Strategy Guide to Enable and Promote the Use of Fixed-Route Transit by People with Disabilities (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

91 C h a p t e r 7 This chapter discusses fare incentive programs: another possible strategy for encouraging use of fixed-route transit services by persons with disabilities. As will be presented, fare incen- tives can lead to increased use of fixed-route transit. The challenge for transit agencies is to design programs that will attract new riders, particularly those riders who may now be using ADA paratransit service. Different types of fare incentive programs, and their purposes, are first discussed. Prior research on fare incentive programs and current use of fare incentives by transit agencies across the country are then summarized. Fare incentive programs implemented by seven selected transit agencies are then described, including outcomes, costs, and benefits. Issues to consider when implementing fare incentive programs are also noted. Finally, there is a discussion of evaluation methods that can be used to determine the success of fare incentive programs. 7.1 Types of Fare Incentive Programs As used in this strategy guide, a fare incentive program is considered a set of policies that allows persons with disabilities to ride fixed-route transit service for a lower fare than the fare for the general public. There are a variety of fare incentive programs for persons with disabilities commonly in use by transit systems. As a condition of receiving funding, all FTA grantees are required to charge no more than half the peak fare during non-peak service hours on fixed-route transit service. Other common fare incentive programs include: • Half fare (or less) during all fixed-route transit service hours. • No fare (free) for individuals certified as ADA paratransit eligible. • No fare for individuals certified for ADA paratransit, with other qualifications (e.g., receiv- ing travel training). FTA Half Fare Requirement U.S.DOT regulations (49 CFR Part 609) require that transit systems that receive Urbanized Area Formula Funding (“Section 5307 funding”) from FTA must charge fares that are no more than half the peak fares to elderly and persons with disabilities during the off peak. Section 609.3 defines elderly and “handicapped persons” (persons with a disability) as: “individuals who, by reason of illness, injury, age, congenital malfunction, or other permanent or tempo- rary incapacity or disability, including those who are nonambulatory wheelchair-bound and those with semi- ambulatory capabilities, are unable without special facilities or special planning or design to utilize mass transportation facilities and services as effectively as persons who are not so affected.” Fare Incentive Programs

92 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities The elderly includes all individuals who are at least 65 years old, but a transit system may set a lower age. The definition for persons with a disability is broader than the definition used to establish eligibility for ADA complementary paratransit. As a result, any individual who is certified to use ADA paratransit could apply and qualify to pay no greater than half fare on fixed-route transit services during off-peak hours. Purposes of Fare Incentive Programs A main purpose of the FTA half-fare requirement is to make fixed-route transit services more financially accessible to seniors and persons with disabilities. Many seniors and persons with disabilities have limited incomes. Many seniors and persons with disabilities also do not have access to private automobiles and rely on public transit services for mobility. Providing afford- able transit services can help ensure that these individuals are able to remain mobile and active participants in the community. A second purpose of fare incentive programs is to encourage riders to use more cost-efficient fixed-route transit services when possible. Other transit options that may be provided, such as ADA paratransit, are often more costly to provide than fixed-route transit service on a per passenger trip basis. According to the 2011 National Transit Database, the average operating cost per unlinked bus trip was $3.60 ($1.80 and $3.20, respectively, for heavy and light rail trips). In contrast, the average operating cost per demand responsive trip—of which ADA paratransit comprises the greatest portion—was $32.70. As a result, transit systems have a great financial incentive to have persons with disabilities use fixed-route transit rather than ADA paratransit when they can. Providing affordable fixed-route transit service also benefits riders. Nearly all transit systems charge a higher fare for ADA paratransit than the fixed-route transit fare for the general public. U.S.DOT regulations allow the paratransit fare to be as great as two times the fixed-route transit fare (for a comparable trip, accounting for origin–destination and time of day). An increas- ing portion of transit systems are setting their paratransit fare at the maximum level to try to capture more revenue to pay for the services (and even with the maximum allowable fares, the resulting revenue represented only 7.8% of operating costs in 2011). As a result, a typical differ- ence in fare for a person with a disability between a paratransit trip and a fixed-route trip may be a factor of four. For example, if the local bus fare is $2, the reduced fare on the bus may be $1, while the paratransit fare may be as high as $4. 7.2 Prior Research and Current Use of Fare Incentives Prior Research Information about fare incentive programs, including effectiveness and implementation issues, is provided in several studies. TCRP Report 9: Transit Operations for Individuals with Dis- abilities identified fare incentives as effective in attracting persons with disability to use fixed- route transit services. (45) One case study, in the Greater Bridgeport Transit District, credited a free fare program for ADA paratransit eligible riders, together with a travel training program and extensive outreach efforts, with significant increases in fixed-route transit ridership by persons with disabilities. The case study also documented increases in applications for ADA paratransit eligibility and recommended that thorough eligibility determination processes be implemented in conjunction with fare incentive programs A study performed for Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in California sur- veyed the policies of the transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Area concerning fare incentives to Fare incentive programs make public transit services more afford- able and encourage fixed-route transit use.

