Transit Fares for Multi-modal Transportation Systems Dr. Jeffrey M. Casello Associate Professor School of Planning Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Waterloo Transport Futures Mobility Pricing Conference Toronto, ON Canada 3 February 2011
Presentation Outline The history of transit provision; The evolution of transit from private to public; Current pricing: objectives and levels; Defining transit competitiveness; Achieving intermodal balance.
Transit Systems Historically Originally: for-profit, competitive firms; Brewer and Mason competing omnibuses in New York City (1830s 1850s); Evolves to IRT, BRT, BMT all private (1900s); Fifth Avenue Coach company (1910); Philadelphia competing subways at different gauge (1900s); Transit development tied to real estate development / power generation; Augment transit industry with trolley parks
Transit Systems Historically Early 20 th Century Challenges: Competition amongst firms; Costs capital and O&M; Revenues; Alternatives. War-time Stabilization: Competing effectively with autos; Introduction of PCC
Evolution from Private to Public - Post World War II Decentralization; Auto investments / ownership growth; Transit underinvestment; Vicious cycle. Municipal ownership. Transit to Auto Auto subsidies Lower transit ridership Higher traffic volumes Increasing transit fares Highway and parking expansion Poorer transit service Increased street congestion Lower transit revenues Transit selfsustaining
Current Fare Objectives Contemporary Objectives in Pricing (fares) Transportation (large cities): Life cycle costs recovery (capital, O&M, debt, etc.): Recovering infrastructure deficit ($123B in 2007) Total cost accounting including internal / external costs; Social, environmental, subsidies, etc. Economic efficiency; Influence behavior; Generate data (reduce costs / improve efficiency)
Direct costs of urban travel by different modes Cost [$/person-trip] 10 8 6 4 2 Toll Parking Gasoline Fare 0 Auto Large City - Peak Auto Peak without Parking, Tolls Bus / LRT / Metro Express Bus / Regional Rail
Total costs of urban travel by different modes 10 5 Toll Parking Gasoline Fare Cost [$/person-trip] 0 5 10 Indirect user cost Subsidy Social Environmental Subsidy Environmental Social 15 Auto Large City - Peak Auto Peak without Parking, Tolls Bus / LRT / Metro Express Bus / Regional Rail
Fuel Tax Comparison Fuel Taxes (2000) U.S. $ per gallon Source: OECD 3rd quarter 2001 UK $3.29 Norway $2.85 Netherlands $2.77 France $2.57 Germany $2.56 Italy $2.43 Ontario $0.93 U.S. $0.38 $- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 Taxes
Current Fare Objectives Contemporary Objectives in Pricing Transportation (small to midsized cities): Ensure equity and mobility; Provide travel options; Reduce property tax burdens. Transit plan: The Region of Waterloo is considering expanding transit service by 57 employees and 19 buses. Politicians are considering hiring 57 employees and buying 19 buses to launch a major Grand River Transit expansion, fuelled by non-stop tax and fare increases lasting two decades.
Current Fare Trends Costs rising faster than inflation; (10% in real dollars in last decade) Declining farebox recovery rates with modest ridership gains; Transit fares growing faster (+25%) than auto costs (-33%); 70.0 60.0 50.0 Ontario farebox recovery as a function of population R/C (%) 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 Service Area Population (000s)
Implication of Current Trends A climate of contradiction: Provincial (Ontario) mandate to intensify; Some willingness to invest in capital expenditures; Federal / Provincial mechanisms to fund operations; Public unwillingness to incur greater costs of publicly provided goods; Pricing of transit / auto leaves very few users motivated to use transit;
Implication of Current Trends Transit Ridership depends upon: The number of trips for which transit competes well with other modes in terms of travel time, convenience, out of pocket expenses, etc. Generalized Cost (GC); Define Transit Competitiveness as the ratio of the of Generalized Cost of a trip by auto (GCA ) versus the Generalized Cost of same trip by transit (GCT ): GC GC T A if < 1, transit costs less; if >1, auto costs less; if = 1, costs are equal
Modal Generalized Costs Transit Generalized Cost Decreasing cost as a function of volume: Total travel time Travel time savings v hmin 2 + IVTT Volume (prs / hr) Auto Generalized Cost Increasing cost as a function of volume: Travel time (min) Free-flow travel time 1 total travel time 2 total travel time v v vehicular volume Capacity Volume (veh / hr)
Implications IV. Conceptual Model 60 50 40 Total system cost curve ($000) Disutility 30 20 Increasing Transit Volume Transit user cost curve 10 Auto user cost curve Increasing Auto Volume 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Transit modal split
Achieving Balanced Transportation Shifting the Transit Cost Line Downward: Lowering construction and operating costs lower fares; Fares as a function of distance; Improved operations / better coordinated transfers; Greater reliability; Better Information.
Achieving Balanced Transportation Shifting the auto cost line upward: Internalizing external costs tolls, carbon taxation, etc. Increasing marginal cost of driving through: Parking charges; Pay as you drive insurance; Fuel tax; Increasing land values in urban areas (precludes free parking ); Decreasing decentralization;
Summary Transit Evolution From private, for profit-corporation; Competition / auto growth poses challenges; Post-war movement away from transit; Realization of impacts; New recognition to make transit competitive public good recognized but overall unwillingness to change personal behavior; Suite of transit incentives / auto disincentives / land uses and policies necessary;