HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/08/2012 - TRANSFORT FARE STRUCTURE, FUNDING AGREEMENTS AND MDATE: May 8, 2012
STAFF: Kurt Ravenschlag
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Transfort Fare Structure, Funding Agreements and MAX Introductory Period.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff is seeking direction from City Council on whether or not it would like to see changes to the
Transfort fare structure. In order for Transfort to keep pace with rising expenses and to attain its
targeted revenue recovery rate of 20% for fares, passes, and funding agreements, Transfort evaluated
three options against the status quo for Council consideration (status quo, increase, decrease, or
hybrid). Transfort has not altered its rate structure for either fares or passes since 2004, but has
adjusted its agreements in the last three years (e.g., with Associated Students of Colorado State
University). Since 2004, the Mountain States Regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) has increased
over 17%. Transfort will continue to review its fare structure every two years in conjunction with
the City budget cycle.
Transfort and City management reviewed the Transfort fare structure in 2006 when the Dial-A-Ride
service was adjusted to ADA minimum service levels. Management decided that a fare increase was
not warranted at that time as the goal was to shift senior and disabled customers, who are able to
access the fixed route system, to the less costly service ($2.42 per fixed route trip compared to $25
per Dial-A-Ride trip). Since that adjustment in 2006, ridership on Dial-A-Ride has decreased by
56%, while senior and disabled ridership increased by 54% on fixed route service. The cost savings
of providing the senior and disabled trips by the less costly fixed route service has had a cumulative
savings of $4.3 million of additional expenses if the service had been provided by Dial-A-Ride.
Transfort staff is also seeking direction regarding an introductory fare-free period for the MAX
service planned to begin in May 2014. Many transit agencies across the country have offered initial
fare-free service to help promote a new service and provide an opportunity for citizens to learn the
procedures of riding.
The implementation of MAX presents an opportunity to attract new riders to the system. Transfort
is seeking direction on whether or not Council would like to offer a fare-free period on the MAX
service. Three options have been evaluated for Council consideration: fare-free service from May
– December 2014; fare-free service from May – July 2014; or no fare-free period.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. The Transfort fare structure has not been amended since 2004. Based on targeted recovery
rates and elasticity evaluations, does Council support amending the current fare structure
(options evaluated include: fare increase, decrease, status quo and a hybrid option)?
May 8, 2012 Page 2
2. What are Council’s thoughts on pursuing a fare-free period to introduce the new MAX
service that is planned to begin May 2014 (alternatives evaluated include a seven month and
three month fare-free period)?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Transfort’s fare structure accounts for standard, prepaid and discounted fares which are collected
through fares (single rides and passes) and funding agreements (bulk passes). The revenue generated
from fares and agreements is just one part of Transfort’s operating revenue. In 2011, revenue from
agreements and fares accounted for $970,000 or 18.2% of Transfort's operating expenses.
Transfort staff developed three options to evaluate a comparison to the existing fare structure using
an industry accepted elasticity model that has been calibrated to the Fort Collins community. The
first option evaluates the effects of a 20% increase in fares, passes, and funding agreements. The
second option evaluates a 20% decrease in fares, passes, and funding agreements. The third and final
option evaluates the effects of a 20% increase to only the fare categories that are currently not
meeting a 20% fare recovery. The fare categories currently not meeting a 20% fare recovery include
the CSU semester pass (for part-time CSU students); the adult monthly pass; the annual senior and
disabled passes; Passfort (an employer-based program that allows local employers to purchase
annual Transfort bus passes at a “bulk rate”); and youth ridership. Youth ridership is funded through
an annual Bohemian Foundation grant that equates to 9% revenue recovery per youth trip.
Table 1: Elasticity Analysis of Three Fare Structure Options
Current Fare Structure 20% Increase in
Fares/Agreements
20% Decrease in
Fares/Agreements
Hybrid Option
Total Ridership 1,919,137 1,888,576 1,949,698 1,898,316
Change from
Current
0 -30,561 30,561 -20,821
Total Revenue $967,906 $1,138,886 $795,473 $1,006,166
Change from
Current
0 $169,180 -$172,433 $38,260
Revenue Recovery 18.2% 21.50% 14.9% 18.9%
If City Council provides direction to make changes to the existing Transfort fare structure, staff will
begin the federally-required public process and in-depth evaluation of impacts according to the
following general timeline:
May 2012 – August 2012: Refine fare change recommendations and projections and conduct the
following required analysis:
• Assess the effects of the proposed fare change on minority and low-income
populations.
• Assess the alternatives available for people affected by the fare change.
May 8, 2012 Page 3
• Describe and document the actions proposed to minimize, mitigate, or offset any
adverse effects of proposed fare and service changes on minority and low-income
populations.
• Determine which, if any of the proposals under consideration, would have a
disproportionately high adverse effect on minority and low-income riders.
September 2012 – October 2012: Develop a Public Outreach Plan which will also include
specialized outreach for disadvantaged populations.
November 2012 – January 2013: Transfort will hold a public meeting to receive oral and written
comments regarding the proposed fare changes. A minimum 14-day notice of this meeting will be
provided via publication in the City’s newspaper of record. The notice includes the time and location
of the public meeting; a summary of proposed language; specifies the address where written
comments can be mailed; and informs the public of alternative formats available to assist in this
public process. The meeting would be scheduled at least 30 days prior to any fare increases being
implemented. The recommended fare change along with the comments from the public meeting
would then be presented to City Council for an amendment to the existing Transfort fare structure.
Introductory Period for MAX Service
Transfort staff is also seeking direction regarding an introductory fare-free period for the MAX
service planned to begin in May 2014. Many transit agencies across the country have offered initial
fare-free service to help promote a new service and provide an opportunity for people to learn the
procedures of riding.
The implementation of MAX presents an opportunity to attract new riders to the system. Transfort
is seeking direction on whether City Council would like to offer a fare-free period on the MAX
service. Three options have been evaluated for Council consideration: fare-free service from May
– December 2014, fare-free service from May – July 2014, or no fare-free period.
Current ridership projections of approximately 4,000 trips per day were estimated for opening year
of MAX service. However, over 90% of all trips on MAX will be pre-paid through passes, the
ASCSU agreement, and the Bohemian Foundation grant. Therefore, 10% of daily trips on MAX are
expected to pay a single ride fare, which amounts to $79,108 over the eight month period of May
through December. Table 2 below illustrates the effects of 10% of the expected opening year MAX
ridership paying full-fare, fare-free May through December 2014, and fare-free May through July
2014.
