National Academies Press: OpenBook

College Student Transit Pass Programs (2018)

Chapter: Chapter 4 - Case Examples

« Previous: Chapter 3 - Survey Results
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. College Student Transit Pass Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25052.
×
Page 64

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.

43 Introduction The unique characteristics of universal college pass services give public transit systems an opportunity to provide creative mobility solutions to their communities and campuses. The survey results (Chapter 3) and the literature review (Chapter 2) have demonstrated that the U-Pass programs may have very different funding, fare and operating structures, and student demographics than conventional transit. To better understand the process of implementing the U-Pass programs, the investigators selected a cross-section of communi- ties for case examples and detailed analysis, ranging from small college towns to very large metropolitan areas. The investigators conducted interviews with personnel from transit agencies that have implemented U-Pass programs. These interviews allowed for in-depth discussions of the issues they encountered with their U-Pass programs and the procedures they followed. The selected examples are Blacksburg, Virginia; Seattle, Washington; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Los Angeles, California (2 examples). In the metropolitan area of Los Angeles, California, different transit agencies implemented parallel U-Pass programs with multiple participating universities. The investigators examined two programs from Los Angeles and described their working mechanisms. The case examples range from those that have been in operation for over 30 years to those that have been implemented for less than 5 years. Characteristics of the case example locations are given in Table 16. The investigators conducted telephone interviews ranging from 1 to 2 hours each in all the locations except Milwaukee where they used in-person interviews. In all cases, they interviewed transit agency personnel. In some locations, the team also obtained feedback from university representatives. The investigators also consulted the websites for both the agencies and the participating educational institutions to gather further information. Case examples include the following information as applicable: • Background • Rationale and objectives • Planning – Negotiation – Student referenda – Marketing • Implementation – Eligibility – Financing C h a p t e r 4 Case Examples

44 College Student transit pass programs – Technology – Service improvements – Coordination • Evaluation A copy of the interview guide is in Appendix A-2. The case examples are presented in the order in which the programs were implemented. Blacksburg Transit Background Blacksburg, Virginia, is the home of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, known as Virginia Tech, with an enrollment of approx- imately 30,000 students. Students make up over 90% of the ridership of Blacksburg Transit (BT) (see Figure 20). Blacksburg is in southwest Virginia, with a population of 42,600 in the city and a metropolitan area population of 160,000 (2010 census). The investigators derived informa- tion for this case example from interviews with Blacksburg Transit staff and from the transit agency website. Rationale and Objectives The U-Pass program began in the early 1980s as part of an effort by the university to accommodate increased student-housing needs with the construction of new private sector Type of Location Community (Region) Interviewee Annual Unlinked U-Pass Trips (Year)* Start Year of the U-Pass Program* Partnership Model** Remarks College Town Blacksburg, VA (South) Blacksburg Transit 3,311,594 (2016) 1983 1-1 Community benefits from university service Large Metro Seattle, WA (West) King County Transit 9,797,772 (2016) 1991 M-M Long history, goal to reduced neighborhood impacts, High ridership rates Metro Milwaukee, WI (Midwest) Milwaukee County Transit System 1,548,201 (2016) 1994 1-M Concern about neighborhood impacts and college affordability Very Large Metro Los Angeles, CA (West) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority 2,100,000 (2016) 2003 M-M Coordination between transit agencies, university flexibility Foothill Transit 957,052 (2016) 2013 M-M Service for commuter schools Regional cooperation Notes: * Reported by agency respondents. **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 16. Characteristics of case example sites. Source: http://www.btransit.org/index.aspx?page=1427, retrieved on May 7, 2017. Figure 20. Blacksburg Transit logo.

Case examples 45 off-campus housing, located a distance from the campus. Before that time Blacksburg had no public transit system. The goals of the transit service were to move students from their off-site housing to the campus, to reduce parking demand and auto use on campus, and to provide mobility for the community. Planning Negotiation. Transit services were the result of negotiations between the city and the uni- versity to serve new student housing, the university, and the public. The transit agency has a 3-year agreement with the university to provide the transit service that covers both operating and capital costs. Because of the significant usage by students and staff, the university contrib- utes to capital costs such as the purchase of new buses. The current agreement provides over $3 million for operating costs and about $250,000 for capital costs per year (see Appendix D-1). Monthly meetings are held with university staff to coordinate activities and work out any issues. Referenda. Students were not consulted in the decision to start the services and were not involved with initial administrative or planning decisions. After program implementation, some students have been hired as part-time drivers. Marketing. The transit agency participates in student orientations for all incoming stu- dents with the goal of getting transit use ingrained into the university culture. The first experi- ence of incoming students is to use Blacksburg Transit to travel from a remote parking facility to orientation activities; students also receive a reusable bag with transit and other information as they board. The transit agency uses social media extensively to market the program. Implementation Eligibility. Students at Virginia Tech are eligible to use the program if they are enrolled in credit courses. Faculty and non-faculty employees are also eligible to use the program without paying additional fees. Financing. Virginia Tech supports the transit system through student fees, with costs determined by the hours or service provided on university-specific routes. The following was reported by a university representative: “The student transportation fee in 2017 is $58 per semester with the total budget of $3,983,841 for the 2016-17 fiscal year. The amount is not only for the shuttle but also covers the operation of the bike facilities (salaries and operational cost), the university’s local share of the capital improvements for Blacksburg Transit, the local share of Blacksburg Transit’s operational cost and the university local match for the regional (i.e., Smartway) shuttle option.” Students taking virtual courses or studying abroad do not pay the fee. Fac- ulty and staff can also use transit without paying a fare. Fares for the public are $0.50 per trip or a monthly pass of $8.00. Public fares have not changed since the service started in the 1980s. Technology. Students need their student IDs to board the vehicle; drivers push a button for each boarding to provide actual use data by passenger type. All vehicles are equipped with automatic passenger counters, which provide boardings in real time for the agency. Smart cards are not currently used; however, the university expects to adopt a smart card for student IDs that will also be used for transit boardings. The transit agency developed a custom smart phone app (BT4U) for students that shows bus locations in real time (see Figure 21). One feature of the app is a Source: http://www.btransit.org/Index.aspx?page=1841, retrieved on May 7, 2017. Figure 21. BT custom smart phone app (BT4U).

