Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Community-Based Operations Research pp 251–272Cite as

Fair Fare Policies: Pricing Policies that Benefit Transit-Dependent Riders

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((ISOR,volume 167))

Abstract

Budget shortfalls resulting from the recent recession have prompted some US transit agencies to increase passenger fares for mass transit. Given that the top 20 US agencies, representing 83% of transit trips, either already have or plan to implement a smart card fare collection system and are looking to increase farebox revenue, we propose introducing a “Best Fare” alongside the next fare increase. A “Best Fare” can guarantee that riders will pay no more for incremental trips than they would if they purchased a discounted pass covering the equivalent time period. This policy supports transit-dependent riders for whom prepayment for multiple trips to receive the associated discount may present a financial hardship. We apply this concept in a nonlinear Fair Fare Policy (FFP) model using cross-elasticities between fare products to determine the revenue from a fare increase that is and is not coupled with a Best Fare. We provide agency decision makers a case study of how one agency could increase revenue and reduce ridership loss using a Best Fare alongside a fare increase.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Top 20 transit agencies are ranked based on number of unlinked passenger trips as reported by transit agencies reporting to Federal Transit Administration FY 2008 National Transit Database.

  2. 2.

    More information available at http://www.myki.com.au/Fares/Fares/default.aspx.

  3. 3.

    A pseudonym.

References

  • American Public Transportation Association (APTA). (2009). Challenge of state and local funding constraints on transit systems: effects on service, fares , employment and ridership survey results. http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/constraints_09.pdf accessed July 31, 2011.

  • American Public Transportation Association (APTA). (2010). 2010 Public transportation fact book (61st ed.). Washington, DC: American Public Transportation Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. (2006). Transit best fare system and method. United States Patent No.: 7,124,118 B2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balcombe, R., Mackett, R., Paulley, N., Shires, J., Titheridge, H., Wardman, M., et al. (2004). The demand for public transport: a practical guide. Transport Research Library Report TRL593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beirão, G., & Cabral, J. S. (2007). Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: a qualitative study. Transport Policy, 14(6), 478–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, C. (2006). TfL fares study. London: London Assembly Budgetary Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cervero, R. (1981). Flat versus differentiated transit pricing: what’s a fair fare? Transportation, 10, 211–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtin, J. F. (1968). Effect of fares on transit riding. Highway Research Record, 213, 8–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman, D., Multisystems, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc. & Simon and Simon Research & Associates, Inc. (2003). Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). Report 94 Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallucci, G., & Allen, J. (2009). Transit ridership models: present status and future needs. Transport Chicago Conference, Chicago, IL, June 5, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, P. B. (1992). A review of new demand elasticities with special reference to short and long Run effects of price changes. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 26, 155–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, P. (2010). Cash or prepay? Motivations for passenger payment. Research Report ITLS-RR-10-01 of the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A., Thomas, R., & Boyle, D. (1999). Metropolitan Atlanta rapid transit authority fare elasticity model. Transportation Research Record, 1669, 123–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. M., & Quandt, R. E. (1980). Microeconomic theory: a mathematical approach. Economic handbook series (3rd ed., pp. 13–24). New York: McGraw-Hill Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D. (1998). Establishing a fare elasticity regime for urban passenger transport. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 32(2), 221–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, R. (2005). Impact of transit fare increase on ridership and revenue: metropolitan transportation authority, New York city. Transportation Research Record, 1927, 239–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hine, J., & Scott, J. (2000). Seamless, accessible travel: users’ views of the public transport journey and interchange”. Transport Policy, 7(3), 217–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jara-Diaz, S., & Gschwender, A. (2005). Making pricing work in public transport provision, handbook of transport strategy, policy and institutions (pp. 447–459). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. (1985). Urban transit policy: an economic and political history, (pp. 109–113). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2003). Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Choices, values and frames (pp. 143–149). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lago, A., & Mayworm, P. (1982). Economics of transit fare prepayment: passes. Transportation Research Record :Bus Operations and Performance, 857, 52–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindquist, K., Wendt, M., & Holbrooks, J. (2009). Transit farebox recovery and US and international transit subsidization: synthesis. Washington, DC: Washington State Department of Transportation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman, T. (2004). Transit price elasticities and cross-elasticities. Journal of Public Transportation, 7(2), 37–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman, T. (2010). Transportation elasticities: how prices and other factors affect travel behavior. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf accessed November 29, 2010.