May 8, 2012 Page 4
Table 2: Effects of Fare Free Service to MAX’s Revenue Recovery and Ridership
MAX Projections based
on full fare payment*
Impact of May –
December Fare Free
Period*
Impact of May – July
Fare Free Period **
Total MAX Ridership
– Single Ride*** 53,457 66,822 58,803
Variance from full
fare payment - +13,365 +5,346
Total MAX
Revenue – Single
Ride***
$79,108 - $41,014
Variance from full
fare payment - -$79,108 -$38,094
Revenue Recovery
– Single Ride
Fares
47% 0 22%
*Data represents May through December of 2014
**Data represents May through July fare free and August – December regular fare
***Single Ride accounts for both $1.25 adult fare and $0.60 senior and disabled single ride
fares
NOTE: Minimal projected impact on pass sales
ATTACHMENTS
1. Transfort Fare Analysis
2. Draft Transportation Board Minutes from April 18, 2012
3. Powerpoint presentation
1
ATTACHMENT 1
Transfort Fare Analysis
Transfort has not implemented a fare change since 2004, and since that time the
Mountain States Region Consumer Price Index (CPI) has increased over 17%. In order
for Transfort to keep pace with rising expenses and to attain its targeted revenue recovery
rate of 20% for fares, passes and funding agreements, Transfort is reviewing three
options to the current fare structure. The three options currently being reviewed are 1) a
20% increase to all fares and agreements; 2) a 20% decrease to all fares and agreements;
and 3) an option which increases select categories that are not meeting a 20% revenue
recovery.
The current Transfort fare strategy consists of a Flat Fare system, which is the simplest
and most common fare strategy used in the transit industry. Transfort combines this
strategy with several prepaid fare options. Transfort’s current fares are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Current Transfort Fare Structure
Fare Type
Current Fare /
Agreement
2011
Ridership
Percentage of
Ridership 2011 Revenue
Revenue
Per Trip
Adult Single Ride $ 1.25 122,889 6.28% $ 190,370 $ 1.55
Senior Single Ride $ 0.60 7,662 0.39% $ 4,597 $ 0.60
Disabled Single Ride $ 0.60 2,015 0.10% $ 1,209 $ 0.60
CSU Semester $ 25.00 8,181 0.42% $ 2,900 $ 0.35
10 Ride Booklet $ 9.00 28,761 1.47% $ 18,311 $ 0.64
Monthly Pass $ 25.00 163,584 8.36% $ 63,988 $ 0.39
Annual Senior $ 25.00 77,667 3.97% $ 9,550 $ 0.12
Annual Disabled $ 25.00 251,128 12.83% $ 17,775 $ 0.07
Adult Annual $ 154.00 28,582 1.46% $ 15,708 $ 0.55
Passfort $ 50.00 193,483 9.89% $ 46,100 $ 0.24
Day Pass $ 3.00 2,183 0.11% $ 1,398 $ 0.64
ASCSU Agreement $ 536,000 728,773 37.24% $ 536,000 $ 0.74
Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 60,000 304,229 15.55% $ 60,000 $ 0.20
TRANSFORT - FARE STRUCTURE AND RIDERSHIP
Notes: Senior and Disabled Single Ride fares are required by Federal law to have a 50% discount from the
Adult Single Ride fare.
Revenue per Trip depicts the average fare customers pay per trip within each fare type. Adult Single
Riders often do not have exact change; therefore, the average fare paid comes out to be more than
the Adult Single Ride fare. This calculation also breaks down passes and funding agreements to
determine the average fare, which as calculated by the funding agreement total, divided by the total
number of riders within that fare type.
Two Fare Categories are funded through Funding Agreements:
Youth passengers: An annual grant of $60,000 is awarded to Transfort by the
Bohemian Foundation and 304,229 youth rides were provided in 2011.
o Average Youth Fare = $0.20
2
CSU students: A funding agreement is established tri-annually between
Transfort and Associated Students of CSU (ASCSU). In 2011, Transfort
received $536,000 from ASCSU in return for unlimited ridership for eligible
CSU students, which accounted for 728,773 trips, or 37% of Transfort’s total
ridership in 2011.
o Average CSU Student Fare = $0.74
Transfort’s last major fare increase occurred in 2004 when the standard fare increased by
25%, the monthly pass increased by over 30%, the 10-ride booklet increased by 29%, and
the senior and disabled pass increased by 31%. Two years following these fare changes
the ridership in the single ride category decreased by 10%, monthly pass ridership
decreased by 29%, there was no change in ridership to the 10-ride booklet, and a 27%
increase in ridership to the senior and disabled pass category even though the fare
increased by 31%. During this same period the passfort ridership increased by 56%,
passfort is an employer-based program that allows employers to purchase annual
Transfort bus passes at a “bulk rate” and in turn provide or sell them to their employees.
As you can see there is not always a direct correlation between fare changes and
ridership, which makes the science of predicting the elasticity of fares to ridership
somewhat difficult. In conducting our analysis Transfort utilized an industry accepted
elasticity model integrated with historical data from Transfort.
Objectives
In conducting the analysis of the three fare change options being presented it is important
to not lose sight of the customer and Transfort’s objectives in fare collection. The
following list outlines Transfort’s objectives as it relates to fare collection:
To promote fixed-route ridership by making fare structure attractive to users
To improve the farebox recovery ratio
To improve the efficiency of fare collection
To promote the equity of fare payment among riders
To ensure cash handling procedures are as streamlined and as secure as possible
As Staff determined fare prices to analyze, it was important to consider standard currency
amounts, i.e. decreasing the $0.60 senior fare to $0.50 rather than the actual 20%
reduction which would be $0.48. It is preferable to minimize the number of coins and/or
bills that a passenger must handle both as a convenience to passengers as well as to speed
the boarding process. For instance, the current $0.60 senior single ride fare requires two
coins. A fare decrease of exactly 20% to $0.48, would require six coins (a quarter, two
dimes and three pennies), while a decrease to $0.50 only requires two coins.