46 College Student transit pass programs “take me home button” that will display a way for students to get to their residence from anywhere in the community at any time of the day. Service improvements. Demand varies substantially depending on whether the university is in session. Blacksburg Transit offers three types of service: • Full Service—Peak service typically operates during the fall and spring semesters. All routes are in operation with multiple buses operating on each route for peak frequency, typically every 10 to 15 minutes. Services operate as late as 2:45 am. • Reduced Service—During winter, spring, summer, and fall breaks, each route provides 30-minute, 45-minute, or hourly service, depending on the length of the route. During the summer, there is no service on Sundays. • Intermediate Service—This service level is used in the week before the fall semester that begins in August and on other days where reduced service would not provide enough frequency. Routes operate on 15- or 30-minute frequency for this level of service. The services began with five used buses and then expanded to a system with 34 vehicles in regular service and 9 demand-responsive vehicles according to 2013 National Transit Database. Blacksburg Transit makes planning and operations decisions as needed to accommodate demand. The city has made zoning decisions to ensure that new student housing is located along existing transit lines. The transit agency also provides complementary paratransit service. In 2000, the city became part of a metropolitan area (MPO) and is adapting to rules that apply to such areas. The transit agency is review- ing how their services comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Since the university has students with multiple native languages, it may need to provide information in alternative languages in the future. Currently, the transit agency and the university are developing plans for a multimodal transportation facility that will provide a hub for transit services and more efficient bus loading and unloading. The facility will accommodate various regional transit services, such as Smart Way and Radford Transit, and will also house the bike hub now located elsewhere on campus. Special services at premium fares also operate on football game days. Students, faculty, and staff of Virginia Tech can ride anywhere on Blacksburg Transit for free (prepaid) while the regu- lar adult fare is $0.50 per trip or a monthly pass of $8.00 for non-university riders. Evaluation Both the transit agency and the university are strongly supportive of the program. The U-Pass program is a “win-win.” It provides increased ridership for the agency, improved access and reduced parking demand for the university, and money saved for the students. The transit system has 10,000 to 12,000 rides per day when school is in session. The on-line monthly ridership reports indicate (1) ridership totals by route; (2) service levels—revenue hours, driver hours, revenue miles, service days, passengers per revenue hour; (3) ridership by route, by day of week, by time of day; and (4) fare type—students, faculty/staff, and non-Virginia Tech ridership. Data from February 2017 show that students accounted for 93.2% of the trips, faculty/staff for 2.6%, and non-Virginia Tech users for 4.2%. Ridership on Mondays through Thursdays provides 20% of the weekly totals, Fridays provide 16%, Saturdays provide 4%, and Sundays “Understand the wants, needs and demands of students. Technology needs to work for them, they expect different means of communication.” “Be aware that the demand needs of students are different, but be sure you serve the general public also.” Source: Blacksburg Transit Staff

Case examples 47 provide 2%. Figure 22 shows the average number of passengers by time of day for all fixed routes in February 2017, indicating the distinctive peaks at midday (13:00 to 16:00 Mondays through Thursdays; 10:00 to 13:00 Fridays) during weekdays. Service productivity is high, with an overall rate of 46 passengers per revenue hour. Loading problems exist on some routes during peak periods (over 70 passengers per hour) and the transit service has added articulated buses to help deal with this issue. Added vehicles on the route quickly fill up, indicating there is still latent demand for their service. Summary The city of Blacksburg, Blacksburg Transit, Virginia Tech, and the private sector have collabo- rated to develop extensive transit services that enhance the education of students and the general mobility of the community. The transit agency and the city cooperate to develop services that accommodate university growth and off-campus housing, using student fees to support the sys- tem. The transit system and its pass program provide mobility to students and allow university expansion and the development of private sector housing. Because of the university-based service, the community residents also benefit from extensive transit services at a reasonable cost. King County Metro Background King County Metro is a unit of King County government (see Figure 23). It is one of several agencies that operate transit services in Source: http://www.btransit.org/Index.aspx?page=2370, retrieved on May 9, 2017. 1,000 0 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7:00 - 10:00 7:00 - 13:00 13:00 - 16:00 16:00 - 19:00 19:00 - 22:00 22:00 - 25:00 25:00 - 28:00 *Service Does not start until 9:00 AM on Saturday and 11:00 AM on Sunday. Service Ends at 11:45 PM on Sundays. Monday - Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Figure 22. Average total passengers by time of day, all fixed routes (Blacksburg Transit). Source: http://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro.aspx, retrieved on May 07, 2017 Figure 23. King County Metro logo.

48 College Student transit pass programs the Puget Sound region. King County Metro operated over 1,000 buses and provided over 123 million unlinked trips in 2013, according to the National Transit Database. In addition, the transit agency also operates an extensive vanpool program. Rationale and Objectives On September 30, 1991, the University of Washington (UW), in cooperation with the City of Seattle and the Municipality of Metro- politan Seattle (which would eventually become King County Metro), initiated the U-Pass program in response to campus and community concerns about automobile impacts in surrounding neighborhoods. The goal was to provide improved commuter services following the UW General Physical Development Plan. Residents living near the UW were concerned about the effects of campus growth on park- ing availability and increased congestion in their neighborhoods (see Figure 24). The goal of the plan was to avoid increases in traf- fic beyond those of the early 1980s while still allowing substantial growth in enrollment and faculty and staff at both the university and the university medical center. The university agreed to financially support the expansion of transit services and increase the price of parking to minimize impacts as part of a transportation manage- ment plan. King County Metro agreed to expand service with the additional costs shared with the university at a 50-50 ratio. Besides King County Metro, the U-Pass program also covers other area transit service provid- ers, including Community Transit, Everett Transit, Kitsap Transit, and Pierce Transit. The program expanded to include UW’s other campuses and co-located institutions (e.g., Cascadia College). Planning Negotiation. Every year the participating transit agencies and institutions sign a formal agreement that describes the pricing methodology, payment schedule, and pass administration. Referenda. Williams and Petrait (1993) reported on the first referendum results at the UW, as follows: “Before the program was implemented at the University of Washington, an advisory ballot/survey along with a U-PASS brochure was mailed to all 34,000 students in November 1990 to solicit their input on the program. Students were asked if they favored the program and whether it should be mandatory or optional. Of the 8,304 students who returned their ballots, 7,151, or 88%, were in favor of the U-Pass pro- gram. Of those in support of U-Pass, 60% favored an optional program whereas 40% favored a mandatory program. Regents and transit agency approvals followed after public hearings and the program began in the fall of 1991.” Since then, students are always involved with changes to the program and in negotiations between the transit agency and the university. In 2011, for example, a student referendum was held to vote on the establishment of a mandatory student fee to pay for the passes. Marketing. Since the U-Pass program has been established for over 20 years, the partici- pating institutions do their own marketing. As reported by the representative from the UW, each UW campus is responsible for its own webpages, outreach, and any printed materials. In addition, the transportation office at each campus uses blog posts to inform and educate transit users. Source: University of Washington Transportation Services Figure 24. UW U-Pass service.

