1 9 3/5/15 57,30 72 ,50 86 .3 0 97.70 4.0S !I 7 ,2 9!1 55 ,9 0 - PDF document

3/5/15 Sara Barz & Eleanor Leshner University of California, Berkeley • 1 9

3/5/15 57,30€ 72 ,50€ 86 .3 0€ 97.70 € 4.0S !I 7 ,2 9!1 55 ,9 0€ 69 € 5,83 !1 79,60€ 5,01 !1 55,70€ 7,32 !1 4-6 6, 48!1 62.40€ 5·6 54,90 € What do we know about fares? • Transit pricing theory and practice • Operator fare collaboration • Smartcards as potential opportunity for fare integration Photo courtesy of l'illlmT. 2 10

3/5/15 Bay Area Case Study • Complex institutional and financial structures • Diverse fare policies • Attempts at fare standardization • Slow smartcard adoption SFMTA 3 11

3/5/15 Methodology • Interviews with 18 professionals and academics • Online survey of 60 transit industry "stakeholders" in Bay Area 4 12

.~. :;~·._,.~ 3/5/15 Results: Attitudes Q. To what extent do you agree with the following attitudes regarding fare payment within the regional transit system? • Strongly Disagree • Disagree Nei1her Agree or Disagree • Agr ee • Strongly Agree Transit riders should be ab le to easily 30 % access fare media anywhere in the r eg ion. Fare structures and policies between transit agencies should be simple . N = 60 Results: Attitudes Q. To what extent do you agree with the following attitudes regarding fare payment within the regional transit system? • Strongly Disagree • Disagree Neilher Agree or Disagree • Agree • Strongly Agree . ' ...... ·:r; , l,{:',•\ Riders should be ab le to pay fares ac ros s a r eg ion with a single fare card . J ' ' .- • ' • •• Riders should be able to pa y for inter- 17 o/o 25 % operable trips with a singl e transaction. N = 60 5 13

3/5/ 15 Results: Attitudes Q . What entity, if any, should coordinate fares? . .. I , ,. -• .. I 3% 3% 3% Coalition of MPO Or1el ead Governi ng Body Third-Pa rty No Entity Othe r Tran t. ltAgeodes Tra nsitAgoocy Olh«T han Vendor ShotA d MPO Coord inate Fa r es kStal Coordinating Entity Results: Attitudes Q. Increased regional fare coordination would have which effect on transit ridership: Decrease, 2% 6 14

3/5/15 Results: Attitudes Q. Increased regional fare coordination would have which effect on operator revenues: I I Results: Attitudes Lack of focus on transit rider Courtesy of SFM TA { 'Anything that makes it simpler for the passenger is better. " 7 15

: li3DZIi:Z!B:CZ:Dm:t!:!:!:!:!:l~ml!:!:!:l 3/5/15 Results: Barriers • Very Significant • Moderately Significant • Not Significant nla large nu mber of transit opera to rs large number of fare po licies Operat ors' fear of revenue loss lack of financial Incentives for operators lack of appropriate cooridinating body ................... .... Local political pressures Institutional inertia Weak relationships among operators L ack of Interest In seaml ess fares Weak relationshi ps ·o perators and MPO Fare payment technology -••••• sl:i:a:IC====mz:::z:a Union con ce rns - Access to payment technol ogy ••••••••••• •••••11111:111111111:::1111 O o/o 20% 40% 60% 80 % 10 0% 8 16

~-­ - ~ - - ~-BI­ -• ~ -­ ~ - - 3/5/15 Results: Barriers • Very Significant • Moderately Significant • Not Significant n/a Large number of transit operators ~-·- Large number of fare po l ic ies , -------·------ Operators' fear of revenue loss -------·----- - Lack of financial incentives for operators ~-·-· Lack of appropriate cooridinaling body -------·--• •-- Local political pressures Weak relationships among operators ----·------ Ell- lnslilulional inertia ~ ~-· i Financial a nd Lack of interest in seamless fares j institutional bar riers are most signific ant Weak relationsh i ps · operators and MPO ~ ~ ' -·- Farepaymenttechnology , - Union concerns -- -llllll!!ll!li!Z\Irz!3!l'.ZIIIII!IImlllliDI!DZI Access to payment technology . - 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 1 00 % Takeaways • Fare payment should be seamless, in terms of fare policy, media and transactions. • Some entity should coordinate fares , but stakeholders are divided about which enti ty should do so. • Fear of revenue loss could be mitigated by revenue sharing or a subsidy for regional fare coordination. • The reg i on needs a greater focus on t ransit riders' expenence. 9 17

