College Student Transit Pass Programs (2018)

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.

8Introduction College Student Transit Pass Programs, known as U-Pass or unlimited access programs, generally provide unlimited transit service anytime, anywhere, and for any purpose for all eligible students enrolled at the college or university. In some cases, faculty and staff can also use a U-Pass. This literature review examines essays and reports that were published between 1991 and 2016 on the topic. On-line databases such as TRB’s TRID, APTA, Springer Link, Science Direct, Compendex (Engineering Village), and Google Scholar provided most of the sources. The inves- tigators obtained additional reports and other background resources either from agency and institution webpages or from some survey respondents who provided additional reports and other background resources. The literature review focused on the history, the design and imple- mentation, and the impacts of transit pass programs. The concept of fare-free public transit has been considered and implemented in the United States since at least the 1960s. U-Pass is perhaps the fastest growing type of fare-free service because of the large numbers of students and staff who usually bring traffic demand and parking problems (Miller 2001). Previous studies show that U-Pass programs are in place in North America in many locations. Miller (2001) studied 30 campus transit systems and found that 70% of them provided unlim- ited access service. A survey by Krueger and Murray (2008) of transit systems in college and uni- versity communities indicated that 51% (35 out of 68) included a formalized U-Pass program in addition to transit services provided by the institutions themselves. CUTA’s U-Pass Toolkit (Noxon Associates 2004) showed over 20 institutions served by U-Pass programs in 12 com- munities in Canada. The University of California San Diego was one of the earliest unlimited access programs (established in 1969) among the respondents to a survey by Brown et al. (2001). The U-Pass program served communities of various sizes—from small towns to large cities. The remaining sections in this chapter summarize the literature review in terms of the following: • Phases of implementation • Participants • Student referenda • Financing • Technology • Website information • Impacts C h a p t e r 2 Literature Review

Literature review 9 Phases of Implementation The U-Pass Toolkit (2004) emphasizes the importance of student involvement and support. The U-Pass programs usually include three phases: (1) planning, (2) buy-in, and (3) implemen- tation. The first phase includes initial discussions between a student association and the transit system, a survey of student travel patterns, preferences, and negotiation of key terms of the pass. In the buy-in phase, many institutions conduct a student referendum to build awareness and momentum among students and to obtain administrative approval. During the implementation phase, participants need to develop the service, finalize and sign contracts, launch the program, monitor operations, and review and renew the service. Participants The principal participants in the U-Pass program are the transit system, the university admin- istration, and student associations. In some cases, other interest groups are involved, such as environment organizations and health organizations. Transit System Transit agencies provide the unlimited access service to eligible students, faculty, and staff. These agencies also report service adjustments, as well as operating conditions (Williams and Petrait 1993; Carlson et al. 2009; Faucher 2011). It is also essential for transit agencies to inform transit vehicle operators about the application of U-Pass programs (Noxon Associates 2004). University Administration The main tasks of the university administration are approving the addition of manda- tory student fees; collecting fees from students and making remittances to the transit system; informing students about the program’s operation and conditions; and helping the transit agencies to prevent abuse of the pass (Williams and Petrait 1993; Noxon Associates 2004; Carlson et al. 2009; Faucher 2011). Student Association Student associations can be involved in program details and negotiation of contracts with transit agencies and with the organization of a student referendum and voting process when needed (Noxon Associates 2004). In addition, students can also participate in other ways, such as working as bus drivers (Oklahoma State University, on-line). Interest Groups Campus interest groups with an interest in the environment, sustainable development, health, social justice, or transportation can be valuable allies in shaping student opinions to support a U-Pass proposal (Noxon Associates 2004). These groups can help to get the word out to students and add their own perspectives on U-Pass benefits. Referendum U-Pass programs are often adopted or renewed after student voting or after a referendum. These processes have occurred in many places and provide support for any additional fees. For example, referenda were conducted in Cleveland State University in 2003 (Cleveland State

