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

▶
1 9 3 5 15 57 30 72 50 86 3 0 97 70 4 0s i 7 2 9 1 55 9 0
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

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

Jul 15, 2023 15 likes •126 views

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 56 54,90

slide-1
SLIDE 1

9

Sara Barz & Eleanor Leshner

University of California, Berkeley

  • 3/5/15

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

10

4-6 5·6

What do we know about fares?

  • Transit pricing theory

and practice

  • Operator fare collaboration
  • Smartcards as potential
  • pportunity for fare

integration

Photo courtesy of l'illlmT.

3/5/15

57,30€ 72,50€ 86.30€ 97.70€ 4.0S !I 55,90€

7,29!1

69€ 5,83 !1 79,60€ 5,01!1 55,70€ 7,32 !1 62.40€ 6,48!1 54,90€

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

11

Bay Area Case Study

  • Complex institutional and

financial structures

  • Diverse fare policies
  • Attempts at fare

standardization

  • Slow smartcard adoption

3/5/15

SFMTA

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

12

Methodology

  • Interviews with 18 professionals and

academics

  • Online survey of 60 transit industry

"stakeholders" in Bay Area

3/5/15

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

13

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
  • Agree
  • Strongly
Agree

Transit riders should be able to easily access fare media anywhere in the region. Fare structures and policies between transit agencies should be simple.

Results: Attitudes

30%

N = 60

  • Q. To what extent do you agree with the following attitudes

regarding fare payment within the regional transit system?

Riders should be able to pay fares across a region with a single fare card. Riders should be able to pay for inter-

  • perable trips with a single transaction.
  • Strongly Disagree
  • Disagree
Neilher Agree or Disagree
  • Agree
  • Strongly
Agree

. ' ......

·:r;,

l,{:',•\

.~. :;~·._,.~ J ' ' .-
  • '
  • 17o/o
25% N = 60

3/5/15 5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

14

Results: Attitudes

Q . What entity, if any, should coordinate fares?

, ,.

.

..

I

I

3% 3% 3%
  • • ..
Coalition
  • f
MPO Or1elead Governing Body Third-Party No Entity Other Trant.ltAgeodes TransitAgoocy Olh«Than Vendor ShotAd MPO Coordinate Fares kStal Coordinating Entity

Results: Attitudes

  • Q. Increased regional fare coordination would have which

effect on transit ridership:

Decrease, 2%

3/5/15 6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

15

I I

Results: Attitudes

  • Q. Increased regional fare coordination would have which

effect on operator revenues:

Results: Attitudes

Lack of focus on transit rider

Courtesy of SFMTA

{ 'Anything that makes it simpler for the passenger is better. "

3/5/15

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

16

Results: Barriers

  • Very Significant
  • Moderately Significant
  • Not Significant
nla large number of transit operators large number of fare policies Operators' fear of revenue loss lack of financial Incentives for operators lack of appropriate cooridinating body Local political pressures Institutional inertia Weak relationships among operators Lack of Interest In seamless fares Weak relationships ·operators and MPO

.......................

Fare payment technology -•••••sl:i:a:IC====mz:::z:a Union concerns - : li3DZIi:Z!B:CZ:Dm:t!:!:!:!:!:l~ml!:!:!:l Access to payment technology ••••••••••••••••11111:111111111:::1111 O
  • /o
20% 40% 60% 80%

3/5/15

100%

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

17

Results: Barriers

  • Very Significant
  • Moderately Significant
  • Not Significant
n/a Large number of transit operators ~-·-
  • Large number
  • f fare policies ,-------·------
Operators' fear of revenue loss -------·------ Lack of financial incentives for operators ~-·-·
  • Lack of appropriate cooridinaling body -------·--••--
Local political pressures ~-­ lnslilulional inertia ~~-·
  • i
Weak relationships among operators ----·------Ell- Lack of interest in seamless fares j Weak relationships · operators and MPO ~ ~ ' -·-

~-BI­

Farepaymenttechnology ,- ~-

~-­

Union concerns ---llllll!!ll!li!Z\Irz!3!l'.ZIIIII!IImlllliDI!DZI Access to payment technology . -
  • ~-
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Takeaways

100%

Financial and institutional barriers are most significant

  • Fare payment should be seamless, in terms of fare policy,

media and transactions.

  • Some entity should coordinate fares, but stakeholders are

divided about which entity should do so.

  • Fear of revenue loss could be mitigated by revenue

sharing or a subsidy for regional fare coordination.

  • The region needs a greater focus on transit riders'

expenence.

3/5/15 9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

18

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

3/5/15

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

19

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.actransit.org/wp-contentluploads/board_memos/ 14-092%20Ciipper%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). The 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 Research Record, 1992(1), 45-53.
6. Litman, T. (2004) Transit Price Elasticities and Cross-Elasticities. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 7, pp. 37-58. 7. Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming & Allocations Section. (2013). Statistical Summary of Transit Operators: 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 Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting.
9. MTC (2009). 2009 Annual Report: Transit in Transition. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Oakland,
  • California. Accessed at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/library/Annua1Report-09/MTC_AR_2009_Final.pdf on 4/30/14
  • 10. MTC (2010). 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 Transportation
Commission June 1, 2012. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Oakland, California. Accessed at http:// clipper.mtc.ca .gov/pdf/Ciipper _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 Transportation Research Board 86th Annual
  • Meeting. Retrieved from http:l/trid.trb.org/view/2007/C/802748
  • 14. Taylor, B. (1991 ). Unjust Equity: An Examination of California's Transportation Development Act. University of California
Transportation Center. 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: lessons from the
most successful transit systems in the 1990s (Vol. 1 ). Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University.
  • 16. Valdivia, L. (2013). Clipper Program Overview, Presented to Sonoma County Transportation Authority on July 8, 2013.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Oakland, California. Accessed at http://www.sctainfo.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. Transit Agencies for Fare
  • Collection. Los Angeles: UCLA.
  • 18. Yoh, A., Haas, P., & Taylor, B. (2003). Understanding Transit Ridership Growth: Case Studies of Successful Transit
Systems in the 1990s. Transportation Research Record, 1835(1), 111- 120.
  • 19. Yoh, A., Taylor, B., & Gahbauer, J. (2013). Does Transit Mean Business? Reconciling Academic, Organizational, and
Political Perspectives on Variable Transit Fares. Presented at the Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting.

3/5/15

11