In addition, prepaid fares (discounted passes and agreements) on the fixed-route system
should be encouraged as it meets Transfort Fare Collection Objectives in the following
way:
Guarantees ridership and revenue by the customer
Reduces the chance of non-payment of fares and reduces the amount of cash in
the fareboxes, thus reducing cash handling expenses
3
Allows Transfort to more easily track its ridership base and target its marketing
effort accordingly
Accelerates boarding times
Encourages increased ridership as the cost of the ride is not required at the time
the decision to take the ride is made
Analysis
Fare elasticity refers to the increase or decrease in ridership when a change in fare price
occurs. Data from research in this field is mixed but generally, the transit industry accepts
the Simpson-Curtin fare “mid-point elasticity” equation:
RA = RB x (FA/FB)E
Where:
RA = Ridership after Fare Change
RB = Ridership before Fare Change
FA = Fare after the Fare Change
FB = Fare before the Fare Change
E = Elasticity Value
The Elasticity Value has a negative sign reflecting the fact that ridership tends to decrease
as fares increase. The value applied for “E” is based upon the change in transit ridership
that has been observed in peer transit systems and the value being analyzed.
Many transit studies have argued that any estimates in fare elasticity must also take into
account the size of the service area, the cost of alternative transportation, frequency of
service, ease of use, time of service (peak or off-peak), number of transfers, age of the
passengers, trip purpose, and countless other criteria. In short, they argue that one model
does not necessarily fit all. For example, in a large city like San Francisco, elasticity of
demand is significantly lower than average because it is much more difficult to travel by
automobile compared to a smaller community. In this situation, San Francisco residents
would be less inclined to abandon transit in the event of a fare increase than in a smaller
urban area, like Fort Collins, where it is easier to travel by automobile.
Though research surrounding transit fare elasticity levels are mixed, it appears that every
transit location has its own unique characteristics when it comes to service. However, it
does seem that certain findings are common to all:
Elasticities for fare increases do not differ from those for fare decreases
Small cities are more elastic than large cities
Short-distance trips are more elastic than long-distance trips
Fare elasticities rise with income and fall with age
Of all trip purposes, the work trip is the most inelastic
Ridership is more responsive to improvement in headways than in-vehicle
time
4
For the purposes of this analysis, Transfort proposes a dual-tier approach to assigning
elasticity levels: projected elasticity of 3% (Simpson-Curtain model) for single ride fares
and projected elasticity of 1.5% for each of the discounted pass types - the hypothesis
being that passes are less elastic and that ridership will not be as negatively affected as
industry statistics dictate.
Peer Review
Staff has compared Transfort fares against other peer transit agencies within Northern
Colorado, as these areas tend to have similar costs of living and socioeconomic statuses.
Transfort currently charges less for each of its fare categories than the average price of its
peers across the same fare categories as seen in Table 2.
Table 2: Fare Structure Peer Analysis
FIXED ROUTE
FORT
COLLINS LOVELAND GREELEY
DENVER
(Min. Zones)
COLORADO
SPRINGS PUEBLO
PEER
AVERAGE
$ VARIANCE TO
FT. COLLINS
Single Ride $ 1.25 $ 1.25 $ 1.50 $ 2.25 $ 1.75 $ 1.00 $ 1.55 $ 0.30
Seniors (60+) $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.75 $ 1.10 $ 0.85 $ 0.50 $ 0.76 $ 0.16
Disabled & Medicare $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.75 $ 1.10 $ 0.85 $ 0.50 $ 0.76 $ 0.16
Youth (17 and younger) Free $ 0.50 $ 0.75 $ 1.10 $ 0.85 $ 0.75 $ 0.79 $ 0.59
Day Pass $ 3.00 $ 4.50 $ 3.00 $ 3.75 $ 0.75
Transfers Free Free $ 0.25 Free Free Free N/A N/A
10 Ride Booklet $ 9.00 N/A N/A $ 20.00 N/A N/A $ 20.00 $ 10.00
Monthly Pass $ 25.00 $ 30.00 $ 50.00 $ 79.00 $ 63.00 $ 35.00 $ 51.40 $ 26.40
Annual Senior $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 434.50 N/A N/A $ 161.50 $ 136.50
Annual Disabled & Medicare $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 434.50 N/A N/A $ 161.50 $ 136.50
Adult Annual $ 154.00 $ 180.00 $ 869.00 $ 524.50 $ 370.50
Fare data taken directly fom Peer Group websites - 1/9/2012
TRANSFORT PEER REVIEW (COLORADO)
In conducting this fare change analysis, Transfort developed three options to evaluate in
comparison to the existing fare structure. The first option evaluates the effects of a 20%
increase in fares, passes, and funding agreements. The second option evaluates a 20%
decrease in fares, passes, and funding agreements. The third and final option evaluates
the effects of a 20% increase to the fare categories that are currently not meeting a 20%
fare recovery. The fare categories currently not meeting a 20% fare recovery are the CSU
semester pass (for part-time CSU students), the monthly pass, the annual senior and
disabled passes, passfort, and youth ridership. Youth ridership is funded through an
annual Bohemian Foundation grant that equates to 9% revenue recovery per youth trip.
The 2011 ridership distribution and revenue recovery per fare category can be seen in
Figures 1 and 2.
5
6
Figure 1: 2011 Ridership Distributions by Fare Category
6.40%
0.40% 0.10% 0.43%
1.50%
8.52%
4.05%
13.09%
1.49%
10.08%
0.11%
37.97%
15.85%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Adult
Single Ride
Senior
Single Ride
Disabled
Single Ride
CSU
Semester
10 Ride
Booklet
Monthly
Pass
Annual
Senior
Annual
Disabled
Adult
Annual
Passfort Day Pass ASCSU
Agreement
Bohemian
Foundation
Grant
% RIDERSHIP BY FARE CATEGORY
7
Figure 2: 2011 Revenue Recoveries by Fare Category
% REVENUE RECOVERY PER FARE CATEGORY
64.01%
24.79%
14.65% 16.16%
5.08%
2.92%
22.71%
9.85%
26.46%
30.43%
8.15%
24.79%
26.31%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Adult Single
Ride
Senior
Single Ride
Disabled
Single Ride
CSU
Semester
10 Ride
Booklet
Monthly
Pass
Annual
Senior
Annual
Disabled
Adult
Annual
Passfort Day Pass ASCSU
Agreement
Bohemian
Foundation
Grant
8
Option 1: 20% Increase in Fares
Table 3 illustrates the elasticity of ridership with a general 20% increase in fares. This
alternative reduces ridership by 30,561 passengers per year, but revenue is increased by
$169,180 annually.