10 College Student transit pass programs University, on-line) and in American University in 2015 (American University, on-line), where overwhelming student support led to the approval of U-Pass programs. In Canada, students at University of Winnipeg voted in a referendum on October 29, 2014, with a majority vote of 81.7% in favor of establishing a U-Pass program (University of Winnipeg, on-line). Subse- quently, Winnipeg City Council approved the program to begin in fall 2016. The University of British Columbia approved a new U-Pass program after a referendum with 95% support in March 2011. Some other Canadian institutions are also involved in this new program, spear- headed by the Province of British Columbia (UBC Insiders, on-line). Some institutions also tried to determine an acceptable pass price by surveying students before implementation. In a survey in Western Washington University, 63% of respondents supported the pass price at $15 to $20 per student per academic quarter while only 36% supported a price of $50 per student per academic quarter (Myers et al. 2006). Financing Funding sources for the U-Pass programs typically include a combination of student fees, parking permit revenue, parking fine revenue, university general funds, and federal, state, and local operating assistance funds (Miller 2001; Carlson et al. 2009). At University of Washing- ton (Williams and Petrait 1993), the funds initially came from parking system revenue (30%), U-Pass user fees (students, faculty, and staff: 40%) and university subsidies. Student fees are charges in addition to tuition to pay for auxiliary services such as recreation, student organiza- tions, student union buildings, and so forth. In many cases, these fees are used to pay for the pass. The university collects the student fees and then makes remittances to the transit agencies (Faucher 2011). The policy to subsidize the U-Pass program with parking revenue can also lead students to reduce car usage and switch to public transit. Financing models vary from one loca- tion to another, but generally, students pay student fees at the same time as tuition. Most U-Pass programs are mandatory, although some institutions offer opt-outs for mobility-reduced students or part-time students (Letarte et al. 2016). Technology Two previous TCRP synthesis studies—TCRP Synthesis 78 (Krueger and Murray 2008) and TCRP Synthesis 123 (Thomson et al. 2016)—have addressed public transit technology issues. Smart card systems and the Global Positioning System (GPS) have been widely implemented over the last decade. Notably, some transit agencies began to integrate their fare media with multiple program elements, such as integrated toll collection functions for parking, roads, and bridges. In addition, owing to choices and expectations of customers, transit agencies have adopted innovative consumer payment instruments in recent years, such as mobile wallets, and credit, debit, or prepaid cards (Tavilla on-line). Website Information The investigators reviewed transit agency websites used in the 25 on-line survey locations (see Appendix B-1) to determine the types of information provided about U-Pass programs. Most agencies maintain a dedicated website introducing the details of their U-Pass programs including program introduction, pass price, eligibility to use the pass, and pass on-line application forms (either mandatory or opt-in). Participants find information about the program on specific web- pages (e.g., Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and King County Metro), or through external links (e.g., Foothill Transit and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation

Literature review 11 Authority). Agency websites provide static pre-trip information for trip planning (e.g., departure/ arrival times along with trip duration for a specific origin-destination pair). Although automatic vehicle location (AVL) technology has been widely deployed in recent years, at the time of this report the transit agencies in this survey have only partially implemented it to offer real-time schedule information (e.g., next bus arriving in x minutes) on their official websites. More than half (52%) of the reviewed agency websites provide park-and-ride information and about one third (33%) have ride-sharing information with on-line registration for carpools or vanpools. Agencies like Chicago Transit Authority and King County Metro Transit also publish a variety of transit-related data on websites for research use. A review of the college and university websites (see Appendix B-2) in the survey locations revealed that U-Pass programs are usually shown as a dedicated webpage under the respon- sible administrative departments such as the parking and transportation office, the business and finance office, or the student association. These pages usually display eligibility, restrictions for pass usage, pass price, procedures regarding pass activation and replacement, and accessibility issues in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. A few institutions such as the University of Chicago also incorporate real-time schedule information on their institution websites. Numerous institutions also provide ride-sharing, parking, or bike-sharing infor- mation as the alternative travel modes on linked pages. For example, American University offers a dedicated page for its Office of Sustainability to facilitate the use of campus transit and other choices of green traveling such as bike-sharing and electronic vehicle charging stations. A sustainability map also helps students explore the sustainability features on campus. Impacts Benefits and Challenges Previous studies revealed that U-Pass programs have been successful in providing educa- tional, economic, and societal benefits, not only for transit agencies, but also for the participating educational institutions and students. The most obvious benefits of U-Pass programs for transit agencies are possible increased rider- ship and a stable source of income. As transit usage grows, fewer complaints come from the public about empty buses, and transit unions are pleased by the additional work. Students involved in the program are more likely to be potential transit users after they graduate (Williams and Petrait 1993; Brown et al. 2001; Miller 2001; Noxon Associates 2004; Nuworsoo 2005; Carlson et al. 2009; Faucher 2011; Hess et al. 2014; Fan and Das 2015). U-Pass programs also help educational institutions to reduce parking demand on and around the campus. As a result of reduced car usage, fewer parking lots are needed, and land can be used for more buildings or green space. Meanwhile, auto travel and air pollution on campus will be eased, and “town-gown” conflicts will decrease. Better public transportation choices benefit the institutions and help to recruit and retain students and employees. U-Pass programs give students access to transit at a reduced price, and at the same time, improved transit services are generally designed to meet their needs. Students can have a safe and reliable travel option to explore the area when an auto is not available or when they consume alcohol (Williams and Petrait 1993; Brown et al. 2001; Miller 2001; Noxon Associates 2004; Nuworsoo 2005; Carlson et al. 2009; Faucher 2011; Hess et al. 2014; Fan and Das 2015). In addition to impacts on transit agencies, institutions, and students, the U-Pass programs also have positive impacts on the surrounding communities by reducing traffic congestion and illegal parking in residential areas around campus and by increasing transit frequency within the campus area (Meyer and Beimborn 1996; Noxon Associates 2004).

