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.
1 An increasing number of universities and transit agencies have adopted universal student transit pass programs or U-Pass programs as a way to provide college students, faculty, and staff with unlimited use of public transit. The U-Pass programs offer campus users a deeply discounted fare while providing the local transit system with a revenue stream. The fees are prepaid by the university and are typically passed on to users through student fees, parking fees, or other sources. U-Pass programs can have a variety of benefits, such as increased student transit rider- ship, reduced demand for campus parking, use of off-peak transit capacity, improve- ments in college affordability, and improved transit agency performance. A synthesis of information about these programs should be useful for universities and transit agencies that currently serve college students or those that wish to serve these populations in the future. The investigators gathered the information reported in this synthesis from three sources: (1) a literature review, (2) an on-line survey of transit agencies that have college student transit pass programs and institutions participating in these programs, and (3) five case examples representing a cross-section of communities and programs that varied in system size and geography. The literature review examines essays and reports published between 1991 and 2016 that focus on the elements of U-Pass history, program design and implementation (e.g., phases, participants, student referenda, finance, technology, etc.), and potential benefits and challenges from the perspectives of all the participants. The investigators sent an on-line survey to a cross-section of transit agencies and their partner universities. The response rate was 84%, with 21 out of 25 locations completing the survey. The questionnaire had two versions, one for transit agencies and one for educational institutions, with common questions in both versions and other questions specific to each kind of organization. The survey included questions about the roles of transit agencies, institutions, and students; program design and implementation; financing; benefits and challenges; impacts, and lessons learned from the program. Five case examples have been included from four locations: Virginia (one example), Seattle (one example), Milwaukee (one example), and Los Angeles (two examples). The telephone or in-person interviews covered program background; rationale and objec- tives; planning (including negotiation, student referenda, and marketing); implemen- tation (including eligibility, financing, technology, and service improvements); and evaluation. S u m m a r y College Student Transit Pass Programs
2 College Student Transit Pass Programs A summary of the major findings from the literature review, survey results, and case examples is presented below: Roles of Transit Agencies, Institutions, and Students ⢠U-Pass programs are a collaborative effort among transit agencies, university students, and university administrators. The programs are most easily implemented where there is enthusiastic support for the concept at the upper levels of transit management (e.g., the transit board). University administration support is also critical and is enhanced by strong student support. A key element for the success of the program in many locations is student support gathered through referenda to approve the use of student fees to pay for a pass. Program Design and Implementation ⢠Students, faculty, staff, and even the general public can be U-Pass users. There is consid- erable variation in the student status required for pass usage. The pass participation rate (i.e., the percentage of eligible students who actively use the U-Pass program) also varies, ranging from less than 10% to 100%. ⢠U-Pass programs cover a wide range of public transit services, including local fixed-route bus service, urban light rail, regional commuter service, on-campus shuttles, paratransit service, on-call paratransit, and intercity scheduled coach service. Passes can be (a) used in an unlimited manner (i.e., any time of day, anywhere); (b) used on certain routes; (c) limited by the time of day; or (d) used only for spring and fall semesters. ⢠Transit route/service changes have been reported after the U-Pass program was imple- mented in many locations. These may include modifications to existing routes; expansion of hours of service; increases in vehicle trips that permit lower headways or longer routes on lines serving the campus during peak periods; or the addition of new routes centered on the school. Most campuses coordinate their shuttle services to supplement regular transit rather than compete with it. ⢠Passes can be identified in several ways: a student ID and a smart card/sticker, a student ID only, or a smart card/sticker only. Technology to integrate the student IDs with the smart card is desirable. ⢠The university and transit agency join together to market the program and use social media extensively. Program marketing usually targets new students entering the univer- sity. To maximize participation in the U-Pass program, all parts of the university, includ- ing admissions, recruitment, residence halls, bookstores, and student life, are involved in program promotion. ⢠Survey results indicate that very few programs currently allow students to use the pass after they leave the institution. However, the case examples indicate a trend to launch a post-graduation transitional program with the goal of continuing the transit habit as the students seek employment and choose a place to live. Financing ⢠The program budget for the pass varies dramatically. U-Pass programs use a broad range of funding sources. Responding transit agencies indicated that the main funding sources are student fees, and federal, state, and local funds. Responding institutions indicated that student fees and parking fees generally fund the program. ⢠The cost of the pass can be determined by using several basic principles, such as a revenue-neutral approach, comparable pass cost, cost recovery, and per-trip costs.
Summary 3 Transit agencies give flexibility to the universities so they can find ways to pay for the program that best fits their needs. Prices of the pass vary widely. Regular users of the U-Pass see significant savings compared with what they would pay for transit without a pass. ⢠In locations with multiple universities, each university has flexibility in how it adminis- ters the pass. Most locations use a uniform pass cost for different universities, with each university financing and managing the cost of the pass. Multiple transit agencies in a region are accommodated through separate agreements or through existing fare sharing agreements. Benefits and Challenges ⢠The primary benefits of a U-Pass program for transit agencies are increased transit rider- ship to campus, use of off-peak transit capacity, creating lifetime riders, and increased transit revenue. The primary benefits for educational institutions are reduced demand for campus parking, reduced commuting costs for students, and improved college affordability because students avoid having to purchase vehicles. Students benefit by reduced costs of attending college (because they did not have to purchase a vehicle), avoidance of parking problems, and improved mobility. ⢠Challenges for transit agencies are abusive pass use and additional costs for more buses and facilities. Educational institutions are concerned about the cost of the program for the institution, the reaction of non-users to the pass fees, and resistance to increased parking fees when those are used to finance the program. Impacts ⢠Two main factors are used to evaluate the program: ridership and participation rates. Ridership is the basis for many other effects including parking demand, student mobil- ity, and off-peak use. Participation rates are used to determine program impacts and the fairness of the financing system. ⢠U-Pass programs have been shown to have a major impact on student/faculty/staff transit ridership. According to the literature review, student transit ridership increased from 35% to 200%, and a corresponding decrease in auto usage that ranged from 20% to 70% in the first year of the program. Survey results further show that passenger trips mostly exhibit continuing growth in subsequent years, ranging from 0.3% to 251% annually. ⢠In general, transit agencies and educational institutions are satisfied with the U-Pass program. Some unsuccessful experiences in implementing the program are due to uni- versity administrator resistance, university concern about the loss of parking revenue, student opposition to fee increases, lack of transit service on campus, limited resources on campus to start a program, and problems with part-time students using a pass for non-university travel. ⢠The smart card technology used for many U-Pass programs provides substantial data that can be used to evaluate the program quickly. The investigated programs do not report a problem with fraud. Universities limit fraud by monitoring pass use and charging fees for pass replacement. Lessons Learned ⢠Transit agencies have learned that it is important to refine the details of pass use and compatibility, simplify the contracting process, and ensure that the price of the pass is
4 College Student Transit Pass Programs appropriate. Educational institutions have learned that it is important to have an effec- tive marketing program, improved administration of the pass, effective communica- tion with the transit agency and students, and better anticipation of the demand for the program. This report is a comprehensive study on the state of the practice of college student tran- sit pass programs; however, several topics are suggested for further study: employer-based transit pass programs, variation in U-Pass usage rates among different locations, the impact of perceived and actual fares for transit systems, the use of smart card data for transit plan- ning, long-term travel habits, and better methods to assess non-user benefits.
