The dynamics of fare and frequency choice in urban transit

This paper investigates the choice of fare and service frequency by urban mass transit agencies. A more frequent service is costly to provide but is valued by riders due to shorter waiting times at stops, and faster operating speeds on less crowding vehicles. Empirical analyses in the 1980s found that service frequencies were too high in most of the cities studied. For a given budget constraint, social welfare could be improved by reducing service frequencies and using the money saved to lower fares. The cross-sectional nature of these analyses meant that researchers were unable to address the question of when the oversupply occurred. This paper seeks to answer that question by conducting a time-series analysis of the bus operations of the Chicago Transit Authority from 1953 to 2005. The paper finds that it has always been the case that too much service frequency was provided at too high a fare. The imbalance between fares and service frequency became larger in the 1970s when the introduction of operating subsidies coincided with an increase in the unit cost of service provision.     

Optimal transit subsidy policy

The basic justification for transit subsidy is that such a subsidy is necessary, given substantial economies of scale, in order to permit fares to be set at a level which will result in reasonably efficient use of the service. Efficiency is not, however, merely a matter of the level of the fares but even more of the fare structure and pattern. Major changes in fare patterns are needed to permit reasonable efficiency of utilization to be attained, and full advantage derived from subsidy. Differentiation according to time and direction, as well as the distance of travel, is required. Ideally, competing modes such as the private automobile should be priced at marginal cost, differentially by time and place, and the subsidy should be derived from taxes on land values in the areas where such values are enhanced by the presence of transit service at low fares. In the absence of such conditions, fares should differ from marginal cost in ways that take into account the impacts of transit fare variations on auto traffic and congestion, and on the subsidy requirements and the adverse impacts of the taxes imposed to finance the subsidy.In addition to these economic efficiency considerations there may be added considerations of distributional impact and political acceptability, which may modify the optimal solution somewhat but should not greatly change the main outlines of the patterns to be recommended.     

Time‐of‐day transit pricing: comparative US and international experiences

Experiences with time‐of‐day transit pricing in the U.S. are reviewed in this article and compared to those in other countries. Emphasis is placed on examining ridership, financial and efficiency impacts associated with time‐of‐day pricing, along with highlighting innovative approaches to implementing fare differentials. American time‐of‐day fare structures have been about evenly split between off‐peak discounts, peak‐period surcharges, and programmes involving differential rates of fare increases between peak and off‐peak hours. Although most American operators introduced time‐of‐day differentials to encourage ridership shifts to the off‐peak period, available evidence suggests that they have been only marginally successful in doing so. Off‐peak users were generally found to be far more fare‐sensitive to discounts than peak passengers were to surcharges. Only in a handful of American cities were significant efficiency and financial benefits from time‐of‐day pricing recorded, though in those few places, they tended to be substantial. The most successful American programmes have been those which collect fares on the basis of bus runs and direction of trips (rather than the exact time) and which aggressively market their programmes under the aegis of ‘bargain fares’. It is concluded that useful lessons can be gained by sharing policy insights from experiments with differential transit pricing in both the US and elsewhere.     

Consequences of public ownership and subsidies for mass transit: Evidence from case studies and regression analysis

The trend toward public ownership, public regulation, and public subsidization of the U.S. transit industry has recently come under attack. Many argue that the result has been reduced productivity, increased costs, and very little real benefit. This article examines the impacts of subsidies and public ownership in four large transit systems that cover a range of transit system types and financing arrangements. Evidence from the case studies is compared to the results of both time-series and cross-section regression analysis of operating and financial statistics for large samples of bus systems. Although the case studies and the regressions rely on different datasets and different techniques, they support the same conclusions. Increased subsidies and public ownership have kept down fares and permitted service expansion, but have also encouraged wasteful cost escalation. Thus, transit riders unquestionably have benefited from public takeovers of transit systems and burgeoning subsidies, but not nearly as much as they would have benefited if costs had not skyrocketed at the same time.     

Mass transportation needs and financing in the United States

The U.S. Department of Transportation (1974) recently completed a comprehensive study of mass transportation needs and methods for financing these needs. Using information from the 1974 National Transportation Study, the study determined the level of capital and operating funds that would be required to implement the 1972–90 long-range plans and 1972–80 short-range programs of the states and urbanized areas. It then analyzed various funding mechanisms at state and local levels for financing their portions of these plans and programs.It was found that urban areas, in general, not only plan to stabilize transit fares in the face of rising costs, but also intend to put $ 23.6 billion into capital investments through 1980 and an additional $ 34.6 billion through 1990. Of the total $ 58.2 billion in capital expenditures by 1990, 63% would be expended by the nine largest urbanized areas; 27.8% by the New York area alone. Rail transit and commuter railroad costs would account for 90% of the nine largest urbanized areas.States and localities would be able to carry the financial burden of mass transportation improvements, even if the proposed 1980 programs were implemented in their entirety, given current levels of Federal assistance. However, there would have to be a substantial financial commitment from the states and localities and some hard decisions made by them about public expenditure priorities, fare policies, and taxation levels, and policies to discourage automobile usage. This underscores the need for careful review of their overall plans and programs by state and local officials before making financial commitments.     

