Fare-Free Transit Evaluation Framework (2023) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix A - Transit Agency Survey Methodology and Findings
Appendix A - Transit Agency Survey Methodology and Findings
Pages 83-97
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 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)
|
From page 84... ...
The questions in the survey are designed to get an understanding of the factors that go into evalu ation and implementation of fare-free service. If you have the data available, we would appreciate relevant 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.
|
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.
|
From page 86... ...
The transit agency does not describe this program as fare-free.
|
From page 87... ...
Exhibit A-2. Map of surveyed transit agencies by fare-free classification and response type.
|
From page 88... ...
Survey Findings This section describes the feedback provided in the transit agency survey responses. Key feed back themes included the following: • Fare-free initiation, or what was involved in the decision-making process, what were the motivating factors for the programs, and what were the funding sources, if any, to fill the revenue gap.
|
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.
|
From page 90... ...
* Denver Regional Large Urban Denver CO 105,200,000 644,400,000 24% Transportation Regional District San Francisco Municipal San Francisco CA 223,300,000 855,800,000 23% Urban Local Transportation Agency Sandy Area Small Sandy OR 100,000 1,400,000 6% Metro Urban/Rural Southeast Small Wilmington VT 400,000 4,300,000 3% Vermont Transit Urban/Rural Steamboat Steamboat Resort CO 1,100,000 3,600,000 4% Springs Transit Springs Community Small Summit Stage Summit County CO 1,700,000 10,600,000 1% Urban/Rural Utah Transit Large Urban Wasatch Front UT 44,600,000 311,000,000 16% Authority Regional Not Fare-Free King County Large Urban King County WA 128,700,000 910,200,000 26% Metro Regional New Jersey Large Urban Statewide NJ 267,300,000 2,265,100,000 43% Transit Regional Mid-Sized The Rapid Grand Rapids MI 10,500,000 48,300,000 20% Regional Large Urban TriMet Portland Metro OR 96,600,000 531,000,000 22% Regional Mid-Sized Sun Tran Tucson AZ 15,700,000 79,500,000 17% Regional Other Virginia Department of Statewide VA NA NA NA NA Rail and Public Transportation *
|
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.
|
From page 92... ...
Funding Sources To fill the foregone revenue gap left by the elimination or reduction of passenger fares, some transit agencies absorbed the costs into transit agency or municipal budgets. Others were able to reduce operating costs enough through the efficiencies of not collecting fares to balance lost rev enues.
|
From page 93... ...
pulled from multiple funding sources, including the general fund, the sale of advertisements, and providing contracted services. • The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT)
|
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.
|
From page 95... ...
Public Response For many transit agencies, there was a general sense of support for fare-free transit from community members, but there was a lack of sufficient data to make overarching claims about public opinion. The following public opinion outcomes were reported: • Only a handful of transit agencies conducted public engagement after implementation and understanding of public support is mostly based on anecdotal reports.
|
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)
|
From page 97... ...
This complicates the evaluation of fare-free programs, where external factors may be influencing ridership more than fare-free programs. Continued research on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on transit as well as specific investigations into the relationship with fare-free service are needed as transit agencies move forward.
|
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.