Case examples 49 Implementation Eligibility. At the UW, the following students are automatically U-Pass members through a universal student U-Pass: • Students registered in state-funded courses (except students who are part of the state tuition exemption program); and • Students registered for classes and enrolled in a fee-based degree major through Professional & Continuing Education (PCE) who pay the Services and Activities Fee (SAF). Some types of students (e.g., Non-Matriculated Distance Learning students, all Professional & Continuing Education students, etc.) who are not eligible for a universal U-Pass are able to purchase an optional U-Pass. Financing. The representative from the UW reported the UW over- sees the revenue streams, which are a combination of user fees, a trans- portation demand management (TDM) fee (a surcharge on parking transactions), and administrative subsidies. The UW program is self- sustaining, using student fees and parking revenues, and cannot use edu- cational funds or operate at a deficit. The parking rates were very low when the program began and have been raised to help pay for the pass. Students can use the pass after they pay an $84 fee per quarter. The fee is charged at the same time as tuition and appears on the student tuition statements. Before 2011, the pass had an opt-out feature where students could receive a refund if requested. After the 2011 student- led referendum, however, a universal fee was established to ensure the long-term funding stability of the program, as well as student oversight of program finances. Faculty and staff can opt-in to the program if they pay a fee of $150 per quarter. The program growth has financial implications for the participating universities. Since payment by each institution to the transit agency is on a per-trip basis (i.e., the more trips, the higher the cost), it makes the estimation of annual costs difficult. The UW encourages students to walk and bike for shorter trips. The schedule of payment is part of the agreement between the uni- versity and the transit agency. The transit agencies bill the university for all transit costs incurred by the U-Pass program, but each insti- tution resolves issues such as the costs incurred to students versus other groups. Currently U-Pass revenues are about 9% to 10% of King County transit system totals. Technology. Six transit agencies in the region accept the regional ORCA (One Regional Card for All) smart card (see Figure 25). The tech- nology on the pass allows revenues to be allocated among different transit agencies. Students at the UW use a custom card that combines ORCA technol- ogy and the Husky student ID into one card. Once students have a card, they reactivate the card each time they pay their fees. After they leave the university, the pass is turned off. Universal Student U-PASS Benefits at the University of Washington “The $84.00 per quarter U-PASS fee that appears on student tuition statements allows students to access the benefits of U-PASS membership, including: • Unlimited rides on King County Metro Transit, Community Transit, Pierce Transit, Kitsap Transit, or Everett Transit and on Sound Transit, which includes regional buses, Link Light Rail and Sounder Trains. • Full fare coverage on King County Water Taxis • Full fare coverage on Seattle Streetcar • Unlimited rides on NightRide • Discounted & priority carpool parking at gatehouses and selected lots • Vanpool and vanshare fare credits • Low membership rate for Zipcar. • Discounts and special offers on transportation related resources and products.” Source: https://www.washington.edu/facilities/ transportation/student-u-pass, retrieved on May 07, 2017 Source: http://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro/fares-orca/ orca-cards.aspx, retrieved on May 7, 2017. Figure 25. The regional ORCA smart card.

50 College Student transit pass programs There is a replacement fee for a lost card. The university prevents fraud by including a student photo on the card. The university also updates and validates card numbers frequently. Service improvements. The county, the transit agencies, the participating universities, and their senior management have shown strong support for the pass. The transit agencies modify services as needed. In the past, the UW has requested new services and paid for experimental routes. If the service meets ridership goals, it is incorporated into the regular system. The transit agencies have also added transit services centered on the UW, which is the second highest desti- nation in the transit system, to accommodate the UW’s needs. Evaluation As indicated in the 2016 Transportation Survey Final Report, “The University of Washington has used a biennial survey to evaluate awareness of, use of, and satisfaction with the U-Pass pro- gram among university faculty, staff, and students. Findings from the survey are also used to develop mode-split estimates as well as to meet the university’s reporting requirements under the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law.” The program at the UW has been highly successful with the sub- stantial ridership each year (i.e., the UW representative reported that student ridership was 7.3 million from July 2015 through June 2016; employee ridership was 4.2 million for the same period). There are about 58,000 active passes and 98% of the students have a pass. Stu- dents’ transit usage from 2002 through 2016 has remained relatively constant, while students’ driving alone dropped 10% (from 16% in 2002 to 6% in 2016) in the same period. Faculty commuting habits also have shifted significantly away from driving alone and toward transit (transit usage by faculty: from 24% in 2002 to 35% in 2016; drive alone by faculty from 43% in 2002 to 32% in 2016) (see Figure 26). The U-Pass program is designed to protect the privacy of individual users through a double-blind system. The UW is able to determine whether an individual has an active pass, but is not able to monitor pass usage. King County Metro is able to view transactions associated with a card number, but does not have access to any identifying information, which is a crucial component of the U-Pass program. Summary The program in Seattle is long-standing. It has generated substantial ridership and provides an easy-to-use option for student travel. “Look at the big picture on supply and demand and how parking management is used.” “Get everyone on board - transit board, transit management, students, university administrators. Support from the top has been key. The board and upper management want it to be successful and trust the staff. “ Source: King County Metro Note: Percentages are based on total weekday trips to campus (Monday–Friday) and in those instances where multiple modes were reported for a single trip (in the case of linked trips) reflect the mode used for the longest portion of the trip. Source: University of Washington 2016 Transportation Survey Final Report, http://www.washington.edu/facilities/transportation/files/reports/transportation-survey-report-2016.pdf, retrieved on May 9, 2017. Figure 26. Percentages of transit and drive alone trips, University of Washington, 2002–2016.