Transport system management in San Francisco: an assessment

The paper reports the results of a transportation corridor study. The emphasis in the study is in transportation system management (TSM) policies although some capital intensive alternatives are also considered.

The results suggest that currently popular TSM policies in U.S.A., even when augmented with capital intensive changes, have only marginal impacts on modal choices. These currently popular policies, high occupancy vehicle priority lanes, improved bus and express bus service, increased feeder bus service and so forth, appear to confer benefits to well to do suburbanites but do not improve the transportation of urban dwellers.

Another interesting result is that if user costs were increased to cover the full costs of transportation the transit fares for low income people would increase ten percent and the increase for urban dwellers would be about 20 percent. Interestingly, there would be no change in bus fares for either group. However, for high income travellers and suburbanites the increase in transit fares would be in excess of 100 percent. Thus, the current fare structure is inequitable making the low income people and the urban dwellers to pay a much larger share of their transportation cost than the often well to do suburbanites.     

Does the increase of public transit fares deteriorate air quality in Beijing?

Since 2006, Beijing lowered its public transit fares as a way to improve air quality. However, Beijing increased public transportation fare prices from December 28, 2014, and commuters pay for the distance they traveled rather than a flat fare. This paper explores the effect of Beijing public transit fares increase on air quality. We collect daily data of air pollution and weather variables and use synthetic control method of Abadie and Gardeazabal (2003) to select control units. We then estimate a difference-in-differences model and assess the effect of the policy on air quality index (AQI). We find a 16.28% increase in air pollution in short run. However, we find no longer-run effect on air quality.     

Privatization of urban transit: The Los Angeles jitney experience

This paper reports on a recent attempt to provide private transit in the form of jitney service in downtown Los Angeles. It describes the process undertaken to initiate jitney service and the resultant organization's structure and operation. A survey of jitney passengers provided information on the users and their tripmaking characteristics. A group of loyal jitney riders emerged who patronized the service because of its lower travel times and more personalized atmosphere. This group formed the core of frequent users. The Los Angeles experience is analyzed in terms of the economic feasibility of jitney service and the impact on the financial status of public transit. The public transit agency experienced a slight negative financial impact as a result of the jitney service. Ridership during peak hours declined somewhat but the jitney service was not frequent enough to carry sufficient passengers to allow the transit agency to cut costly peak hour service. This analysis shows that the jitney service ultimately was not an economically successful operation. The factors which would have increased the likelihood of success were increased frequency of service and higher fares, which would have been sustainable if not for unexpected developments in public transit financing. A labor pool willing to work for low wages, high transit use in the central city, relatively high transit fares and the availability of inexpensive vehicles appear to be prerequisites to a successful urban jitney operation.     

Transit passenger response: Short and long term elasticities using time series analysis

This paper investigates the effects of price and service changes on transit ridership. The concept of elasticity is introduced and the traditional methods for estimating elasticities are discussed. In this paper an extra dimension is added by investigating short and long term elasticities. Time series analysis, developed by Box and Jenkins is chosen for the analysis. The Box and Jenkins methodology is applied to a monthly time series of average weekday ridership on the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) rail system. Four categories of explanatory variables are investigated: fare on the CTA rail system, service provided on the CTA rail system, cost of car trips and weather effects. The effects of gas prices and rail service were found to be significant; however the results indicate a twelve month delay before service changes influence ridership. The effect of transit fares was found to be insignificant, indicating that both the short and long term fare elasticities are zero.     

Assessing social equity in distance based transit fares using a model of travel behavior

The goal of this study is to develop and apply a new method for assessing social equity impacts of distance-based public transit fares. Shifting to a distance-based fare structure can disproportionately favor or penalize different subgroups of a population based on variations in settlement patterns, travel needs, and most importantly, transit use. According to federal law, such disparities must be evaluated by the transit agency, but the area-based techniques identified by the Federal Transit Authority for assessing discrimination fail to account for disparities in distances travelled by transit users. This means that transit agencies currently lack guidelines for assessing the social equity impacts of replacing flat fare with distance-based fare structures. Our solution is to incorporate a joint ordinal/continuous model of trip generation and distance travelled into a GIS Decision Support System. The system enables a transit planner to visualize and compare distance travelled and transit-cost maps for different population profiles and fare structures. We apply the method to a case study in the Wasatch Front, Utah, where the Utah Transit Authority is exploring a switch to a distance-based fare structure. The analysis reveals that overall distance-based fares benefit low-income, elderly, and non-white populations. However, the effect is geographically uneven, and may be negative for members of these groups living on the urban fringe.     

