Presentation to the AC Transit Board Arielle Fleisher, Senior - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presentation to the AC Transit Board

Arielle Fleisher, Senior Transportation Policy Associate October 10, 2018 Report 18-244

Outline

• 1. How public transit fares work in the Bay Area today
• 2. Why simplify and integrate fares?
• 3. What can we learn from other regions?
• 4. Where can we go from here?

What is SPUR? SPUR’s mission is to promote good planning and good government through research, education and advocacy.

• 1. How public transit fares work in

the Bay Area today

4

What is Fare Policy?

The rules defining how much people pay to use public transit.

1. Fare structure – How will the price of a ride be set? 2. Price – What will a full-fare single ride cost? 3. Payment options – How will riders pay: single-ride tickets or daily; will be daily, weekly or monthly capping? 4. Discount categories – Which riders will qualify for a discounted fare, and how much will those discounts be?

How fares are set: Key roles and responsibilities

Transit Agency Boards: Set fare policy. Each transit agency sets their own fare rules and prices. MTC: Manages and oversees the Clipper Fare Payment System; does not set fare policy Clipper Executive Board: Establish goals, a budget and work plan, and provide policy, oversight, direction, and authorization of significant business matters for the Clipper fare payment system.

Our Fare Policy is Disjointed

Multi-operator (integrated) fare policy

Transit operators jointly organizing fare policies so that transferring between operators becomes more affordable or simpler in some way

• 2. Why might we simplify and

integrate fares?

9

• 1. Riders want integrated fares

• 2. Disparate fares make riding transit

confusing

28

In 2017, an average of 28 of AC Transit Clipper rides were financed with the SamTrans to AC Transit transfer

It is hard to understand the price of a ride

SamTrans AC Transit

• 2. Our fare policies penalizes people who

take multi-operator trips

Use of AC Transit and Other Operators, 2017

• 3. Public transportation may be left out
• f the new mobility marketplace

• 4. Our fare policies do not support

integrated planning and station design

Riders struggle to understand what Clipper supports and offers:

• Does Clipper calculate

transfers and discounts?

• Does Clipper work across

systems?

• Does Clipper support cash in

addition to passes?

• 5. Disparate fares limit the usability

and appeal of a fare payment system

Potential Outcomes From Changes to Fare Policy

Improve customer experience Increase trust and and customer satisfaction Improve reliability Save money Grow region-wide transit ridership Optimize use of the Bay Area’s complete transit network Increase transit competitiveness

17

• 3. Examples from Other Regions and

Lessons Learned

18

Lesson 1: Regional Fare Integration is Possible

Seattle’s Puget Pass

• Pay as you go daily and

monthly pass

• The pass works across three
• perators
• Once a rider spends the value
• f a daily or a monthly pass,

he or she won’t have to pay any more that day or month; riders automatically receive savings once they reach the cap

Hop Fastpass: Portland

19

Seattle’s Puget Pass

• Monthly, multi-agency transit pass
• For the price of 36 one-way trips,

riders get unlimited transit at the selected trip value or less

• Larger operators established a

temporary subsidy for smaller

• perators to make the transition to

the regional pass financially feasible

Puget Pass: Seattle

20

Seattle’s Puget Pass

• 11 different transit operators

each set its own fare rules and prices.

• In 2014, initiated a Business

Case for Fare Integration to identify a common fare structure for the region.

• Adopted a step by step

approach beginning with discounts on double fares.

Fare Integration: Greater Toronto Hamilton Area

21

Lesson 2: Reducing Barriers to Transferring Promotes “Complete Journeys”

Seattle’s Puget Pass

22

Lesson 3: Fare Simplification can Boost Transit Ridership

• Transport for London reduced

the fares zones for buses from 6 to 1 and found that new journeys appeared to be made merely because the new fare structure was easier to understand.

• In Barcelona, the sales of

integrated tickets increased by 11.2% in the first full year after integrating fares.

Zone Map, Barcelona Metropolitan Region

Lesson 4: Fare Policy Can be a Tool for Transit Affordability

• Many agencies use “fare

capping” which allows riders to “earn” a day or monthly pass.

• Fare capping gives riders the

access to the savings of a daily, weekly or monthly pass and the security of knowing they will never pay more than a certain amount in a day or month.

• 4. Next Steps: What can we do about it?

25

Clipper 2.0 Provides the Opportunity to Simplify and Coordinate Fares

SPUR’s Solution for Clipper 2.0: Simplify + Coordinate

• 1. Simplify fares before Clipper 2.0 launches.

Opportunities for simplification

• Transfer policies
• Fare products
• Fare categories and their discounts
• Minimum balance requirements
• 2. Coordinate transit operator fares

Opportunities for coordination

• Common fare structure for the region
• Regional accumulator (local bus or inner-core/outer core)
• Multi-agency pass

SPUR’s Vision for Integrated Fare Policy

• Fares are easy for riders to understand, logical and coordinated.
• Fares reflect the quality and value of the service provided,

independent of location or any municipal boundaries.

• Riders experience a common fare structure throughout the region, a

standardized user experience and products based on trips taken— not by agencies used.

28

Considerations

• Even small changes can have many direct and indirect

impacts

• A well-integrated fare system typically evolves over

time

• No single municipality or transit agency can solve this

problem by itself; requires a collaborative and inclusive decision making process

• There are many considerations: Governance and fare

setting responsibility, role of municipalities, stakeholder concerns

Thank you!

Arielle Fleisher afleisher@spur.org