Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 21
11
and operating environments. Unique was the combination Votaw authored a report presenting detailed compari-
of on-board and off-board fare collection necessitated by the sons of fare payment operations on BRT services (6 ). The
street-running portion of its light rail system where TVM issue addressed by the research was whether "off-board fare
placement was not practical. The authors discuss the incre- collection involving ticket vending machines and proof-of-
mental nature of the conversion process. The process cre- payment enforcement" is the most appropriate form of fare
ated special problems related to the enforcement function collection for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's
and with regard to providing clear public information to the (VTA) future BRT services. Four case studies were evaluated
riders. Because the transition to PoP represented change to as part of the research effort: Cleveland Healthline, Boston
the riders and to the operators, resistance was encountered. Silver Line, Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express and ACE
The riders were concerned that crime would escalate on the Gold Line, and Santa Clara VTA future lines. Each of the
multicar trains without Muni personnel on board the trail- case studies includes a summary of lessons learned from the
ing cars. The labor union representing the operators feared interviews and reports. In addition, the author interviewed
layoffs and job reductions. transit operators from other U.S. areas.
In 2008, the NRG Research Group prepared a study for TCRP Report 90 from 2003 contains a useful discussion
Vancouver TransLink's SkyTrain system (the brand name of of fare collection considerations in planning and design of
its automated rail transit system) that examined a variety of BRT projects (7 ). Data related to passenger service times
issues related to PoP (4). An extensive telephone interview and station dwell times for different fare payment options
survey combined with a survey of TransLink's "Listens" are offered. For single-door channel, the suggested default
online panel resulted in substantial statistical summaries times are as follows:
of four related issues: attitudes toward implementing con-
trolled access at SkyTrain stations, perceptions regarding Time/Passenger (s)
the frequency and severity of fare evasion on the SkyTrain
system, passengers' feelings of personal security on board Prepayment2.5
SkyTrain and at SkyTrain stations, and passengers' views of Single ticket or token 3.5
the smart card concept. Key findings were
Smart cards 3.5
· Strong support for a smart card system, Exact change 4.0
· Overestimation of fare evasion by transit riders and
nonriders alike, and Swipe or dip cards 4.2
· Passengers' feeling generally secure when riding SkyTrain.
NOTE: Add 0.5 s/passenger to boarding times when stand-
ees are present. Subtract 0.5 s/passenger from boarding
BUS RAPID TRANSIT APPLICATIONS times and 1.0 s/passenger from front-door alighting times
on low-floor buses.
Application of off-board fare collection is one of the key
quality-of-service considerations for BRT development For two boarding streams, the passenger service times are
in North America. As has been found for LRT operations, 1.8 s for prepayment and 2.4 s for smart cards.
allowing for quick multidoor boarding and eliminating on-
board fare collection can help shave significant time off a
transit vehicle's journey. MEASURING FARE EVASION
The National BRT Institute 2009 report prepared for the When the subject of PoP fare collection comes up, fare eva-
FTA includes a thorough discussion of the service charac- sion inevitably seems to be part of the discussion. Accurate
teristics of BRT (5). Included in chapter two, "Major Ele- analysis of fare evasion is difficult. Even in the best analyses,
ments of BRT," is a 19-page section on fare collection. This there is some amount of error. Research efforts in Edmonton,
report is especially relevant for purposes of comparing and San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York City were found
evaluating PoP fare collection with alternative approaches. to deal with the complexities of measuring fare evasion.
It includes comparative information regarding capital costs
and operating and maintenance costs associated with alter- Clarke et al. reported on a research effort in Edmonton
native fare collection approaches. Mentioned are "hybrid" that evaluated 3 years of fare evasion data (8). In 2005, the
approaches to PoP such as a case in which passengers with fare evasion rate for the LRT was 6%, and there was a gen-
prepaid fares are allowed to board through the rear door of eral feeling among city officials that the rate was too high.
the vehicle. This would also be a case in which there might In that same year, the city redeployed the security staff to
be limited off-board TVMs available. There is also a review serve the buses as well. This meant that fewer ticket checks
of the different types of fare media and associated costs. could be made on the LRT. In early 2007, it was decided to