Fare Incentive programs 93 use fixed-route transit service. (46) Like TCRP Report 9, the study noted the following implementa- tion issue: “some transit agencies in large urban areas have found that this type of incentive may increase demand for ADA eligibility, with individuals interested in free use of fixed-route transit service and not solely ADA paratransit certification. . . . Combining fare incentives with a rigorous eligibility process reduces the risk of unintended consequences from the fare incentives.” A study performed for Valley Metro in Phoenix, AZ, included information about peer sys- tems that provide free fixed-route transit service to persons with disabilities. (47) The study reported the following: • Boston reported that 300 people had been granted passes for free fixed-route transit service after successfully completing travel training. They indicated that free fares were helpful in encourag- ing current riders to participate in training. They also reported that 80% of training graduates either used paratransit less often or had switched to only using the fixed-route transit service. • Ft. Lauderdale reported that, since the program was implemented in 1996, 111 paratransit riders had opted to get free fixed-route transit service and no longer use paratransit. • Los Angeles estimated that the free fare program had resulted in a paratransit cost savings of about $5M per year (about a 10% reduction). They also noted, though, that they were receiving more applications for ADA paratransit eligibility as a result of the free fare benefit. • Salt Lake City reported a 6% reduction in paratransit ridership attributed to a combination of the free fare program and stricter eligibility determinations. Current Use of Fare Incentives In the survey conducted for this research, there were three questions relating to fare incen- tive programs. The first question asked if the transit agency offered reduced or free fares to fixed-route transit riders with disabilities. The survey then asked the transit agency to rate the effectiveness of its reduced fare programs in encouraging greater fixed-route transit use. Finally, the transit agency was asked to indicate if it had offered free fares in the past, but had elected to discontinue the program. Table 7-1 shows responses to the first question about types of fare incentive programs. Of the 124 transit agencies that responded, 36 indicated that they had free fare programs. Fifteen agencies (12%) reported only free fare programs for riders with disabilities, and another 21 agencies (17%) noted that they offered both reduced fares (for some riders with disabilities) and free fares for others (typically persons determined ADA paratransit eligible). Eighty-two transit agencies indicated that they extended the reduced fare required by FTA to all operating hours. Only five agencies indicated that they only offered reduced fares during off-peak hours—the minimum FTA requirement. Transit agencies that reported having free fare programs were asked to rate the effective- ness of the programs on a 1 to 5 scale, with “1” being not effective and “5” being very effective. Thirty-one of the 36 respondents that indicated having free fare programs provided an effec- tive rating for these programs. The programs were reported to be very effective. Seventeen Fare Programs Offered for Riders with Disabilities Using Fixed-Route Service Total % of Responses Both reduced and free fares 21 17% Reduced fare during off-peak hours only 5 4% Reduced fares during all operating hours 82 66% Free fare 15 12% Not Sure 1 1% Total 124 100% Table 7-1. Survey respondents’ use of reduced or free fare programs.

94 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities (46%) of respondents said the programs were very effective (“5”); another 13 (36%) rated the effectiveness as a “4”; and four (11%) rated the effectiveness as a “3.” Only five respondents (14%) rated the programs as less than a “3” in terms of effectiveness in encouraging use of fixed-route transit services. Five survey respondents indicated that they had implemented free fare programs in the past, but had decided to discontinue the programs. 7.3 Selected Fare Incentive Programs Using the survey responses, the research team contacted several transit agencies that had free fare programs and indicated that these programs were effective. An effort was made to contact transit agencies in various parts of the country, as well as agencies in large, medium and small communities. The transit agencies were asked if they would be willing to provide data for the study. The research team also discussed the types of data needed to ensure that the agencies selected had the necessary information. Seven transit agencies were selected for study, including: • Ann Arbor (MI) Transportation Authority, • Arlington (VA) Transit, • Fort Worth Transportation Authority, • Hernando County (FL), • Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Boston Metropolitan area), • San Mateo County (CA) Transit District, and • Utah Transit Authority. Information collected from each transit agency included: • Description of the incentive program and potential full benefits, e.g., if free fare, can personal care attendant and/or companion also ride for free? • Whether the fare program evolved from a previous version. • Ridership on fixed-route transit traceable to incentive program. • Estimated ridership diverted from ADA complementary paratransit due to incentive program. • Estimated cost to establish and maintain incentive program: staff time, software, lost rev- enue on fixed-route transit. • Any unintended consequences of the incentive program (positive or negative). • If any unintended negative consequences, any efforts by transit agency to mitigate. • Whether this incentive program is transferrable to other transit agencies—or are there spe- cial circumstances or history that makes it unique for this transit agency. Particular attention was given to the impacts of fare incentive programs on requests for eligibil- ity for ADA paratransit. Many transit agencies that offer free fares link eligibility for this benefit to eligibility for ADA paratransit services. Some agencies have reported that this link has resulted in an increased number of applications for ADA paratransit eligibility. To study this issue, informa- tion about the number of applications for ADA paratransit eligibility (or certifications completed) was requested from each selected system. The number of applications (or certifications) before and after the implementation of free fares was requested from each transit agency. All seven transit agencies have established definitions for reduced fares on fixed-route ser- vices that are consistent with FTA standards. All seven agencies have also established processes to determine the eligibility of persons with disabilities for the reduced fares. Table 7-2 summa- rizes the fare policies of the seven selected transit agencies. Following are descriptions of the fare incentive programs at each transit agency. Informa- tion about program costs and general outcomes is also provided as are data on the number of requests for ADA paratransit eligibility is also included.