Case examples 51 Milwaukee County Transit System Background The Milwaukee County Transit System (MCTS) was formed in 1975, as part of the Milwaukee county government and is the largest transit agency in Wisconsin (see Figure 27). In 2017, MCTS operated a fleet of over 400 low-floor buses, with more than 60 bus routes covering about 90% of Milwaukee County and parts of other neighboring counties. The University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (UWM) implemented the Milwaukee U-Pass pro- gram in 1994 (see Figure 28). Since then, six additional schools have joined the transit pro- gram: Marquette University, Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC), Milwaukee Institute of Art and Design, Bryant Stratton College, Milwaukee Career College, and Concordia Univer- sity. The investigators derived information about the program in Milwaukee from interviews with staff at the MCTS and the UWM, and their respective websites. Rationale and Objectives The UWM is a compact campus with very limited campus parking, creating severe parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Residents of the area were opposed to any efforts to increase the parking supply on campus and urged better transit services to the campus. Initial efforts to increase transit service to the campus (UBUS) occurred in the 1970s and 80s. When these original transit services began, the university bought bus tickets from the transit agency and then sold them at a discount to students, using segregated fee monies to pay the difference. In the early 1990s, MCTS approached the university and suggested a U-Pass program to be paid for by student fees. Planning Negotiation. MCTS has an agreement with each institution that describes a payment sched- ule, service changes, and administration of the pass (see Appendix D-2). There are minor differ- ences in the agreement for participating institutions, such as the eligibility of graduate students. Source: https://www.ridemcts.com, retrieved on May 7, 2017. Figure 27. MCTS logo. Source: https://www.ridemcts.com/fares-passes/u-pass, retrieved on May 9, 2017. Figure 28. MCTS U-Pass program webpage banner.

52 College Student transit pass programs All participating institutions use a 1-year agreement except MATC, which uses a 3-year agree- ment. The county board approves the agreement and provides input as needed, but since the program is well established, few changes are necessary. The universities and the transit agency generally have a good working relationship and meetings occur as needed. As part of the process, each institution has a designated contact person who handles the pass program. A key issue of the negotiation between the university and the transit agency was that the program should be revenue neutral, that is, the transit agency wanted to replace the money received from existing transit users with money from the pass. The university guaranteed transit revenue neutrality and conducted studies to find before-and-after usage to deter- mine revenue impacts. It took about 2 years to implement the program. Referenda. At UWM the transit agency first proposed the concept of the pass to the university parking and transit office, student government, and the campus administration. The student government held a referen- dum to vote on using segregated fees for the pass. Initially, the campus administration was skeptical about the pass program, but once the stu- dent vote was in favor of the pass, the administration supported the idea. Marketing. Each fall MCTS mails students an announcement and sets up information booths at new student orientations, where passes are also available for distribution. Each campus extensively uses its social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and the university website to publicize the transit program. Strong outreach efforts publicize the transit pro- gram at all student orientations, in residence halls, and on campus tours (see Figure 29). These outreach efforts emphasize the benefits of the transit program: ease of use, the ability to travel anywhere in the MCTS area, an easy way to explore the city, avoiding the purchase of a car, and avoiding parking difficulties. Implementation Eligibility. In 2017, approximately 50,000 students were eligible for the pass and about half (i.e., 25,000) had passes. Different institutions may have different policies for pass usage. At UWM, any student who pays the segregated fee can get a pass; the segregated fee is charged to all students who enroll for one or more credits. The pass is deactivated if students are no longer enrolled (no longer paying segregated fees). Students enrolled in on-line courses do not pay segregated fees and thus do not have a pass. Faculty and staff are not eligible for the U-Pass but can purchase a commuter-value pass. Financing. A revenue-neutral approach was used when the program was first established in 1994. Since then, the cost of the pass has increased with inflation. All institutions participat- ing in the program paid the same fee of $45.10 per pass per spring/fall semester and $22.10 per pass for the summer during the 2016–2017 academic year. An equivalent cost for regular adult passes ($72 per month) would be $324 per semester (4.5 months) and $216 for the summer (3 months). If a student is eligible for financial aid, the pass is treated the same as any other financial component of the financial aid package. Technology. The universities distribute smart cards (called an M•CARD) to students at orientations or students can pick up the cards at the student union (see Figure 30). To ride, students show an ID with the M•CARD. Each M•CARD has a unique ID number and MCTS Source: MCTS. Figure 29. Milwaukee County Transit mailer, fall 2016.

