Bonus for free fares?

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mike Brown
Bonus for free fares?

Hi everyone,

Our region (Salt Lake City area) is studying how the market will react to free transit (both systemwide and for specific routes, times, etc). Our model (Cube-Voyager, nested Logit) does react linearly to fare changes, but when we set it to “free” the result is a considerably lower ridership gain than what our research is suggesting would likely happen. This is because we think “free” will see a step-function improvement in ridership. This is because fares remind you each time you ride that you are paying. There is also an “annoyance” factor, and for short trips people are unlikely to pay if they have alternatives, but when it is free then the bus becomes like a “moving sidewalk” for trips that are only a few miles. It’s as if fares create a “2x onerous factor” (if comparing to wait time, for example), and when you remove that onerous factor, you get a boost. But since hardly any large city has ever had free fares, it is hard to tell if there even is an onerous factor associated with fares, and if so, how large is it?

Our question is, do others agree that the reaction to fares is generally linear, except for when it is free (or very close to free, such as a $10 annual fee to get a card or something). Is anyone modeling an attractiveness bonus for when fares are free? If so, how much of a bonus are you giving and how did you settle on the amount, given there is relatively little experience with free fares, especially in large systems?

Thanks for any insights you have,

Mike Brown

Michael R. Brown, PE, AICP | Urban Innovators, PLLC
Transportation Engineer, Urban Planner
Mobile: 801-860-2409
mike@urbaninnovators.com

urbaninnovators.com
innovativeintersections.org
streetplan.net

wwhite

Mike:

Because fare elasticity is on a logit curve, the tails of the curve are unsuitable for forecasting (i.e., logit curves work best when values are near the mean). I suggest you look at pre-pandemic case studies in Miami (the Peoplemover) and Chapel Hill. If my memory serves me correctly, the Peoplemover ridership went from about 14k/day to about 25k/day when it went from a $0.25 fare to free. Chapel Hill saw tremendous gains in ridership too.

W

From: travel.model=gmail.com@mg.tmip.org On Behalf Of Mike Brown
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 6:46 AM
To: TMIP
Subject: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

Hi everyone,

Our region (Salt Lake City area) is studying how the market will react to free transit (both systemwide and for specific routes, times, etc). Our model (Cube-Voyager, nested Logit) does react linearly to fare changes, but when we set it to “free” the result is a considerably lower ridership gain than what our research is suggesting would likely happen. This is because we think “free” will see a step-function improvement in ridership. This is because fares remind you each time you ride that you are paying. There is also an “annoyance” factor, and for short trips people are unlikely to pay if they have alternatives, but when it is free then the bus becomes like a “moving sidewalk” for trips that are only a few miles. It’s as if fares create a “2x onerous factor” (if comparing to wait time, for example), and when you remove that onerous factor, you get a boost. But since hardly any large city has ever had free fares, it is hard to tell if there even is an onerous factor associated with fares, and if so, how large is it?

Our question is, do others agree that the reaction to fares is generally linear, except for when it is free (or very close to free, such as a $10 annual fee to get a card or something). Is anyone modeling an attractiveness bonus for when fares are free? If so, how much of a bonus are you giving and how did you settle on the amount, given there is relatively little experience with free fares, especially in large systems?

Thanks for any insights you have,

Mike Brown

Michael R. Brown, PE, AICP | Urban Innovators, PLLC
Transportation Engineer, Urban Planner
Mobile: 801-860-2409
mike@urbaninnovators.com

urbaninnovators.com
innovativeintersections.org
streetplan.net
--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873

kywyjusin

Hello Mike,
Here's an old (but this is an old idea), but potentially useful research
document

.
thanks.

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 6:46 AM Mike Brown wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Our region (Salt Lake City area) is studying how the market will react to
> free transit (both systemwide and for specific routes, times, etc). Our
> model (Cube-Voyager, nested Logit) does react linearly to fare changes, but
> when we set it to “free” the result is a considerably lower ridership gain
> than what our research is suggesting would likely happen. This is because
> we think “free” will see a step-function improvement in ridership. This is
> because fares remind you each time you ride that you are paying. There is
> also an “annoyance” factor, and for short trips people are unlikely to pay
> if they have alternatives, but when it is free then the bus becomes like a
> “moving sidewalk” for trips that are only a few miles. It’s as if fares
> create a “2x onerous factor” (if comparing to wait time, for example), and
> when you remove that onerous factor, you get a boost. But since hardly any
> large city has ever had free fares, it is hard to tell if there even is an
> onerous factor associated with fares, and if so, how large is it?
>
> Our question is, do others agree that the reaction to fares is generally
> linear, except for when it is free (or very close to free, such as a $10
> annual fee to get a card or something). Is anyone modeling an
> attractiveness bonus for when fares are free? If so, how much of a bonus
> are you giving and how did you settle on the amount, given there is
> relatively little experience with free fares, especially in large systems?
>
> Thanks for any insights you have,
>
> Mike Brown
>
> Michael R. Brown, PE, AICP | Urban Innovators, PLLC
> Transportation Engineer, Urban Planner
> Mobile: 801-860-2409
> mike@urbaninnovators.com
>
> urbaninnovators.com
> innovativeintersections.org
> streetplan.net
> --
> Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
> Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
> Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873
>

Mike Brown

Thank you to all who have responded…

Wade White: Thank you for confirming that you believe the tail ends of a logit curve are unsuitable for forecasting. Thank you also for the examples. While a people mover is a small example vs a large region, going from 25 cents to free in a normal MC model would barely be noticeable, since 25 cents is practically free anyway. And yet the people move almost doubles ridership. Why? Because the price itself is a larger barrier than just the cost alone would imply. I recall that Austin, TX in the 1980s did a systemwide free fare and they almost doubled ridership. They cancelled it largely because they got too many riders and they weren’t prepared for that (overloaded vehicles). But they also got vagrants and boisterous joy riders who intimidated drivers and passengers. That seems more curable today, perhaps by requiring some kind of smart card or app, along with maybe a “three strikes, you’re out” requirement. While it was decades ago, I have always wondered if doubling might still be a possibility.

Our recent research with Nelson Nygaard suggests there is a boost associated with free, but probably not double. They are saying “expect in the range of 30-45% increase overall” for our case (with variation by mode, time of day, etc.). But when I model FREE I am getting about 20% increase in the current construct, which is why I asked if others believe there is a case to be made that Free probably does have a boost not detected in most models, and hence maybe models should be modified to reflect at least a conservative boost.

It's like this: if a model is showing 20% when we think the reality may be conservative at 35%, and might even come in well above 40%, then it’s a problem if the models keep telling decision makers to expect only 20%. They yawn and are not willing to take on a controversial issue for a measly 20% gain. But if the models get a step-function boost when at free fares, perhaps pushing the result to 35% in our case, now this is a lot more compelling.