12 College Student transit pass programs On the other hand, transit agencies, educational institutions, and students face challenges. As reported by previous studies (Williams and Petrait 1993; Brown et al. 2001; Miller 2001; Noxon Associates 2004; Nuworsoo 2005; Carlson et al. 2009; Faucher 2011; Hess et al. 2014; Fan and Das 2015), some transit agencies find it difficult to balance U-Pass revenues and costs, and others find their buses insufficient to deal with increased ridership. Pressure on institu- tions includes complaints about increasing parking prices and equity concerns. Some students may resent having to pay for a service they rarely use. To develop a fuller understanding of U-Pass benefits and challenges, the investigators con- ducted a SWOT analysis based on a thorough literature review (Williams and Petrait 1993; Meyer and Beimborn 1996; Brown et al. 2001; Miller 2001; Noxon Associates 2004; Nuworsoo 2005; Carlson et al. 2009; Faucher 2011; Hess et al. 2014; Fan and Das 2015). A SWOT analysis is a structured planning method to identify U-Pass’s strengths and weaknesses (S-W), as well as broader opportunities and threats (O-T) from the perspectives of transit agencies, educational institutions, and students (See Appendix C). Ridership Growth U-Pass programs generally result in significant student transit ridership gains, especially dur- ing the first year of implementation. Table 1 presents a compilation of student ridership growth after U-Pass implementation. Growth ranged from 35% to 200% during the first year (Williams and Petrait 1993; Meyer and Beimborn 1996; Miller 2001; Boyd et al. 2003; Nuworsoo 2005; Carlson et al. 2009; Wu et al. 2010). In addition, student transit ridership was reported as con- tinuously increasing, with the growth rate in subsequent years ranging from 2% to 10% annually (Miller 2001; Boyd et al. 2003). Mode Shift Studies have shown that passes have significant impacts in shifting private automobile use to transit ridership (Meyer and Beimborn 1996; Meyer and Beimborn 1998; Boyd et al. 2003; Carlson et al. 2009). Wu et al. (2010) pointed out that the increased transit ridership came from high occupancy vehicle users at the University of British Columbia. The University of California Los Angeles showed a transit increase from 17% to 26%, a single occupancy vehicle (SOV) decrease from 36% to 32%, a reduction in walking from 23% to 19%, and a reduction in bicycling from 4% to 2% in the first year of adoption of the BruinGo program (Boyd et al. 2003). Faucher (2011) studied the characteristics of transit users who shifted from car usage at the Université de Sherbrooke and found they were mainly freshmen and sophomores living close to campus who did not own cars. Letarte et al. (2016) showed an 18% increase in use of transit at the University of Ottawa from 48% before program launch to 66% after program launch. Name of Institution Year Began First Year Student Ridership Increase (%) University of Washington 1991 35 University of Florida 1998 50 California State University, Sacramento 1992 71 University of California Davis 1990 79 University of Wisconsin–Madison 1996 104 University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee 1994 117 Penn State University 1999 160 University of Pittsburgh 1998 164 University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign 1989 193 University of Colorado, Boulder 1990 200 Table 1. First year student ridership growth after U-Pass implementation.