Case examples 53 maintains a data file that identifies valid card numbers for eligible student use. UWM updates information on valid pass numbers daily for MCTS. The technol- ogy for student IDs and the M•CARD is not compatible, therefore, an integration of the student IDs with the M•CARD would be a desired improvement. Such integration may occur in the future if the universities transition to different stu- dent identification cards. Students can continue to use the same smart card after graduation by adding funds to the M•CARD. There is a replacement fee of $15 for a lost card at UWM and it can only be replaced once per semester. If students accidentally add value to the card, it can no longer be used as a U-Pass and must be replaced. Although there have been some instances of students selling their passes, the fee for replacement and the daily updates of eligible passes have helped avoid problems with fraud. If students refuse to show a university ID, drivers can tag the card and prevent its future use. Service improvements. MCTS has made numerous service improvements with university input. MCTS has added and modified university-oriented routes over time including the following: • Designing freeway flyer routes from remote park-and-ride lots to the campus to provide a non-transfer trip; • Adding shuttle service to serve MATC; • Extending existing routes to serve Concordia University, which is located in a neighboring county; • Considering weekend service for dorm residents; and • Using different schedules for exam periods on some routes. Coordination. University shuttles provide shuttle services to remote dorms, other cam- puses, and remote parking lots that MCTS service may not cover, and university shuttles use MCTS bus stops whenever possible to provide seamless transfers. Monitors in dorms and stu- dent unions provide information of MCTS bus locations. Evaluation In 2017, the U-Pass program accounted for about 5% of overall MCTS ridership and revenue. The student associations at the different campuses strongly support the program because they see its real benefits and want to use student segregated fees to pay for the pro- gram. The university administrations also support the program. The use of smart cards provides an opportunity to show patterns of card usage and to help others understand what to expect in terms of time of day use, day of week use, and month of year use when a universal pass is implemented. The investigators derived smart card data from UWM in 2016–17 from the U-Pass data- base to analyze time of day, day of week, and monthly use. The investigators used October data because October is a typical academic year month with no breaks and stable ridership. Direct routes to the campus accounted for 87% of the boardings. Some of these routes operate through- out the year while others operate only when school is in session. In 2016, 1.5 million boardings took place using the U-Pass at UWM. In October 2016, eligible students used the cards an average of 7 times per month. For those who used the pass, the median number of boardings was 14.0 boardings per month and the average was 21.7 boardings per month. Figures 31 through 33 show time of use boarding patterns at UWM. • Boarding patterns by day of week: ridership on Mondays through Thursdays is about 19% per day of the weekly totals. Fridays have less usage, at about 14% of the boardings during Source: https://www.ridemcts.com/fares-passes/ mcts-mcard, retrieved on September 7, 2017. Figure 30. MCTS M•Card.

54 College Student transit pass programs Figure 31. U-Pass boardings at UWM by day of the week, October 2016. Figure 32. U-Pass boardings at UWM by hour of the day, October 2016. Figure 33. U-Pass boardings at UWM per month, 2016.

Case examples 55 the week. Some services do not operate on Friday evenings. Satur- days are 6% and Sundays are 5% of weekly use. • Boarding patterns by time of day: boarding peaks occur at 8:00 a.m. and at 3:00 p.m. Usage is fairly flat throughout the day. This pattern is different from travel in general, which tends to have higher peaks and lower rates mid-day. Students start leaving campus in the middle of the day. The pattern shows how the pass can use mid-day capacity (empty seats) with little extra cost. • Boarding patterns by month: Boardings peaked in February of each year and varied considerably by month because of academic breaks and holidays. Classes were in session for only a portion of the months of May, December, and January, and usage patterns tend to follow enroll- ment trends. The three summer months each provide about one-fifth of the average month’s usage during the academic year. Only enrolled stu- dents paying the segregated fee are eligible to have a pass in the summer. Summary The program in Milwaukee is well established and has a considerable impact on student travel patterns and neighborhood parking demand. Multiple institutions participate and the program has a high degree of support. The transit agency’s, the students’, and the institutions’ good work- ing relationships contribute to the ongoing success of the program. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Background The Los Angeles region is one of the largest in the country with 24 transit agencies and nearly 80 universities and colleges. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Author- ity (LACMTA) operates nearly 2,000 vehicles, including bus, light rail, heavy rail, and bus rapid transit throughout Los Angeles County, which are coordinated with the other transit operators in the area through fare agreements and shared marketing efforts (see Figures 34 and 35). The U-Pass works for different participants because of flexibility and coordination in its implementation. Rationale and Objectives Before LACMTA began the U-Pass program, it sold passes directly to stu- dents. The cumbersome process took 6 to 8 weeks to complete an applica- tion. Once students received a reduced fare ID Card in the mail, they had to load the pass with funds every month. Students also had to supply extensive information to qualify for an ID Card and had to renew it every year. This pass had limited adoption rates—less than 1% of eligible students used it. This program still exists, but LACMTA is focused on adding more schools to the U-Pass program to expand student participation. The U-Pass pilot program began in fall 2015 when the LACMTA tran- sit board requested a study of the topic. The pilot project had a very spe- cific goal—to create a new generation of transit users with the technology to maximize convenience and reduced fares and to instill transit habits in young people as a lifelong practice. “Make transit easy to use by students and the administration. The smart card system allows users to be easily added or taken from the system.” “University and transit system support at a high level is important. A dedicated person at the universities to administer the pass is very helpful.” Source: MCTS staff Source: LACMTA. Figure 34. LACMTA logo. Source: LACMTA. Figure 35. LACMTA Transit service.

56 College Student transit pass programs With very strong transit board support, the board approved the pilot project in May 2016 and implementation began in fall 2016. Following program approval, the agency conducted meetings with universities in the Los Angeles region for their input on designing the program. LACMTA found the input from these meetings helpful in formulating the program. Six institutions participated in the pilot program in fall 2016, and it expanded to 9 institutions by spring 2017. Nearly 80 universities and colleges in the region could potentially participate in an expanded program. Planning Negotiation. LACMTA developed an agreement template that could be adapted for each participating institution. The agreement describes a payment schedule, service requirement changes, and marketing and administration of the pass. The basic U-Pass program only covers LACMTA services, but an institution may have other agreements with multiple transit agencies and pay them separately for usage based on actual boardings. Each institution approves the LACMTA agreement that specifies the maximum cost for the initial semester and payment schedules (see Appendix D-3). In response to university concerns, LACMTA developed several key provisions: • Maximum cost: In response to universities’ concerns about the cost of the U-Pass, LACMTA put a limit on its cost based on existing ridership at each school. LACMTA requires univer- sities to pay their estimated usage for the first semester. The transit agency pays the cost for any additional passes sold beyond the initial estimate. LACMTA requires students to carry 6 units to be eligible for the U-Pass, not the 12 units required by the College/Vocational reduced fare ID card, and the campus verifies student enrollment before the U-Pass can be issued. • Payment schedule: University payments are based on the number of semester passes sold and then are reconciled at the end of each semester against actual boardings. As of 2017, the charge per boarding is $0.75 and any credit or debit against the initial invoice appears on the invoice for the following semester. • University flexibility: Some schools subsidize the cost of the semester pass for their students. Each campus can manage and finance its own program. Each school uses a variety of funding sources: parking fees, student segregated fees, general university budget, and so forth. Differ- ent schools also use different methods of distributing the passes to their students. LACMTA supplies passes at a fixed cost per semester to the campus and also provides marketing assis- tance to the schools. As more universities become involved, the process has become sim- pler. In most cases, campuses hold several meetings before and during the launch of the pilot program. After the launch, it is common for campuses to communicate almost daily with the transit agency to work out implementation issues but, after a few weeks, less communication is necessary. Campuses and the transit agency work out most administra- tive matters by phone. The LACMTA transit board and its senior management provide support for the U-Pass program. The program follows a classic adop- tion of an innovation process, which concentrates on “low hanging fruit” by focusing on the institutions that are most willing to partici- pate. Six institutions began the program in the first semester of 2016–17 and more institutions are expected to join the program in subsequent academic terms. “Because this is a pilot program, it was important to work with the interested schools before we launched to find out what worked best for them and tailor the program to meet their needs. It is important to listen to the schools, be flexible, and find ways to say yes, because they are our partners. The easier it is to implement the program on their campus, the more successful it will be.” Source: LACMTA staff

