Presentation on research by Berkeley grad students Leshner and Barz - study on Bay Area transit fares

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

2. 10
4-6
5·6
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.
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

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

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

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 • StronglyAgree
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-
operable trips with a single transaction.
• Strongly Disagree • Disagree Neilher Agree or Disagree • Agree • StronglyAgree
. ' ......·:r;,l,{:',• .~. :;~·._,,.~
J ' ' .- • ' • ••
17o/o 25%
N =60
3/5/15
5

6. 14
Results: Attitudes
Q . What entity, if any, should coordinate fares?
,,.
... II 3% 3% 3%
-• ..Coalitionof 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

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

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 --:li3DZIIIi:Z!!B:CZ:Dm:t!:!:!:!:!:lll~ml!:!:!!!!:l
Access to payment technology ••••••••••••••••11111:111111111:::1111
Oo/o 20% 40% 60% 80%
3/5/15
100%
8

9. 17
Results: Barriers
• Very Significant • Moderately Significant • Not Significant n/a
Large number of transit operators ~-------·-----
Large number of 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!ZIrz!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

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

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