I think it’s important to not leave realistic ridership on the table, even if it is an “educated guess.” This is because the nation needs a few contemporary examples of what happens in a post-Covid world when you make a large system free. But no one can get a free fare example on which the nation can adjust its models, unless at least one region is willing to be the guinea pig. And that would-be guinea pig will not want to take its chances unless the potential payoff is large enough, which is why I think we should model an “educated guess” that there is a step-function at zero fare, and the benefit will likely be high enough (moving our results from 20 to 35%) to motivate our region to see if this step-effect is real and accurate if not conservative. Kansas City was poised to be the first large region to reveal the effects of free fare, but their free fare experiment opened practically at the same time as Covid started. So it is hard to tell what’s going on. They have not lost as much ridership as other systems, but it wasn’t a clean single variable experiment like it would have been.

The message we’re hearing is that for an additional cost of 4-5%, you might get a 35% increase. That is a message that can resonate with Climate Change, equity, and other hot topics. (They think 4-5% additional cost since the current rolling stock is empty enough it could absorb 35% without triggering major upgrades). 4% cost for 20% gain is also impressive, but obviously less so.

I realize there are other negatives such as attracting problem riders that drive away the responsible ones, and that was a big problem in Austin in 1990. But that is a different problem and I believe there are new ways to address it.

Alex Bettinardi: Good warning about your observations in Corvallis. The small physical space along with the other things you noted does reveal that transit is powerfully unattractive relative to the car regardless of whether it is free or not. Add to that the sense of increased risk due to vagrants and boisterous individuals, then you may net-sum to zero (losing your responsible riders at the same rate you are picking up joy riders). If there is a step function effect, it may only apply to large system situations, and even then seems like it requires considerable research to gain comfort that you’re in the right ballpark.

Rob Bain: For sure fare price is not “the reason” transit is a barrier – there are so many. But it is at least “a reason” and we are thinking it is a bigger reason than our model presently can detect. I have no idea of how public reaction would vary between UK and US, and you are right to warn that the model which currently predicts 20% gain could end up being accurate. But we think it will probably be higher than this and we need our current-state models to reflect what we think will actually happen. Only then will policy makers have courage to try it and see if we were right or wrong.

David Ory: Thank you for this great research prepared for Austin TX in 1989, apparently just in advance of (and to inform) their decision for their 1989-90 experiment. I’ve skimmed about half of it and there is some great content! This will really help us.

Thanks also to Frank Spielberg who off-list suggested some good sources such as TCRP 95, Denver’s 1970’s experiment and their 16th street mall free shuttle, and Richmond’s free service during Covid.

Appreciate it everyone,

Mike Brown

From: BETTINARDI Alexander O * Alex
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 8:52 AM
To: Mike Brown ; TMIP
Subject: RE: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

I used to think that a free fare was all sun rays and lollipops.

I came from a university where university students rode the local bus system free (paid with university tuition), and that little college community had some of the best per capita transit ridership numbers in the country.

However, I have seen free transit play out in another similarly sized college town here in my new home state of Oregon. In Corvallis, Oregon they have gone to a free fare system, not just for students, but for all. The ridership increased, but by extremely small numbers – I believe less than a linear trend would return (the model would have overestimated).

The issues in Corvallis:

* It’s a very small physical space, that’s easy to ride across in 20 mins.
* The free transit doesn’t stretch to nearby towns outside of that 20 min bike ride.
* Prior to free transit the community already had extremely high bike shares (due to students), not much reason to shift
* While parking is tight (due to high density university living), there is still plenty of parking – enough not to incentivize the residence to give up their very convenient personal vehicles.

However, the biggest transit killer could be argued to be personal safety and comfort. Once Corvallis freed transit, it became an easy way to dry off and stay warm for anyone house-less in the area. This greatly dragged down the attractiveness of the free transit system (even though the word free is extremely powerful in any language).

The University town I went to school at – didn’t have this issue, because you could only ride for free with a University ID (pre-paid). I believe Corvallis has been toying with making people show ID – but that has issues and I don’t know how far they got with those talks.

Anyway – this is not to say that it won’t work in Utah. But there are issues outside of the word FREE that need to be thought through. And I don’t think modeling the outcome is as simple as believing the linear relationship or switching to piece-wise. There’s a lot that’s locked up in that model constant…

Alex Bettinardi, P.E. (he/him)
503.986.4104
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Pages/default.aspx

From: travel.model=gmail.com@mg.tmip.org > On Behalf Of Mike Brown
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 3:46 AM
To: TMIP >
Subject: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

This message was sent from outside the organization. Treat attachments, links and requests with caution. Be conscious of the information you share if you respond.

Hi everyone,

Our region (Salt Lake City area) is studying how the market will react to free transit (both systemwide and for specific routes, times, etc). Our model (Cube-Voyager, nested Logit) does react linearly to fare changes, but when we set it to “free” the result is a considerably lower ridership gain than what our research is suggesting would likely happen. This is because we think “free” will see a step-function improvement in ridership. This is because fares remind you each time you ride that you are paying. There is also an “annoyance” factor, and for short trips people are unlikely to pay if they have alternatives, but when it is free then the bus becomes like a “moving sidewalk” for trips that are only a few miles. It’s as if fares create a “2x onerous factor” (if comparing to wait time, for example), and when you remove that onerous factor, you get a boost. But since hardly any large city has ever had free fares, it is hard to tell if there even is an onerous factor associated with fares, and if so, how large is it?

Our question is, do others agree that the reaction to fares is generally linear, except for when it is free (or very close to free, such as a $10 annual fee to get a card or something). Is anyone modeling an attractiveness bonus for when fares are free? If so, how much of a bonus are you giving and how did you settle on the amount, given there is relatively little experience with free fares, especially in large systems?

Thanks for any insights you have,

Mike Brown

Michael R. Brown, PE, AICP | Urban Innovators, PLLC
Transportation Engineer, Urban Planner
Mobile: 801-860-2409
mike@urbaninnovators.com

urbaninnovators.com
innovativeintersections.org
streetplan.net

--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873

colbybrown

Beyond the specific weaknesses of logit as a functional form in this case, there's empirical evidence from behavioral economics suggesting that offering any service or good for "free" kind of breaks human rationality, in general. This is well documented in Chapter 3 of Dan Ariely's book Predictably Irrational, which is a great read with lots of potential lessons for our field if you have the time. However, nothing is truly free, and if the time or inconvenience costs of a mode are large enough they can probably outweigh even the strange magic that "free" works on our minds...

--Colby Brown

Principal & Founder, Manhan
colby@manhangroup.com
________________________________
From: travel.model=gmail.com@mg.tmip.org on behalf of Mike Brown
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:42 AM
To: TMIP
Subject: Re: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

Thank you to all who have responded…

Wade White: Thank you for confirming that you believe the tail ends of a logit curve are unsuitable for forecasting. Thank you also for the examples. While a people mover is a small example vs a large region, going from 25 cents to free in a normal MC model would barely be noticeable, since 25 cents is practically free anyway. And yet the people move almost doubles ridership. Why? Because the price itself is a larger barrier than just the cost alone would imply. I recall that Austin, TX in the 1980s did a systemwide free fare and they almost doubled ridership. They cancelled it largely because they got too many riders and they weren’t prepared for that (overloaded vehicles). But they also got vagrants and boisterous joy riders who intimidated drivers and passengers. That seems more curable today, perhaps by requiring some kind of smart card or app, along with maybe a “three strikes, you’re out” requirement. While it was decades ago, I have always wondered if doubling might still be a possibility.