Fare Incentive programs 95 Ann Arbor (MI) Transportation Authority The AATA provides bus service for the urbanized area of Washtenaw County, MI, which includes the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. It operates 27 fixed routes, along with park and ride shuttles, vanpools, and subscription service. AATA’s “A Ride” paratransit provides service to individuals who are eligible for ADA complementary paratransit. AATA also contracts with local taxi companies to provide rides to senior citizens (in a limited service area) and rides to the general public on nights and holidays when the fixed-route buses are not running. Fixed- route transit ridership over the three recent fiscal years (2010–2012) averaged 6.02 million trips, with steady increases. ADA paratransit ridership during that period averaged 139,000 trips. AATA began its policy of free fare for paratransit riders in May 2009 (final five months of FY 2009). Any individual certified for ADA paratransit is eligible for free fixed-route transit trips. AATA also provides free trips to anyone 65 years and older. PCAs and companions have to pay their own fare. Transit Agency FR Fare (local, no discount) Reduced FR Fare ADA Paratransit Fare Who Is Eligible for FR Free Fare Personal Care Attendant (PCA), Companion Fares Year Free FR Fare Started Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) $1.50 $0.75 $3.00 all registrants for ADA paratransit (also riders 65 and older) PCAs and companions pay own fare 2009 Arlington Transit (ART) $1.50 $0.75 $3.00 all registrants for ADA paratransit PCAs and companions pay own fare (in practice, ride for free) FY 2011 Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the T) $1.75 $0.85 $3.25 all registrants for ADA paratransit PCAs ride for free; companions pay own fare 1996 Hernando County (The Bus) $1.25 $0.60 $2.50 all registrants for ADA paratransit PCAs ride for free; companions pay own fare FY 2006 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) $1.50 bus $2.00 rail $0.40 bus $0.60 rail $2.00 (increase to $4.00 in FY 2013) registrants for ADA paratransit for at least one year PCAs ride free, companions pay own fare 2008 San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) $2.00 $1.00 $3.75 all registrants for ADA paratransit PCAs ride for free; companions pay own fare early 2000s Utah Transit Authority (UTA) $2.25 $1.10 $3.00 all registrants for ADA paratransit PCAs ride free, companions pay own fare 2002 Note: FR = fixed route. Table 7-2. Transit agencies providing data on fixed-route transit fare incentive programs.

96 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities AATA has not tracked its direct costs for maintaining its free fare policy. An AATA manager did note a strong correlation in the increase in applications for A-Ride since the policy began. For FYs 2005–2008, there was an average of 444 applications per year. For the next four years (FYs 2009–2012), there was an average of 782 applications per year. Comparing the two four- year periods, the average annual increase was 76%. As shown in Table 7-3, the largest jump was between FY 2009 and FY 2010, with FY 2010 the first full year of the free fare program. The A-Ride application states that “Applicants may be required to participate in an in-person evalu- ation for eligibility in order to complete their application. . . .” However, because of the lack of staff time, in practice, AATA conducts only one to two in-person assessments each month. Eligibility for ADA paratransit is based on information provided in an application form. Arlington (VA) Transit Arlington Transit (ART) is a bus transit system operated by Arlington County, VA. ART’s 13 fixed routes provide cross-town service, feed WMATA’s Metrorail stations and supplement WMATA’s bus service in Arlington County. ART also operates Specialized Transit for Arlington Residents (STAR), a demand responsive service that supplements WMATA’s MetroAccess ADA paratransit service. STAR service is limited to residents of Arlington County. Fixed-route transit ridership over five fiscal years (2008–2012) averaged 1.87 million trips. ADA paratransit rider- ship during that period averaged 79,932 trips. The County does not conduct its own eligibility determinations for ADA paratransit. WMATA performs eligibility determinations for the entire service region. The eligibility process used by WMATA includes in-person interviews and functional assessments. Individuals certified for ADA complementary paratransit service may ride ART buses for free. ART’s fare policy states that accompanying PCAs and companions pay the regular bus fare. An ART transit manager noted, however, that in practice, the ART drivers generally let accompanying attendants and companions ride for free. The cost to implement this program was minimal, according to an ART manager. The increase in persons with disabilities riding the buses meant it was increasingly important for drivers to have regular training in passenger sensitivity and use of the accessibility equipment (15–20% of the free ridership used a wheelchair). As presented in Table 7-4, there was not a notable increase in applications by Arlington County residents for certification for ADA paratransit in response to the start of the free fixed- route transit program in FY 2011. Based on the available data, applications for MetroAccess from Arlington County did increase in FY 2012, but the number was still lower than in either FY 2008 or FY 2009. Fort Worth (TX) Transportation Authority The Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the T) provides fixed-route bus and commuter rail service for the City of Fort Worth and adjoining Tarrant County, Texas. It also owns and oper- ates Trinity Railway Express commuter rail service jointly with Dallas Area Rapid Transit. In FY 2011, the T provided over 6.6 million passenger trips on its buses. The T’s ADA complemen- tary paratransit service, Mobility-Impaired Transportation Service (MITS) provided 395 thou- sand trips in FY 2011. The “MITS+1” free fixed-route transit program began in 1996 as an incentive for riders to receive travel training, which the T began to offer in 1989. All individuals who are certified for ADA paratransit may ride fixed-route transit for free. PCAs also ride for free on the fixed-route Fiscal Year Applications 2005 359 2006 444 2007 476 2008 495 2009* 558 2010 784 2011 888 2012 899 *Free fares begin in May 2009 Table 7-3. Applications for AATA paratransit (A-Ride), 2005–2012. Fiscal Year Applications 2008 640* 2009 590* 2010 458 2011 430* 2012 525 *Estimate: data from some months not available. Table 7-4. Applications for ADA paratransit eligibility from Arlington County residents, 2008–2012.