Table 3: Effects of 20% increase in Fare Price to Transfort’s Revenue and Ridership
Fare Type Current Fare New Fare
Ridership Change
Per 20% Fare
Change
Revised
Revenue
Recovery
Addition or
(Decrease) in
Revenue
Adult Single Ride $ 1.25 $ 1.50 -7,373 75.13% $ 19,662
Senior Single Ride $ 0.60 $ 0.75 -460 30.99% $ 805
Disabled Single Ride $ 0.60 $ 0.75 -121 30.99% $ 212
CSU Semester $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -245 17.58% $ 476
10 Ride Booklet $ 9.00 $ 11.00 -863 32.15% $ 3,398
Monthly Pass $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -4,908 19.40% $ 10,494
Annual Senior $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -2,330 6.10% $ 1,566
Annual Disabled $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -7,534 3.51% $ 2,915
Adult Annual $ 154.00 $ 185.00 -857 27.28% $ 2,596
Passfort $ 50.00 $ 60.00 -5,804 11.81% $ 7,560
Day Pass $ 3.00 $ 3.75 -65 33.08% $ 297
ASCSU Agreement $ 536,000 $ 643,200 No Change 36.47% $ 107,200
Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 60,000 $ 72,000 No Change 9.78% $ 12,000
Totals - Fare Categories & Agreements -30,561 21.50% $ 169,180
EFFECTS OF 20% INCREASE IN FARE PRICE TO TRANSFORT'S REVENUE & RIDERSHIP
9
Option 2: 20% Reduction in Fares
Table 4 illustrates the elasticity of ridership with a general 20% reduction in fares. This
alternative, as opposed to increasing fares, increases ridership by 30,561, but decreases
revenue by $172,433 annually.
Table 4: Effects of 20% Decrease in Fare Price to Transfort’s Revenue and Ridership
Fare Type Current Fare New Fare
Ridership Change
Per 20% Fare
Change
Revised
Revenue
Recovery
Addition or
(Decrease) in
Revenue
Adult Single Ride $ 1.25 $ 1.00 7,373 52.98% $ (23,349)
Senior Single Ride $ 0.60 $ 0.50 460 20.66% $ (536)
Disabled Single Ride $ 0.60 $ 0.50 121 20.66% $ (141)
CSU Semester $ 25.00 $ 20.00 245 13.55% $ (136)
10 Ride Booklet $ 9.00 $ 7.00 863 18.36% $ (5,148)
Monthly Pass $ 25.00 $ 20.00 4,908 11.68% $ (16,358)
Annual Senior $ 25.00 $ 20.00 2,330 4.60% $ (647)
Annual Disabled $ 25.00 $ 20.00 7,534 2.51% $ (2,093)
Adult Annual $ 154.00 $ 125.00 857 20.13% $ (1,367)
Passfort $ 50.00 $ 40.00 5,804 8.89% $ (3,225)
Day Pass $ 3.00 $ 2.50 65 21.43% $ (232)
ASCSU Agreement $ 536,000 $ 428,800 No Change 24.31% $ (107,200)
Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 60,000 $ 48,000 No Change 6.52% $ (12,000)
Totals - Fare Categories & Agreements 30,561 14.90% $ (172,433)
EFFECTS OF 20% DECREASE IN FARE PRICE TO TRANSFORT'S REVENUE & RIDERSHIP
10
Option 3: Hybrid Alternative
The Hybrid Alternative proposes a 20% increase in fare categories based on their current
ability to meet the preferred 20% revenue recovery rate. Table 5 illustrates the following
individual fare categories that were increased in this alternative; all other fare category
rates were left as they are currently:
Table 5: Fare Categories that fall below 20% Revenue Recovery
Fare Category Current Fare Proposed Fare
CSU Semester $25 $30
Monthly Pass $25 $30
Annual Senior Pass $25 $30
Annual Disabled Pass $25 $30
Passfort $50 $75
Bohemian Foundation Grant $60,000 $72,000
Table 6 describes the elasticity of ridership based on the hybrid alternative fare changes.
This alternative is a more middle ground approach as it decreases ridership less than the
general 20% increase, of only 20,821, but produces a less desirable revenue amount of
$38,260.
Table 6: Effects of Targeted 20% increases in Fare Price to Transfort’s Revenue and
Ridership
Fare Type Current Fare New Fare
Ridership Change
Per 20% Fare
Change
Revised
Revenue
Recovery
Addition or
(Decrease) in
Revenue
Adult Single Ride $ 1.25 $ 1.25 64.01% $ -
Senior Single Ride $ 0.60 $ 0.60 24.79% $ -
Disabled Single Ride $ 0.60 $ 0.60 24.79% $ -
CSU Semester $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -245 15.76% $ 127
10 Ride Booklet $ 9.00 $ 9.00 26.31% $ -
Monthly Pass $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -4,908 20.63% $ 15,243
Annual Senior $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -2,330 5.57% $ 603
Annual Disabled $ 25.00 $ 30.00 -7,534 3.35% $ 1,950
Adult Annual $ 154.00 $ 154.00 22.71% $ -
Passfort $ 50.00 $ 75.00 -5,804 11.99% $ 8,337
Day Pass $ 3.00 $ 3.00 26.46% $ -
ASCSU Agreement $ 536,000 $ 536,000 No Change 30.39% $ -
Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 60,000 $ 72,000 No Change 9.78% $ 12,000
Totals - Fare Categories & Agreements -20,821 18.90% $ 38,260
EFFECTS OF HYBRID CHANGES TO FARES ON TRANSFORT'S REVENUE & RIDERSHIP
11
Introductory Period for MAX Service – Background/Analysis
Current MAX ridership projections of approximately 4,000 trips per day were estimated
for opening year of MAX service. However, over 90% of all trips on MAX will be pre-
paid through passes, the ASCSU agreement, and the Bohemian Foundation grant.
Therefore, 10% of daily trips on MAX are expected to pay a single ride fare, which
amounts to $79,108 over the eight month period of May through December. Table 2
below illustrates the effects of 10% of the expected opening year MAX ridership paying
full-fare, fare-free May through December 2014, and fare-free May through July 2014.