Literature review 13 Table 2 shows 11 universities’ mode shift values (Urban Systems 2005; ORC International 2013; Noxon Associates 2004). Parking One of the benefits to universities and communities of a successful U-Pass program is reduced pressure on overcrowded parking lots and streets within and around campuses (Meyer and Beimborn 1996; Meyer and Beimborn 1998; Boyd et al. 2003; Carlson et al. 2009; Hess et al. 2014). Transit and the U-Pass become more attractive to potential riders where parking is dif- ficult to find and expensive. The University of Washington raised the on-campus parking price when it introduced the U-Pass program; consequently, peak parking lot occupancy decreased from 91% to 87% in the first year (Williams and Petrait 1993). Hess et al. (2014) found the U-Pass program at the University at Buffalo helped influence some students to stop or delay car ownership. College Affordability The costs of attending a college include tuition; room and board; books; equipment; and transportation. The U-Pass program can have a significant effect on transportation costs, especially if students can avoid the purchase of an automobile. This factor can be significant in convincing university administrators to support a program. A transit pass allows students to invest in their education rather than in a vehicle; however, there has been limited study of this topic. The cost of owning and operating a car can range from $6,000 to $10,000 per year at 2017 levels depending on the age of the vehicle, local insurance costs, and the amount of driving (Meyer and Beimborn 1996). In addition, students can avoid parking costs. Together, these items constitute a considerable amount of money that can then be allocated for other college expenses. Enrollment Impacts Meyer and Beimborn (1996) investigated a number of other impacts of the transit pass implemented at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee in 1994–1995 through the use of student surveys and focus groups. One of the more interesting findings was the effect of the pass on the decision to attend college. About 15% of the survey respondents indicated that having a U-Pass would have a major impact on their decision to attend the university in the future. Name of Institution Drive to Campus Transit to Campus Before (%) After (%) Before (%) After (%) Simon Fraser University 33 25 37 56 University of British Columbia 29 17 44 69 University of California Los Angeles 36 32 17 26 University of Washington 25 14 21 35 University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee 54 41 12 26 University of Ottawa 18 14 48 66 University of Carleton 27 20 51 58 Université de Sherbrooke 49 32 17 44 University of Victoria 58 54 11 18 University of Ottawa 18 14 48 66 Table 2. Student mode shift before and after U-Pass implementation.

14 College Student transit pass programs Other Impacts Some studies show that the U-Pass programs can lead to a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and thus reduce emissions, fuel consumption, and expenses (Meyer and Beimborn 1996; Hess et al. 2014). The U-Pass program also may have a small tax benefit for employees of the university eligible for a pass. If employees purchase transit services with pre-tax salary, employers save money from reduced payroll taxes, including employer-paid Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, unemployment, worker compensation, disability, pension, and other obligations that can equal approximately 10% of salaries (Nuworsoo 2005). The driving trends of the Millennial generation (i.e., those born in the last 2 decades of the 20th century) are declining compared with earlier generations (McDonald 2015). A recent study (APTA on-line) indicated that Millennials consider public transit as the best option for digital socializing and a way to connect the users with their communities. Real-time transit applica- tions, smartphone fare payment, and the availability of Wi-Fi and 3G/4G are the main expecta- tions of Millennials for transit systems in the next 10 years. As a result, U-Pass programs may also have positive impacts in attracting and retaining Millennials and in influencing their travel habits and decisions about purchasing an automobile after they leave the university. Summary The literature on U-Pass programs is limited. However, studies have shown some common elements that can be useful to agencies and institutions considering the implementation of a U-Pass. Some of the key points in the literature are the following: • U-Pass programs are a collaborative effort among transit agencies, university students, and university administrators. A key element in many locations is conducting student referenda to approve the use of student fees to pay for a pass. • Most agencies and institutions maintain a dedicated website introducing the details of their U-Pass programs. Information on the agency websites usually includes program introduc- tion, pass price, eligibility to use the pass, and pass on-line application forms (either man- datory or opt-in), while information on the institution websites usually includes eligibility, restrictions for pass usage, pass price, procedures for pass activation and replacement, and accessibility issues in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. • Student fees, parking revenues, general university budgets, transit contributions, and state or local operating assistance all are used for program financing. A critical component in most programs is the use of student fees. • U-Pass programs have a major impact on transit ridership. Transit agencies reported increases that ranged from 30% to 200% in the first year of the program, with a corresponding decrease in auto usage that ranged from 20% to 70%, also in the first year. • Other impacts of U-Pass programs include decreased demand for parking, reduced travel, increased college affordability because students avoid having to purchase a vehicle, and poten- tial increased enrollment.