Fare Incentive programs 97 transit system. The process used to determine ADA paratransit eligibility includes in-person interviews and functional assessments. MITS+1 ridership in FY 1996 was 32,868. MITS+1 annual ridership increased from 1996 to 2001. After decreasing for three years, it has increased every year from 2004 to 2012. In FY 2012, there were 331,612 free fixed-route trips via the MITS+1 program. The costs to manage and operate the MITS+1 program are minimal. The ID card for MITS+1 is the same ID card that an individual uses to ride the paratransit service. Looking at the trends in certifications for MITS service (Table 7-5), there was a dip from 2003 to 2005, then a rise in 2006 to 2002 levels (there was a fare increase for MITS in 2003). Since 2006, the number of MITS certifications has been fairly stable. Hernando County (FL) Hernando County, FL, is on the Gulf Coast of Florida, two counties north of Hillsborough (Tampa) and Pinellas (St. Petersburg) Counties. Hernando operates THE Bus, three fixed bus routes that run on weekdays only. It also operates paratransit service for both ADA certified riders and other clientele. Fixed-route transit ridership over the three most recent fiscal years (2010–2012) averaged 70,998 trips. ADA paratransit ridership during that period averaged 17,798 trips. The program to allow free fixed-route transit service began in FY 2006. All individuals who are certified for ADA paratransit may ride fixed-route transit for free. PCAs also ride for free on the fixed-route transit system. In the program’s first year, Hernando County recorded 3,494 free trips by ADA paratransit riders. This made up 2.2% of the total fixed- route transit ridership. The portion of free fixed-route trips by ADA paratransit riders has grown significantly since the first year. From FY 2006 to 2008, the proportion was 3.7%; from FY 2009 to 2012, 9.5%. Hernando County’s assessment process for ADA paratransit includes an in-person interview. The County was not able to provide data on the number of assessments that it has conducted. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority The MBTA provides fixed-route bus, light rail, commuter rail, and commuter ferry service for Eastern Massachusetts, with service concentrated in the Boston metropolitan area. The MBTA provided over 400 million passenger trips in FY 2012, with an average weekday ridership of over 1.3 million. The MBTA also provides ADA complementary paratransit service, known as “THE RIDE.” In FY 2012, it provided 2.6 million paratransit trips. In early 2008, the MBTA began the “RIDE Charlie Card” program. This program allows individuals who have been certified for THE RIDE to use their ID card as a pass to ride the fixed-route transit system for free. PCAs may also ride for free. Participants initially included RIDE passengers whom the MBTA identified as frequent paratransit users and who had been certified for ADA paratransit for at least one year. Later in 2008, the MBTA expanded the pro- gram to include any RIDE passenger who had been certified for at least one year and requested to participate. As of early 2013, there were about 1,600 individuals in the RIDE Charlie Card program. The MBTA was not allowing further participants while it studied the effects of the program. While the MBTA can tally exact counts of ridership via the use of RIDE Charlie Cards, it does not hold the data permanently. As a result, trip counts were only available for FY 2012 and eight months of FY 2013. This is also true for half-fare ridership on the fixed-route service, as well Fiscal Year MITS Certifications 2000 1,768 2001 1,465 2002 1,539 2003 1,377 2004 1,238 2005 1,355 2006 1,514 2007 1,470 2008 1,500 2009 1,537 2010 1,663 2011 1,529 2012 1,575 Table 7-5. Fort Worth paratransit (MITS) certifications, 2000–2012.