Our recent research with Nelson Nygaard suggests there is a boost associated with free, but probably not double. They are saying “expect in the range of 30-45% increase overall” for our case (with variation by mode, time of day, etc.). But when I model FREE I am getting about 20% increase in the current construct, which is why I asked if others believe there is a case to be made that Free probably does have a boost not detected in most models, and hence maybe models should be modified to reflect at least a conservative boost.

It's like this: if a model is showing 20% when we think the reality may be conservative at 35%, and might even come in well above 40%, then it’s a problem if the models keep telling decision makers to expect only 20%. They yawn and are not willing to take on a controversial issue for a measly 20% gain. But if the models get a step-function boost when at free fares, perhaps pushing the result to 35% in our case, now this is a lot more compelling.

I think it’s important to not leave realistic ridership on the table, even if it is an “educated guess.” This is because the nation needs a few contemporary examples of what happens in a post-Covid world when you make a large system free. But no one can get a free fare example on which the nation can adjust its models, unless at least one region is willing to be the guinea pig. And that would-be guinea pig will not want to take its chances unless the potential payoff is large enough, which is why I think we should model an “educated guess” that there is a step-function at zero fare, and the benefit will likely be high enough (moving our results from 20 to 35%) to motivate our region to see if this step-effect is real and accurate if not conservative. Kansas City was poised to be the first large region to reveal the effects of free fare, but their free fare experiment opened practically at the same time as Covid started. So it is hard to tell what’s going on. They have not lost as much ridership as other systems, but it wasn’t a clean single variable experiment like it would have been.

The message we’re hearing is that for an additional cost of 4-5%, you might get a 35% increase. That is a message that can resonate with Climate Change, equity, and other hot topics. (They think 4-5% additional cost since the current rolling stock is empty enough it could absorb 35% without triggering major upgrades). 4% cost for 20% gain is also impressive, but obviously less so.

I realize there are other negatives such as attracting problem riders that drive away the responsible ones, and that was a big problem in Austin in 1990. But that is a different problem and I believe there are new ways to address it.

Alex Bettinardi: Good warning about your observations in Corvallis. The small physical space along with the other things you noted does reveal that transit is powerfully unattractive relative to the car regardless of whether it is free or not. Add to that the sense of increased risk due to vagrants and boisterous individuals, then you may net-sum to zero (losing your responsible riders at the same rate you are picking up joy riders). If there is a step function effect, it may only apply to large system situations, and even then seems like it requires considerable research to gain comfort that you’re in the right ballpark.

Rob Bain: For sure fare price is not “the reason” transit is a barrier – there are so many. But it is at least “a reason” and we are thinking it is a bigger reason than our model presently can detect. I have no idea of how public reaction would vary between UK and US, and you are right to warn that the model which currently predicts 20% gain could end up being accurate. But we think it will probably be higher than this and we need our current-state models to reflect what we think will actually happen. Only then will policy makers have courage to try it and see if we were right or wrong.

David Ory: Thank you for this great research prepared for Austin TX in 1989, apparently just in advance of (and to inform) their decision for their 1989-90 experiment. I’ve skimmed about half of it and there is some great content! This will really help us.

Thanks also to Frank Spielberg who off-list suggested some good sources such as TCRP 95, Denver’s 1970’s experiment and their 16th street mall free shuttle, and Richmond’s free service during Covid.

Appreciate it everyone,

Mike Brown

From: BETTINARDI Alexander O * Alex
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 8:52 AM
To: Mike Brown ; TMIP
Subject: RE: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

I used to think that a free fare was all sun rays and lollipops.

I came from a university where university students rode the local bus system free (paid with university tuition), and that little college community had some of the best per capita transit ridership numbers in the country.

However, I have seen free transit play out in another similarly sized college town here in my new home state of Oregon. In Corvallis, Oregon they have gone to a free fare system, not just for students, but for all. The ridership increased, but by extremely small numbers – I believe less than a linear trend would return (the model would have overestimated).

The issues in Corvallis:

* It’s a very small physical space, that’s easy to ride across in 20 mins.
* The free transit doesn’t stretch to nearby towns outside of that 20 min bike ride.
* Prior to free transit the community already had extremely high bike shares (due to students), not much reason to shift
* While parking is tight (due to high density university living), there is still plenty of parking – enough not to incentivize the residence to give up their very convenient personal vehicles.

However, the biggest transit killer could be argued to be personal safety and comfort. Once Corvallis freed transit, it became an easy way to dry off and stay warm for anyone house-less in the area. This greatly dragged down the attractiveness of the free transit system (even though the word free is extremely powerful in any language).

The University town I went to school at – didn’t have this issue, because you could only ride for free with a University ID (pre-paid). I believe Corvallis has been toying with making people show ID – but that has issues and I don’t know how far they got with those talks.

Anyway – this is not to say that it won’t work in Utah. But there are issues outside of the word FREE that need to be thought through. And I don’t think modeling the outcome is as simple as believing the linear relationship or switching to piece-wise. There’s a lot that’s locked up in that model constant…

Alex Bettinardi, P.E. (he/him)
503.986.4104
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Pages/default.aspx

From: travel.model=gmail.com@mg.tmip.org > On Behalf Of Mike Brown
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 3:46 AM
To: TMIP >
Subject: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

This message was sent from outside the organization. Treat attachments, links and requests with caution. Be conscious of the information you share if you respond.

Hi everyone,

Our region (Salt Lake City area) is studying how the market will react to free transit (both systemwide and for specific routes, times, etc). Our model (Cube-Voyager, nested Logit) does react linearly to fare changes, but when we set it to “free” the result is a considerably lower ridership gain than what our research is suggesting would likely happen. This is because we think “free” will see a step-function improvement in ridership. This is because fares remind you each time you ride that you are paying. There is also an “annoyance” factor, and for short trips people are unlikely to pay if they have alternatives, but when it is free then the bus becomes like a “moving sidewalk” for trips that are only a few miles. It’s as if fares create a “2x onerous factor” (if comparing to wait time, for example), and when you remove that onerous factor, you get a boost. But since hardly any large city has ever had free fares, it is hard to tell if there even is an onerous factor associated with fares, and if so, how large is it?

Our question is, do others agree that the reaction to fares is generally linear, except for when it is free (or very close to free, such as a $10 annual fee to get a card or something). Is anyone modeling an attractiveness bonus for when fares are free? If so, how much of a bonus are you giving and how did you settle on the amount, given there is relatively little experience with free fares, especially in large systems?

