Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework (2023) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 73-76
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 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.
|
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.
|
From page 75... ...
• Recommendations for other transit agencies include conducting an early and ongoing evalua tion, and testing fare-free transit with a soft opening to iron out difficulties. Outcomes • The transit agency saw a 30% increase in fixed-route ridership and more than 100% increase in paratransit ridership.
|
From page 76... ...
• The transit agency measured the impacts of "Free Fare February." • UTA plans to undergo a regional fare-free transit evaluation later in 2022. Outcomes • UTA has received a few complaints from riders about passengers experiencing homelessness and disruptive passengers.
|
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.