Table 2: Effects of Fare Free Service to MAX’s Revenue Recovery and Ridership
MAX Projections
based on full fare
payment*
Impact of May –
December Fare
Free Period*
Impact of May –
July Fare Free
Period **
Total MAX
Ridership – Single
Ride***
53,457 66,822 58,803
Variance from full
fare payment - +13,365 +5,346
Total MAX
Revenue – Single
Ride***
$79,108 - $41,014
Variance from full
fare payment - -$79,108 -$38,094
Revenue Recovery
– Single Ride Fares 47% 0 22%
* Data represents May through December of 2014
** Data represents May through July fare free and August – December regular fare
*** Single Ride accounts for both $1.25 adult fare and $0.60 senior and disabled single
ride fares
NOTE: Minimal projected impact on pass sales
ATTACHMENT 2
***DRAFT***
MINUTES
of the
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
April 18, 2012
6:00 p.m.
215 North Mason – Community Room
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Garry Steen
420.7557
Vice Chair: Ed Robert
224.4864
Staff Liaison: Mark Jackson
416.2029
Administrative Support: Polly Bennett
221.6601
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Garry Steen, Chair Mark Jackson, Policy, Budget, and Communications Director,
416.2029
Ed Robert, Vice Chair Polly Bennett, PDT Executive Administrative Assistant, 221.6601
Clint Skutchan John Hutto, Police Chief, 221.6553
Olga Duvall Captain Jim Szakmeister, 221.6542
Pat Jordan Kurt Ravenschlag, Interim General Manager, Transfort, 221.6386
Eric Shenk
Sid Simonson
Kevin O’Toole
Shane Miller
ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Councilmember Ben Manvel
Mary Atchison
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Steen called the meeting to order at 6:04p with a quorum present.
2. AGENDA REVIEW
Transfort Staff will move to 2nd on the Agenda. With that change, the agenda was approved.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Jordan moved to accept the March 2012 Board minutes as written. Simonson seconded. The
March minutes were approved unanimously.
5. COUNCIL LIAISON
Councilmember Manvel was unable to attend.
A. Transfort Fare Policy – Kurt Ravenschlag, Interim General Manager & Emma McArdle,
Transit Planner
Action requested: Would the Board like to see changes to the Transfort Fare Structure
(increase, decrease, or hybrid)?
Would the Transportation Board like to see us pursue a free introductory period for MAX
service?
Current Fare Structure:
Fare Type
Current Fare /
Agreement
2011
Ridership
Revenue
Per Trip
Adult Single Ride $ 1.25 122,889 $55 1.
Senior Single Ride $60 0.7,662 $60 0.
Disabled Single Ride $ 0.60 2,015 $60 0.
CSU Semester $ 25.00 8,181 $35 0.
10 Ride Booklet $00 9.28,761 $ 0.64
Monthly Pass $ 25.00 163,584 $39 0.
Annual Senior $ 25.00 77,667 $ 0.12
Annual Disabled $ 25.00 251,128 $07 0.
Adult Annual $ 154.00 28,582 $ 0.55
Passfort $00 50.193,483 $24 0.
Day Pass $00 3.2,183 $64 0.
Dial A Ride $50 2.37,851 $ 3.28
ASCSU Agreement $000 536,728,773 $ 0.74
Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 60,000 304,229 $20 0.
TRANSFORT - FARE STRUCTURE AND RIDERSHIP
Goal: 20% revenue recovery system-wide. Many meet that, but a few fall short.
Flat Fare System: Standard, prepaid and discounted Fares. $1.25 for services.
Funding Agreements: Ram Card average Fare $.074. Youth grant from Bohemian
Foundation average Fare $0.20.
2011 Overall Recovery Rate 18.2%
Fare Collection Objectives:
Promote fixed-route ridership by making fare structure attractive to users.
Improve fare box recovery ration
Improve efficiency of fare collection
Improve equity of fare payment among riders
Ensure cash handling procedures are as streamlined and secure as possible
If a fare increases, what is the impact on ridership? The theory is that an increase in fare
produces a decrease in ridership and a decrease in fare will increase ridership.
History of Fare Changes:
Last increase in 2004
25 – 31% Fare increases
Lack of definitive relationship between Fare change and ridership
2004 – 2005 4.5% increase in total ridership
2004 – 2006 29% decrease in monthly pass ridership
2004 – 2006 27% increase in senior and disabled ridership even with a 31% increase in
Fares
2004 – 2006 56% increase in PassFort ridership
Transfort Fares are below all peer transit agencies in all categories.
Dual-tiered approach to Elasticity. Single ride Fares: 3% E Value. Passes: 1.5% E Value.
Alternatives:
1. 20% increase in Fares and Funding Agreements
2. 20% decrease in Fares and Funding Agreements
3. Hybrid option – increasing Fare categories that are not attaining a 20% Revenue
Recovery (CSU Semester; Monthly Pass; Annual Senior Pass; Annual Disabled Pass;
PassFort; Bohemian Foundation Grant (Youth)
Results by Alternative:
1. -30,561 in ridership +$170,980 in revenue
2. +30,561 increase in ridership; -$172,422 in revenue
3. -20821 in ridership; +$38,260 in revenue
Robert: Did you look at “catch-up” after the first year of a change?
Ravenschlag: Yes. Our ridership in the last few years has continued to increase. The
elasticity equation is based on industry standards and a bit of gut reaction based on our
historical trends, though our data is very limited.
Atchison: Don’t you need to factor in external factors like $4/gallon of gas, etc.
Ravenschlag: Yes. Because of those factors, if gas is $5/gallon we could increase our
fares and still see an increase in ridership.
Current Fare
Structure
20% Increase in
Fares/Agreements
20% Decrease in
Fares/Agreements
Hybrid Option
Total Ridership 1,919,137 1,888,576 1,949,698 1,898,316
Change from Current 0 -30,561 30,561 -20,821
Total Revenue $967,906 $1,138,886 $795,473 $1,006,166
Change from Current 0 $170,980 -$172,433 $38,260
Shenk: Is the 20% increase an industry standard?
Ravenschlag: It is what we determined to be a good target based on industry standards.
Our recovery is better than Loveland, for example. We have the option of leaving our
fares as-is, but needed to examine whether a change is warranted.
Robert: Will MAX blend into this or is that a separate Fare?