Thanks for any insights you have,

Mike Brown

Michael R. Brown, PE, AICP | Urban Innovators, PLLC
Transportation Engineer, Urban Planner
Mobile: 801-860-2409
mike@urbaninnovators.com

urbaninnovators.com
innovativeintersections.org
streetplan.net

--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873

--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873

matthew19miller

As a thought experiment, consider parking: a parking fee of even 25 cents/hour is a hassle far outweighing its cost, and the cost of providing the infrastructure for charging the fee can itself be substantial, and including additional operations and maintenance costs, may be far in excess of the revenue provided by the fee.

Matt Miller | Metro Analytics
Operations Manager
(984) 248-0550
Chat with me on Teams!

From: colby=manhangroup.com@mg.tmip.org On Behalf Of colbybrown
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 11:55 AM
To: TMIP
Subject: Re: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

Beyond the specific weaknesses of logit as a functional form in this case, there's empirical evidence from behavioral economics suggesting that offering any service or good for "free" kind of breaks human rationality, in general. This is well documented in Chapter 3 of Dan Ariely's book Predictably Irrational, which is a great read with lots of potential lessons for our field if you have the time. However, nothing is truly free, and if the time or inconvenience costs of a mode are large enough they can probably outweigh even the strange magic that "free" works on our minds...

--Colby Brown

Principal & Founder, Manhan
colby@manhangroup.com
________________________________
From: travel.model=gmail.com@mg.tmip.org on behalf of Mike Brown
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:42 AM
To: TMIP
Subject: Re: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

Thank you to all who have responded…

Wade White: Thank you for confirming that you believe the tail ends of a logit curve are unsuitable for forecasting. Thank you also for the examples. While a people mover is a small example vs a large region, going from 25 cents to free in a normal MC model would barely be noticeable, since 25 cents is practically free anyway. And yet the people move almost doubles ridership. Why? Because the price itself is a larger barrier than just the cost alone would imply. I recall that Austin, TX in the 1980s did a systemwide free fare and they almost doubled ridership. They cancelled it largely because they got too many riders and they weren’t prepared for that (overloaded vehicles). But they also got vagrants and boisterous joy riders who intimidated drivers and passengers. That seems more curable today, perhaps by requiring some kind of smart card or app, along with maybe a “three strikes, you’re out” requirement. While it was decades ago, I have always wondered if doubling might still be a possibility.

Our recent research with Nelson Nygaard suggests there is a boost associated with free, but probably not double. They are saying “expect in the range of 30-45% increase overall” for our case (with variation by mode, time of day, etc.). But when I model FREE I am getting about 20% increase in the current construct, which is why I asked if others believe there is a case to be made that Free probably does have a boost not detected in most models, and hence maybe models should be modified to reflect at least a conservative boost.

It's like this: if a model is showing 20% when we think the reality may be conservative at 35%, and might even come in well above 40%, then it’s a problem if the models keep telling decision makers to expect only 20%. They yawn and are not willing to take on a controversial issue for a measly 20% gain. But if the models get a step-function boost when at free fares, perhaps pushing the result to 35% in our case, now this is a lot more compelling.

I think it’s important to not leave realistic ridership on the table, even if it is an “educated guess.” This is because the nation needs a few contemporary examples of what happens in a post-Covid world when you make a large system free. But no one can get a free fare example on which the nation can adjust its models, unless at least one region is willing to be the guinea pig. And that would-be guinea pig will not want to take its chances unless the potential payoff is large enough, which is why I think we should model an “educated guess” that there is a step-function at zero fare, and the benefit will likely be high enough (moving our results from 20 to 35%) to motivate our region to see if this step-effect is real and accurate if not conservative. Kansas City was poised to be the first large region to reveal the effects of free fare, but their free fare experiment opened practically at the same time as Covid started. So it is hard to tell what’s going on. They have not lost as much ridership as other systems, but it wasn’t a clean single variable experiment like it would have been.

The message we’re hearing is that for an additional cost of 4-5%, you might get a 35% increase. That is a message that can resonate with Climate Change, equity, and other hot topics. (They think 4-5% additional cost since the current rolling stock is empty enough it could absorb 35% without triggering major upgrades). 4% cost for 20% gain is also impressive, but obviously less so.

I realize there are other negatives such as attracting problem riders that drive away the responsible ones, and that was a big problem in Austin in 1990. But that is a different problem and I believe there are new ways to address it.

Alex Bettinardi: Good warning about your observations in Corvallis. The small physical space along with the other things you noted does reveal that transit is powerfully unattractive relative to the car regardless of whether it is free or not. Add to that the sense of increased risk due to vagrants and boisterous individuals, then you may net-sum to zero (losing your responsible riders at the same rate you are picking up joy riders). If there is a step function effect, it may only apply to large system situations, and even then seems like it requires considerable research to gain comfort that you’re in the right ballpark.

Rob Bain: For sure fare price is not “the reason” transit is a barrier – there are so many. But it is at least “a reason” and we are thinking it is a bigger reason than our model presently can detect. I have no idea of how public reaction would vary between UK and US, and you are right to warn that the model which currently predicts 20% gain could end up being accurate. But we think it will probably be higher than this and we need our current-state models to reflect what we think will actually happen. Only then will policy makers have courage to try it and see if we were right or wrong.

David Ory: Thank you for this great research prepared for Austin TX in 1989, apparently just in advance of (and to inform) their decision for their 1989-90 experiment. I’ve skimmed about half of it and there is some great content! This will really help us.

Thanks also to Frank Spielberg who off-list suggested some good sources such as TCRP 95, Denver’s 1970’s experiment and their 16th street mall free shuttle, and Richmond’s free service during Covid.

Appreciate it everyone,

Mike Brown

From: BETTINARDI Alexander O * Alex
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 8:52 AM
To: Mike Brown ; TMIP
Subject: RE: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

I used to think that a free fare was all sun rays and lollipops.

I came from a university where university students rode the local bus system free (paid with university tuition), and that little college community had some of the best per capita transit ridership numbers in the country.

However, I have seen free transit play out in another similarly sized college town here in my new home state of Oregon. In Corvallis, Oregon they have gone to a free fare system, not just for students, but for all. The ridership increased, but by extremely small numbers – I believe less than a linear trend would return (the model would have overestimated).

The issues in Corvallis:

* It’s a very small physical space, that’s easy to ride across in 20 mins.
* The free transit doesn’t stretch to nearby towns outside of that 20 min bike ride.
* Prior to free transit the community already had extremely high bike shares (due to students), not much reason to shift
* While parking is tight (due to high density university living), there is still plenty of parking – enough not to incentivize the residence to give up their very convenient personal vehicles.

However, the biggest transit killer could be argued to be personal safety and comfort. Once Corvallis freed transit, it became an easy way to dry off and stay warm for anyone house-less in the area. This greatly dragged down the attractiveness of the free transit system (even though the word free is extremely powerful in any language).

The University town I went to school at – didn’t have this issue, because you could only ride for free with a University ID (pre-paid). I believe Corvallis has been toying with making people show ID – but that has issues and I don’t know how far they got with those talks.