  • Lovely, M., & Brand, D. (1982). Atlanta transit pricing study: moderating impact of fare increases on poor. Transportation Research Record: Bus Operations and Performance, 857, 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhrsen, K., & Taylor, B. (1997). The high cost of flat fares: an examination of ridership demographics and fare policy at the los angeles MTA, Working Paper, pp. 1–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Luk, J., & Hepburn, S. (1993). New review of Australian travel demand elasticities. ARRB Report ARR249. Nunawading: Australian Road Research Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayworm, P., Lago, A. M., & McEnroe, J. M. (1980). Patronage impacts of changes in transit fares and services. Bethesda, MD: Ecosometrics Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCollom, B., & Pratt. R. (2004). Traveler response to transportation system changes chapter 726 12—transit pricing and fares, Transportation Research Board (TCRP) Report 95. Washington, 727 DC: Transportation Research Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munizaga, M., Palma, C., & Mora, P. (2010). Public transport OD matrix estimation from smart card payment system data. Proceedings from 12th World Conference on Transport Research, Lisbon, Paper No. 2988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neff, J., & Pham, L. (2007). A profile of public transportation passenger demographics and travel characteristics reported in on-board surveys (pp. 1–52). Washington, DC: American Public Transportation Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuworsoo, C., Golub, A., & Deakin, E. (2009). Analyzing equity impacts of transit fare changes: case study of Alameda–Contra Costa transit, California. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(4), 360–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oum, T. H., Waters, W. G., II, & Yong, J.-S. (1992). Concepts of price elasticities of transport demand and recent empirical estimates. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 26, 139–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parody, T. (1982). Socioeconomic and travel-behavior characteristics of transit pass users. Transportation Research Record: Bus Operations and Performance, 857, 45–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, M.-P., Trépanier, M., & Morency, C. (2011). Smart card data use in public transit: a literature review. Transportation Research Part C. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2010.12.003.

  • Pham, L., & Linsalata, J. (1991). Effects of fare changes on bus ridership (pp. 3–4). Washington, DC: American Public Transit Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, R. (2003). Traveler response to transportation system changes: an interim introduction to the handbook, transportation research board (TCRP) report 95. Research Results Digest, 61, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pucher, J. (1982). Discrimination in mass transit. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(3), 315–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pucher, J. (1983). Who benefits from transit subsidies? Recent evidence from six metropolitan areas. Transportation Research Part A, 17A(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pucher, J., & Renee, J. L. (2003). Socioeconomics of urban travel. Transportation Quarterly, 57(3), 49–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, S. (2010). Automated fare collection to drive spending by mass transit industry. Frost & Sullivan Market Insight. http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-print.pag?docid=205376837 accessed November 29, 2010

  • State Government of Victoria. (2010). http://www.myki.com.au/Fares/Fares/default.aspx accessed November 29, 2010

  • Suwardo, M. N., & Kamaruddin, I. (2010). Ridership factors change and Bus service demand sensitivity assessment of the fixed route bus service for short-term action plan. International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering, 10(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsekeris, T., & Stefan, V. (2010). Public transport and road pricing: a survey and simulation experiments. Public Transport: Planning and Operations, 2(1–2), 87–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Justice (USDOJ). (1964). Civil Rights Division. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). (2007). Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Circular FTA C 4702.1A. 2007. Title VI and Title VI-Dependent Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wardman, M., & Hine, J. (2000). Costs of interchange: a review of the literature. Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Working Paper, 546, 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, A., Lockhart, R., & Rolandson, B. (1999). Transit prepayment challenges: factors influencing customers’ willingness to purchase high-value tickets. Transportation Research Record, 1669, 129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, P. (2009). Public transport: its planning, management and operation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zureiqat, H. (2006). Fare policy analysis for public transport: a discrete-continuous modeling approach using panel data. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclaimer

The opinions and conclusions expressed in the chapter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policy of C2HM Hill or Booz Allen Hamilton or the University of Texas, Arlington.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CH2MHILL, Northpark 400, 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 1600, Atlanta, GA, 30328, USA

    Kendra C. Taylor

  2. University of Texas, Arlington, TX, USA

    Erick C. Jones

Authors
  1. Kendra C. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erick C. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kendra C. Taylor .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Public Policy & Public Affairs, University of Massachusetts, Boston, McCormack Hall, Boston, 02125-3393, Massachusetts, USA

    Michael P. Johnson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Taylor, K.C., Jones, E.C. (2012). Fair Fare Policies: Pricing Policies that Benefit Transit-Dependent Riders. In: Johnson, M. (eds) Community-Based Operations Research. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 167. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0806-2_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation