The Port Authority has proposed fare changes to take effect as early as July. The public comment period runs through May 5, 2021, and the board is expected to vote on the changes later in May. The changes are as follows:
- The base fare for connect card users would be raised from \$2.50 to \$2.75 to be the same as for cash customers.
- Transfer fares will be eliminated.
- The cost of daily, weekly, monthly, and annual passes will remain the same.
- Passes would start the day of first use, rather than the first day of the applicable week or month.
Eliminating Transfer Fares is Great
Eliminating transfer fares is an excellent idea, as I have written before. Having a transit network that requires transfers between some origin and destination pairs reduces the cost for the transit agency to operate a system that allows people to travel where they need to. It therefore doesn’t make sense to charge people more when transferring is already inconvenient.
Encouraging Monthly Passes is also Great
Raising the base fare while keeping pass prices the same is also an improvement because it encourages riders to get passes. The number of trips a rider needs to take to justify a monthly pass is reduced from 40 to 36. Alon Levy has an excellent blog post on international best practices for fare collection, in which they write:
New York does poorly on the metric of encouraging monthlies. Passengers need to swipe 46 times in a 30-day period to justify getting a monthly pass rather than a pay-per-ride. This is bad practice, especially for passengers who prefer to refill at a ticketing machine rather than at home or on their phone with an app, since it means passengers visit the ticketing machines more often, requiring the agency to buy more to avoid long lines. In Berlin, the breakeven point is 36 trips. In Zurich, it’s 20 trips; ZVV does whatever it can to discourage people from buying single tickets. In both cities, there are further discounts for annual tickets.
Monthly passes encourage people to ride transit more. If a rider’s commute justifies a pass, it then becomes free to take transit for errands or recreation. It makes it more likely that people will forgo automobile trips for transit.
Pittsburghers for Public Transit (PPT) has advocated for fare capping, where riders pay the base fare until they have paid the cost of a pass with subsequent rides being free. The Port Authority has said that fare capping is too difficult to implement technologically. Fare capping has the added drawback of taking away the incentive to buy a monthly pass. If a rider does not know if they will take 36 trips in a month, they may be reluctant to ride transit before qualifying for free rides.
A better way to address this equity issue without incentive problems would be a reduced fare pass program for low income riders. Allowing low income people to access jobs would generate tax revenue and reduce other social spending costs. There are also broad benefits to allowing low income people to participate in society enabled by transit transportation. These benefits justify funding required for a reduced fare program. PPT has also called for a reduced fare program for low income riders.
Eliminating the Penalty for Cash Fares is a Problem
The only objectionable proposed change is the removal of the penalty for paying fares in cash. While 92% of riders pay with a ConnectCard, some riders pay cash. This payment method takes more time, causing a delay for all riders.
This paper estimates that each passenger that pays in cash adds approximately 5 seconds to the bus dwell time. Port Authority buses have an operating cost per hour of \$188.43. At this rate, a 5 second delay costs the Port Authority 26￠in operating costs. The time value of money to delayed passengers on the bus is even greater. There are also 2nd order costs from incentivizing people to choose transportation modes other than transit. Additionally, slower buses mean the Port Authority isn’t able to provide as many service miles with a given number of buses.
The Port Authority should consider raising the cash fare to an even \$3. This would reduce the time it takes cash customers to pay by eliminating the need for quarters, and incentivize use of the connect card. Alternatively they could stop taking cash fares on the bus altogether.
PPT has advocated for making cash and ConnectCard fares the same. Some neighborhoods do not have locations where connect cards can be purchased or have money added. Prepaying for multiple rides on a connect card is also more difficult for a low-income person living from paycheck to paycheck to do. For those with financial means, the connect card is more convenient without the financial incentive to use one, so the financial penalty may be a limited deterrent to riders paying in cash. Still, the delay caused by riders paying in cash is a big enough problem that retaining a financial penalty is appropriate. Similar to monthly passes, a reduced fare program is a better way to deal with the equity issues.
The Port Authority should invest in expanding locations where ConnectCards can be purchased, and adding wayfinding to help riders find locations where they can add money to their cards. Particular attention should be paid to which routes have riders paying in cash to determine how to enable these riders to easily get and top off ConnectCards.
There are also other methods to reduce passenger boarding time that do not have equity trade-offs. These include use of all door boarding, something that is planned for the new Oakland-Downtown BRT system. Additionally, raised sidewalks at bus stops that allow for near-level boarding reduces the time it takes for passengers to enter the bus. NATCO has written an excellent guide to speeding up bus boarding that includes discussion of these methods. The guide recommends discouraging cash payment, and states that eliminating cash fares as an option should be considered.
The Port Authority should Charge for Parking
One improvement that was not included in the proposal was to charge for parking at park and rides. Charging for parking creates an incentive for those who are able to walk or bike to the nearest transit stop, freeing spaces for those who need to drive. This would have been a better way to pay for eliminating transfer fares than raising the base fare. Alternatively, the revenue could be used for other needed service improvements, such as more service hours, building bus shelters, or implementing signal priority.
Conclusion
Overall though these changes are an improvement. While not ideal, eliminating the cash fare penalty is unlikely to be a large problem. Making monthly passes a better financial deal and eliminating transfer fees are great changes.
*they