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.

15 Introduction In early 2017, the investigators conducted an on-line survey on a cross-section of transit agencies and universities with U-Pass programs. They received responses from 21 of 25 surveyed locations for a response rate of 84%. The investigators also compiled data from other sources (e.g., web- sites and supplemental information provided by respondents). The purpose of the survey was to assess the current state of the practice among transit agencies, universities, and communities across North America. This chapter contains the survey methodology; respondent characteristics; and the survey results including roles of participants; program design and implementation; technology; financing; program benefits and challenges; impact measures and evaluation; and lessons learned. Survey Methodology The investigators sent the on-line survey to a cross-section of transit agencies and their partner universities or colleges in the United States and Canada. The questionnaire had two versions, one for agencies and one for institutions, with common questions in both versions and other questions specific to the kind of organization. The investigators distributed the questionnaire as a web-based survey via the TRB Survey Gizmo tool. Completed surveys were accepted from January 3, 2017, through February 28, 2017. The researchers selected their sample based on (1) a cross-section of places; (2) diversity in the size of campuses, the size of transit agencies, the age of programs, the geography of the locations, and the models of implementation/operation; and (3) known, reliable contacts. The team iden- tified a total of 25 survey locations from the sources, including on-line web sources, the APTA directory, the CUTA directory, and personal contacts from TRB panels or the investigators. Twenty-one transit agencies responded from 25 surveyed locations, as shown in Table 3. Note that to better understand the U-Pass partnerships in different institutional contexts for some of the surveyed transit agencies, more than one partner university was involved in the survey. For example, in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim region, as suggested by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), the investigators sent question- naires to the University of California Los Angeles and California State University, Northridge, because these two institutions have different U-Pass histories. Lastly, 20 institutions responded from 25 surveyed locations, as listed in Table 4. Respondent Characteristics This section describes the characteristics of responding agencies and their partner institu- tions, including the type of service area, the type of the agency/institution, the start year of the programs, and the model of operation. C h a p t e r 3 Survey Results

16 College Student transit pass programs Community & Agency Name (Start Year) Responder’s Title Service Area Population * Annual Unlinked Trips (Rank)** Participating Institution(s) Boston, MA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) (1989) Director of Operations Analysis 4,181,019 409,248,438 (5) 55 colleges and universities Washington, DC Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) (2016) Director, Customer Service, Sales & Fare Media 4,586,770 411,323,792 (4) American University Austin, TX Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Capital Metro) (1989) Program Manager 1,362,416 34,178,526 (39) The University of Texas at Austin Lexington, KY Transit Authority of LFUCG and Lexington (Lextran) (2014) General Manager 290,263 4,993,069 (140) University of Kentucky Stillwater, OK OSU-Stillwater Community Transit (2002) Transit Manager 45,688 719,111 (N/A) Oklahoma State University Blacksburg, VA Blacksburg Transit (1983) Communications & Customer Support Specialist 88,542 3,685,000 (174) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Raleigh, NC City of Raleigh: GoRaleigh (2008) Transportation Demand Management Coordinator 884,891 6,596,035 (122) North Carolina State University and 4 other colleges and universities Chicago, IL Chicago Transit Authority (1999) Director, Revenue and Fare Systems 8,608,208 514,216,813 (2) Chicago State University and 52 other colleges and universities Minneapolis, MN Metropolitan Council: Minneapolis Metro Transit (2000) Sales Operations Specialist 2,650,890 84,535,513 (21) University of Minnesota Twin Cities Cleveland, OH Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (2002) Executive Director– Marketing & Communications 1,780,673 49,245,884 (30) 5 colleges and universities Milwaukee, WI Milwaukee County Transit System (1991) Manager of Business and Institutional Sales 1,376,476 41,493,419 (35) University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee and 6 other colleges and universities Madison, WI City of Madison: Metro Transit (1990s) General Manager 401,661 15,492,317 (67) University of Wisconsin– Madison and 2 other colleges Bloomington, IN Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation (Bloomington Transit) (2000) General Manager 108,657 3,539,581 (182) Indiana University Champaign, IL Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District (N/A) Assistant Operations Director 145,361 13,289,106 (76) University of Illinois Urbana– Champaign Table 3. List of responding transit agencies.

Survey results 17 Community & Agency Name (Start Year) Responder’s Title Service Area Population * Annual Unlinked Trips (Rank)** Participating Institution(s) Los Angeles-Long Beach- Anaheim, CA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) (2003) Director, Metro Commuter Services 12,150,996 479,654,334 (3) University of California Los Angeles, California State University, Northridge, and 7 other colleges and universities Seattle, WA King County Metro (1991) Senior Transportation Planner 3,059,393 125,340,418 (12) University of Washington, Cascadia College San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, CA Foothill Transit (2013) Special Projects Manager 1,684,088 *** 14,522,170 (71) 3 colleges and universities Tucson, AZ City of Tucson: Sun Tran (1994) Assistant Director of Marketing & Communications 843,168 20,272,980 (55) University of Arizona Honolulu, HI Oahu Transit Services, Inc. (2005) President and General Manager 802,459 67,449,151 (25) University of Hawaii at Manoa and 20 other colleges and universities Kitchener–Waterloo, ON Grand River Transit: Region of Waterloo (2005) Supervisor, Transit Development 523,894 **** 22,000,000 ***** (N/A) Wilfrid Laurier University, University of Waterloo Vancouver, BC South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TransLink) (2003) Supervisor, Revenue Contracts 2,463,431 **** N/A 10 colleges and universities Notes: N/A = not available. * Derived from APTA National Transit Database except Kitchener–Waterloo, ON. ** Derived from APTA 2016 Public Transportation Fact Book except Foothill Transit and Grand River Transit—Region of Waterloo. *** Reported by the respondent. **** Derived from Canada 2016 Census of Population. ***** Derived from Grand River Transit 2014 Ridership Report. Table 3. (Continued). Service Area The service areas represent a diversity of locations from small towns to large metropolitan regions. Of the 21 responding agencies, 5 agencies serve very large metropolitan areas, 3 agencies serve large metropolitan areas, 9 agencies serve average-sized metropolitan areas, and 4 agencies serve small cities/college towns. Type of Transit Agency The responding agencies serve populations ranging from 45,688 (Stillwater, Oklahoma), to 12,150,996 (Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, California). The annual unlinked trips vary from 3,539,581 at Bloomington Transit (ranked 182 in the APTA 2016 Public Transporta- tion Fact Book) to 514,216,813 at Chicago Transit Authority (ranked 2 in the APTA 2016 Public Transportation Fact Book). The number of universities served also varies, from one university (e.g., American University served by Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and Indiana University served by Bloomington Transit) to 55 universities and colleges served by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Figure 1 is a map of the locations of the responding transit agencies.

