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... ... Transit Agency Case Studies 75 • The transit agency found that fare-free for city residents did not result in improvements in boarding times, operational savings, or ridership. Difficulty in validating local residency made fraud common. Read the entire page →
From page 76... ... 76 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework KEY TAKEAWAYS Utah Transit Authority (UTA) has experimented with various levels of fare-free transit, including free zonal service, free service for a new bus rapid transit (BRT) Read the entire page →
From page 77... ... Transit Agency Case Studies 77 Not Fare-Free Transit Agencies King County Metro Agency Statistics (2019) Agency Type: Large urban regional Urban Area Poverty Rate: 8% Service Area K ing County, W A Service Area Population: 2.1 million Service Area Size: 2,1 34 sq. Read the entire page →
From page 78... ... 78 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework publish annual reports based on evaluation findings and expects to have data indicating the impact on participants' mobility, health, and well-being in 2024. Outcomes • As of August 2021, 6,000 residents have enrolled and more than 60% identify as Black, Indig enous, or a person of color. Read the entire page →
From page 79... ... Transit Agency Case Studies 79 Evaluation • The feasibility evaluation focused on the financial, operational, and equity impacts on the transit agency and the community. • Sun Tran also conducted a rider and community survey on the future of fares to gauge public opinion on many possible fare changes, including staying fare-free. Read the entire page →
From page 80... ... 80 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Fare-Free Context • In partnership with the City of Grand Rapids and Spectrum Health, one route was fare-free from August 2018 to August 2020. • The downtown segment of a bus rapid transit route was fare-free from September 2016 to August 2020. Read the entire page →
From page 81... ... CHAPTER 5 Opportunities for Future Research This final chapter proposes opportunities for future research to support transit practitioners' ability to evaluate fare-free transit. This report provides practical guidance for transit agencies to evaluate the feasibility of fare-free transit in their community. Read the entire page →
From page 82... ... 82 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework more equitable, such as income taxes. This strategy moves away from traditional transporta tion funding sources that tend to be regressive, such as fares, sales taxes, and gas taxes. Read the entire page →
From page 83... ... APPENDIX A Transit Agency Survey Methodology and Findings Methodology The research team surveyed a sample of U.S. transit agencies to gather various perspectives on the evaluation of fare-free transit. Read the entire page →
From page 84... ... 84 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework or partial fare-free service and (2) agencies without existing fare-free service. Read the entire page →
From page 85... ... Transit Agency Survey Methodology and Findings 85 Surveyed for TCRP Survey Agency City/County/Region State Synthesis Response 101 Full fare-free Advance Transit Windsor-Grafton Counties NH, VT AppalCART Watauga NC Aspen Free Shuttles Aspen CO Atomic City Transit Los Alamos NM Breckenridge Free Ride Breckenridge CO Cache Valley Transit District Logan UT Chapel Hill Transit Chapel Hill NC Citylink Edmond OK Citylink Benewah/Kootenai Counties ID Clemson Area Transit Clemson SC Commerce Transit Commerce CA Community Transit Cape May County NJ Corvallis Transit System Corvallis OR District Department of Transportation Washington DC East Chicago Transit East Chicago IN Ellensburg Central Transit Ellensburg WA Go West Transit Macomb IL GoLine Transit Indian River County FL Intercity Transit Olympia WA Island Transit Whidbey Island WA Marion City Transit Marion IN Mason Transit Mason County WA Mountain Express Crested Butte CO Mountain Line Missoula MT Mountain Rides Ketchum ID North Central Regional Transit North Central Counties NM District Park City Transit Park City UT Sandy Area Metro Sandy OR Selkirk Pend Oreille Transit Selkirk ID Southeast Vermont Transit Wilmington VT Starkville-MSU Area Rapid Transit Starkville MS Steamboat Springs Transit Steamboat Springs CO St. Lucie County Community Transit St. Read the entire page →
From page 86... ... 86 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Surveyed for TCRP Survey Agency City/County/Region State Synthesis Response 101 Partial Fare-Free Capital Area Transportation Authority Lansing MI Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit Champaign-Urbana IL District Chatham Area Transit Savannah GA Chicago Transit Authority Chicago IL Eastern Sierra Transit Bishop CA Iowa City Transit Iowa City IA Kansas City Area Transportation Kansas City MO Authority Los Angeles County Metropolitan Los Angeles County CA Transportation Link Transit Chelan/Douglas Counties WA Houston METRO Houston TX Miami-Dade Transit Miami-Dade County FL Montgomery County Department of Montgomery County MD Transportation Regional Transportation District Denver CO San Francisco Municipal San Francisco CA Transportation Agency South Metro Area Regional Transit Wilsonville OR Summit Stage Summit County CO Washington Metro Area Transit Greater Washington DC Authority Go Durham Durham NC Utah Transit Authority Wasatch Front UT Not Fare-Free King County Metro* King County WA Metropolitan Transportation Bay Area CA Commission New Jersey Transit Statewide NJ Sun Tran Tucson AZ The Rapid Grand Rapids MI TriMet Portland Metro OR Virginia Department of Rail and Statewide VA Public Transportation* 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... ... 