98 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities as ridership for individuals who are blind or have a visual impairment, who are also eligible to ride the fixed-route transit system for free. In FY 2012, the RIDE Charlie Card ridership was 11.9% of RIDE paratransit ridership. The RIDE Charlie Card ridership grew in the first 8 months of FY 2013 to reach 17.1% of RIDE rider- ship, which decreased (this decrease is largely attributable to the fare increase from $2 to $4). According to an MBTA manager, there was minimal cost in implementing the program. The MBTA had to provide participants with the Charlie Card ID (passengers do not use the card to pay for their RIDE trips; the MBTA has a debit account system for RIDE fares). There is concern of fraud, as individuals are able to give their ID card to others to use the free service. The MBTA can deactivate a card if it is reported to be lost or stolen, but there is no easy way to detect intentional misuse of the card. As seen in Table 7-6, determinations for RIDE service increased significantly (by 61%) from FY 2010 to FY 2012. Prior to December 2012, eligibility for RIDE was determined based solely on a paper application. In December 2012, the MBTA implemented a new eligibility process that included in-person interviews and functional assessments of all applicants. As shown in Table 7-6, the number of persons determined eligible for RIDE services decreased in the first part of FY 2013. A total of 6,097 persons were determined eligible for RIDE in the first five months of FY 2013. Annualizing this figure suggests that about 14,633 people will be determined eligible in FY 2013, about a 17% reduction compared to FY 2012. The MBTA managers attributed the decrease in determinations in FY 2013 to the implementation of the new in-person eligibility process. San Mateo County (CA) Transit District The San Mateo County Transit District provides SamTrans bus service for San Mateo County, CA, and partners with San Francisco and Santa Clara County in Caltrain commuter rail service on the San Francisco Peninsula. SamTrans “Redi-Wheels” paratransit provides service to indi- viduals who are eligible for ADA complementary paratransit. Fixed-route transit ridership over the three most recent fiscal years (2010–2012) averaged 13.27 million trips. ADA paratransit ridership during that period averaged 295,000 trips. SamTrans began a policy of low fare for paratransit riders in the late 1990s: both to encourage use of the fixed-route transit and to “soften the burden” of Redi-Wheels fare increases (five increases from 1998 to 2010) for individuals who could use the fixed-route transit service. In 1998, the Redi- Wheels fare was 50 cents. The fixed-route transit fare for certified paratransit users was 25 cents (less than half fare). Initially, this fare applied only to off-peak service. The policy was later broad- ened to all travel at all times, and the fare was reduced to zero. PCAs also ride for free. SamTrans has tracked free fixed-route transit trips by Redi-Wheels customers only since April 2012; these counts are based on drivers’ keying in trips on fareboxes. SamTrans plans to have electronic counts (based on swipes of ID cards) but the technology has not yet been put in place. The SamTrans manager was not able to estimate the proportion of free trips that were diverted from Redi-Wheels, as opposed to additional trips that the program generated. All applicants who apply for Redi-Wheels service are required to participate in in-person interviews and functional assessments. The number of applications for Redi-Wheels has not changed much since 2003, with the exception of a decrease in FY 2007, as shown in Table 7-7. Although the number of applications has not increased, the SamTrans manager noted that, as the free-ride privilege has become better known, more applicants for paratransit eligibility have indicated that they are applying just to be eligible for the free fixed-route transit fare. He said Fiscal Year Determinations 2010 10,948 2011 15,711 2012 17,631 2013 (5 months) 6,097 Table 7-6. Determinations for MBTA paratransit. Table 7-7. Applications for Redi-Wheels paratransit. Fiscal Year Applications Per Month Average 2003 246 2004 250 2005 292 2006 229 2007 178 2008 257 2009 246 2010 225 2011 233 2012 237 2013 232

Fare Incentive programs 99 that this has required the SamTrans eligibility evaluator to be more vigilant about assessing an applicant’s ability to use fixed-route transit service some or all of the time. He also noted that the potential use of fraudulent forms of paratransit ID (e.g., “using a photocopy of an ID card, an expired card, or some other form of ID that will pass operator scrutiny”) was a concern. Utah Transit Authority UTA provides fixed-route bus, light rail, and commuter rail service for six counties and 1,400 square miles, with service concentrated in the Salt Lake City metropolitan area. Collec- tively, UTA provides over 35 million passenger trips annually on its fixed-route transit services. UTA also provides ADA complementary paratransit service. In 2011, it provided 385,000 ADA paratransit trips. Individuals certified for ADA paratransit may use their ID card to ride free on fixed-route bus and light rail service (with the exception of express and Park City routes). The free fare program has been branded as the “Freedom Access Pass.” PCAs also ride for free. The Freedom Access Pass began in summer 2002. At that time, all UTA bus and rail vehicles were accessible and UTA wanted to encourage paratransit users to try using fixed-route transit service. UTA also offered travel training to all paratransit users. Riders who expressed an inter- est in fixed-route transit received a small blue medallion that included the phrase “UTA