Case examples 57 Schools have implemented creative solutions to make passes more affordable, such as allow- ing students to purchase passes with financial aid or adding the pass to their student account and allowing them to make payments throughout the semester. Marketing. Newly participating institutions conduct a robust marketing program using social media, university websites, and LACMTA marketing materials. A custom third-page “take- one” handout describes how to get the pass at each school and is co-branded with LACMTA and school logos. For example, California State University, Northridge, created a website where students can purchase the passes on-line for pick-up on campus (see Figure 36), and other insti- tutions are following this model. Implementation Eligibility. Based on the LACMTA website information, students in the participating institutions are eligible to use the program if they meet one of the following requirements: • Undergraduate students enrolled in a minimum of 6 units; • Graduate students enrolled in a minimum of 6 units; or • Students attending two or more different colleges that combine units to meet eligibility requirements, if verified and approved by a school administrator. Financing. In 2016–2017, the pass cost $43 per month, or $10.03 per week for the dura- tion of the semester (20 to 23 weeks typically), the same as the monthly reduced fare pass of LACMTA. Students do not pay Metro separately for the pass; the cost is added to their tuition or subsidized by the school. Regular monthly passes at LACMTA are $100 per month, meaning that the pass provides an annual equivalent value of $1,200 per year of transit service for a cost of $521.56, a 57% discount. If the university selects that option, summer periods are covered, at the same price per week. Students can use the pass anytime, anywhere, with multiple transit systems within the Los Angeles region by loading Stored Value. Source: http://www.csun.edu/as/student-transportation-guide/u-pass, retrieved on May 9, 2017. Figure 36. California State University, Northridge, webpage banner.

58 College Student transit pass programs The price is based on a maximum of 13.3 boardings per student per week. If the actual usage is lower than that, the price may be adjusted to reflect actual average boardings at the school (i.e., at 75 cents per boarding). Technology. The program uses chip-equipped stickers compat- ible with LACMTA smart cards that are attached to student IDs. Each campus distributes these stickers at the student union, bookstore, or the transportation office. The student reactivates the sticker with a unique ID number each semester or quarter that the student user pays fees. Students show an ID with the sticker to board a vehicle (see Figure 37). When feasible, LACMTA daily updates a data file that identifies valid card numbers and eligible students. If actual use in terms of boardings is less than originally projected, LACMTA pro- vides a refund to the institution. Each campus has its own policy for dealing with card loss or stu- dent withdrawals, including a replacement fee for a lost card that differs for each campus. If a user attempts to peel the sticker off, the antenna breaks and the card no longer works. Service improvement. The transit agency modifies bus services as needed, for example, adding night service to accommodate late evening classes. Pilot projects have added a rapid bus for California State University, Northridge. Coordination. Nine agencies accept the U-Pass from one or more schools as valid fare. Twenty-three agencies in the region accept additional Stored Value loaded on the pass. Overall policies for fare distribution govern the allocation of revenues using the smart card technology on the pass. A Regional U-Pass, still in development, will improve future allocation of revenues. Some institutions provide shuttles to remote dorms, parking lots, transit stations, and trans- portation centers. Most campuses ensure that these services supplement regular transit rather than compete with it. In the future, regular transit services could replace costly private shuttles and the funding may be reallocated to the pass program. Pass transition after graduation. LACMTA launched a new transitional GradPass in spring 2017 that allows participants to purchase a reduced fare pass for $43 per month for 1 year after graduation. The goal is to continue the transit habit as the students seek employ- ment and choose a place to live. LACMTA also provides graduates with information on busi- nesses enrolled in their Employer Pass program. Evaluation LACMTA launched the U-Pass pilot program in August 2016 with a goal of increasing college transit ridership by 10% annually. In the first semester of the program, participation increased from four to six schools and ridership increased 13%, from 7,402 participants to 8,367 par- ticipants. In the spring 2017 semester, two additional schools participated, adding 1,914 passes, for a total of 2,879 new riders in the first 8 months of the program. This is a 39% increase. One additional school conducted a pilot program for 100 students and is in the process of establish- ing a larger program open to all students. In the fall 2016 semester the U-Pass totaled 1,055,276 boardings. At the same time, systemwide bus boardings decreased by 12% and the total system boardings have decreased approximately 6% over the previous year. At California State University, Northridge, which is only served by buses, ridership did not decrease. Source: LACMTA. Figure 37. LACMTA smart card.

Case examples 59 LACMTA U-Pass FAQ—Students Who is eligible? • Undergraduate students enrolled in a minimum of 6 units • Graduate students enrolled in a minimum of 6 units • A student who attends two (2) or more different colleges may combine units to meet eligibility requirements, if verified and approved by the School’s Administrator. Does Metro U-Pass include Metro Zone1? • U-Pass covers both Metro Express Buses and Metro Silver Line at no extra charge How much does the Metro U-Pass cost? • Metro U-Pass pricing varies depending on the school subsidy contribution • Metro U-Pass may be sold at a pro-rated price if the school permits What happens if my Metro U-Pass is lost/stolen? • Contact your School Administrator to get a replacement U-Pass sticker • School will deactivate the lost U-Pass sticker • Pay the appropriate “Replacement Fee” (fees vary for each school) Can I add Stored Value onto the Metro U-Pass? • Yes, adding Stored Value allows Metro U-Pass users to ride 23 other transit systems • Fare can be loaded at TAP vending machines (TVM), at TAP vendor locations, or by phone 888-TAPTOGO (1.866.827.8646) What happens if I add Stored Value and my Metro U-Pass is lost/stolen? • Report the lost/stolen U-Pass to your School Administrator • The School Administrator will issue a new U-Pass sticker and deactivate the lost/stolen sticker • Call 866-TAPTOGO (866.827.8646) to request a transfer balance to the new U-Pass sticker – A lost/stolen U-Pass sticker number is required to process the balance transfer – Obtain your lost/stolen sticker number from your School Administrator Source: http://media.metro.net/college/images/faq_upass_student.pdf. As the program continues, LACMTA gathers data on boardings and participation rates. Participation rates (e.g., how many people are actually getting the pass) are key for evaluating the goal of creating a new generation of transit users. The online registration each student com- pletes when joining the program collects information about the student’s usage of transit before receiving the pass, as well as income and ethnicity information to comply with Title VI and a waiver giving LACMTA permission to share boarding data with the school. Future evaluation efforts will also examine how travel behavior changes after students leave the universities and hopefully transition into employer-supported transit programs.

60 College Student transit pass programs Summary The LACMTA has rapidly implemented the transit program with a goal of creating life- time transit usage habits among students. The program focuses on early adopters of the pass and the program is building on this success. LACMTA has integrated the student transit program into its fare collection system and is working to coordinate with other regional transit agencies. Foothill Transit Background Foothill Transit, the second largest transit provider in Los Angeles County, oper- ates 39 local and express routes in 327 square miles of the San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, with 361 buses (344 Compressed Natural Gas and 17 fast-charge electric) in use (see Figure 38). Foothill Transit has its own pass system (Class Pass) that is coordinated with the LACMTA regional pass. The passes are available at Citrus College, Mt. San Antonio College and the University of LaVerne. This case example illustrates how a transit agency in a large region developed and operated a U-Pass program for its individual system, and how this agency coordinates with other tran- sit agencies in the region. Rationale and Objectives Foothill Transit is an innovative agency that has implemented innovations in electric buses and created nationally recognized marketing programs. U-Pass fits well with its mis- sion and philosophy. The agency began its U-Pass program in 2013 and it aggressively works with institutions in its service area to implement the pass. The U-Pass is a way to increase off-peak ridership, to improve college access, and to create a transit habit among the stu- dents it serves. Planning Negotiation. Each participating institution annually signs a formal agreement for the program that describes the payment schedule, service changes, and administration of the pass (see Appendix D-4). Support for the pass varies by institution. The program moves forward with high-level support such as the college president’s office that acts as a champion for the program. Referenda. Several participating institutions have used student referenda before the adop- tion of a fee to pay for the pass (see Figure 39). The transit agency provides information to explain what can happen as a result of the referenda vote. The transit agency also works with the Dean of Students and student government regarding fees for a pass. As shown on the Foot- hill Transit website, in the most recent referenda at Citrus College, 83% of the student voters approved the use of student fees to pay for the pass. Marketing. Foothill Transit works closely with each institution and uses print, banners, and social media to market the program (see Figure 40). The agency is present at most school events and provides information on how to replace a lost pass. The transit agency and its board are strong supporters of the program, considering it part of the overall system’s marketing to develop future transit riders. Source: Foothill Transit. Figure 38. Foothill Transit logo.

Case examples 61 Implementation Eligibility. Approximately 60,000 students are eligible for the pass in all the participating institutions, but the institutions may have different policies for pass usage. The pass eligibility at Mt. San Antonio College is described below: “The Class Pass is free to all students who have paid their student fees in the fall or spring semesters. Students who attend in the fall can use their Class Pass during the winter intersession, and students who attend in the spring can use their Class Pass during the summer intersession. It is a reusable electronic fare card that gives students unlimited rides on Foothill Transit Buses, whether they are headed to school, work or recreation.” Financing. The transit agency sells the Class Passes at relatively low prices compared with Regional Passes that are used by the public. At Citrus College, for example, passes cost $7 per semester for full-time students and $6 per semester for part-time students, paid by a manda- tory student fee. Other institutions charge $9 per semester for full-time students or $8 fees per semester for part-time students. Source: http://foothilltransit.org/class-pass-is-now-available-for-citrus-college-students/, retrieved on May 9, 2017. Figure 39. Citrus College student referenda. Source: http://foothilltransit.org/fares/discounts/college-passes/mt-sac-class-pass/, retrieved on May 9, 2007. Figure 40. Foothill Transit Class Pass webpage banner.

62 College Student transit pass programs Each institution’s payment to the agency is based on ridership— the more trips, the higher the cost, with billing on a per-trip basis at 75 cents per boarding. Since payment is on a per-trip basis, an accurate estimation of annual costs is critical for program success. The transit agency charges each school a capitalized cost on total costs per semester. Regular monthly passes at Foothill Transit are $110 per month, so a normal monthly pass would cost $440 for four months of use during a semester as compared with the $6 to $9 seg- regated fee. Technology. Foothill Transit uses smart card technology for the Class Pass. The transit agency developed a special IT program to help administer the pass that uses student adds and drops to create an up-to-date list of eligible pass holders to prevent fraud and to stop students from having multiple Class Passes. If a student loses a card, the student has to apply for a new card at a Foothill Transit store by paying a $10 fee and returning to campus to get the new card. The agency maintains a list of lost cards and deactivates them. Service improvement. The transit agency makes service improvements as needed, includ- ing added evening hours and schedule modifications. The agency has experienced crush loads on opening days for new services, which requires it to respond quickly by having standby buses available to handle demand. Such experiences have occurred during the morning peak, but not in the afternoon as there is no major afternoon demand peak. Coordination. Foothill Transit partners with LACMTA at two colleges, Rio Hondo Col- lege and Pasadena City College. At these schools, students receive a U-Pass sticker that is attached to their student ID for travel on participating transit systems. The technology on the pass permits revenues to be allocated among transit agencies, following established polices for fare distribution. Evaluation The smart cards provide extensive information about usage. The transit agency conducts periodic surveys of pass use, attitudes, and before-and-after studies of ridership to evaluate the program. Student use accounts for about 7% of overall usage on the Foothill Transit system. Increases in Class Pass ridership of 18% and 14% have occurred in the second and third years of the program, respectively. Summary The transit board, the participating institutions, and students have shown their enthusiastic support for the U-Pass program at Foothill Transit. The Class Pass program seeks to create future transit users and has integrated well with existing transit services. The transit board coor- dinates services with other transit agencies in the region and provides a high degree of mobility at a low cost for student users. Lessons Learned In each interview, the investigators asked if there were specific lessons learned that could be useful to others considering the adoption of a U-Pass program. Table 17 summarizes their comments. “You need a high level of administrative support from the campus dean of stu- dents to the President to make it work” “Plan for the future, add growth in use to your estimates. Develop a strong mar- keting program to make it work, manage the data effectively “ Source: Foothill Transit staff

Case examples 63 Category Lessons Learned Overall Comments “Look at the big picture, think about supply and demand and how parking management is used in relation to transit.” “It is critical to have support for the program at the highest level (i.e., university president). They’d better participate in initial meetings. Leaving it to lower level staff without high-level support is difficult. Similarly, the transit board and manager need to support the program.” “Get everyone involved—transit board, transit management, students, university administrators. Support from the top has been key. The board and upper management and the university want it to be successful and need to trust the staff. Have a good working relationship with the transit agency, student organizations, university administration.” “Be careful about the basis for the program costs. If you use a per trip price and there is growth in ridership, costs can be higher than expected. It is a good problem to have but it adds uncertainty to cost estimates.” Program Startup “Look at candidate university web sites for sustainability and transportation plans. Focus on locations that recognize that they need better transit service and college affordability.” “Give universities choices, let them design a program that works for them, not all places need to be the same. Explain the choices they have to finance the program.” “Find out ways to say yes. Listen, being flexible, and let schools do it whatever way works the best for them. Give the school a menu of choices.” “Spend time to help the school understand how transit works, such as the procedures for changing the service and the time needed to adjust the system.” “Working with the schools before the program is launched, treat it as a pilot program where we learn as we do it. Find out needs and tailor the program to meet needs.” Marketing “Market research is important, understand how to serve the needs of the students” “For a new program, you need a heavy push to promote it, establish a clear launch date, set up meetings with housing office, resident assistants, orientation programs, and work hard to get buy in by all involved.” Administration “Use information to manage the program. Spread the word, make it easy to use, and make it work. Establish a reporting process concerning what data will be collected, who get it and how it will be used.” “Use an Access data base system to manage the program, which avoids many problems with a simple method - less errors, and removing human error. We need to automate information systems.” “Plan for growth, have a financing system that can handle increases in demand.” “Keep data up to date of eligible passes.” “Provide clear guidelines to students about use of the pass.” Table 17. Lessons learned as reported by case example interviewees.

64 College Student transit pass programs Summary This chapter includes five case examples that represent a cross-section of communities and programs from small to very large areas, from well-established programs to those newly devel- oped. Each situation is unique, but common threads and procedures emerged. A synthesis of the findings from the case examples follows: • U-Pass programs are most easily implemented where there is enthusiastic support for the concept at the upper levels of transit management, student organizations, and the university administration. University administrative support is critical and is enhanced by significant student support. • Transit agency research of candidate institution websites for sustainability and transportation plans that call for more transit use aids the development of new programs. Transit agencies will find it easier to work with universities that already recognize the benefits of transit use. • Transit agencies and individual schools use formal agreements to describe provisions of the pass programs. The details of these agreements will vary depending on the wishes of partici- pating schools. • Student referenda have been important at some locations for the adoption or expansion of pass programs. Since the programs are often financed by student fees, student support has provided university administrators with a way to justify student fee increases. • Several basic principles determine the cost of the pass, such as a revenue-neutral approach, a comparable pass cost, cost recovery, and per-trip costs. Each participating university has flexibility to find a way to pay for the program that fits its needs. • The student costs of the U-Pass vary considerably at different locations and reflect program goals and the overall fare system of the transit agency. Regular users of the U-Pass see signifi- cant savings compared with what they would pay for transit without a pass. • Marketing is a joint effort between the participating university and the transit agency, with extensive use of social media. At the case locations, program marketing that describes the program and its benefits focused on incoming students at student orientations. All parts of the university are encouraged to be involved for maximum participation: admissions office, recruitment, residence halls, bookstores, and student life. • In locations with multiple universities, transit agencies allow institutions to have flexibility on how they administer the pass. Most transit agencies use a uniform pass cost for different universities and allow them to finance and manage the cost of the pass as they choose. Multiple transit agencies in a region use separate agreements or existing fare sharing agreements. • Transit agencies normally handle changes to service using their service planning procedures. Some universities have requested evening service or express routes and transit agencies have added them as experimental routes. The study found little conflict with campus-operated shuttle routes and the regular transit system. • Evaluation of the program uses two main factors: ridership and participation rates. Ridership is the basis for many other effects such as changes in parking demand, student mobility, and off-peak use. Participation rates are used to determine program impacts and the fairness of the financing system. • The smart card used for U-Pass results contains substantial data that can be used to evaluate the program quickly. In addition, monitoring the pass use and requiring fees for pass replace- ment can be used to limit fraud.

Next: Chapter 5 - Conclusions »
College Student Transit Pass Programs Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 131: College Student Transit Pass Programs focuses on the relationship established between transit agencies and universities and colleges, and documents current state of the practice to better develop and evaluate college student transit pass programs. Many transit agencies currently have student pass programs with colleges and universities. These programs have very different funding, fare and operating structures, and student demographics.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!