Ravenschlag: It will be blended into this, and will give us a higher Recovery rate.
Council will have the option of having that revenue offset subsidies. I would prefer to
offer more service, but that is Council’s decision to make.
Miller: What would it cost us to do the studies on people affected by the change?
Ravenschlag: It would be done in-house by our Transit Planners and Financial
Coordinator.
Atchison: I’m curious how much it would cost to change marketing materials, changes in
signage, outreach, etc.
Ravenschlag: That is a good question. I don’t have an answer right now.
Robert: How long do you recommend the new Fares stay in place?
Ravenschlag: We would like to reevaluate Fares every 5 years. The last time it was
evaluated was 2006 but no changes were made.
Introductory Fare Free Period for MAX?
May 2014 – December 2014
Most agencies introducing a new service offer an introductory fare free period. We can
use it as an opportunity to introduce people to the service and help them learn it.
Based on projections and prorated for 7 months: 773,892 rides on MAX. Increase in
revenue of $390,308.
90% of fares are from pre-paid passes, ASCSU, and the Bohemian Foundation Grant. We
actually see a higher Revenue Recovery Rate offering a free introductory service period.
Skutchan: There is a tendency to make it simple and clean, but “free up to a certain point
in the day” might be an important factor. I’d like to see other options. There seems to be a
benefit to the downtown to partner in the costs of offering a free introductory period. Are
there other models to look at?
Ravenschlag: We have talked to to other agencies about that. I can ask again about other
options to offset the expenses.
Atchison: I would expect Council to ask how you will transition into charging Fares. That
could be a barrier.
Miller: I was wondering about the limited hours free fare period. Wouldn’t that be
challenging?
Ravenschlag: It could be. Some transit agencies have fare free zones. Either way you
have challenges. It is easier from an administrative standpoint to have either a Fare or no
Fare. We can ask Council if they want us to seek out partnerships to cover the loss.
O’Toole: Are there systems that do not offer a fare free period?
Ravenschlag: Yes. We think it is a good thing to consider.
O’Toole: Why such a long free period?
Ravenschlag: Administratively it is an easy option. Eugene, OR had a year long plus free
period.
Simonson: Is that a standard time period? Once you give it away for such a long time it
would be hard to take that away. 3 or 4 months seems fair.
Revenue Recovery 18.2% 21.50% 14.9% 18.9%
Jordan: I suggested that all “Newcomer” seniors be given a free month long Transfort
pass.
O’Toole: What if this backfires and you have too much ridership?
Ravenschlag: That is a good problem to have if you have resources to fix it.
Atchison: Are kids going to be able to ride MAX for free?
Ravenschlag: Because of our Flat Fare system it will be included and not considered a
premium, so yes, they can ride it for free.
Skutchan: Is MAX such a different service that we should consider it a premium service
and put a special Fare system on it? It seems that this is the time to use that as a
conversation with Council.
Miller: I would support anything that maximizes usage of the Transit system and
lowering the cost of transportation systemically.
Atchison: I like the idea of a free time period, but I’m not thrilled about charging youth.
If you can get Bohemian to contribute more, that would be great. I’m curious how we
capture the money of people who are willing to pay more for the service.
O’Toole: I like Clint’s view. I’d like to see it examined for MAX.
Ravenschlag: The challenge we have at Transfort is that my peers in Transportation
Planning, Parking Services, and Engineering do such a good job that it is easy to drive
and park in Fort Collins. The challenge is attracting those riders who wouldn’t normally
use Transfort.
Skutchan: I disagree with Mary, but I think kids should have to pay something, even if it
is just a quarter. Giving it to them for free does nothing to demonstrate the value of the
system. If, as free users, they aren’t converting to paid customers, we aren’t successful.
Shenk: You say there were 304,000 kids who rode last year. Why are that many kids
riding it?
Ravenschlag: That is 304,000 rides. Many don’t have driver’s licenses and we are
convenient. We service all of the schools.
Miller: A lot of the trips the kids are taking on the bus are trips that they wouldn’t have
transportation for because their parents wouldn’t drive them. The bus absorbs some trips
that parents would be driving.
Ravenschlag: We looked at increasing a contribution from the Bohemian Foundation for
youth, instead of a Fare paid by the kids.
Robert: Of the total Transfort budget, what percentage of the total revenue budget are we
talking?
Ravenschlag: 18.2%
Simonson: A 20% increase across the board would result in about an average of $.09
increase per fare category.
McArdle: The 20% increase is approximate. It is $0.25 for a single ride, $0.15 for a
senior ride. We round up to avoid odd change.
Skutchan: Were the increases in 2004 heavy on the passes? Are there models showing a
30% recovery for passes, example? Have other agencies looked at that?
Ravenschlag: Our 20% across the board is just a goal we’ve set. I can’t speak to what
other agencies have done.
Simonson: When does the CSU agreement expire?
Ravenschlag: In a month. We are negotiating now and are looking at a 2-year agreement
instead of a 3-year agreement.
Atchison: I think it would be beneficial to look at raising the price of the passes. It would
help out the disabled and seniors with their fares. A hybrid approach seems best.
Miller: Did the hybrid exempt those?
Ravenschlag: We work with community agencies and sell Ride Assist passes for low
income people. Those agencies often sell them at even a lower cost and sometimes give
them away for free. Employers also provide discounted passes to employees.
Skutchan: Not all seniors are equal from an income standpoint. It seems that it should be
needs based rather than age based. That is an extreme discount.
Ravenschlag: We do hear from seniors and disabled who say they could afford to pay
more. The structure you are seeing is from Council direction.
O’Toole: I would like to see any increase in revenue from Fare revisions go to service
enhancements.
Miller: I move that Transportation Board recommend no fare change based on the
information presented. Duvall seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Atchison: I support the motion, but would like to see a review when MAX comes
online and have that reflected in the letter.
Vote:
The motion passed six to four, with Frazier, Atchison, Duvall, Miller, Robert, and
Steen voting in favor of the motion and Simonson, Skutchan, O’Toole, Shenk
voting against the motion.
Miller: I move that we recommend a free introductory fare period for MAX. O’Toole
seconded the motion.
Discussion:
The majority of the Board would like to see a shorter free introductory period.
Skutchan would like to see more options before giving carte blanche.
The motion passed with Simonson and Skutchan voting against the motion.