Flat versus differentiated transit pricing: What's a fair fare?

Virtually every U.S. bus system today charges its customers flat fares. Recent trends, however, suggest that passengers are traveling farther and proportionally more during peak hours, factors which have contributed toward transit's cost spiral. As deficits continue to soar and available funding tightens, current pricing rationales must be seriously questioned. This paper assesses the efficiency and equity impacts of three California transit agencies' fare structures. Short-distance, off-peak patrons are found to heavily cross-subsidize long-haul commuters. Fares differentiated by distance and time-of-day, in contrast, could improve the transit industry's fiscal posture while eliminating differences in payment rates. Barriers to their implementation remain formidable, however, both in terms of current fare collection capabilities and political acceptability.     

Transit competitiveness in polycentric metropolitan regions

This paper analyzes the potential to, and impacts of, increasing transit modal split in a polycentric metropolitan area – the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania region. Potential transit riders are preselected as those travelers whose trips begin and end in areas with transit-supportive land uses, defined as “activity centers,” areas of high-density employment and trip attraction. A multimodal traffic assignment model is developed and solved to quantify the generalized cost of travel by transit services and private automobile under (user) equilibrium conditions. The model predicts transit modal split by identifying the origin–destination pairs for which transit offers lower generalized cost. For those origin–destination pairs for which transit does not offer the lowest generalized cost, I compute a transit competitiveness measure, the ratio of transit generalized cost to auto generalized cost. The model is first formulated and solved for existing transit service and regional pricing schemes. Next, various transit incentives (travel time or fare reductions, increased service) and auto disincentives (higher out of pocket expenses) are proposed and their impacts on individual travel choices and system performance are quantified. The results suggest that a coordinated policy of improved transit service and some auto disincentives is necessary to achieve greater modal split and improved system efficiency in the region. Further, the research finds that two levels of coordinated transit service, between and within activity centers, are necessary to realize the greatest improvements in system performance.     

Integrating congestion pricing,transit subsidies and mode choice

We model and analyze optimal (welfare maximizing) prices and design of transport services in a bimodal context. Car congestion and transit design are simultaneously introduced and consumers choose based on the full price they perceive. The optimization variables are the congestion toll, the transit fare (and hence the level of subsidies) and transit frequency. We obtain six main results: (i) the optimal car-transit split is generally different from the total cost minimizing one; (ii) optimal congestion and transit price are interdependent and have an optimal frequency attached; (iii) the optimal money price difference together with the optimal frequency yield the optimal modal split; (iv) if this modal split is used in traditional stand-alone formulations – where each mode is priced independently–resulting congestion tolls and transit subsidies and fares are consistent with the optimal money price difference; (v) self-financing of the transport sector is feasible; and (vi) investment in car infrastructure induces an increase in generalized cost for all public transport users.     

Future use of stage bus services

The reasons underlying the decline of stage bus services in the U.K. over the past 30 years seem to be well understood, and the probable future trends have been projected using a quantitative forecasting model. The model considers U.K. bus services at a very aggregate level, but it breaks the demand into specific user groups: work trips, children's travel, travel by the elderly, and all other travel, and separately for households with and without a private car. Forecasts depend very sensitively on the level of economic growth assumed, since this governs the two major factors which determine public transport use — car ownership and the cost of operating the services. If the economy could recover its historic growth rates, a further substantial decline in bus use seems inevitable under most realistic assumptions. However, with the present economic outlook, a lower growth rate seems likely to persist for some time, and in this case public transport use will become much more stable in the 1990's; a tendency which would be helped if there were large increases in fuel prices. Many of the Metropolitan Counties have adopted policies of strongly restraining future rises in fares, in some cases to the extent of freezing fares in monetary terms. The effects of such policies on both patronage and subsidies are considered here, and although much of the current political attention is focussed on controlling fares, the question of balance between fares and service levels is also discussed. Lastly, it must be admitted that these predictions are based on knowledge which is largely restricted to the short-term effects of transport policies. The nature of our uncertainty about longer-term effects, and the possible size of them, is considered in terms of sensitivity-testing of the prediction model.     

Transit fare differentials: A theoretical analysis

This paper compares the ridership. operator revenue, passenger-km, and consumer surplus in uniform pricing policy versus the differential fare pricing system. The comparisons are assumed that the flat fare is set equal to average differential fares. With mathematical derivation, the paper investigates some of the properties of fare differentiation and discusses characteristics of a general nature. The theoretical results have spelled out the conditions under which pricing policy may yield higher performances. A simple numerical example is used to demonstrate the sensitivity of the model. Some recommendations for setting transit pricing policy are drawn from the results.     