Anyway – this is not to say that it won’t work in Utah. But there are issues outside of the word FREE that need to be thought through. And I don’t think modeling the outcome is as simple as believing the linear relationship or switching to piece-wise. There’s a lot that’s locked up in that model constant…

Alex Bettinardi, P.E. (he/him)
503.986.4104
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Pages/default.aspx

From: travel.model=gmail.com@mg.tmip.org > On Behalf Of Mike Brown
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 3:46 AM
To: TMIP >
Subject: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

This message was sent from outside the organization. Treat attachments, links and requests with caution. Be conscious of the information you share if you respond.

Hi everyone,

Our region (Salt Lake City area) is studying how the market will react to free transit (both systemwide and for specific routes, times, etc). Our model (Cube-Voyager, nested Logit) does react linearly to fare changes, but when we set it to “free” the result is a considerably lower ridership gain than what our research is suggesting would likely happen. This is because we think “free” will see a step-function improvement in ridership. This is because fares remind you each time you ride that you are paying. There is also an “annoyance” factor, and for short trips people are unlikely to pay if they have alternatives, but when it is free then the bus becomes like a “moving sidewalk” for trips that are only a few miles. It’s as if fares create a “2x onerous factor” (if comparing to wait time, for example), and when you remove that onerous factor, you get a boost. But since hardly any large city has ever had free fares, it is hard to tell if there even is an onerous factor associated with fares, and if so, how large is it?

Our question is, do others agree that the reaction to fares is generally linear, except for when it is free (or very close to free, such as a $10 annual fee to get a card or something). Is anyone modeling an attractiveness bonus for when fares are free? If so, how much of a bonus are you giving and how did you settle on the amount, given there is relatively little experience with free fares, especially in large systems?

Thanks for any insights you have,

Mike Brown

Michael R. Brown, PE, AICP | Urban Innovators, PLLC
Transportation Engineer, Urban Planner
Mobile: 801-860-2409
mike@urbaninnovators.com

urbaninnovators.com
innovativeintersections.org
streetplan.net

--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873

--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873
--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873

jabunch

Interesting topic, with some good answers. The first thing I would look at
is what the mode choice model is actually considering in its choice
analyses. Most mode choice models are using as inputs the trips made in
vehicles and not total person trips. Trips that are very short and may be
competing with walk, versus transit, versus bike are filtered out in trip
generation or trip distribution. So, they never even show up in input trip
tables as a potential transit trip. The other factor is convenience trips
where someone just jumps on a passing transit vehicle are not being
captured. When I worked in a downtown with a free circulator shuttle I
would often simply walking parallel to the line to my lunch or other
destination. Then if the shuttle showed up, I would jump on. Otherwise I
would just continue to walk. We would also jump on the shuttle to go to
Chinatown for lunch or uptown simply by scheduling our trip start.

Often these short trips are also missed by the model simply because the
TAZ structure is too large to capture them as I to J trips (So they are not
skimmed or ever seen by the mode choice process).

So it may be worth considering a direct demand model for these very short
trips which really are not potential "trips made in vehicles" to capture
the trips you are missing. It could be validated to any data that you have
from neighborhood or activity center circulators. The mode split model
results for longer trips could then be merged with the direct demand model
results for the short trips.

JAB

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 6:46 AM Mike Brown wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Our region (Salt Lake City area) is studying how the market will react to
> free transit (both systemwide and for specific routes, times, etc). Our
> model (Cube-Voyager, nested Logit) does react linearly to fare changes, but
> when we set it to “free” the result is a considerably lower ridership gain
> than what our research is suggesting would likely happen. This is because
> we think “free” will see a step-function improvement in ridership. This is
> because fares remind you each time you ride that you are paying. There is
> also an “annoyance” factor, and for short trips people are unlikely to pay
> if they have alternatives, but when it is free then the bus becomes like a
> “moving sidewalk” for trips that are only a few miles. It’s as if fares
> create a “2x onerous factor” (if comparing to wait time, for example), and
> when you remove that onerous factor, you get a boost. But since hardly any
> large city has ever had free fares, it is hard to tell if there even is an
> onerous factor associated with fares, and if so, how large is it?
>
> Our question is, do others agree that the reaction to fares is generally
> linear, except for when it is free (or very close to free, such as a $10
> annual fee to get a card or something). Is anyone modeling an
> attractiveness bonus for when fares are free? If so, how much of a bonus
> are you giving and how did you settle on the amount, given there is
> relatively little experience with free fares, especially in large systems?
>
> Thanks for any insights you have,
>
> Mike Brown
>
> Michael R. Brown, PE, AICP | Urban Innovators, PLLC
> Transportation Engineer, Urban Planner
> Mobile: 801-860-2409
> mike@urbaninnovators.com
>
> urbaninnovators.com
> innovativeintersections.org
> streetplan.net
> --
> Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
> Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
> Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873
>

--
James (Jim) Allday Bunch, JABunch Transportation Consulting
411 Penwood Road, Silver Spring Maryland, 20901
240-271-3534 jabunch.work@gmail.com

Rob Bain

Good points, James.

Does this introduce the concepts of ‘good gain’ and ‘bad gain’, and the policy imperative of distinguishing between them?

* Good gain = transfer from private auto
* Bad gain = transfer from active modes (or other transit?)

Your policy-makers may get comfortable with a gain of X%, but they surely need to know where this uptick is actually coming from?

Regards,

Rob

Robert Bain
RBconsult Ltd
www.robbain.com
Honorary Professor
University College London
r.bain@ucl.ac.uk

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY. This communication is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately or, alternatively, immediately destroy this communication.

From: jabunch.work=gmail.com@mg.tmip.org On Behalf Of jabunch
Sent: 15 November 2022 11:54
To: TMIP
Subject: Re: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

Interesting topic, with some good answers. The first thing I would look at
is what the mode choice model is actually considering in its choice
analyses. Most mode choice models are using as inputs the trips made in
vehicles and not total person trips. Trips that are very short and may be
competing with walk, versus transit, versus bike are filtered out in trip
generation or trip distribution. So, they never even show up in input trip
tables as a potential transit trip. The other factor is convenience trips
where someone just jumps on a passing transit vehicle are not being
captured. When I worked in a downtown with a free circulator shuttle I
would often simply walking parallel to the line to my lunch or other
destination. Then if the shuttle showed up, I would jump on. Otherwise I
would just continue to walk. We would also jump on the shuttle to go to
Chinatown for lunch or uptown simply by scheduling our trip start.

Often these short trips are also missed by the model simply because the
TAZ structure is too large to capture them as I to J trips (So they are not
skimmed or ever seen by the mode choice process).

So it may be worth considering a direct demand model for these very short
trips which really are not potential "trips made in vehicles" to capture
the trips you are missing. It could be validated to any data that you have
from neighborhood or activity center circulators. The mode split model
results for longer trips could then be merged with the direct demand model
results for the short trips.