88 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Transit Agency Statistics To understand the context in which each transit agency operates, surveyed transit agencies were categorized into six main community types based on ridership levels, the population and density of the service area, the population of the overall urban area, modes operated by the transit agency, relationship with other transit providers, and social context. These types are not prescriptive or exact, but rather provide general guidelines for understanding differences in fare free systems. Read the entire page →
From page 89... ... Transit Agency Survey Methodology and Findings 89 Annual Annual Farebox City/County/ Operating Agency Agency State Ridership Recovery Region Expense ($) Category (2019) Read the entire page →
From page 90... ... 90 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Annual Annual Farebox City/County/ Operating Agency Agency State Ridership Recovery Region Expense ($) Category (2019) Read the entire page →
From page 91... ... Transit Agency Survey Methodology and Findings 91 45% Percent of Agency Respondents 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% ns ty y m ui so no Eq ea co lR d an lE ica ca ty lit Lo ili Po ib ss ce Ac Exhibit A-4. Reasons for implementing fare-free transit (N 5 23) Read the entire page →
From page 92... ... 92 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework local fixed-route service was the most common type of partially fare-free system, with fares charged on rural, out-of-town, or commuter trips. Utah Transit Authority utilized a promo tional, time-limited program and provided free service for the first 2 years of a new bus rapid transit (BRT) Read the entire page →
From page 93... ... Transit Agency Survey Methodology and Findings 93 50% Percent of Agency Respondents 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Dedicated General Fund Sales Tax Gross Receipts Private Advertising Transit Tax or Tax Partnerships Fee Exhibit A-5. Funding sources for lost fare revenue (N 5 14) Read the entire page →
From page 94... ... 94 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Finding a funding source for transit service to replace fare revenue was a common challenge for larger transit agencies that studied fare-free policy but opted not to go full fare-free. Many decision makers were deterred by the cost of the program and the inability to fill the funding gap left by the loss of farebox revenue. Read the entire page →
From page 95... ... Transit Agency Survey Methodology and Findings 95 • Multiple systems that had expected to face this challenge did not see a measurable impact. • Strong code of conduct policies, destination requirements, and required disembarking at the final stop helped solve some of these problems. Read the entire page →
From page 96... ... 96 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework – Three transit agencies are currently in pilot phases of fare-free programs and are planning to complete evaluations. – Specific evaluation examples include the following: ◾ Houston METRO's decision to not go fare-free was informed by a ridership and cost model. Read the entire page →
From page 97... ... Transit Agency Survey Methodology and Findings 97 The fare-free programs in the 2012 survey also tended to fall into one of those three transit agency categories, although there was a wider range of types among partial fare-free agencies. In both the 2012 and 2021 surveys, larger transit agencies tended to experience crowding and a decrease in schedule reliability and would have needed additional capital and operating funds to accommodate increased demand. Read the entire page →
From page 98... ... APPENDIX B Transit Agency Survey Instruments TCRP J-11/Task 39: EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR FARE-FREE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Survey of Transit Agencies with Existing Fare-Free Service Nelson\Nygaard has been retained by the Transportation Research Board/Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) to develop a framework for evaluating fare-free public transportation. Read the entire page →
From page 99... ... Transit Agency Survey Instruments 99 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 100... ... 100 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework 6. Did the transit agency establish goals and objectives that support fare-free service? Read the entire page →
From page 101... ... Transit Agency Survey Instruments 101 12. When will the additional fare-free transit service be implemented? Read the entire page →
