine has operated fare-free transit service since the transit agency's inception, due in part to the large upfront costs of building a fare collection system. The transit agency is ranked as the most efficient transit agency in Florida, with the highest number of riders per local dollar of investment. Read the entire page →
From page 59... ... Fare-Free Context • Starting in 2019, GRTC began exploring potential changes to the fare structure that could benefit riders with low incomes. • The transit agency suspended fares in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and has extended the policy twice. Read the entire page →
From page 60... ... Agency Type: Small urban/rural Urban Area Poverty Rate: 1 0% Service Area: Th urston County, W A Service Area Population: 0.2 million Service Area Size: 1 01 sq. miles Passenger Trips: 4 .7 million Operating Expense: $4 4 .6 million Farebox Recovery: 9% KEY TAKEAWAYS Intercity Transit launched a 5-year zero-fare demonstration project in January 2020 after it evaluated the feasibility of fare-free transit service. Read the entire page →
From page 61... ... transit agencies with current zero-fare service. Providing community economic benefits was an important factor in the decision to go zero-fare, and it was championed by the mayor and city council, as well as the transit agency. Read the entire page →
From page 62... ... miles Passenger Trips: 1 million Operating Expense: $1 5 million Farebox Recovery: 4 % KEY TAKEAWAYS Link Transit operated four fare-free shuttle routes and expanded to systemwide fare-free as an emergency declaration in the spring of 2020. This was expanded into an additional 1-year pilot in July 2021. Read the entire page →
From page 63... ... Program Funding • The increased ridership anticipated by providing fare-free transit service is expected to qualify Link Transit for approximately $275,000 in additional funding from the STIC funding program. • As of January 2022, there has been little to no impact on the transit agency budget thus far in the pilot. Read the entire page →
From page 64... ... • The mayor and transit agency board worked to create a fare-free pilot program, which was launched in 2015. Fare-Free Policy Goals • Attract ridership. Read the entire page →
From page 65... ... : 1 05.8 million Operating Expense: $64 4 .4 million Farebox Recovery: 24 % * Data provided by RTD KEY TAKEAWAYS Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) Read the entire page →
From page 66... ... Data provided by METRO KEY TAKEAWAYS METRO evaluated fare-free transit alternatives and found that serving a population as large as the Houston METRO area would require a significant amount of additional funding, including any associated ridership increases and fare revenue losses. The evaluation examined only costs and did not include equity or social metrics, which restricted its ability to measure potential benefits. Read the entire page →
From page 67... ... Agency Type: University community Urban Area Poverty Rate: 20% Service Area: I ow a City, I A Service Area Population: < 0.1 million Service Area Size: 25 sq. miles Passenger Trips: 1 .6 million Operating Expense: $7.6 million Farebox Recovery: 1 9% KEY TAKEAWAYS After a comprehensive fare study, Iowa City Transit (ICT) Read the entire page →
From page 68... ... Agency Type: Large urban regional Urban Area Poverty Rate: 1 3% Service Area: Los Angeles County, CA Service Area Population: 8.6 million Service Area Size: 1 ,500 sq. miles Passenger Trips: 380 million Operating Expense: $1 .9 billion Farebox Recovery: 1 5% KEY TAKEAWAYS The transit agency is currently running a 2-year pilot program that provides fare-free transit to students in participating school districts. Read the entire page →
From page 69... ... • Increase operator safety by minimizing fare collection conflicts. Evaluation • The transit agency is the largest by far to test fare-free transit, and the pilot evaluation will collect significant data and feedback. Read the entire page →
From page 70... ... Outcomes • Ridership increased substantially. • Dwell times decreased by about 20%. Read the entire page →
From page 71... ... miles Passenger Trips: 20.6 million Operating Expense: $1 24 .6 million Farebox Recovery: 1 6% KEY TAKEAWAYS Ride On suspended fare collection for COVID-19 and conducted an evaluation of a range of fare free and discounted fare alternatives. The transit agency focused on four areas of analysis in its evaluation: equity, fiscal impacts, ridership, and fare program administration. Read the entire page →
From page 72... ... miles Passenger Trips: 223 million Operating Expense: $856 million Farebox Recovery: 23% KEY TAKEAWAYS The transit agency has multiple partial fare-free programs targeting certain population groups, including youth, some students, people with disabilities, older people with low incomes, and people experiencing homelessness. Muni has not seen any major changes in ridership due to the programs, but no official evaluations were conducted. Read the entire page →
From page 73... ... Agency Type: Small urban/rural Urban Area Poverty Rate: Not available Service Area: G reater Sand y, OR Service Area Population: Not available Service Area Size: Not available Passenger Trips: 1 23,000 Operating Expense: $1 .4 million Farebox Recovery: 6% KEY TAKEAWAYS The transit agency started as fare-free, introduced fares, and now provides free fares for local service. In the back and forth, the transit agency found that reduced fares may not increase ridership as much as full fare-free transit. Read the entire page →
From page 74... ... < 0.1 million Service Area Size: Not available Passenger Trips: 1 .1 million Operating Expense: $3.6 million Farebox Recovery: 4 % * Data provided by Steamboat Springs Transit KEY TAKEAWAYS The transit agency experimented with different levels of partial fare-free transit and eventually landed on partial fare-free transit on local service. Read the entire page →

From page 50...

... Information was gathered from the survey responses, transit agency interviews, news articles, and press releases. Purpose of Case Studies To inform evaluation framework development and provide more detailed examples of how fare free transit has been evaluated at transit agencies of different sizes across the United States, the project team developed 23 case studies.