Free- dom Access Pass.” This medallion allowed the rider to use fixed-route bus and light rail service for free. However, UTA came to suspect that reports of “lost” medallions were signs of misuse and abuse of the program. UTA replaced the medallions and now adds the phrase “Freedom Access Pass” to ADA paratransit eligible rider photo IDs. UTA did not consistently track ridership of the Freedom Access Pass until 2011. It began to install electronic chips into the ID cards of new and recertifying ADA paratransit riders in 2009. Since 2011, riders in the program used their ID cards to “tap on and tap off” similar to riders paying with an electronic fare card. In calendar year 2011, the Freedom Access Pass ridership was 122,479 passenger trips. In calendar year 2012, ridership was 184,226 passenger trips, an increase of 50%. The 2012 and 2013 Freedom Access ridership composed about 0.5% of all fixed-route transit ridership. Compared to the UTA’s paratransit ridership, Freedom Access ridership was over 40%. All persons applying for ADA paratransit participate in in-person interviews and functional assessments. The number of ADA paratransit eligibility determinations rose slightly (about 3%) from 2002 to 2003, and then varied, with a slight upward trend through 2007 (see Table 7-8). Eligibility determinations since 2007 have trended downward each year. 7.4 Outcomes and Analysis of Selected Fare Incentive Programs Table 7-9 provides a summary of key data and analysis for the seven transit systems exam- ined. Data is presented for different time periods for each system, and the time periods are indicated in the table. The varying time periods result from the different dates of imple- mentation of the fare incentive programs, as well as different dates when the systems began collecting free fare ridership data, or periods of time for which prior data was available. Table 7-9 presents total fixed-route transit ridership, free fare fixed-route transit ridership, and ADA paratransit ridership. It then shows free fare ridership as a percentage of total fixed-route transit ridership, and the ratio of free fare fixed-route transit ridership to ADA paratransit ridership. Fiscal Year Determinations 2002 3,882 2003 4,004 2004 4,224 2005 4,020 2006 4,216 2007 4,379 2008 4,142 2009 3,697 2010 3,697 2011 3,490 2012 3,469 Table 7-8. Eligibility determinations for UTA paratransit.

100 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities The ratios of free fare to total fixed-route ridership and free fare to ADA paratransit ridership vary, with a number of factors affecting the values, such as: • Absolute ridership levels (MBTA and UTA, the two largest system examined, have the lowest proportion of free fixed-route to total fixed-route transit ratios). • Length that fare incentive program has been in place (e.g., it is likely that the free fixed-route transit ridership for ART will increase). • Perceived ease of accessibility of the fixed-route transit system by persons with disabilities. Table 7-10 presents potential benefit–cost calculations for each transit system. The estimates of lost income include the revenue not realized by not charging riders on the fixed-route transit service. This amount is the reduced fixed-route transit fare, rather than the full fare, since any paratransit rider would qualify for the reduced fare. This calculation for each transit system also includes the added ongoing cost for 0.5 FTE staff person; while none of the transit systems attributed additional staff costs for managing the fare incentive program, we have added this cost as a conservative estimate of program management. These two program costs are compared to the net cost of paratransit service, i.e., the average cost per trip minus the paratransit fare. The column showing “annual break-even diverted trips” shows the number of trips that would need to be taken by ADA paratransit riders on the fixed-route transit service, rather than on ADA paratransit, to offset the estimated costs of the program. This analysis assumes no marginal operating cost for accommodating additional free fare trips on the fixed-route transit system. As presented in Table 7-10, the actual number of free fixed-route transit trips taken far exceeds the break-even number for all seven transit systems. A transit agency may speculate that many of the free trips taken are not actu- ally diverted from paratransit, but instead are either: • New trips that the riders would otherwise not be taking on paratransit (no net gain for the transit system). • Trips that the riders would be taking and are willing to pay the reduced fare if they had to (actual fare revenue loss for the transit system). Transit Agency Time Period Average Annual Passenger Trips % Free FR of All FR Free FR/ ADA Paratransit All Fixed Route Free Fixed Route ADA Paratransit Ann Arbor Transportation Authority 5 months + 3 years (5 mos. FY09, FY10-FY12) 5,919,636 101,147 169,534 1.71% 0.60 Arlington Transit 2 years (FY11, FY12) 2,355,564 9,818 78,592 0.42% 0.12 Fort Worth Transportation Authority 6 years (FY07-FY12) 6,595,301 229,690 384,454 3.48% 0.60 Hernando County 6 years (FY07-FY12) 106,174 7,652 17,981 7.21% 0.43 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 1 year + 8 months (FY12, 8 mos. FY13) 392.48 million 942,742 2,401,573 0.24% 0.39 San Mateo County Transit District 13 months (3 mos. FY12, 10 mos. FY13) 12,454,013 244,253 266,650 1.96% 0.92 Utah Transit Authority 2 years + 5 months (FY11, FY12, 5 mos. FY13) 38,254,061 157,625 419,390 0.41% 0.38 Table 7-9. Summary comparison of fare incentive programs. In all of the fare incentive pro- grams studied, the actual number of free-fare trips by riders with disabilities far exceeded the break- even number for determining cost-effectiveness.