18 College Student Transit Pass Programs City Institution Name (Start Year) Responder’s Title Undergraduate Enrollment* Graduate Enrollment* Hartford, CT Capital Community College (2002) Dean of Student Services & Enrollment Management 3,942 N/A Hartford, CT Trinity College (1999) Director of Community Service and Civic Engagement 2,238 104 New Britain, CT Central Connecticut State University (N/A) Director of Environmental Health and Safety 9,720 2,392 State College, PA Pennsylvania State University (2001) Alternative Transportation Program Coordinator 40,742 6,565 Ithaca, NY Cornell University (N/A) Senior Director, Transportation Services 14,315 7,004 Washington, DC American University (2016) Executive Director 7,259 3,643 Austin, TX The University of Texas– Austin (1989) Assistant Director, Lecturer 37,689 12,775 Stillwater, OK Oklahoma State University (2002) Transit Manager 18,191 5,293 Blacksburg, VA Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Director 23,600 7,316 Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University Transit Manager 24,833 9,904 Minneapolis, MN University of Minnesota Twin Cities (1998) Assistant Director, Fleet and Transportation Services 30,511 16,294 Milwaukee, WI University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (1993) Transportation Services Manager 23,636 5,231 Madison, WI University of Wisconsin–Madison (1996) Transportation Programs Advisor, Associated Students of Madison 28,525 12,010 Bloomington, IN Indiana University Bloomington (N/A) Transportation Demand Management Coordinator and Bicycle Manager 38,364 10,150 Los Angeles, CA University of California Los Angeles (2000) Director Communications/Commuter Services 26,162 11,995 Northridge, CA California State University, Northridge (2016) Manager of Support Services, Associated Students 29,967 5,133 Seattle, WA University of Washington (1991) Interim Manager, Commuter Options & Planning 27,652 13,144 Tempe, AZ University of Arizona (2000) Alternative Modes Program Manager (Interim) 30,343 8,494 Honolulu, HI University of Hawaii at Manoa (2005) Student Events and Campus Life Services 13,599 6,425 Waterloo, ON, Canada Wilfrid Laurier University–Waterloo (2005) Assistant Vice President, Student Services 15,650 860 Note: N/A = not available. * Derived from the official websites of responding institutions. Table 4. List of responding institutions.

Survey results 19 Type of Partner Institution Twenty partner institutions (2 colleges and 18 universities) replied to the survey. The institutions are about equally divided into four enrollment categories: less than 20,000 stu- dents (5 institutions), 20,001 to 30,000 students (5 institutions), 30,001 to 45,000 students (6 institutions), and 45,001 or more students (4 institutions). All institutions have both under- graduate and graduate programs except Capital Community College, which only offers under- graduate programs. Figure 2 is a map of the locations of the responding partner institutions. Start Year of Programs Among the 21 responding transit agencies, the earliest U-Pass program was begun at Blacks- burg Transit in 1983, while the latest is at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), which began a pilot program in August 2016. Among the 20 responding institutions, the first university to introduce a U-Pass program was the University of Texas at Austin in 1989 in cooperation with Capital Metropolitan Transporta- tion Authority (Capital Metro), while the latest was American University, the first participating institution served by WMATA, beginning in fall 2016. Model of Operations Among the 21 responding agencies, the dominant partnership model between transit agencies and participating institutions is the one transit agency partnered with multiple universities (1-M) Figure 1. Map of the locations of the responding transit agencies.

20 College Student transit pass programs model (14 of 21). Other models are either multiple agencies partnered with multiple universities (M-M) (4 of 21), or one agency with one university (1-1) (6 of 21). Stillwater, Oklahoma, is a unique case among all the responding locations, where the institution itself (Oklahoma State University) provides transit services for the surrounding community. Table 5 summarizes some of the key characteristics of responding agencies and their partner institutions and indicates the diversity of respondents by the region, the service areas, the model of operation, and the age of the programs. Survey Results Roles of Participants Primary Advocator or Initiator The survey data show that public transit operators, school administrators, and student asso- ciations all become involved in initiating a U-Pass program. However, responses are somewhat different for transit agencies and institutions when the data are examined in detail. More than two-thirds of the responding transit agencies (67%) thought of themselves as the dominant advocators or initiators of the program, while half of the responding institutions (50%) consid- ered the school administration as the primary advocators or initiators. Only one case (i.e., The University of Arizona) cited team efforts between the university parking department and the local transit agency to initiate the program (see Figure 3). Figure 2. Map of the locations of the responding partner institutions.

Survey Results 21 Characteristics Respondents Agency Partner Institution Region Northeast 2 6 South 5 4 Midwest 7 4 West 5 5 Canada 2 1 Total 21 20 Service Area Very Large Metro 5 3 Large Metro 3 2 Metro 9 10 College Town 4 5 Total 21 20 Model of Operations* Self-operated 1 1 1-1 4 3 1-M 10 9 M-M 6 7 Total 21 20 Age of Programs <=10 years 4 2 11-20 years 8 9 >=21 years 8 4 Don’t know 1 5 Total 21 20 Note: * 1-1: 1 transit agency partnered with 1 institution; M-M: multiple transit agencies partnered with multiple institutions; and 1-M: 1 transit agency partnered with multiple institutions. Table 5. Summary of responding agencies and their partner institutions based on respondent characteristics. Notes: n (transit agencies) = 21, n (institutions) = 20. Total exceeds 100 percent due to multiple choices of response. Figure 3. Primary advocate or initiator of the program.

