The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 75-128

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 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. Read the entire page →
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. Read the entire page →
From page 77... ... miles Passenger Trips: 1 28.7 million Operating Expense: $91 0.2 million Farebox Recovery: 26% KEY TAKEAWAYS King County Metro does not have fare-free transit but administers two subsidized pass programs to support riders with low incomes, one of which is fully subsidized. Since October 2020, King County Metro and Sound Transit, the regional transit provider, have provided fully subsidized transit passes to people with very low incomes enrolled in certain state benefits programs. Read the entire page →
From page 78... ... miles Passenger Trips: 1 5.7 million Operating Expense: $79.5 million Farebox Recovery: 1 7% KEY TAKEAWAYS The transit agency suspended fares during the COVID-19 pandemic and completed a contactless solutions study that included an evaluation of permanent fare-free transit 2021–2022. Federal money replaced fare revenues in the short-term, but future fare-free transit will involve finding increased funding to cover the fare revenue gap and support increased use of paratransit. Read the entire page →
From page 79... ... • The recommendations from the fare study include a proposed strategy for returning to fares, as well as considerations for long-term, fare-free transit that includes fixed-route and paratransit service needs, replacement revenue and funding, and safety and security costs. Program Funding • Current fare-free transit is being sustained through federal relief funding and continuing without fares would require finding a new funding source or receiving a larger budget from the city council. Read the entire page →
From page 80... ... • Both programs were discontinued due to the use of the routes as shelter by a high number of people experiencing homelessness and behavioral issues related to public intoxication. Fare-Free Policy Goals • Alleviate congestion and parking demand in downtown Grand Rapids. Read the entire page →
From page 81... ... This framework was informed by a transit agency survey and interviews with staff from transit agencies, community organizations, and transit advocacy groups. During this information gathering, the research team identified three areas where additional guidance would be helpful: impacts of fare-free transit, funding for fare-free transit, and fare collection cost and revenue reporting. Read the entire page →
From page 82... ... Further research could explore how transit agencies can transition these fare partnerships into an agreement to pay the transit agency for providing services to the groups that they represent. Fare Collection Cost and Revenue Reporting • Cost of farebox collection relative to farebox revenue. Read the entire page →
From page 83... ... Survey Instrument The research team developed two survey instruments that asked transit agency staff questions on program initiation, program evaluation, funding, community support and equity, ridership impacts, operational and capital impacts, paratransit impacts, and enforcement and security: • One survey was for transit agencies that are full or partially fare-free (i.e., do not collect fares from all or some riders) • The other survey was for transit agencies that are not fare-free (i.e., collect fares from all riders) Read the entire page →
From page 84... ... The survey respondents represented transit agencies with various types of fare-free transit: • Full fare-free, either since the inception of the transit agency or implemented after • Partial fare-free (including agencies that fully suspended fares for all riders during the pandemic) , either for specific groups, on specific routes, or in specific areas and are either: – Considering piloting or implementing additional fare-free transit – Not considering additional fare-free transit • Not fare-free (i.e., collect fares from all riders) Read the entire page →
From page 85... ... Lucie County FL Streamline Bozeman MT Treasure Valley Transit Nampa ID Exhibit A-1. Surveyed transit agency by fare-free classification and response type. Read the entire page →
From page 86... ... is a state agency exploring grants to support fare-free transit for local transit agencies. Their answers informed our survey synthesis but were not included in ridership or operating statistics. Read the entire page →
From page 87... ... Exhibit A-2. Map of surveyed transit agencies by fare-free classification and response type. Read the entire page →
From page 88... ... All full fare-free respondent transit agencies served small urban, rural, resort, or university-dominated communi ties, with smaller ridership, lower farebox recovery, and lower operating expenses on average. The partial and not fare-free respondents represented a wide range of transit agency sizes in terms of passenger trips, operating expense, and farebox recovery. Read the entire page →
From page 89... ... * Urban/Rural University Mountain Line Missoula MT 1,600,000 6,700,000 0% Community Park City Resort Park City UT 2,700,000 12,600,000 0% Transit Community Selkirk Pend Resort Selkirk ID 100,000 600,000 0% Oreille Transit Community Partial FareFree Capital Area Mid-Sized Transportation Lansing MI 11,000,000 54,800,000 16% Regional Authority Eastern Sierra Resort Bishop CA 1,100,000 4,400,000 21% Transit Community Iowa City University Iowa City IA 1,600,000 7,600,000 19% Transit Community Los Angeles Los Angeles Large Urban CA 379,700,000 1,918,600,000 15% Metro County Regional Mason Transit Small Mason County WA 200,000 1,100,000 8% Authority Urban/Rural Houston Large Urban Houston TX 90,000,000 574,300,000 11% METRO Regional Resort Mountain Rides Ketchum ID 600,000 2,900,000 13% Community North Central North Central Small Regional NM 300,000 10,400,000 1% Counties Urban/Rural Transit District Montgomery Ride On MD 20,600,000 124,600,000 16% Urban Local County Exhibit A-3. Read the entire page →
From page 90... ... • For some transit agencies that went temporarily fare-free during the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers and transit agency staff were interested in carrying forward the policy to continue to benefit the community. Motivating Factors Survey respondents shared a wide variety of reasons for why their transit agency was studying or implementing partial or full free transit (Exhibit A-4) Read the entire page →
From page 91... ... 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 on farebox revenue. Read the entire page →
From page 92... ... • Others completed operational evaluations to measure the potential service impacts of the fare policy, such as additional service demand from increased ridership. • Some transit agencies focused on a financial evaluation of the policy change, including an inventory of existing fare collection costs and foregone fare revenue. Read the entire page →
From page 93... ... created the Transit Ridership Incentive Program (TRIP) , a statewide grant program, in 2021 to help fund free and reduced-fare programs among Virginia transit agencies. Read the entire page →
From page 94... ... • TriMet discontinued its fare-free zone due to the loss of fare revenue. Decision-Making The decision-making process for initiating a fare-free program also varied across the transit agencies: • For most agencies, the decision to implement the program was an internal transit agency deci sion or a decision from local policymakers. Read the entire page →
From page 95... ... • Evaluation of program success: – Aside from ridership and revenue, other examined metrics varied depending on the con text and goals, including boarding times, additional service needs, passenger destinations, and public opinion. – Only four of the respondent transit agencies conducted formal evaluations after implemen tation beyond looking at high-level ridership and revenue data. Read the entire page →
From page 96... ... Access to funding is a major challenge to midsize and larger transit agencies where fares generate more revenue than they cost to administer and where increased ridership would strain the system and require expansion. Comparison with TCRP Synthesis 101 and Existing Research Gaps The findings from the transit agency survey completed for this report aligned with the findings from TCRP Synthesis 101: Implementation and Outcomes of Fare-Free Transit Systems (Volinski 2012) Read the entire page →
From page 97... ... However, larger transit agencies have been exploring fare-free programs in recent years, and the COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity for transit agencies to explore suspending fares. Even with the completion of 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. Read the entire page →
From page 98... ... If you have received the wrong survey, please contact our Principal Investigator, Cristina Barone, at cbarone@nelsonnygaard.com. For the purposes of this research, we are defining partial fare-free transit agencies as those that: Allow specific groups of riders to use transit services for free based on age, disability, income, student status, or other eligibility criteria Provide fare-free service on specific transit routes or transit modes The questions in this survey are designed to get an understanding of the factors that go into evaluation and implementation of fare free service. Read the entire page →
From page 99... ... Yes No 3. Describe the transit agency's fare structure: Fully fare-free Partially fare-free. Read the entire page →
From page 100... ... 10. If the transit agency is partially fare-free, is additional fare-free service being considered or studied? Read the entire page →
From page 101... ... Funding 18. Please tell us about your transit agency's farebox recovery (fare revenues over operating costs) Read the entire page →
From page 102... ... 25. Did the transit agency implement fare-free transit to achieve transit agency and/or community goals related to equity and affordability? Read the entire page →