JAB

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 6:46 AM Mike Brown wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Our region (Salt Lake City area) is studying how the market will react to
> free transit (both systemwide and for specific routes, times, etc). Our
> model (Cube-Voyager, nested Logit) does react linearly to fare changes, but
> when we set it to “free” the result is a considerably lower ridership gain
> than what our research is suggesting would likely happen. This is because
> we think “free” will see a step-function improvement in ridership. This is
> because fares remind you each time you ride that you are paying. There is
> also an “annoyance” factor, and for short trips people are unlikely to pay
> if they have alternatives, but when it is free then the bus becomes like a
> “moving sidewalk” for trips that are only a few miles. It’s as if fares
> create a “2x onerous factor” (if comparing to wait time, for example), and
> when you remove that onerous factor, you get a boost. But since hardly any
> large city has ever had free fares, it is hard to tell if there even is an
> onerous factor associated with fares, and if so, how large is it?
>
> Our question is, do others agree that the reaction to fares is generally
> linear, except for when it is free (or very close to free, such as a $10
> annual fee to get a card or something). Is anyone modeling an
> attractiveness bonus for when fares are free? If so, how much of a bonus
> are you giving and how did you settle on the amount, given there is
> relatively little experience with free fares, especially in large systems?
>
> Thanks for any insights you have,
>
> Mike Brown
>
> Michael R. Brown, PE, AICP | Urban Innovators, PLLC
> Transportation Engineer, Urban Planner
> Mobile: 801-860-2409
> mike@urbaninnovators.com
>
> urbaninnovators.com
> innovativeintersections.org
> streetplan.net
> --
> Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
> Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
> Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873
>

--
James (Jim) Allday Bunch, JABunch Transportation Consulting
411 Penwood Road, Silver Spring Maryland, 20901
240-271-3534 jabunch.work@gmail.com
--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873

Mark Bradley

I think there is a time element that needs to be considered.... What happens to the ridership boost from free fares over time?

When a product or service is marketed by offering free samples or free use, it seems there are five main groups of people that emerge over time....

1. People who are not interested at all, even when it is free.
2. People who use it for free once or twice, but don't continue using it after that, even when it is still available for free.
3. People who will continue using it as long as it is free (or almost free), but stop using it once a more normal price is charged.
4. People who start using it because it is free, and then continue to use it once a more normal price is charged.
5. People who were already using it at a price and continue to use it whether it is free or not.

When a service is sold to make a profit, Group 4 is the only profitable group of interest, and the free price is usually not offered for very long and not offered to existing users, so that money is not lost on Groups 3 or 5.

Since transit service is at least partly a public good that is not expected to make a profit, both Groups 3 and 4 are of interest, and the fare revenue lost on Group 5 may not be seen as a big problem. However there may also be a Group 6 of previous users who stop using transit when it is free because the vehicles get overcrowded or service gets less frequent and/or less reliable due to lost revenues. Some riders value frequency and reliability of service more than they would value a free service. Transit agencies can use some "market discrimination" to avoid lost revenues by continuing to offer the free or discounted service only to people who can qualify on the basis of low income.

The only way to model all of this accurately would be to have data over an extended period of time from a number of different transit agencies who have offered free services for different lengths of time, also taking into account any other service changes in frequency, reliability, crowding, discount eligibility, etc. Has that kind of review study been done?

Coming out of the pandemic, an issue faced by some transit agencies is a shortage of drivers and some other staff. It isn't clear if that issue will sort itself out over time, or if wages will need to be increased to attract enough staff. For those agencies, cutting fares to attract more riders at the same time that there is not enough service to meet the current (latent) demand would seem to be working at cross-purposes.

Mark

..........................................
Mark Bradley
Principal
Pronouns: he/him/his

RSG
524 Arroyo Ave| Santa Barbara, CA 93109
415.328.4766
www.rsginc.com

From: info=robbain.com@mg.tmip.org On Behalf Of Rob Bain
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 5:43 AM
To: TMIP
Subject: Re: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL

Good points, James.

Does this introduce the concepts of 'good gain' and 'bad gain', and the policy imperative of distinguishing between them?

* Good gain = transfer from private auto
* Bad gain = transfer from active modes (or other transit?)

Your policy-makers may get comfortable with a gain of X%, but they surely need to know where this uptick is actually coming from?

Regards,

Rob

Robert Bain
RBconsult Ltd
www.robbain.com
Honorary Professor
University College London
r.bain@ucl.ac.uk

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY. This communication is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately or, alternatively, immediately destroy this communication.

From: jabunch.work=gmail.com@mg.tmip.org On Behalf Of jabunch
Sent: 15 November 2022 11:54
To: TMIP
Subject: Re: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

Interesting topic, with some good answers. The first thing I would look at
is what the mode choice model is actually considering in its choice
analyses. Most mode choice models are using as inputs the trips made in
vehicles and not total person trips. Trips that are very short and may be
competing with walk, versus transit, versus bike are filtered out in trip
generation or trip distribution. So, they never even show up in input trip
tables as a potential transit trip. The other factor is convenience trips
where someone just jumps on a passing transit vehicle are not being
captured. When I worked in a downtown with a free circulator shuttle I
would often simply walking parallel to the line to my lunch or other
destination. Then if the shuttle showed up, I would jump on. Otherwise I
would just continue to walk. We would also jump on the shuttle to go to
Chinatown for lunch or uptown simply by scheduling our trip start.

Often these short trips are also missed by the model simply because the
TAZ structure is too large to capture them as I to J trips (So they are not
skimmed or ever seen by the mode choice process).

So it may be worth considering a direct demand model for these very short
trips which really are not potential "trips made in vehicles" to capture
the trips you are missing. It could be validated to any data that you have
from neighborhood or activity center circulators. The mode split model
results for longer trips could then be merged with the direct demand model
results for the short trips.

JAB

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 6:46 AM Mike Brown wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Our region (Salt Lake City area) is studying how the market will react to
> free transit (both systemwide and for specific routes, times, etc). Our
> model (Cube-Voyager, nested Logit) does react linearly to fare changes, but
> when we set it to "free" the result is a considerably lower ridership gain
> than what our research is suggesting would likely happen. This is because
> we think "free" will see a step-function improvement in ridership. This is
> because fares remind you each time you ride that you are paying. There is
> also an "annoyance" factor, and for short trips people are unlikely to pay
> if they have alternatives, but when it is free then the bus becomes like a
> "moving sidewalk" for trips that are only a few miles. It's as if fares
> create a "2x onerous factor" (if comparing to wait time, for example), and
> when you remove that onerous factor, you get a boost. But since hardly any
> large city has ever had free fares, it is hard to tell if there even is an
> onerous factor associated with fares, and if so, how large is it?
>
> Our question is, do others agree that the reaction to fares is generally
> linear, except for when it is free (or very close to free, such as a $10
> annual fee to get a card or something). Is anyone modeling an
> attractiveness bonus for when fares are free? If so, how much of a bonus
> are you giving and how did you settle on the amount, given there is
> relatively little experience with free fares, especially in large systems?
>
> Thanks for any insights you have,
>
> Mike Brown
>
> Michael R. Brown, PE, AICP | Urban Innovators, PLLC
> Transportation Engineer, Urban Planner
> Mobile: 801-860-2409
> mike@urbaninnovators.com
>
> urbaninnovators.com
> innovativeintersections.org
> streetplan.net
> --
> Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
> Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
> Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873
>

--
James (Jim) Allday Bunch, JABunch Transportation Consulting
411 Penwood Road, Silver Spring Maryland, 20901
240-271-3534 jabunch.work@gmail.com
--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873
--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873

jack.klodzinski

Addressing Mark's inquiry "...transit agencies who have offered free services for different lengths of time, ...", it is possible that Portland,Oregon's Tri-Met may have conducted some studies. That may be an agency to reach out to for data.
________________________________
From: mark.bradley=rsginc.com@mg.tmip.org on behalf of Mark Bradley
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 2:46 PM
To: TMIP
Subject: Re: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

EXTERNAL SENDER: Use caution with links and attachments.