22 College Student transit pass programs Notes: n (transit agencies) = 21, n (institutions) = 20. InstitutionsTransit Agencies Figure 4. Lead role in the day-to-day program management. Notes: n (transit agencies) = 21. Total exceeds 100 percent due to multiple choices of response. Figure 5. Transit agency roles reported by responding agencies. Lead Role in Day-to-Day Management The investigators asked both the transit agencies and the institutions, “Who has the lead role in the U-Pass program?” Responses were divided into the following three categories, with notable differences between the responding agencies and institutions (see Figure 4): • Sole management: 19% of the responding agencies and 15% of the responding institutions reported transit agencies as having the lead role in the day-to-day management, while 10% of the responding agencies and 25% of the responding institutions reported universities having the lead role; • Two-party management: 71% of the responding agencies and 40% of the responding institu- tions reported a partnership of public transit operators and institutions, while another 10% of the responding institutions indicated a partnership of public transit operators and student associations; and • Three-party management: The remaining 10% of the responding institutions reported a partnership among public transit operators, institutions, and student associations. Transit Agency Roles The survey asked transit agencies, “What are the roles of the transit agency in implement- ing the program?” Respondents from transit agencies indicated that transit agencies play very proactive roles in developing and implementing the U-Pass program. As shown in Figure 5, the

Survey results 23 overwhelming majority of the responding agencies conducts operations planning on transit routes, scheduling, timetable development, and user information distribution (90%); collects data and evaluates the impacts of the program (90%); and develops the funding mechanisms and fare structures (75%). Some agencies commented on their additional roles as follows: • Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) reported that extra responsibil- ities include board approval, product development, marketing/student engagement, contract negotiations/signatures, project planning, card design/order, stakeholder meetings, training, data integration/file transfer protocols, billing and board updates; • Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) participates in entitlement management; • King County Metro maintains the smart card system, invoices, and interfaces with other transit agencies in the region; • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) indicated that the agency also deals with administration and marketing; • Foothill Transit gets involved in marketing the U-Pass program; and • South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TransLink) reported that the agency takes partnership agreements as its extra responsibility. Institutional Roles The survey asked institutions, “What are the roles of the institution in implementing the pro- gram?” Among the 19 responding institutions, 89% of the institutions maintain a regular dialog with the transit operator concerning service issues, 37% of the institutions influence transit deci- sions through contracts for service, and 11% of the institutions have official representatives on the transit system policy board. The only exception is from Oklahoma State University, which devel- ops and implements its U-Pass program independently. Figure 6 displays these results on a graph. In addition, the University of Wisconsin–Madison added clarifying comments about institu- tional roles, as follows: “Student government and university administration negotiate separate contracts with the transit agency. Students also have a seat on the transit and parking commission in the university. Student government and the university transportation service department each negotiate a memorandum of understanding to fund public transit service on campus. Campus transportation services work with the transit agency for day-to-day issues such as detours.” Notes: n (institutions) = 19. Total exceeds 100 percent due to multiple choices of response. Figure 6. Institutional roles reported by responding institutions.

24 College Student transit pass programs Student Roles Students are critical to the success of the U-Pass program and at some places they are involved in the governance of the transit systems. Therefore, the investigators included a question in the institution questionnaire regarding student roles. Responses from institution respondents show that although over half of the institutions (58%) chose “students are not involved in the management of the program,” they also indicated that students were playing active roles in the U-Pass programs, such as participating on the advisory committee (37%), holding a referendum (16%), getting involved in administrative and management positions (11%), and cooperating with class projects and other research efforts (21%). Figure 7 displays these the results on a graph. In addition, three institutions added clarifying comments about student roles including the following: • University of Washington: “Student government approves all changes to the program fee”; • University of Hawaii at Manoa: “Student government advocates for the program as a mandatory transportation fee”; • University of Wisconsin–Madison: “Student government hires an advisor to deal with the day- to-day details of administering the pass program and provides advice on contract negotiations and other issues as they arise.” Program Design and Implementation Eligibility A fundamental question for designing and implementing the U-Pass program is “Who is eligible to use the pass?” Transit agencies and institutions responded to this question similarly. As shown in Tables 6 and 7, among 21 of the responding agencies and 20 of the responding institutions, about half (52% of the agencies, 50% of the institutions) provide U-Pass service only to students, while the remainder (43% of the agencies, 50% of the institu- tions) provide U-Pass service to students, faculty, and staff. There is one exception: Transit Authority of LFUCG and Lexington (Lextran) provides unlimited access to everyone, includ- ing the general public. Notes: n (institutions) = 19. Total exceeds 100 percent due to multiple choices of response. Figure 7. Student roles reported by responding institutions.

Survey results 25 Category Students Only Faculty Employees General Public Percentage (number of responding transit agencies) 52% (11 of 21) 43% (10 of 21) 5% (1 of 21) Eligibility Status* All students including non- credit students (0) Any students taking credit courses (5) Students paying segregated fee (2) Only full-time students (6) Students enrolled at least half time (1) Faculty (9) Non-faculty employees (7) All students including non- credit students (3) Any students taking credit courses (8) Students paying segregated fee (0) Only full-time students (1) Students enrolled at least half time (1) General public (1) Students + Faculty/Non- Everyone Including Note: n (transit agencies) = 21. *: For each category, the total may exceed the number of responding agencies due to multiple choices of response. Table 6. Pass eligibility reported by transit agencies. Category Students Only Students + Faculty/Non-Faculty Employees Percentage (number of responding institutions) 50% (10) 50% (10) Eligibility Status* All students including non-credit students (1) Any students taking credit courses (5) Students paying segregated fee (3) Only full-time students (2) Undergraduate students carrying 8+ units, graduate students carrying 6+ units (1) Faculty (10) Non-faculty employees (9) All students including non-credit students (2) Any students taking credit courses (6) Students paying segregated fee (3) Only full-time students (2) Students participating in state-funded programs or courses (1) Graduate students only (1) Note: n (institutions) = 20. *: For each category, the total may exceed the number of responding institutions due to multiple choices of response. Table 7. Pass eligibility reported by institutions.