From page 102... ... 102 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Community Support and Equity 21. Was community outreach (polling, surveys, etc.) Read the entire page →
From page 103... ... Transit Agency Survey Instruments 103 Ridership Impacts 27. Did the transit agency see a change in transit ridership after the implementation of fare-free service, or what change do you anticipate? Read the entire page →
From page 104... ... 104 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs) Manual ride checks on a sampling of trips Other Not sure Not applicable 32. Read the entire page →
From page 105... ... Transit Agency Survey Instruments 105 Reduced service Not sure If there was a change, how much in revenue hours? An estimate is fine. Read the entire page →
From page 106... ... 106 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Yes No Not sure If yes, which facilities and what was the approximate value? Read the entire page →
From page 107... ... Transit Agency Survey Instruments 107 43. Was paratransit service impacted after fare-free implementation, or what impacts are anticipated? Read the entire page →
From page 108... ... 108 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework TCRP J-11/Task 39: EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR FARE-FREE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Survey of Transit Agencies without Fare-Free Service Nelson\Nygaard has been retained by the Transportation Research Board/Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) to develop a framework for evaluating fare-free public transportation. Read the entire page →
From page 109... ... Transit Agency Survey Instruments 109 Please complete and submit this survey by Friday, April 30th, 2021. If you have questions regarding this survey or the research project, please contact Cristina Barone at cbarone@nelsonnygaard.com. Read the entire page →
From page 110... ... 110 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Agency Considering, Studying, or Implementing Fare-Free Service Program Initiation 4. What groups or services will / would become fare-free? Read the entire page →
From page 111... ... Transit Agency Survey Instruments 111 10. What would have been / what would be helpful tools to assist in the implementation process for fare-free service? Read the entire page →
From page 112... ... 112 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework 19. If applicable, how is the transit agency promoting the value of fare-free service to agency management, policymakers, stakeholders, and/or the community? Read the entire page →
From page 113... ... Transit Agency Survey Instruments 113 Other Not sure Not applicable 25. How will you accurately count passenger trips without fare payment? Read the entire page →
From page 114... ... 114 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework No significant change to service Changes to service that did not require additional resources Reduce service Not sure If the agency is making a change, by how much in revenue hours? An estimate is fine. Read the entire page →
From page 115... ... Transit Agency Survey Instruments 115 32. Will the transit agency expand or purchase additional facilities because of going fare-free? Read the entire page →
From page 116... ... 116 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework 37. What paratransit service impacts do you anticipate because of fare-free service? Read the entire page →
From page 117... ... Transit Agency Survey Instruments 117 43. What was your agency's current farebox recovery ratio in 2019 (fare revenues over operating costs) Read the entire page →
From page 118... ... APPENDIX C Community Representative Interview Methodology and Findings Methodology The project team conducted interviews with staff from community-based organizations and transit advocacy groups to gather information on perspectives of fare-free transit from various transit stakeholders. Additionally, the project team solicited feedback on how transit agencies can integrate community representative feedback into the fare-free transit evaluation process. Read the entire page →
From page 119... ... Community Representative Interview Methodology and Findings 119 • Virginia Conservation Network (Richmond, VA) : Coordinates over 150 environmental organizations in the conservation community to protect natural resources. Read the entire page →
From page 120... ... 120 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework or gas taxes can be similarly regressive. Some advocates suggested that fares could be replaced with funding sources that are more equitable, such as a graduated income tax or partnerships with large institutions and private businesses. Read the entire page →
From page 121... ... References Bartin, B., K Ozbay, and H Read the entire page →
From page 122... ... 122 Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework Gray, A Read the entire page →
From page 123... ... Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) 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...

... Transit Agency Case Studies 75 • The transit agency found that fare-free for city residents did not result in improvements in boarding times, operational savings, or ridership. Difficulty in validating local residency made fraud common.