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.
65 This synthesis reviews the current status of U-Pass programs at transit agencies and institu- tions to determine the programâs implementation, successes, challenges, and lessons learned. The investigators gathered information reported in this synthesis from three sources: a literature review, an on-line survey with responses from 21 of 25 locations with U-Pass programs, and an in-depth study of five case examples representing a cross-section of programs balanced by system size and geography. Major Findings A summary of the key findings from the literature review, survey results, and case examples follows: Roles of Agencies, Institutions, and Students ⢠U-Pass programs are a collaborative effort among transit agencies, university students, and university administrators. The survey results indicated that public transit operators, school administrators, and student associations all have served as advocates for the program. Shared management occurs with either a two-party partnership between transit agencies and the uni- versity administrators, or a three-party partnership among public transit operators, universities, and student associations. ⢠U-Pass programs have been most easily implemented where the upper levels of transit man- agement and student organizations demonstrate enthusiastic support for the concept. Univer- sity administrative support is also critical and tends to be enhanced when there is significant student support. ⢠Transit agencies are responsible for operations planning of transit routes, scheduling, time- table development, user information; data collection and program evaluation; and funding mechanisms and fare structures. ⢠Educational institutions maintain a regular dialog with the transit operators, influence transit decisions through contracts for service, and have representatives on the transit system board. ⢠Students play an active role in implementing the U-Pass programs, such as participating on the advisory committee, holding referenda, being involved in administrative and manage- ment positions, and cooperating with class projects and other research efforts. In many loca- tions, student support has been a key element to the use of student fees to pay for the pass. University administrators have also relied on student referenda to justify fee increases. ⢠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 needs of participating schools. C h a p t e r 5 Conclusions
66 College Student transit pass programs Program Design and Implementation ⢠Students, faculty, and staff, or even the general public can be U-Pass users. There is consid- erable variation in the student status required for the pass eligibility. The pass participation rate (i.e., the percentage of eligible students who actively use the U-Pass program) also varies, ranging from less than 10% to 100%. ⢠Passes can either be used in an unlimited manner (i.e., any time of day, anywhere), or can only be used on certain routes, limited by the time of day, or only for spring and fall semesters. ⢠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. ⢠Transit route/service changes can occur after the U-Pass program is implemented. These are modifications of 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 agency handles changes to service following its normal procedures. ⢠Passes can be identified in several ways, such as combined use of a student ID and a smart card/sticker, a student ID only, and a smart card/sticker only. The most desirable option is technology to integrate the student IDs with the smart card. ⢠Coordination strategies exist between the U-Pass program and other campus transit services. Most campuses ensure that their shuttle services supplement regular transit services rather than compete with them. ⢠The university and the transit agency typically collaborate to market the program and use social media extensively. Program marketing usually targets new students entering the uni- versity. To maximize participation in the program, all parts of the universityâadmissions, recruitment, residence halls, bookstores, and student lifeâare encouraged to be involved. ⢠Survey data indicate that very few programs currently allow students to use the pass after they leave the institution. However, the case examples indicate a trend to launch a post-graduation transitional program with the goal to continue the transit habit as the students seek employ- ment and choose a place to live. Financing ⢠The program budget for the pass varies widely, using a broad range of funding sources that include student fees; parking revenues; general university budgets; transit contributions; and federal, state, or local operating assistance. Student fees are used frequently and are a critical component in most programs. Other payment methods include fringe benefits, the university academic budget, and voluntary purchase by users. ⢠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. Transit agencies give each university individual flexibility so it can find ways to pay for the program that best fits its needs. ⢠Costs of the U-Pass vary considerably and reflect program goals and the overall fare system of the transit agency. Regular users of the U-Pass see significant savings compared with what they would pay for transit without a pass. Impacts ⢠Ridership and participation rates are two primary metrics to evaluate the program. Ridership is the basis for many other effects such as parking demand, student mobility, and off-peak use. Participation rates help to determine program impacts and the fairness of the financing system. Other performance evaluation measures include financial data (i.e., subsidies, fare income, and cost) and results of satisfaction surveys.