3/5/15 Inspiration From Seattle! • Simple, unified fare structure shared by 6 operators • Sound Transit coordinates fares • Operators share revenue • Focus on riders Thank you! Sara Barz sbarz@berkeley.edu @skbarz Eleanor Leshner eleshner@berkeley.edu @ewleshner 10 18

3/5/15 References 1. Armijo, D. (2014). Staff Report: C2- Clipper Next Generation Planning. Presented at Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Board Meeting on April 9, 2014. Accessed at http: //www.ac transit.org/wp- co ntentluploads/board_memos/ 14-092%20C iipper%20C2.pdf 2. Barbour, E., & Deakin, E. A. (2012) . Smart Growth Planning for Climate Protection: Evaluating California's Senate Bill 375. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(1 ), 70 - 86. 3. Barry, K. (2014) . Th e Race Is On for the Transit Ticket of Tomorrow. Atlantic Cities. March 11, 2014. Accessed at http:// www.citylab.com/commute/2014/03/race-transit-ticket-tomorrow/8594/ on 7/14/14 4. Cervero , R. (1990). Transit pricing research. Transportation, 17(2), 117-139 . 5. lseki, H., Yoh, A., & Taylor , B. (2007) . Are Smart Cards the Smart Way to Go? : Examining Their Adoption by U.S. Transit Agencies. Transportation Re searc h Recor d, 1992(1), 45-53 . 6. Litman, T. (2004) Transit Pr ice Elasticities and Cross-Elasticities. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 7, pp. 37-58. 7. Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming & Allocations Sec tion. (2013). Statistical Summary of Transit Opera tors: Fiscal Years 2007 - 08 through 2011-12. Oakland: MTC . 8. Miller, R. (2013). Can BART Do Better? Sketch Modeling Alternate Fare Structures to Manage Demand . TRB 2013 Annual Meeting. T ransportation Re search Board 92nd Annua l Meeting. 9. MTC (2009). 2009 Annual Report: Transit in Transition. Metropolit an Transportation Commission (MTC) , Oakland , California. Accessed at http ://www.m tc.ca.gov/library/Annua1Report-09/MTC_AR_2009_Final.pdf on 4/30/ 14 10. MTC (20 10). Resolution No. 3866. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Oakland, California. Accessed at ht1p://www.mtc. ca .gov/planning/tcip/RES-3866_approved.pdf on 5/1/14 References 11. MTC (2012) . FINAL Title VI Summary Report Clipper Fare Media Transitions Presented to the Metropolitan Tr ansportation Commission June 1, 20 12. Metropolitan Tr ansportation Commission (MTC), Oakland, California. Accessed at http:// clipper . mtc . ca .gov/pdf/C iipper _Title_ VI_ Analysis_ Summary _Report.pdf on 5/ 1 /14 12. Multisystems, Inc. (2003). Fare policies, structures and technologies: Update. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 94, Transportation Research Board: 23 . 13. Newmark, G. L. (2007). An Institutional Analysis of Transit Fare Integration. In Tr ansportation Research Board 86th Annual Meeting. Retrieved from http:l/trid.trb.org/view/2007/C/8027 48 14 . Taylor, B. (1991 ). Unjust Equity: An Examination of California's Transportation De ve l opmen t Act. Univ ersity of California Transportation Cente r. UC Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center. 15. Taylor, B. D., Haas, P ., Boyd, B., Hess , D. B., lseki, H., & Yoh, A. (2002). Increasing transit ridership: les sons from the mos t successful transit systems in the 1990s (Vol. 1 ). Mineta Transportat ion Institute, San Jo se State University. 16. Valdivia, L. (2013). Clipper Program Overview, Presented to Sonoma Cou nty Tr ansportation Authority on July 8, 2013. Met r opolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) , Oakland, California. Accessed at http://www .sc tainfo.org/pdf/ Agenda _P ackets/2013/Ciipper%20Presentation_ 20130708.pdf on 7/ 15/14 17. Yoh, A. (2008) . Institutional Issues in the Adoption of Smartcard Systems Among U.S. Trans it Agencies for F are Collection. Los Angeles: UCLA. 18. Yoh, A., Haas , P. , & Taylor , B. (2003). Understanding Transit Ridership Growth: Case Studi es of Successful Transit Systems in the 1990s. Tran spo rtation Research Record, 1835( 1 ), 111- 120. 19. Yoh, A., Taylor, B., & Gahbauer, J. (2013). Does Tr ansit Mean Busine ss? Recon ci ling Academic , Organizational, and Political Perspectives on Variable Tran sit Fares. Presented at the Tran sportati on Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting. 11 19