First-Year Impact of Reduced Transit Fares on Southern California Rapid Transit District

Transportation Research Record 992 61 First-Year Impact of Reduced Transit Fares on Southern California Rapid Transit District SUSAN PHIFER ABSTRACT percent allocation of the sales tax funds to cities is permanent. For the first 3 years--July 1, 1982, through June In 1980 voters in Los Angeles County passed 30, 1985--the first claim on the balance of the a referendum designed to support public funds is for fare reductions. The district's base transit development through a dedicated fare was reduced from 85 to 50 cents with concurrent sales tax. One feature of this referendum, reductions in the balance of the district's fare the reduced-fare program, substantially structure. Funds are provided for the additional lowered the bus fares at the Southern Cali service necessary to relieve overcrowding from fornia Rapid Transit District (SCRTO) and increased ridership induced by the lower fare. Funds provided a subsidy to maintain adequate will also be allocat.ed to the municipal bus oper service levels. The lower fares precipitated ators as necessary, to keep their ba·se fare at the a surge in patronage on SCRTD lines. This SO-cent level. During the first 3 years, funds not growth in system boardings made it necessary required for the fare-reduction program are avail to accelerate monitoring of the bus lines able for rapid transit development programs. and to increase service levels in many The fare-reduction program of Proposition A ends cases. The attempts made by SCRTD to deal in July 1985. At that time funds w-111 be reallocated with the patronage growth and the impacts on as follows: 25 percent for the cities, a minimum of patronage, service levels, and operating 35 percent for transit guideway development (Metro productivity are described. Rail and light rail projects), and the balance of 40 percent for discretionary public transit improve ments as defined by LACTC. These programs could include fare-relief subsidy, maintenance of bus service, or acceleration of rail rapid transit Voter approval of the Transit Development Program construction. referendum in 1980 ushered in a new era for public One feature of the Transit Development Program is transportation in Los Angeles county. Thcough t.his the focus of this paper: the first-year impact of referendum, the voters mandated the development of a the Proposition A reduced-fare program on SCRTD. The region.al raU rapid transit system. The referendum, reduced-fare program caused significant changes in known as Proposition A, is one of the largest dedi ridership and service levels. Initially, ridership cated ta;><es for public transportation ever voted by surged, then continued at a slower growth rate a county electorate in the United States. An op throughout the first year. Growth in ridership portunity has thus been presented to accomplish affected the service levels required to maintain ·major transportation imp·rovements in Los Angeles adequate capacity. In the first half of the paper county. the attempt made by SCRTD to deal effectively with The Los Angeles county Transportation Commission the surge in ridership is described. The actual (LACTC) placed Proposition A on the ballot at the impacts of the reduced-fare program on patronage, November 4, 1980, general election. The measure was service level, pa.ss sales, and operating productiv approved by 54.2 percent of the county voters. After ity are documented in the second half of the paper. a legal challenge, the measure was validated by the California Supreme Court on April 30, 1982. The new Transit Development Program started on July 1, 1982. PREPARING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REDUCED-FARE Proposition A provided funding for three specific PROGRAM programs: lower bus fares (reduced-fare program), local transit improvements, and construction of a Actions by the Board of Directors rail rapid transit system. Proposition A increased the sales tax in Los Angeles County by O. 5 percent Subsequent to the Apr i1 30 validation of Proposition and raised almost $300 million in the first year. A by the California State Supreme court, the policy This revenue was combined with state and federal bodies of SCRTD and LACTC approved a master agree funds, fares, and other revenues to provide a com ment, also called the Memorandum of Understanding prehensive public transit program in Los Angeles (MOU). Intended to prevent system produ.ctivity from County. worsening, the MOU outlined actions and constraints Every incorporated city in Los Angeles County under which the district was to implement the Pcopo will receive a direct allocation of sales tax reve si tion A reduced-fare program. The MOU, revised in nues for local transit improvements. Each year, 25 February 1983, will remain in effect through the end percent of the sales tax revenue will be set aside of the mandated reduced-fare program, June 30, 