The impact of fare and gasoline price changes on monthly transit ridership: Empirical evidence from seven U.S. transit authorities

This paper presents eight empirical models of monthly ridership for seven U.S. Transit Authorities. Within the framework of these models, the impacts upon monthly ridership from changes in the real fare and gasoline prices are examined. Important findings are: (1) the elasticities of monthly transit ridership with respect to the real fare are negative and inelastic, ranging from 0.042 to 0.62; and (2) the elasticities of monthly transit ridership with respect to the real gasoline price are positive and inelastic, ranging from 0.08 to 0.80. Such results have important policy implications for decisions based on the relationships of price, revenue, and ridership; and for assessing the impacts of changing gasoline prices upon urban modal choice.     

Local public support for an innovative transit system

Little is known about the sources of public support for transit systems even though the perceptions of transit users and potential users have been extensively documented. Research reported here examines dimensions of public support for the first U.S. downtown people mover during three critical phases in the system's life: construction, shakedown, and operations. The method employed was a community sample survey with home interviews. Data analysis showed that the public—who were virtually all nonusers—were largely favorable toward the system during the construction phase. During the shakedown phase, when system reliability was extremely low, many attitudes toward the system became less favorable, especially perceptions of performance and direct community impacts. Later, reliability improved, and attitudes which had become less favorable tended to grow more favorable once again. It is suggested that a system's performance can influence many aspects of public support for a transit system, even among nonusers. This pattern has implications for system planners who must depend on public good will for continuing support of transit systems. In particular, extensive pretesting of new systems should occur before the fare gates are opened to patrons.     

The cost of equity: Assessing transit accessibility and social disparity using total travel cost

Social equity is increasingly incorporated as a long-term objective into urban transportation plans. Researchers use accessibility measures to assess equity issues, such as determining the amount of jobs reachable by marginalized groups within a defined travel time threshold and compare these measures across socioeconomic categories. However, allocating public transit resources in an equitable manner is not only related to travel time, but also related to the out-of-pocket cost of transit, which can represent a major barrier to accessibility for many disadvantaged groups. Therefore, this research proposes a set of new accessibility measures that incorporates both travel time and transit fares. It then applies those measures to determine whether people residing in socially disadvantaged neighborhoods in Montreal, Canada experience the same levels of transit accessibility as those living in other neighborhoods. Results are presented in terms of regional accessibility and trends by social indicator decile. Travel time accessibility measures estimate a higher number of jobs that can be reached compared to combined travel time and cost measures. However, the degree and impact of these measures varies across the social deciles. Compared to other groups in the region, residents of socially disadvantaged areas have more equitable accessibility to jobs using transit; this is reflected in smaller decreases in accessibility when fare costs are included. Generating new measures of accessibility combining travel time and transit fares provides more accurate measures that can be easily communicated by transportation planners and engineers to policy makers and the public since it translates accessibility measures to a dollar value.     

A study of rail demand in a two‐tier fares environment

A method based on logit analysis is suggested for predicting the effects on patronage and revenue of relative changes in peak and offpeak fares. The method also permits the ready estimation of consequent changes in service profitability. Data was collected specifically for this study from British Rail's Teesside corridor to achieve model calibration. Results show the extent to which demand in peak and offpeak fare‐periods is complementary when fare restrictions are applied only to the morning peak.     

Impact evaluation of a mass transit fare change on demand and revenue utilizing smart card data

Transit fares are an effective tool for demand management. Transit agencies can raise revenue or relieve overcrowding via fare increases, but they are always confronted with the possibility of heavy ridership losses. Therefore, the outcome of fare changes should be evaluated before implementation. In this work, a methodology was formulated based on elasticity and exhaustive transit card data, and a network approach was proposed to assess the influence of distance-based fare increases on ridership and revenue. The approach was applied to a fare change plan for Beijing Metro. The price elasticities of demand for Beijing Metro at various fare levels and trip distances were tabulated from a stated preference survey. Trip data recorded by an automatic fare collection system was used alongside the topology of the Beijing Metro system to calculate the shortest path lengths between all station pairs, the origin–destination matrix, and trip lengths. Finally, three fare increase alternatives (high, medium, and low) were evaluated in terms of their impact on ridership and revenue. The results demonstrated that smart card data have great potential with regard to fare change evaluation. According to smart card data for a large transit network, the statistical frequency of trip lengths is more highly concentrated than that of the shortest path length. Moreover, the majority of the total trips have a length of around 15 km, and these are the most sensitive to fare increases. Specific attention should be paid to this characteristic when developing fare change plans to manage demand or raise revenue.