10. OTHER BUSINESS
None
11. ADJOURN
The meeting concluded at 9:12p.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Polly Bennett
Executive Administrative Assistant
Planning, Development, & Transportation
1
Transfort Transfort Fare Fare Structure Structure and and Funding Funding
Agreements Agreements
Staff: Kurt Ravenschlag,
Transfort Interim General Manager
City Council Work Session
May 8, 2012
ATTACHMENT 3
2
General General Direction Direction Sought Sought
1. Transfort Fare Structure has not been amended
since 2004. Based on targeted recovery rates and
elasticity evaluations, does Council support
amending the current Fare Structure?
2. What are Council’s thoughts on pursuing a fare free
period to introduce the new MAX service that is
planned to begin May 2014?
ATTACHMENT 3
3
Fare Fare Change Change Process Process
If Council provides direction to change the current fare
structure the following analysis and public outreach will
be conducted:
– May 2012 – August 2012: Conduct analysis of
impacts to minority and low income populations.
– September 2012 – October 2012: Develop a
Public Outreach Plan which will also include
specialized outreach for disadvantaged populations.
– November 2012 – January 2013: Conduct Public
Outreach and Council Action
ATTACHMENT 3
4
Fare Fare Change Change History History
• Last fare change occurred in 2004
• Fare structure was reviewed in 2006 with Dial-A-Ride
service change to ADA minimum requirement
– Fixed Route fares were not adjusted to encourage
senior and disabled ridership on the less costly
fixed route service ($2.42 per fixed route trip
compared to $25 per Dial-A-Ride trip)
ATTACHMENT 3
5
Fare Fare Change Change History History ((cont.cont.) )
• Since the 2006 Dial-A-Ride change to ADA minimum
service:
– Senior and disabled ridership increased 54% on
fixed route.
– Dial-A-Ride ridership decreased by 56%.
– Cumulative savings of $4.3 million of additional
costs from shifting senior and disabled
passengers to less costly fixed route service.
ATTACHMENT 3
6
Senior and Disabled Ridership
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
R idership by Mode
Fixed Route
Ridership
Paratranist
Ridership
Senior Senior and and Disabled Disabled Ridership Ridership
Summary Summary Since Since 2006 2006
ATTACHMENT 3
7
Reason Reason for for Fare Fare Review Review
• Consumer Price Index has increased 17% since 2004
• Current Fare Recovery system-wide is below targeted
20%
• Senior and disabled ridership has shifted to fixed route
service
• Transfort will be reviewing fare structure every two
years in conjunction with the City’s budget cycle
ATTACHMENT 3
8
Transfort’’s Transfort s Current Current Fare Fare Structure Structure
Fare Type
Current Fare /
Agreement
2011
Ridership
Adult Single Ride $25 1.122,889
Senior Single Ride $60 0.7,662
Disabled Single Ride $60 0.2,015
CSU Semester $00 25.8,181
10 Ride Booklet $00 9.28,761
Monthly Pass $00 25.163,584
Annual Senior $00 25.77,667
Annual Disabled $00 25.251,128
Adult Annual $00 154.28,582
Passfort $00 50.193,483
Day Pass $00 3.2,183
ASCSU Agreement $000 536,728,773
Bohemian Foundation Grant $000 60,304,229
TRANSFORT - FARE STRUCTURE AND RIDERSHIP
ATTACHMENT 3
9
Fare Fare Structure Structure Summary Summary
• Flat Fare System, consisting of:
– Standard, prepaid and discounted fares
• Funding Agreements
– RamCard (average Fare $0.74)
– Youth Grant from Bohemian Foundation (average Fare
$0.20)
• 20% Preferred Fare Revenue Recovery
• 2011 Overall Recovery Rate of 18.2% (currently the
highest recovery to date)
ATTACHMENT 3
10
Revenue Recovery per Fare Category
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Adult Single Ride
Senior Single Ride
Disabled Single Ride
CSU Semester
10 Ride Booklet
Monthly Pass
Annual Senior
Annual Disabled
Adult Annual
Passfort
Day Pass
ASCSU Agreement
Bohemian Foundation Grant
Revenue Recovery per Fare Category
ATTACHMENT 3
11
Fare Fare Collection Collection Objectives Objectives
• To promote fixed-route ridership by making fare
structure attractive to users
• To improve the fare box recovery ratio
• To improve the efficiency of fare collection
• To promote the equity of fare payment among riders
• To ensure cash handling procedures are as
streamlined and secure as possible
• To encourage prepaid passes
ATTACHMENT 3
12
Elasticity Elasticity Analysis Analysis
• The decrease or increase in ridership when a change
in fare price occurs.
– In summary:
• Fares ↑ = Ridership ↓
• Fares ↓ = Ridership ↑
• “Mid-point Elasticity” equation
RA = RB x (FA/FB)E
• The E value is adjusted based on the individual
community’s fare change history, size and other
factors such as current pricing.