26 College Student transit pass programs There was considerable variation in the student status needed to use the pass. Eligibility varied as follows: • All students, including non-credit students, were eligible for the pass at 3 agencies and 3 institutions; • Only students taking credit courses were eligible at 13 agencies and 11 institutions; • Only students paying segregated fees were eligible at 2 agencies and 6 institutions; • Only students participating in state-funded programs or courses were eligible at 1 institution; • Students enrolled at least half time were eligible at 2 agencies and 1 institution; • Only full-time students were eligible at 7 agencies and 4 institutions; • Only graduate students were allowed to use the pass at 1 institution. Other students were not allowed to use the pass. In addition, the response from the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM) defined its eligibility as follows: “The mandatory transportation fee was implemented to include graduate and undergraduate students but law and medical students were excluded. Other students not included in this group could purchase the opt-in U-Pass at a higher rate. The opt-in U-Pass was original from the U-Pass that was first instituted by UHM.” Pass Participation Rates To measure the percentage of eligible students who actively use the U-Pass program, the investigators asked the transit agencies and institutions “Approximately what percentage of the students have the pass?” About half of the agencies (53%) and one-third of the institutions (35%) showed that more than 90% of the eligible students use the pass; another one-fourth of the respondents (27% of the transit agencies, 24% of the institutions) indicated that less than half of the eligible students use the program; and the remainder (20% of the transit agencies, 44% of the institutions) indicated that less than half of the eligible students use the program. In some cases (e.g., City of Tucson: Sun Tran; University of Arizona; Pennsylvania State University; and California State University, Northridge), the pass coverage is extremely low (i.e., less than 10%). Table 8 summarizes the detailed data. Restrictions of Pass Usage In response to the question “What restrictions are there to use the program?”, a similar number of responding transit agencies and institutions (67% of the agencies, 65% of the institutions) indi- cated that there are no restrictions for pass usage; in other words, the pass can be used “any time of day, anywhere.” The remainder of the respondents had some limitations, including that the pass can only be used on certain routes (3 agencies and 2 institutions), the pass is limited by the time of day (1 institution), and the pass is available only for the spring and fall semesters (5 agencies and 3 institutions) (see Figure 8). As reported by the City of Raleigh: GoRaleigh, the participating institutions may have differ- ent policies regarding restrictions of pass usage, as described below: “The pass can be used based on two separate contracts: 1) some universities (i.e., Wake Tech Community College, Shaw University, Saint Augustine’s University, and Meredith College) can only use their pass on City of Raleigh - GoRaleigh transit system, which provides bus service throughout Raleigh as well as R-LINE service in Downtown Raleigh; and 2) other universities (i.e., North Carolina State University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Duke University) are eligible to use GoTriangle, which is a regional pass that allows rides on all buses in the broader Triangle region.” Types of Service As shown in Figure 9, U-Pass programs cover a wide range of public transit services including local fixed-route bus service (100% of the agencies, 95% of the institutions); on-campus shuttles

Survey results 27 Community Transit Agency Institution Name Percent Annual number Name Percent Annual number Hartford, CT Connecticut Transit–Hartford Division N/A N/A Capital Community College 60% N/A Trinity College 90-100% N/A Central Connecticut State University N/A 1,000 State College, PA Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA) N/A N/A Pennsylvania State University 3.2% N/A Ithaca, NY Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Inc. (TCAT) N/A N/A Cornell University 15% 3,100 Washington, DC Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) 98% N/A American University N/A 10,000 Austin, TX Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Capital Metro) N/A N/A The University ofTexas at Austin 100% N/A Lexington, KY Transit Authority of LFUCG and Lexington (Lextran) 100% 35,000 University of Kentucky N/A N/A Stillwater, OK OSU-Stillwater Community Transit 100% N/A Oklahoma State University 100% N/A Blacksburg, VA Blacksburg Transit 100% N/A Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 100% N/A Raleigh, NC City of Raleigh: GoRaleigh 100% N/A North Carolina State University N/A 7,300 Minneapolis, MN Minneapolis Metro Transit N/A 19,061 University of Minnesota 33% N/A Cleveland, OH Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 50–65% Over50,000 Cleveland State University N/A N/A Milwaukee, WI Milwaukee County Transit System 70% N/A University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee 63% N/A Madison, WI Madison Metro Transit 60% 25,000 * University ofWisconsin–Madison 70% N/A Bloomington, IN Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation (Bloomington Transit) N/A N/A Indiana University 100% N/A Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) N/A 8,367 University of California Los Angeles 22% N/A California State University, Northridge 4.2% 1,600 Seattle, WA King County Metro Close to100% N/A University of Washington 96% 35,000 Tucson, AZ City of Tucson: Sun Tran 5–9% N/A University ofArizona 5% N/A Honolulu, HI Oahu Transit Services,Inc. 100% 22,000 Hawaii University N/A N/A Chicago, IL Chicago Transit N/A About University of Chicago N/A N/AAuthority 105,000 Table 8. Percentages of students who have the pass. (continued on next page)

Community Transit Agency Institution Name Percent Annual number Name Percent Annual number Boston, MA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 4% N/A Harvard University N/A N/A San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, CA Foothill Transit 7% N/A Mt. San Antonio College 17%** N/A Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Grand River Transit– Region of Waterloo 100% 90,000 Wilfrid Laurier University 90% N/A Vancouver, BC, Canada South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TransLink) 71% N/A University of British Columbia N/A N/A Notes: n (transit agencies) = 18, n (institutions) = 19. N/A = not available. * For University of Wisconsin–Madison only. **This data was reported by Foothill Transit, instead of Mt. San Antonio College. Table 8. (Continued). Notes: n (transit agencies) = 21, n (institutions) = 20. Total exceeds 100 percent due to multiple choices of response. Figure 8. Restrictions on pass usage. Notes: n (transit agencies) = 20, n (institutions) = 20. Total exceeds 100 percent due to multiple choices of response. Figure 9. Types of service.

Survey results 29 (40% of the agencies, 45% of the institutions); Dial-a-Ride/accessible paratransit (55% of the agencies, 30% of the institutions); urban light rail (35% of the agencies, 30% of the institu- tions); regional commuter rail where it exists (25% of the agencies, 20% of the institutions); other on-calls (e.g., night escort shuttles) (10% of the agencies, 10% of the institutions); park- ing shuttles (5% of the agencies); and intercity scheduled coach service (5% of the agencies, 5% of the institutions). Several locations have expanded services over time. As reported by Miller (2001), Pennsylva- nia State University introduced a U-Pass program in 2001 only for an on-campus loop shuttle but hesitated to expand it to the entire regional system. In 2017, the university expanded its U-Pass program to local fixed-route bus transit. Also, Indiana University began a 3-year phase- in of an unlimited access program by opening the Bloomington Transit system to all students, but delayed the expansion of campus bus routes due to financial concerns in the fall of 2000 (Miller 2001). After more than 10 years of operation, Indiana’s U-Pass program now covers a wide range of services, such as local fixed-route bus transit, on-campus circulator/shuttles, and Dial-a-Ride/accessible paratransit. Route/Service Changes As seen in Figure 10, a number of responding agencies and institutions (85% of the agen- cies, 80% of the institutions) reported route/service changes after the program was implemented, including modifications of existing routes (65% of the agencies, 60% of the institutions), expan- sion of service hours (50% of the agencies, 30% of the institutions), increases in vehicle trips that permit lower headways or longer routes on specific lines serving campus during peak periods (40% of the agencies, 35% of the institutions), and the addition of new routes centered on schools (25% of the agencies, 25% of the institutions). Some respondents added clarifying comments regarding route/service changes as follows: • In June 2014, Minneapolis Metro Transit opened the Green Line LRT that connects down- town St. Paul with downtown Minneapolis and passes the main corridor of the campus. At the same time, the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities indicated that it eliminated the direct route service to the campus operated by the university. Notes: n (transit agencies) = 20, n (institutions) = 20. Total exceeds 100 percent due to multiple choices of response. Figure 10. Route/service changes.