Fare Incentive programs 101 Even if this is true, the ratios of the actual free fare trips to the break-even values are so large (4.9:1 for Hernando County to over 100:1 for four of the other seven transit systems) that it requires only a small portion of the free fare trips to be trips that are diverted from paratransit to make the program cost effective. Table 7-11 presents potential benefits in a slightly different way. It shows the savings that would be realized in each of the seven selected systems assuming different percentages of trips diverted from ADA paratransit. Cost savings are shown for the following assumptions: that only 25% of the total free fare trips represent trips diverted from ADA paratransit to fixed-route transit; that 33% of the total free fare trips are trips diverted from ADA paratransit; and that 50% of the total free fare trips represent trips diverted from ADA paratransit. Transit Agency Fixed- Route Reduced Fare Net Paratransit $/Trip (cost – fare) Annual Ongoing Costs (assume 0.5 FTE) Annual Break- even Diverted Trips Actual Annual Free Fare Trips Ann Arbor Transportation Authority $0.75 $23.52 $45,000 1,976 101,147 Arlington Transit $0.75 $29.31 $50,000 1,751 9,818 Fort Worth Transportation Authority $0.85 $30.75 $45,000 1,505 229,690 Hernando County $0.60 $23.23 $35,000 1,547 7,652 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority $0.60 $39.79 $50,000 1,276 942,742 San Mateo County Transit District $1.00 $42.25 $50,000 1,212 244,253 Utah Transit Authority $1.10 $35.24 $45,000 1,318 157,625 Table 7-10. Sample benefit–cost “break-even” of free fare programs. Transit Agency Annual Break- even Diverted Trips Actual Annual Free Fare Trips Savings for Levels of Actual Trip Diversion from ADA Paratransit to FR 25% 33% 50% Ann Arbor Transportation Authority 1,976 101,147 $530,786 $715,035 $1,106,565 Arlington Transit 1,751 9,818 $20,092 $42,524 $90,192 Fort Worth Transportation Authority 1,505 229,690 $1,671,933 $2,221,352 $3,388,866 Hernando County 1,547 7,652 $8,283 $22,136 $51,574 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 1,276 942,742 $9,186,508 $12,142,193 $18,423,023 San Mateo County Transit District 1,212 244,253 $2,468,864 $3,274,899 $4,987,723 Utah Transit Authority 1,318 157,625 $1,300,333 $1,730,838 $2,645,662 Table 7-11. Sample cost savings for three levels of trip diversion.

102 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities As shown, significant savings are realized by each of the systems even if conservative esti- mates of the percentage of trips diverted are assumed. If it is assumed that only 25% of free fare trips were trips previously made by ADA paratransit, savings range from $8,283 per year for the smallest system (Hernando County), to over $9 million for the largest systems (MBTA). Savings between $51,574 per year and over $18 million per year are estimated if it is assumed that 50% of the total free fare trips are trips diverted from ADA paratransit. 7.5 Findings and Implementation Issues Findings Based on interviews with mangers from the seven selected transit agencies studied, and analysis of the data they provided, one can make the following findings: • There is a great financial incentive for a transit agency to adopt a free fare policy for para- transit riders, given potential savings from fewer paratransit trips provided versus the rela- tively small revenue losses on the fixed-route transit system and the ongoing costs to operate a free fare program. • Policies vary on whether an accompanying PCA may also ride for free. None of the agencies had a policy that let a companion ride for free. • The cost of implementing and managing a fare incentive program appears to be small. Managers at the selected transit agencies were specifically asked about the costs to establish and maintain their programs. Five indi- cated “minimal” or “negligible” costs. The other two stated that they did not track these costs separately from other administrative and manage- ment costs. • While some of the free fare trips may not be truly diverted from paratransit trips, only a small number of diverted trips are needed to offset the costs of the program. • Even if it is assumed that only 25% of the total free fare trips are trips diverted from ADA paratransit, the analysis suggested savings ranging from $8,283 per year for the smallest systems, to over $9 million per year for the largest system. • At transit agencies that used in-person interviews and functional assess- ments to determine ADA paratransit eligibility, free fare programs did not appear to have a significant impact on the number of applications or determinations. However, at agencies where only paper applications were used to determine ADA paratransit eligibility, linking free fares to this eli- gibility appears to result in significantly higher numbers of applications. To better ensure that individuals who can use the fixed-route transit ser- vice do not apply for ADA paratransit eligibility just to receive the free fare benefit, transit agencies will ideally consider including in-person inter- views and functional assessments in the eligibility determination process before fare incentive programs are implemented. Implementation Issues While managers from all seven transit agencies believed that their programs were readily transferable and could be easily adopted by other transit agencies, they noted several imple- mentation issues that should be considered. • An AATA manager observed that when the free fare program started, AATA began to receive A-Ride applications from people who regularly used fixed-route transit services. Even if it is assumed that only 25% of the total free fare trips are trips diverted from ADA paratransit, the analysis suggested savings ranging from $8,283 per year for the small- est systems, to over $9 million per year for the largest system. To better ensure that individuals who can use the fixed-route transit service do not apply for ADA para- transit eligibility just to receive the free fare benefit, transit systems will ideally consider including in- person interviews and functional assessments in the eligibility deter- mination process before fare incen- tive programs are implemented.