From page 103... ... 28. Did you notice an increase or decrease in ridership of particular population groups, or what change do you anticipate (e.g., youth, university students, working-age adults, older adults, women, people of color, low-income people, people experiencing homelessness) Read the entire page →
From page 104... ... Did the transit agency notice changes to route and/or systemwide on-time performance (e.g., changes in boarding and dwell time, routes running on time more/less often, changes in on-time performance for known reliability trouble spots) , or what change do you anticipate? Read the entire page →
From page 105... ... 38. Did the transit agency expand or purchase additional facilities because of going fare-free, or are changes anticipated? Read the entire page →
From page 106... ... 39. Did the transit agency quantify fare administration and collection costs before the fare-free program started (e.g., pass sales, farebox maintenance, fare counting, accounting, facilities, administration, customer service, marketing) Read the entire page →
From page 107... ... Did the transit agency have or implement any practices regarding non-destination fare-free passengers (e.g., people experiencing homelessness, teenagers) , or does the transit agency anticipate implementing practices? Read the entire page →
From page 108... ... If you have the data available, we would appreciate information about ridership, on-time performance, service changes, capital investments, operating costs, fare collection costs, and transit agency revenues as they relate to fare-free transit at your agency. If detailed data is not available, estimates or opinions are sufficient. Read the entire page →
From page 109... ... Fully Fare-Free Service Partial Fare-Free Service Not Considering Considering Studying Implementing Already Offer Studied; Chose Not to Implement Not Sure If the transit agency is NOT considering, studying, or implementing full or partial fare free service in the future skip to Q Read the entire page →
From page 110... ... 8. How is the transit agency planning or studying fare-free service? Read the entire page →
From page 111... ... 15. How will the transit agency make up for the gap in fare collection revenues from fare-free transit? Read the entire page →
From page 112... ... 20. Is the transit agency considering, studying, or implementing fare-free transit to achieve transit agency and/or community goals related to equity and affordability? Read the entire page →
From page 113... ... Will the transit agency make any changes to service because of fare-free service? Increase service Increase service unrelated to fare-free implementation Read the entire page →
From page 114... ... 30. Will the transit agency increase staffing because of going fare-free? Read the entire page →
From page 115... ... Paratransit Impacts 36. What ADA complementary paratransit ridership impact do you anticipate because of fare-free service? Read the entire page →
From page 116... ... Does the transit agency have or will the agency implement any practices regarding non-destination fare-free passengers (e.g., people experiencing homelessness, teenagers) Read the entire page →
From page 117... ... 46. What would have to happen to have decision makers at your transit agency consider going fully or partially fare-free? Read the entire page →
From page 118... ... Following the interviews with TEN member organizations, the project team organized inter views with community-based organizations and transit advocacy groups in other cities across the country. Some of these organizations are located in cities where fare-free transit has been evaluated or implemented. Read the entire page →
From page 119... ... • In Richmond, fare-free transit would be beneficial for all riders due to the large population of residents with low incomes in the city. Balance of Service Quality and Affordability • Some advocates shared concerns that fare-free transit would lead to funding shortages at transit agencies, which could result in lower transit service quality. Read the entire page →
From page 120... ... Engaging the Community • Many advocates mentioned that conversations around fare-free transit should be made in close consultation with community partners. • Transit agencies should partner with local community groups to disseminate information to their audiences if they implement fare-free transit. Read the entire page →
From page 121... ... 2016. TCRP Synthesis 121: Transit Agency Practices in Interacting with People Who Are Homeless. Read the entire page →
From page 122... ... December 2021. "Performance Measurement and Evalua tion Framework of Public Microtransit Service." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. Read the entire page →
From page 123... ... TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation Read the entire page →
From page 124... ... Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ISBN 978-0-309-69831-3 90000 9 780309 698313 Read the entire page →

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.