30 College Student transit pass programs • Sun Tran in Tucson set up a modern streetcar route linking the University of Arizona to downtown Tucson and three commercial/entertainment districts and added this route into the existing U-Pass program in 2014. • As indicated by the University of Wisconsin–Madison: “In initial years of the program, few changes were made. However, prior to the advent of the program, planning for a system wide overhaul of routes began. Revamped service was rolled out a few years after the start of their pass program and reflected the need for additional service to and on campus.” Coordination Strategies Over half of the transit agencies (55%) have coordination strategies between the U-Pass pro- gram and other campus transit services. Sun Tran, Madison Metro Transit, Capital Metro, and City of Raleigh: GoRaleigh, for example, coordinate the U-Pass program and parking; Lextran has a strategy that coordinates the U-Pass program and route planning. Usage after Leaving Institutions The investigators asked the respondents whether users can use the pass after they leave the institution and are no longer registered students. Among all 20 responding institutions, only 1 institution (University of Arizona) answered yes. Students at the University of Arizona could voluntarily buy passes, and the expiration date would not be the date they leave the institution, but rather the expiration date on the pass. Technology This section describes the fare media technologies that have been used in the U-Pass pro- grams. The investigators asked the respondents to characterize the fare media technology for pass identification. Figure 11 shows that responses fell into three categories: • Student IDs only (33% of the agencies, 25% of the institutions); • Smart card/sticker technology (38% of the agencies, 25% of the institutions); and • Student IDs along with smart card/sticker technology (29% of the agencies, 50% of the institutions). Some respondents reported the following fare media technologies for pass identification: • Pass or mobile app (reported by the University of Arizona); • University magnetic card with fee charged per ride (reported by Madison Metro Transit); Notes: n (transit agencies) = 21, n (institutions) = 20. Total exceeds 100 percent due to multiple choices of response. Figure 11. Fare media technology.

Survey results 31 • Program-specific stripe card (reported by Pennsylvania State University); • Student ID with pass and cash (reported by University of California Los Angeles); and • ORCA (One Regional Card for All) smart card technology as part of student ID (reported by the University of Washington–Seattle). Financing Program Budget Table 9 contains a general summary of the program budget reported by 10 transit agen- cies and 18 partner institutions. The program budgets ranged from less than $10,000 (Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority) to $6,000,000 (Capital Metro, Texas), as reported by the transit agencies; and from $25,000 (Trinity College) to $28,600,000 (University of Washington- Seattle), as reported by the institutions. Additional statistics show that, of the 28 respondents (including agencies and institutions), 43% have a budget of less than $2,000,000, 36% have a budget between $2,000,000 and $4,000,000, and 21% have a budget greater than $4,000,000. The average budget is $3,150,000. Inconsistency exists in the reported numbers by agencies and by institutions even from the same location, probably due to the classification of different budget items or the model of opera- tions, so the budgets reported in Table 9 may not be directly comparable with each other. None- theless, they provide a general picture of U-Pass program budgets. Funding Sources As shown in Table 10, a broad variety of funding sources have been used for the U-Pass pro- grams. Responding transit agencies indicated that student fees, and federal, state, and local funds are the main funding sources. Responding institutions indicate that student fees and parking fees are frequently used to fund the program. Some respondents provided extensive data on budget components as follows: • University of California Los Angeles—The budget of the U-Pass program consists of two sources: 67% from parking fees and the rest from fares; • University of Washington—Budgets for students and faculty/staff are separate. The total budget for students is $17,600,000 (66% from student fees, 24% from parking fees, and 10% from central administration). The total budget for faculty/staff is $11,000,000 (57% from student fees, 23% from parking fees, and 20% from a central administration subsidy); and • OSU: Stillwater Community Transit—The U-Pass program uses $2,100,000 from federal sources, $119,000 from the state, $35,000 from fares, $10,000 from advertising, and $1,200,000 from student fees. Payment Methods. Among a total of 20 responding institutions, about two-thirds (60%) use student fees to partially or totally fund the U-Pass program, two-fifths (40%) provide the option of “users voluntarily purchase a pass,” one-fifth (20%) use faculty and staff fringe benefits to fund the program, depending on the eligibility of faculty and staff, with 20% of the respondents reporting that the pass is part of the university budget (see Figure 12). Student fees represent a form of funding unique to U-Pass programs and substitute for farebox revenue by offering prepaid unlimited access transit service. Table 11 summarizes student fee information obtained from the responding institutions.

32 College Student Transit Pass Programs Community Transit Agency Institution Name Budget (Dollars) Name Budget (Dollars) Hartford, CT Connecticut Transit–Hartford Division N/A Capital Community College $50,000 Trinity College $25,000 Central Connecticut State University $45,000 State College, PA Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA) N/A The Pennsylvania State University $870,000 Ithaca, NY Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Inc. (TCAT) N/A Cornell University $14,266,772 Washington, DC Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) $2,700,000 American University $2,700,000 Austin, TX Capital Metro $6,000,000 University of Texas at Austin $6,000,000 Lexington, KY Transit Authority of LFUCG and Lexington (Lextran) $1,200,000 University of Kentucky N/A Stillwater, OK OSU: Stillwater Community Transit $4,200,000 Oklahoma State University $4,200,000 Blacksburg, VA Blacksburg Transit $3,046,527 Virginia Tech $3,704,510 Raleigh, NC City of Raleigh N/A North Carolina State University N/A Minneapolis, MN Minneapolis Metro Transit N/A University of Minnesota $4,000,000 Cleveland, OH Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Less than $10,000 Cleveland State University N/A Milwaukee, WI Milwaukee County Transit System N/A University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee $2,272,500 Madison, WI Madison Metro Transit $3,600,000 University of Wisconsin–Madison $4,703,100 Bloomington, IN Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation $1,100,000 Indiana University N/A Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) $2,500,000 University of California Los Angeles $1,200,000 California State University, Northridge $145,000 Seattle, WA King County Metro N/A University of Washington $28,600,000 Tucson, AZ Sun Tran $450,000 University of Arizona $450,000 Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Grand River Transit–Region of Waterloo N/A Wilfrid Laurier University $2,400,000* Notes: n (transit agencies) = 10, n (institutions) = 18. * Canada Dollars. Table 9. U-Pass program budgets.