I think there is a time element that needs to be considered.... What happens to the ridership boost from free fares over time?

When a product or service is marketed by offering free samples or free use, it seems there are five main groups of people that emerge over time....

1. People who are not interested at all, even when it is free.
2. People who use it for free once or twice, but don't continue using it after that, even when it is still available for free.
3. People who will continue using it as long as it is free (or almost free), but stop using it once a more normal price is charged.
4. People who start using it because it is free, and then continue to use it once a more normal price is charged.
5. People who were already using it at a price and continue to use it whether it is free or not.

When a service is sold to make a profit, Group 4 is the only profitable group of interest, and the free price is usually not offered for very long and not offered to existing users, so that money is not lost on Groups 3 or 5.

Since transit service is at least partly a public good that is not expected to make a profit, both Groups 3 and 4 are of interest, and the fare revenue lost on Group 5 may not be seen as a big problem. However there may also be a Group 6 of previous users who stop using transit when it is free because the vehicles get overcrowded or service gets less frequent and/or less reliable due to lost revenues. Some riders value frequency and reliability of service more than they would value a free service. Transit agencies can use some "market discrimination" to avoid lost revenues by continuing to offer the free or discounted service only to people who can qualify on the basis of low income.

The only way to model all of this accurately would be to have data over an extended period of time from a number of different transit agencies who have offered free services for different lengths of time, also taking into account any other service changes in frequency, reliability, crowding, discount eligibility, etc. Has that kind of review study been done?

Coming out of the pandemic, an issue faced by some transit agencies is a shortage of drivers and some other staff. It isn't clear if that issue will sort itself out over time, or if wages will need to be increased to attract enough staff. For those agencies, cutting fares to attract more riders at the same time that there is not enough service to meet the current (latent) demand would seem to be working at cross-purposes.

Mark

..........................................
Mark Bradley
Principal
Pronouns: he/him/his

RSG
524 Arroyo Ave| Santa Barbara, CA 93109
415.328.4766
www.rsginc.com

From: info=robbain.com@mg.tmip.org On Behalf Of Rob Bain
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 5:43 AM
To: TMIP
Subject: Re: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL

Good points, James.

Does this introduce the concepts of 'good gain' and 'bad gain', and the policy imperative of distinguishing between them?

* Good gain = transfer from private auto
* Bad gain = transfer from active modes (or other transit?)

Your policy-makers may get comfortable with a gain of X%, but they surely need to know where this uptick is actually coming from?

Regards,

Rob

Robert Bain
RBconsult Ltd
www.robbain.com
Honorary Professor
University College London
r.bain@ucl.ac.uk

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY. This communication is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately or, alternatively, immediately destroy this communication.

From: jabunch.work=gmail.com@mg.tmip.org On Behalf Of jabunch
Sent: 15 November 2022 11:54
To: TMIP
Subject: Re: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

Interesting topic, with some good answers. The first thing I would look at
is what the mode choice model is actually considering in its choice
analyses. Most mode choice models are using as inputs the trips made in
vehicles and not total person trips. Trips that are very short and may be
competing with walk, versus transit, versus bike are filtered out in trip
generation or trip distribution. So, they never even show up in input trip
tables as a potential transit trip. The other factor is convenience trips
where someone just jumps on a passing transit vehicle are not being
captured. When I worked in a downtown with a free circulator shuttle I
would often simply walking parallel to the line to my lunch or other
destination. Then if the shuttle showed up, I would jump on. Otherwise I
would just continue to walk. We would also jump on the shuttle to go to
Chinatown for lunch or uptown simply by scheduling our trip start.

Often these short trips are also missed by the model simply because the
TAZ structure is too large to capture them as I to J trips (So they are not
skimmed or ever seen by the mode choice process).

So it may be worth considering a direct demand model for these very short
trips which really are not potential "trips made in vehicles" to capture
the trips you are missing. It could be validated to any data that you have
from neighborhood or activity center circulators. The mode split model
results for longer trips could then be merged with the direct demand model
results for the short trips.

JAB

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 6:46 AM Mike Brown wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Our region (Salt Lake City area) is studying how the market will react to
> free transit (both systemwide and for specific routes, times, etc). Our
> model (Cube-Voyager, nested Logit) does react linearly to fare changes, but
> when we set it to "free" the result is a considerably lower ridership gain
> than what our research is suggesting would likely happen. This is because
> we think "free" will see a step-function improvement in ridership. This is
> because fares remind you each time you ride that you are paying. There is
> also an "annoyance" factor, and for short trips people are unlikely to pay
> if they have alternatives, but when it is free then the bus becomes like a
> "moving sidewalk" for trips that are only a few miles. It's as if fares
> create a "2x onerous factor" (if comparing to wait time, for example), and
> when you remove that onerous factor, you get a boost. But since hardly any
> large city has ever had free fares, it is hard to tell if there even is an
> onerous factor associated with fares, and if so, how large is it?
>
> Our question is, do others agree that the reaction to fares is generally
> linear, except for when it is free (or very close to free, such as a $10
> annual fee to get a card or something). Is anyone modeling an
> attractiveness bonus for when fares are free? If so, how much of a bonus
> are you giving and how did you settle on the amount, given there is
> relatively little experience with free fares, especially in large systems?
>
> Thanks for any insights you have,
>
> Mike Brown
>
> Michael R. Brown, PE, AICP | Urban Innovators, PLLC
> Transportation Engineer, Urban Planner
> Mobile: 801-860-2409
> mike@urbaninnovators.com
>
> urbaninnovators.com
> innovativeintersections.org
> streetplan.net
> --
> Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
> Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
> Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873
>

--
James (Jim) Allday Bunch, JABunch Transportation Consulting
411 Penwood Road, Silver Spring Maryland, 20901
240-271-3534 jabunch.work@gmail.com
--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873
--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873

--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873

kimukujex

Hi all

It has been quite common for NEW toll roads to have a period of approximately one month to be free. I assume that this is because the operator believes that this is the quickest way to attract new users who will continue to use the facility when charges are introduced. I appreciate that this is for a new facility as opposed to free for established services.