ATTACHMENT 3
13
History History of of Fare Fare Changes Changes
Last Fare increase occurred in 2004
– 25-31% Fare increases to select fare
categories
– 2004 – 2005: 4.5% increase in Total Ridership
– Transfort determined a lack of definitive
relationship between fare change and ridership
ATTACHMENT 3
14
Peer Peer Review Review
FIXED ROUTE
PEER
AVERAGE
$ VARIANCE TO
FT. COLLINS
Single Ride $ 1.55 $ 0.30
Seniors (60+) $ 0.76 $ 0.16
Disabled & Medicare $ 0.76 $ 0.16
Youth (17 and younger) $ 0.79 $ 0.59
Day Pass $ 3.75 $ 0.75
Transfers N/A N/A
10 Ride Booklet $ 20.00 $ 10.00
Monthly Pass $ 51.40 $ 26.40
Annual Senior $ 161.50 $ 136.50
Annual Disabled & Medicare $ 161.50 $ 136.50
Adult Annual $ 524.50 $ 370.50
Paratransit $ 2.80 $ 0.30
Fare data taken directly fom Peer Group websites - 1/9/2012
TRANSFORT PEER REVIEW (COLORADO)
ATTACHMENT 3
15
Peer Peer Review Review
• Fort Collins currently charges less than the average
of its peer transit agencies in all categories
• The most severe variance occurs in:
– Monthly pass: $26.40 difference
– Youth: $0.59 per fare difference
– Adult Annual: $370.50 or 70% difference
• Senior, Disabled and Adult annual pass types not
widely instituted elsewhere as in Fort Collins
ATTACHMENT 3
16
Fort Fort Collins Collins Elasticity Elasticity
• Dual-tiered Approach to Elasticity
– Single ride Fares: 3% Elasticity Value
– Passes: 1.5% Elasticity Value
• Passes are less elastic than single fares
• Supported by history of fare changes and peer
review
ATTACHMENT 3
17
Three Three Fare Fare Structure Structure Alternatives Alternatives
1. 20% Increase in Fares and Funding Agreements
2. 20% Decrease in Fares and Funding Agreements
3. Hybrid Option – Increasing Fare Categories that are
not attaining 20% Revenue Recovery
– CSU Semester (15%)
– Monthly Pass (17%)
– Annual Senior Pass (5%)
– Annual Disabled Pass (3%)
– Passfort (10%)
– Bohemian Foundation Grant (Youth) (9%)
ATTACHMENT 3
18
Alternative Alternative 1: 1: 20% 20% Increase Increase in in Fares Fares
Fare Type New Fare
Ridership
Change
Addition or
(Decrease)
in Revenue
Adult Single Ride $ 1.50 -7,373 $ 19,662
Senior Single Ride $ 0.75 -460 $ 805
Disabled Single Ride $ 0.75 -121 $ 212
CSU Semester $ 30.00 -245 $ 476
10 Ride Booklet $ 11.00 -863 $ 3,398
Monthly Pass $ 30.00 -4,908 $ 10,494
Annual Senior $ 30.00 -2,330 $ 1,566
Annual Disabled $ 30.00 -7,534 $ 2,915
Adult Annual $ 185.00 -857 $ 2,596
Passfort $ 60.00 -5,804 $ 7,560
Day Pass $ 3.75 -65 $ 297
ASCSU Agreement $ 643,200 No Change $ 107,200
Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 72,000 No Change $ 12,000
Totals - Fare Categories & Agreements -30,561 $ 169,180
ATTACHMENT 3
19
Alternative Alternative 2: 2: 20% 20% Decrease Decrease in in Fares Fares
Fare Type New Fare
Ridership
Change
Addition or
(Decrease)
in Revenue
Adult Single Ride $ 1.00 7,373 $ (23,349)
Senior Single Ride $ 0.50 460 $ (536)
Disabled Single Ride $ 0.50 121 $ (141)
CSU Semester $ 20.00 245 $ (136)
10 Ride Booklet $ 7.00 863 $ (5,148)
Monthly Pass $ 20.00 4,908 $ (16,358)
Annual Senior $ 20.00 2,330 $ (647)
Annual Disabled $ 20.00 7,534 $ (2,093)
Adult Annual $ 125.00 857 $ (1,367)
Passfort $ 40.00 5,804 $ (3,225)
Day Pass $ 2.50 65 $ (232)
ASCSU Agreement $ 428,800 No Change $ (107,200)
Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 48,000 No Change $ (12,000)
Totals - Fare Categories & Agreements 30,561 $ (172,433)
ATTACHMENT 3
20
Alternative Alternative 3: 3: 20% 20% Increase Increase to to select select categories categories
Fare Type New Fare
Ridership
Change
Addition or
(Decrease)
in Revenue
Adult Single Ride $ 1.25 $ -
Senior Single Ride $ 0.60 $ -
Disabled Single Ride $ 0.60 $ -
CSU Semester $ 30.00 -245 $ 127
10 Ride Booklet $ 9.00 $ -
Monthly Pass $ 30.00 -4,908 $ 15,243
Annual Senior $ 30.00 -2,330 $ 603
Annual Disabled $ 30.00 -7,534 $ 1,950
Adult Annual $ 154.00 $ -
Passfort $ 75.00 -5,804 $ 8,337
Day Pass $ 3.00 $ -
ASCSU Agreement $ 536,000 No Change $ -
Bohemian Foundation Grant $ 72,000 No Change $ 12,000
Totals - Fare Categories & Agreements -20,821 $ 38,260
ATTACHMENT 3
21
Elasticity Elasticity Analysis Analysis of of Alternatives Alternatives
Revenue 18.2% 21.5% 14.9% 18.9%
Recovery
Change from 0 $169,180 -$172,433 $38,260
Current
Total $967,906 $1,138,886 $795,473 $1,006,166
Revenue
Change from 0 -30,561 30,561 -20,821
Current
Total 1,919,137 1,888,576 1,949,698 1,898,316
Ridership
20% Hybrid
Decrease
20%
Increase
Current
Structure
Scenarios:
ATTACHMENT 3
22
Introductory Introductory Fare Fare Free Free Period Period for for MAX MAX
What are Council’s thoughts on pursuing a fare free
period to introduce the new MAX service that is
planned to begin May 2014?
• Alternatives evaluated include:
– Seven-month fare free period
– Three-month fare free period
ATTACHMENT 3
23
Rational Rational for for MAX MAX Fare Fare Free Free Period Period
• Common practice amongst transit agencies when
introducing new service
• Helps build and increase base ridership
• Helps to introduce new transit riders to service
without fear of fare procedures
ATTACHMENT 3
24
Introductory Introductory Fare Fare Free Free Period Period For For MAX MAX
*Note: Only includes Single Ride Fares
47% 0 22%
Revenue
Recovery
- - $79,108 - $38,094
Variance from
Full Fare
Payment
$79,108 - $41,014
Total MAX -
Revenue
- + 13,365 + 5,346
Variance from
Full Fare
Payment
53,457 66,822 58,803
Total MAX -
Ridership
May – July
Fare Free
May – Dec.
MAX w/ Fare Fare Free
ATTACHMENT 3
25
Transportation Transportation Board Board Recommendations Recommendations
1. No Fare Structure Change at this Time
• Recommend reevaluation when MAX comes on-
line
2. Free Introductory Period for MAX
• Prefers less than the planned 7 month period
ATTACHMENT 3
26
Action Action Requested Requested
1. Transfort Fare Structure has not been amended
since 2004. Based on targeted recovery rates and
elasticity evaluations, does Council support
amending the current Fare Structure?
2. What are Council’s thoughts on pursuing a fare free
period to introduce the new MAX service that is
planned to begin May 2014?
ATTACHMENT 3