Funding Source Number of Transit Agencies Number of Institutions Federal, state, and local government 5 5 Parking fees 2 9 Fare 2 3 Public transit operator 3 2 Advertising 2 2 Private subsidy 0 0 School general fund 3 2 Student fees 13 14 Other 2 3 Note: n (transit agencies) = 17, n (institutions) = 19. Table 10. Funding sources for U-Pass program. Notes: n (institutions) = 20. Total exceeds 100 percent due to multiple choices of response. Figure 12. U-Pass payment methods. City Institution Name Price Unit Washington, DC American University $130.00 Per Student Per Semester Austin, TX The University of Texas at Austin $6,000,000 Total Per Year Stillwater, OK Oklahoma State University $2.50 Per Student Per Session Blacksburg, VA Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University $58 .00 Per Student Per Semester Milwaukee, WI University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee $45.10 Per Student Per Semester Madison, WI University of Wisconsin– Madison $55.52 Per Student Per Semester Bloomington, IN Indiana University $64.61 Per Student Per Semester Honolulu, HI University of Hawaii at Manoa $50.00 Per Student Per Semester Seattle, WA University ofWashington $84.00 Per Student Per Semester Hartford, CT Capital Community College $12.00 Per Student Per Semester Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Wilfrid Laurier University $85.20* Per Student Per Semester Notes: n (institutions) = 11. * Canada dollars. Table 11. Details of student fees reported by responding institutions.

34 College Student transit pass programs In some cases, users can voluntarily purchase a pass if students are not enrolled in classes (e.g., non-credit students, special program students, etc.). Table 12 summarizes detailed dollar amount information for voluntary purchases. Program Benefits and Challenges Benefits The survey was used to identify U-Pass benefits as reported by transit agencies and insti- tutions. The benefits are measured by a five-level Likert agree-disagree scale (i.e., strongly agree = 5; agree = 4; neutral = 3; disagree = 2; strongly disagree = 1). At both the transit agencies and the institutions, all the benefits are rated above neutral. The top-rated benefits for transit agencies are increased transit ridership to campus; increased transit ridership to other locations; creating lifetime riders/marketing, and increased transit revenue, as shown in Figure 13. The top benefits indicated by the responding institutions are reduced demand for campus area parking, reduced commuting costs for students, and improved college affordability, as shown in Figure 14. Name of Institutions Dollar Amount Unit University of California Los Angeles $55.00 Per Pass Per Month/Session University of Washington $50.00 (for students without taking state-funded courses) Per Pass Per Month University of Minnesota $100.00 Per Pass Per Semester University of Hawaii at Manoa $225.00 Per Pass Per Semester Cornell University $200.00 Per Pass Per Year North Carolina State University $5.00 (for employees) Per Pass Per Month$5.00 (for students) Per Pass Per Year University of Arizona $90.00 or $120.00 (regular or express) Per Pass Per Semester $225.00 or $285.00 (regular or express) Per Pass Per Year California State University, Northridge $95.00 Per Pass Per Semester Note: n (institutions) = 8. Table 12. Details of voluntary pass purchase reported by responding institutions. Note: n (transit agencies) = 20. Figure 13. Benefits from the perspective of transit agencies.

Survey results 35 Challenges The survey also asked about the challenges faced by transit agencies and institutions (see Fig- ures 15 and 16, respectively). Among all 20 of the responding transit agencies, 12 agencies (60%) thought “abusive pass use” was a concern, while 7 agencies (35%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “additional cost with more buses and facilities.” Among the 20 responding institutions, over half of them agreed or strongly agreed that “the cost of the program paid by the institution” (60%) and “resistance to increasing parking fee” (50%) were two major concerns. Note: n (institutions) = 20. Figure 14. Benefits from the perspective of institutions. Notes: n (transit agencies) = 20. Figure 15. Challenges from the perspective of transit agencies. Note: n (institutions) = 20. Figure 16. Challenges from the perspective of institutions.

36 College Student transit pass programs Performance Measures and Evaluation Sources of Performance Measures The investigators asked respondents “What kind of data do you use to evaluate the program?” As shown in Figure 17, among the 20 responding agencies and 19 responding institutions, the most commonly used performance measures are ridership data (100% of the agencies, 89% of the institutions); financial data such as subsidy, fare income, and cost (60% of the agencies, 63% of the institutions); and user satisfaction survey results (30% of the agencies, 58% of the institutions). In addition to the above-mentioned performance measures, some respondents use other data to evaluate the program. The University of California Los Angeles, for example, considers the carbon footprint in evaluating the program, while the University of Arizona uses the number of passes sold to evaluate the program. Impacts of Ridership Changes Transit ridership increases are widely regarded as the most important benefit of U-Pass pro- grams. U-Pass programs have resulted in significant student transit ridership gains, ranging from 35% to 200% after the first year of implementation (see Table 1). To determine if there is continuing ridership growth after program implementation, the inves tigators collected and compared data for unlinked U-Pass passenger trips for the first available fiscal year and the most recent data available for the fiscal year after the program was implemented. As seen in Table 13, 13 out of 15 respondents (including 10 agencies and 5 insti- tutions) experienced an average annual passenger trip growth, ranging from 0.3% (Blacksburg Transit, VA) to 251% (Grand River Transit, Waterloo, Canada). However, two respondents reported decreased passenger trips (i.e., City of Tucson: Sun Tran and Cornell University) in the subsequent years. The respondent at Grand River Transit (Waterloo, Canada) further explained the possible reasons for the large rate of growth (i.e., 251%), as follows: “In 2005 the program began with just the undergraduate students at Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) - about 10,000 students. By 2010, both the undergraduates and graduate students at WLU and at the Univer- sity of Waterloo (UW) had joined the program. As a result, there were about 37,000 students in the program Notes: n (transit agencies) = 20, n (institutions) = 19. Total exceeds 100 percent due to multiple choices of response. Figure 17. Sources of performance measures.