One of the challenges with free public transport can be the large increase in very short trips, especially in CBD areas when people would otherwise walk. This is especially a problem if the services become over-crowed in these areas and hence reliability issues arise.

Cheers

Frank

OFFICIAL:
Frank Milthorpe
Modelling Technical Advisor
Advanced Analytics and Insights
Customer Strategy and Technology
Transport for NSW

T (02) 9549 9538 E Frank.Milthorpe@transport.nsw.gov.au

transport.nsw.gov.au

Level 5, 7 Harvest Street
Macquare Park NSW 2113

[cid:image001.png@01D8FB6B.11FC27C0]

From: mark.bradley=rsginc.com@mg.tmip.org On Behalf Of Mark Bradley
Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2022 6:46 AM
To: TMIP
Subject: Re: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

CAUTION: This email is sent from an external source. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

I think there is a time element that needs to be considered.... What happens to the ridership boost from free fares over time?

When a product or service is marketed by offering free samples or free use, it seems there are five main groups of people that emerge over time....

1. People who are not interested at all, even when it is free.
2. People who use it for free once or twice, but don't continue using it after that, even when it is still available for free.
3. People who will continue using it as long as it is free (or almost free), but stop using it once a more normal price is charged.
4. People who start using it because it is free, and then continue to use it once a more normal price is charged.
5. People who were already using it at a price and continue to use it whether it is free or not.

When a service is sold to make a profit, Group 4 is the only profitable group of interest, and the free price is usually not offered for very long and not offered to existing users, so that money is not lost on Groups 3 or 5.

Since transit service is at least partly a public good that is not expected to make a profit, both Groups 3 and 4 are of interest, and the fare revenue lost on Group 5 may not be seen as a big problem. However there may also be a Group 6 of previous users who stop using transit when it is free because the vehicles get overcrowded or service gets less frequent and/or less reliable due to lost revenues. Some riders value frequency and reliability of service more than they would value a free service. Transit agencies can use some "market discrimination" to avoid lost revenues by continuing to offer the free or discounted service only to people who can qualify on the basis of low income.

The only way to model all of this accurately would be to have data over an extended period of time from a number of different transit agencies who have offered free services for different lengths of time, also taking into account any other service changes in frequency, reliability, crowding, discount eligibility, etc. Has that kind of review study been done?

Coming out of the pandemic, an issue faced by some transit agencies is a shortage of drivers and some other staff. It isn't clear if that issue will sort itself out over time, or if wages will need to be increased to attract enough staff. For those agencies, cutting fares to attract more riders at the same time that there is not enough service to meet the current (latent) demand would seem to be working at cross-purposes.

Mark

..........................................
Mark Bradley
Principal
Pronouns: he/him/his

RSG
524 Arroyo Ave| Santa Barbara, CA 93109
415.328.4766
www.rsginc.com

From: info=robbain.com@mg.tmip.org On Behalf Of Rob Bain
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 5:43 AM
To: TMIP
Subject: Re: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL

Good points, James.

Does this introduce the concepts of 'good gain' and 'bad gain', and the policy imperative of distinguishing between them?

* Good gain = transfer from private auto
* Bad gain = transfer from active modes (or other transit?)

Your policy-makers may get comfortable with a gain of X%, but they surely need to know where this uptick is actually coming from?

Regards,

Rob

Robert Bain
RBconsult Ltd
www.robbain.com
Honorary Professor
University College London
r.bain@ucl.ac.uk

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY. This communication is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately or, alternatively, immediately destroy this communication.

From: jabunch.work=gmail.com@mg.tmip.org On Behalf Of jabunch
Sent: 15 November 2022 11:54
To: TMIP
Subject: Re: [TMIP] Bonus for free fares?

Interesting topic, with some good answers. The first thing I would look at
is what the mode choice model is actually considering in its choice
analyses. Most mode choice models are using as inputs the trips made in
vehicles and not total person trips. Trips that are very short and may be
competing with walk, versus transit, versus bike are filtered out in trip
generation or trip distribution. So, they never even show up in input trip
tables as a potential transit trip. The other factor is convenience trips
where someone just jumps on a passing transit vehicle are not being
captured. When I worked in a downtown with a free circulator shuttle I
would often simply walking parallel to the line to my lunch or other
destination. Then if the shuttle showed up, I would jump on. Otherwise I
would just continue to walk. We would also jump on the shuttle to go to
Chinatown for lunch or uptown simply by scheduling our trip start.

Often these short trips are also missed by the model simply because the
TAZ structure is too large to capture them as I to J trips (So they are not
skimmed or ever seen by the mode choice process).

So it may be worth considering a direct demand model for these very short
trips which really are not potential "trips made in vehicles" to capture
the trips you are missing. It could be validated to any data that you have
from neighborhood or activity center circulators. The mode split model
results for longer trips could then be merged with the direct demand model
results for the short trips.

JAB

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 6:46 AM Mike Brown wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Our region (Salt Lake City area) is studying how the market will react to
> free transit (both systemwide and for specific routes, times, etc). Our
> model (Cube-Voyager, nested Logit) does react linearly to fare changes, but
> when we set it to "free" the result is a considerably lower ridership gain
> than what our research is suggesting would likely happen. This is because
> we think "free" will see a step-function improvement in ridership. This is
> because fares remind you each time you ride that you are paying. There is
> also an "annoyance" factor, and for short trips people are unlikely to pay
> if they have alternatives, but when it is free then the bus becomes like a
> "moving sidewalk" for trips that are only a few miles. It's as if fares
> create a "2x onerous factor" (if comparing to wait time, for example), and
> when you remove that onerous factor, you get a boost. But since hardly any
> large city has ever had free fares, it is hard to tell if there even is an
> onerous factor associated with fares, and if so, how large is it?
>
> Our question is, do others agree that the reaction to fares is generally
> linear, except for when it is free (or very close to free, such as a $10
> annual fee to get a card or something). Is anyone modeling an
> attractiveness bonus for when fares are free? If so, how much of a bonus
> are you giving and how did you settle on the amount, given there is
> relatively little experience with free fares, especially in large systems?
>
> Thanks for any insights you have,
>
> Mike Brown
>
> Michael R. Brown, PE, AICP | Urban Innovators, PLLC
> Transportation Engineer, Urban Planner
> Mobile: 801-860-2409
> mike@urbaninnovators.com
>
> urbaninnovators.com
> innovativeintersections.org
> streetplan.net
> --
> Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
> Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
> Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873
>

--
James (Jim) Allday Bunch, JABunch Transportation Consulting
411 Penwood Road, Silver Spring Maryland, 20901
240-271-3534 jabunch.work@gmail.com
--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873
--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873
--
Full post: https://tmip.org/content/bonus-free-fares
Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/13873

This email is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you receive this email in error please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender immediately by reply email. Transport for NSW takes all care to ensure that attachments are free from viruses or other defects. Transport for NSW assume no liability for any loss, damage or other consequences which may arise from opening or using an attachment.

P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless really necessary.

OFFICIAL