Conclusions 67 ⢠U-Pass programs have had a major impact on student, faculty, and staff transit ridership. The literature review indicates student transit ridership increased by a range of 35% to 200%, and corresponding auto usage decreased by a range of 20% to 70% in the first year of the program. Survey results further show that passenger trips mostly exhibit continu- ing growth in the subsequent years after program implementation, ranging from 0.3% to 251% annually. ⢠The primary benefits of a universal pass program for the transit agencies are increased transit ridership to campus, use of off-peak transit capacity, creating lifetime riders/ marketing, and increased transit revenue. The primary benefits for the participating insti- tutions are reduced demand for campus area parking, reduced commuting costs for stu- dents, and improved college affordability because the students avoid having to purchase a vehicle. ⢠Transit agencies encounter challenges regarding abusive pass use and additional costs for more buses and facilities. Educational institutions are concerned about the cost of the program for the institution, the reaction of non-users to the pass fees, and resistance from students when increased parking fees are used to finance the program. ⢠In general, both transit agencies and the educational institutions are very satisfied or satis- fied with the program. Some unsuccessful experiences in implementing the program include 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 to start a program, and issues with part-time students using a pass for non-university travel. Lessons Learned Both the on-line survey and the case examples asked open-ended questions about lessons learned from the U-Pass program. These are some of the responses: ⢠Transit agencies report that it is important to refine details of pass use and compatibil- ity, simplify the contracting process, and ensure that the price of the pass is appropriate. Educational institutions indicate that it is important to have an effective marketing program, improve administration of the pass, maintain good communications with the transit agency and students, and better anticipate program demand. ⢠Transit agencies indicate that it is critical to have support for the program at the highest level (e.g., university president, transit board). Leaving decisions to implement a pass program to lower level staff without high-level support is difficult. Pass programs work well when every- one is involved: transit board, transit management, students, and university administrators. A good working relationship with the transit agency, student organizations, and university administration is essential. ⢠Some agencies expressed caution about the basis for the program costs. If institutions use a per-trip price and ridership increases, costs can be higher than expected. It is a good problem to have, but it adds uncertainty to cost estimates. ⢠In places with multiple universities, it is suggested that transit agencies provide flexible choices for the participating universities and let the universities design an individualized program that works for them. In addition, the agencies need to explain the available choices for financing the program. Further Research Although this report is comprehensive on the state of the practice regarding college student transit pass programs, a number of topics suggest additional study:
68 College Student transit pass programs Employer-Based Transit Pass Programs The U-Pass has been successful in many locations as a way to provide mobility to a specific group through a universal transit pass program. Target users for a similar pass include employees at medical facilities, large corporations, and government agencies. In addition, some universities allow faculty and staff to use the U-Pass. Some transit agencies have programs for employer- based transit passes with characteristics similar to a U-Pass. For example, the investigators found that Seattle transit agencies include over 1,800 organizations in their business program. There is a need to better understand how these programs work, how they can be enhanced, and how to share information about them. An interesting research project would be to study the status of employer-based programs and the factors that lead to their success. Variation in Usage Rates There are major differences in usage at institutions with U-Pass programs. For example, the University of Washington has far more rides per student than other locations. It would be inter- esting to explore why such differences occur. Usage rates could be compared with enrollments, transit level of service, community size, and so forth. Is there a consistent trend or are there outliers that should be explored further? Impacts of Perceived versus Actual Fare Payment Systems on Transit One reason that U-Pass programs seem to work so well is their ease of use. The marginal cost of using the pass is zero; it is already paid for and the pass is in the userâs hands. This is similar to how auto users mostly ignore fixed costs of travel such as insurance or depreciation. The perceived cost is much different from the actual cost. A research project could explore perceived versus real costs in travel decisions and the results could lead to better methods to use cashless payment systems for transit overall. What methods could be used? How would they affect behavior? What is the impact on usage? Use of Smart Card Data in Transit Planning Most large transit agencies have examined the use of smart cards for payment systems. These cards already supply rich data to transit systems for better planning decisions. Potential enhance- ments could make the data even more useful. The state of the art of using these data for transit planning should be investigated. For example, the cards provide boarding information, but not departures or transfers. Enhanced data collection could provide origin-destination patterns involving multiple routes. The cards also could be used to anticipate loadings at stations and terminals so corrective actions could occur in real time. Some interesting crossover analysis could benefit short-term forecasting of freeway usage (smart cities) and transit. The smart card technology could be combined with methods to pro- vide real-time traveler information for better overall management of multimodal systems. Such issues as emergency evacuations could be better planned and managed with coordinated data systems and monitoring. Long-Term Travel Habit One goal of implementing a U-Pass program in some locations is to create a long-term transit habit. If students became familiar with transit usage, they may seek housing and job locations that lead to continued transit use after graduation. Little is known about how people develop a
Conclusions 69 tendency to use a travel mode over the long term. This could be a research topic: how do people form a lifetime tendency to favor one means of travel over another? Such a study could involve follow-up surveys of frequent U-Pass users after they leave the university and focus groups of travelers in general to determine the factors that lead to long-term travel choices. Non-User Benefits An issue in some locations is the reaction of non-users to a student fee-sponsored transit pass. All students pay, but not all use the pass. In some locations, students can opt out of the pass, creating uncertainty in financing the program. However, non-users can benefit from a transit pass because campus parking will be less congested, they will have a pass for emergencies or special events, and they will see how their classmates benefit from using the pass. This is a topic that applies to transit in general. The investigators developed this report to assist transit agencies, universities, and communi- ties with the development and evaluation of college student transit pass programs. The U-Pass programs are popular in multiple locations and benefit transit agencies, students, and institu- tions. Transit agencies benefit through increased ridership, especially for mid-day trips, and in helping to create transit habits that can continue after graduation. Institutions benefit by better use of campus parking facilities, better neighborhood relationships, and better college afford- ability for students. Students benefit by reduced costs of attending college, avoidance of park- ing problems, and improved mobility. Successful implementation of U-Pass programs involves partnerships among all three groups. The programs work well with committed staff at transit agencies and educational institutions who collectively seek to increase mobility for students, faculty, and staff. Another benefit is that the U-Pass programs can be tailored to the particular situation at a transit agency and its partner institution(s).