Survey results 37 in 2010 taking 4,189,000 rides a year. We also adjusted the program so students would pay for the U-Pass in two terms but be able to use it in all 3 terms. This helps in our context as the co-op program is very large at UW where most students study one term then work the next term. For students who find a job in town, they can continue to use the pass that term (as the students I employee this term are doing). Currently about 41,000 students in the busiest term of 3 terms a year use the program. So a large part of the growth was in the first few years when additional students were added to the pro- gram. However, the trips per student have increased as well which shows a greater acceptance of the program among users. GRT has also had some significant service increases over the last number of years and this increase in service has helped push up ridership. Some of the service increase has specifically been targeted to the universities and reacted to the amount of students using the service which in turn provides more service to encourage ridership. In 2005 we launched the iXpress service which is a high frequency, limited stop express route connecting the universities and many other destinations (e.g., downtowns, major shopping centres, and hospitals). This service has proven highly successful which also increased ridership – the timing with the U-Pass helped both the U-Pass value and the iXpress service. Ridership in the iXpress grew as it matured along with increases in U-Pass usage. Since then we have launched 4 other iXpress routes – 2 of which connect to the schools. More iXpress routes will be added over the next few years which will also increase ridership. The original iXpress is being replaced by an LRT route which will undoubtedly increase U-Pass ridership further.” Type of Organization Name of Respondent Unlimited Passenger Trips (data from the most recent available fiscal year) Unlimited Passenger Trips (data from the first available fiscal year) Average Annual Growth* Agency City of Tucson - Sun Tran 340,501(2015) 424,594 (2012) -7% Blacksburg Transit 3,311,594 (2016) 3,222,536 (2007) 0.3% King County Metro 9,797,772 (2016) 6,760,557 (1999) 3% Foothill Transit 957,052(2016) 870,160 (2013) 3% Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District 9,754,925 (2016) 6,087,656 (2000) 4% Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) 2,100,000 (2016) 1,790,000 (2013) 6% Oahu Transit Services, Inc. 3,700,000 (2016) 1,300,000 (2007) 21% Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation 2,460,000 (2016) 412,000 (2000) 31% Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 2,000,000 (2015) 445,000 (2008) 50% Grand River Transit –Region of Waterloo 6,100,000 (2016) 213,000 (2005) 251% Institution Cornell University 2,964,000 (2015) 3,057,000 (2014) -3% University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee 1,548,201 (2016) 1,216,058 (1994) 1% University of Wisconsin – Madison 3,108,455 (2015) 1,742,143 (1997) 4% Indiana University 2,455,011(2016) 1,550,023 (2006) 6% Wilfrid Laurier University 7,000,000 (2014) 5,000,000 (2011) 13% Notes: n (transit agencies) = 10, n (institutions) = 5. *Average Annual growth = (U-Pass Passenger Trips in the most recent fiscal year – U-Pass Passenger Trips in the first fiscal year)/(U-Pass Passenger Trips in the first fiscal year × span of years) × 100%. Table 13. Unlinked U-Pass passenger trip changes.

38 College Student transit pass programs Levels of Satisfaction The survey asked the degree of satisfaction with the program. A five-level satisfaction scale was used by both responding agencies and institutions (i.e., very satisfied = 5; satisfied = 4; neutral = 3; dissatisfied = 2; very dissatisfied = 1). Transit agencies are nearly all satisfied with the U-Pass program (19 out of 20 responding agencies ranked this item as very satisfied or satisfied), while 15 of the 18 responding institutions ranked this item as very satisfied or satisfied, as shown in Figure 18. The survey also asked the respondents if there were any unsuccessful experiences in imple- menting the program. Problems reported included university administrator resistance, univer- sity concern about loss of parking revenue, student opposition to fee increases, no transit service on campus, limited resources on campus, and problems with part-time students’ inclusion (fees too high for what they were willing to accept). The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Author- ity (MBTA), for example, indicated that its agency was dissatisfied with the U-Pass program because of university administrator resistance and limited resources on campus. Pennsylvania State University stated that it created an entirely new set of problems after allowing graduate students into the RidePass mass transit program, which was originally available for full-time faculty and staff only. General Attitudes among Various Parties To gauge the attitudes among various parties toward the program, the survey asked “How would you rate the general attitudes of each of the following toward the program?” A five-level satisfaction scale was used by both responding agencies and institutions (i.e., very satisfied = 5; satisfied = 4; neutral = 3; dissatisfied = 2; very dissatisfied = 1). In general, respondents from transit agencies and institutions have consistently positive atti- tudes toward the program (see Figure 19). However, institutions tend to consider the attitude of bus drivers as negative (at an average of 2.5) while transit agencies think bus drivers are above neutral (at an average of 3.2). It is also noticeable that both the transit agencies and the institu- tions rank the attitude of student non-users as slightly negative. Notes: n (transit agencies) = 20, n (institutions) = 18. Figure 18. Levels of satisfaction.

Survey results 39 Lessons Learned An open-ended question asked respondents what they would have done differently when the program was implemented. A total of 7 transit agencies responded with comments about eligi- bility, smart card technology, financing, contracts and other items, as given in Table 14. A total of 11 institutions provided comments about eligibility, marketing, partnerships, financing, and impact measures, as given in Table 15. The comments were generally positive and gave suggestions on how to work through some of the details of the program. Common suggestions were to refine the details of pass use and Notes: n (transit agencies) = 20, n (institutions) = 19. Figure 19. General attitudes toward U-Pass programs among various parties. Category Lessons Learned Eligibility “Ensure that all students have option to opt-in, or mandate that all students are in.” Smart Card Technology “Better security to prevent abusive sales of U-Pass stickers.” “Find a way to more quickly have the pass be a smart card that is part of the university ID card. We are not there yet, so there are some fare abuse problems, though not major.” “Our smart card system isn't currently capable of offering a Deep Discount Group Program where all students, staff & faculty could get a smart card to use transit with one fee for the University. If that were possible, our revenues and ridership would increase.” Financing “We should have projected an increase of ridership from the beginning years when setting the transit fees at each campus. Increasing ridership isn't able to be covered by the fees.” “Start at a higher price—initially started in order to gain acceptance and implement but created difficulty to increase to a reasonable balance of cost.” Contract “The contract that we have to use here at the City of Raleigh is a ‘contractor’ contract which is frustrating and time consuming. We should have a ‘gopass’ contract for both public and private businesses.” Others “We are in a pilot phase of transitioning into a new U-Pass program when this survey is conducted, and changes can be made during this process.” Table 14. Lessons learned by transit agencies.