1985. in a special fund and then divided among the 82 Key features of the MOU include the following: cities and the county unincorporated areas, accord ing to the population of each jurisdiction. Each 1. The district will lower its fare structure to city (or the county in the case of unincorporated designated levels on July 1, 1983, areas) will decide how to provide better local 2. The district will provide enhanced service on public transportation services for their community. existing lines to accommodate the increased rider They may spend the funds themselves or contract with ship demand resulting from the lowered fare other service providers, such as the Southern Cali structure, fornia Rapid Trans it District (SCRTD). This 25 3. The district will redeploy its services 62 Transportation Research Record 992 wherever possible so that capacity is shifted to 5, A 100 percent loading standard exceeded on meet additional demand, express lines for three consecutive trips each day. 4. The district will maintain its productivity as measured by designated standards and not allow Although these guidelines did not state what level conditions to become worse on lines where excessive of crowding was ac"CepC.~Ult:, 1..111::y wua:c i,,tan~od t~ crowding exists, identi£y and alleviate the most overcrowded services. 5. The district will prepare brief statistical The district's preparatory activities were co reports at regular intervals covering specified ordinated by the Interdepartmental Proposition A performance indicators, and Implementation Task Poree, which had representat ion 6. LACTC will reimburse the district for these from each of the affected departments. The district actions up to a set dollar limit per month for up to obtained additional bus operators, as customary, by a set limit of vehicle service hours per year. converting part-time drivers to full-time status and by hiring additional part-timers. By performing a The SCRTD Board of Directors affirmed the master costly overhaul and upgrading or tht! H!Lired fleet, agreement by approving the revision of the dis the district obtained the necessary additional trict's fare structure. As required, the base fare equipment. All SCRTD departments made expeditious was lowered from 85 to 50 cents, a 41 percent de preparations for the implementation of the fare crease. There were corresponding reductions in all reduction program based on an expected surge in fare categories. Student and college or vocational ridership. school fares experienced the greatest reductions: casn tares were reduced mui:-t: than 70 pare~n"" ::nd their respective pass prices were reduced more than MONITORING OVERCROWDED CONDITIONS 80 percent. In Table 1 the bus fares before and after Proposition A are presented. The district's major concern regarding the reduced f are program was that the initial patronage increase might be very large and might more than fill avail able capacity on many lines. some excess capacity TABLE 1 Bus Fares Before and After existed before July 1 due to steady patronage de Proposition A clines during FY 1982, However, it was believed that capacity would quickly be exhausted on many lines, Price ($) Accurately predicting the size an.d location of the expected patronage overloads was no possible, Before After especially because the fare decrease was so signifi Type of Fare July I July I cant. The primary goal of the district in responding Cash to this uncertainty was to make plans that would Regular 0.85 0.50 allow overloading problems to be quickly identi£ied Senior citizens and handicapped 0.40 0.20 and corrected, thus avoiding prolonged hardship to Students (under 19) 0.65 0.20 patrons. College and vocational 0.85 0.20 InitiaJ.ly, the most severe crowding problems were Pass expected to occur during the peak periods when Regular 34.00 20.00 Senior citizen and handicapped 7.50 4.00 capacity was least. Bus line patronage is not gen Stude.nt (under 19) 22.00 4.00 erally tracked at the peak period independently . College and vocational 26.00 4.00 Therefore, to track peak patronage growth and assess remaining capacity, a system was developed to follow 72 bus lines. These 72 lines included 80 percent of the service and represented a spectrum of service To prepare for the expected patronage increases types. To track peak-period patronage on these due to reduced fares, the Board of Directors autho lines, peak- period data from before the reduced-fare rized the general manager to proceed with necessary program were gathered, creating a base line. A personnel hiring, bus preparation, and additional method wa s established to estimate total peak-period data collection. ridership on a line from the number of passengers on board at the peo.k otop. Past experience has Rhown Actions by District that the ratio of total passengers to passengers on board at the peak stop is not affected by a change The district developed internal guidelines for in ridership level.

Load more