Fare Incentive programs 103 He stated that these riders “were often quite explicit” that they were applying for A-Ride to receive free fixed-route transit service. AATA worked with human service agencies to assist their clients in understanding the requirements for receiving eligibility for A-Ride service. • Similarly, a SamTrans manager noted that, as the free-ride privilege has become better known, more applicants for paratransit eligibility have indicated that they are applying just to be eligible for the free fixed-route transit fare. He said that this has required the SamTrans eligibility evaluator to be more vigilant about assessing an applicant’s inability to use regular bus service some or all of the time. UTA managers also stated that the key step in a free fare program is performing proper eligibility determination for ADA para- transit riders. • An ART manager viewed the proper training of the fixed-route transit bus drivers in pas- senger sensitivity and use of the lift/ramp and securement system as key to success, given the high proportion of the free fare riders who use wheelchairs. • A SamTrans manager stated that transit agencies “will have to be vigilant about abuse of the paratransit ID. High-tech fareboxes and readable paratransit ID cards will certainly help deter abuse.” When UTA started to receive an increase in reported “lost” medallions (which allowed paratransit riders to ride fixed-route service for free), it suspected this was a sign of misuse of the program. UTA has since changed the program so that the paratran- sit ID cards also act as a fare card. An MBTA manager also cited a concern about fraud. Individuals can give their ID card to others to use for free service. The MBTA can deacti- vate a card if it is reported to be lost or stolen, but there is no easy way to detect intentional misuse of the card. • Several managers believe that many of the free trips taken by ADA paratransit riders are not diverted from paratransit service, but are simply new trips taken on fixed-route tran- sit by people with disabilities. This, however, should not add significant cost. As shown in Table 7-9, the free fixed-route transit trips make up a small proportion of total fixed-route transit ridership. There is little added operating cost for serving these trips and a relatively small loss of revenue. And more people with disabilities are using the fixed-route transit service. • Managers at all of the transit agencies are evaluating the effectiveness of their programs and are considering policy changes. For example, the MBTA manager said that her agency is looking at the possibility of limiting the number of free trips; she noted that New York City Transit has a limit of four free round trips per day. 7.6 Evaluating Fare Incentive Programs A detailed methodology that considers the various outcomes, costs, and benefits of fare incen- tive programs is provided in Appendix D. The methodology considers the full range of possible outcomes, including new fixed-route transit trips generated as a result of the reduced fares, trips switched from half fare to free fare on the fixed-route transit systems, and trips diverted from ADA paratransit to fixed-route transit. The experience gained from this study indicates, though, that it is very difficult to determine these various outcomes and that transit agencies typically do not have the type of information needed to complete an elaborate and comprehensive evaluation. Still, the potential methodology is included in Appendix D to benefit future researchers who may want to conduct more detailed analysis of fare incentive programs. This section provides a simplified methodology for assessing program effectiveness. It is based on a “break-even” analysis that determines the likelihood that the benefits of the pro- gram will at least equal the costs. Several types of data are needed to do this “break-even” analysis. These are shown below.

104 Strategy Guide to enable and promote the Use of Fixed-route transit by people with Disabilities It would also be valuable to track the following information, if a transit agency is not already collecting it: • Paratransit applications. • Count of ADA paratransit trips: total and by individual riders, and by key destinations. • Count of reduced fare (not free) fixed-route transit trips. For a given time period, the net financial benefit (or cost) of a fare incentive program can be computed. The “break-even” savings is the amount of savings from the fare incentive program needed to offset the costs and lost revenues of the program. Break-even savings Program costs Revenue loss due to program Increased fixed-route transit costs ( ) ( ) ( ) = + + Broken down into the cost elements listed above, the formula would be: Break-even trips Cost per ADA paratransit trip – Paratransit fare Cost of additional paratransit assessments Cost of additional program management, oversight Cost of material Estimate of additional paratransit applications attributable to fare incentive program Cost of enlarged travel training program per additional rider trained Estimate of additional riders in travel training program Count of free fixed-route trips Reduced fare Increased fixed-route costs from increased ridership by ADA riders ) ) ) ) ( ) ( ) ( ( ) ( ( ( × = + + × + × + × + If we replace the words with the symbols, we have the following equation: T C5 – F2 C1 C2 + C3 P1 C4 P2 T1 F1 C6( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( ) ( )× = + × + × + × + To derive the number of trips that need to be diverted from ADA paratransit to fixed-route transit to “break-even,” we divide both sides of the equation by (C5 – F2): T [ C1 C2 C3 P1 + C4 P2 + T1 F1 + C6 ] C5 – F2( )( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( )= + + × × × ÷ Data Element Symbol Cost of additional paratransit assessments C1 Cost of additional program management, oversight C2 Cost of material, e.g., ID cards, fare cards per additional certified paratransit rider C3 Cost of enlarged travel training program per additional rider trained C4 Cost per ADA paratransit trip C5 Increased fixed-route transit operating costs from increased free fare ridership C6 Count of free fixed-route transit trips T1 Count of reduced fare trips T2 Reduced fare F1 Paratransit fare F2 Estimate of additional paratransit applications attributable to fare incentive program P1 Estimate of additional rider in travel training program P2 Break-even trips T Table 7-12. Data needed to do “break-even” analysis.