40 College Student transit pass programs compatibility, simplify the contracting process, and ensure that the price of the pass is appro- priate. Other suggestions included having an effective marketing program; improving admin- istration of the pass; developing and maintaining good communications among the transit agency, students, and institutions; and better anticipating demand for the program. Summary This chapter reports the results of an on-line survey of transit agencies and educational insti- tutions concerning their assessment of their U-Pass programs. The major findings are as follows: Roles of Agencies, Institutions, and Students • Program advocate: The survey data show that public transit agencies, school administrators, and student associations all are involved in initiating the U-Pass program. • Program management: A two-party partnership model has been frequently used in the pro- gram for day-to-day management, either a partnership between transit agencies and university administrators, or between transit agencies partnered with student associations. • Transit agencies: Agencies are responsible for operations planning of transit routes, schedul- ing, timetable development, and user information; data collection and program evaluation; and the funding mechanisms and fare structures. • Participating institutions: Institutions become involved in the program by maintaining a regular dialog with the transit operator about service issues; influencing transit decisions through contracts for service; and having official representatives on the transit system policy board. • Students: Students play active roles in implementing the U-Pass programs, such as participat- ing on an advisory committee, holding student referenda, getting involved in administrative and management positions, and cooperating with class projects and other research efforts. Category Lessons Learned Eligibility “We added the 'summer' option after a few years to accommodate students staying in the community on work terms...should have started earlier...PT students pushed to have it removed, strong interest by some to add back in.” Marketing “More targeted marketing Development of campus partners network.” “More marketing, and continuous throughout the year.” Partnership “Expand program to include additional agencies.” “The student government negotiates with the City. Implementation is by the Student Union services—at times there is a disconnect in communication.” Financing “Would have raised the cost consistently from the launch of the program and would have aligned it with parking fee increases.” “I did not implement the program. I took it over. Everything is working fine and changes that have been made have been because of rising costs over the past few years. Not much can be done about that.” Impact Measures “I think the staff of the transit agency did try to anticipate increased demand for service, but with little information from other locations available, they underestimated the growth in demand. It was a good problem to have, but overcrowding on buses did cause problems for drivers and riders. ” “Track better data of individual user” Others “Make reasonable estimation of workload for pass sale” “We followed an effective implementation strategy.” “Very little. The relationship with CT Transit made this a no brainer. It is a real win for our students who are largely low-income.” Table 15. Lessons learned by institutions.

Survey results 41 Program Design and Implementation • Eligibility: Students, faculty, and staff, or even the general public can be eligible for a U-Pass. There is considerable variation in the student status required to participate in the pass program. • Pass participation rates: The percentage of eligible students who actively use the U-Pass varies, ranging from less than 10% to 100%. • Restrictions: Passes can be used in an unlimited manner (i.e., any time of day, anywhere), used only on certain routes, limited by the time of day, or limited to fall and spring semesters. • Usage after graduation: Few programs allow students to use the pass after they leave the institution. • Types of service: 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-calls, and intercity scheduled coach service. • Service improvements: Transit route/service changes have been reported after the U-Pass program was implemented. These are modifications to existing routes, expansion of hours of service, increases in vehicle trips that permit lower headways or longer routes on specific lines serving campus during peak periods, or the addition of new routes centered on the school. The transit agencies handle changes to service following their normal procedures. • Coordination: Over half of the transit agencies (55% of the agencies) have coordination strat- egies between the U-Pass program and other campus transit services. • Technology: Passes can be used in several ways, such as combined use of a student ID and a smart card/sticker, student IDs only, and a smart card/sticker only. Financing • Program budget: The program budgets ranged from less than $10,000 to $6,000,000, as reported by the transit agencies; and from $25,000 to $28,600,000, as reported by the institu- tions. The average budget is $3,150,000. • Budget sources: The program uses 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 indicate that the program is generally funded by student fees and parking fees. Program Benefits and Challenges • Benefits: The top-rated benefits for the transit agencies are increased transit ridership to campus; increased transit ridership to other locations; creating lifetime riders/marketing, and increased transit revenue. The top benefits for the participating institutions are reduced demand for campus area parking, reduced commuting costs for students, and improved col- lege affordability. • Challenges: Major challenges faced by the transit agencies are abusive pass use and additional costs for more buses and facilities. Major challenges faced by the institutions are the cost of the program paid by the institution and resistance to increased parking fees when those are used to finance the program. Impact Measures • Performance measures: The most commonly used performance evaluation measures are ridership data; financial data such as subsidies; fare income and cost; and results of satis- faction surveys. • Passenger trip changes: The passenger trips mostly exhibit continuing growth, ranging from 0.3% to 251% annually in the years after program implementation.

42 College Student transit pass programs Levels of Satisfaction • Satisfaction: In general, both the responding agencies and the institutions are very satisfied or satisfied with the U-Pass. • Unsuccessful experiences: Some respondents had unsuccessful experiences in implement- ing the program due to university administrator resistance, university concern about loss of parking revenue, student opposition to fee increases, lack of transit service on campus, limited resources on campus, and problems with including part-time students (fees too high for what they were willing to accept). General Attitudes among Various Parties • Positive: Transit agencies and institutions have consistently positive attitudes toward the program. • Negative: It is also noticeable that institutions tend to consider the attitude of bus drivers as negative, and both the transit agencies and the institutions rank the attitude of student non- users as slightly negative. Lessons Learned • From agencies: The responding transit agencies suggested working out details of pass use and compatibility to simplify the contracting process and to ensure that the price of the pass is appropriate. • From institutions: The responding institutions suggested having an effective U-Pass mar- keting program; improved administration of the pass; good communications among the transit agency, the students, and the institutions; and better anticipation of the demand for the program.