1 / 26

Eco Pass Discussion

Eco Pass Discussion. Eco Pass Program Evaluation Silicon Valley Leadership Group Transportation Policy Committee July 11, 2012. Study Context. Policy goals of building ridership, revenue neutrality Called out by VTA Board Financial Recovery Committee Program started 17 years ago

ham
Download Presentation

Eco Pass Discussion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Eco Pass Discussion Eco Pass Program Evaluation Silicon Valley Leadership Group Transportation Policy Committee July 11, 2012

  2. Study Context • Policy goals of building ridership, revenue neutrality • Called out by VTA Board Financial Recovery Committee • Program started 17 years ago • Never evaluated or modified • Other agencies more financially sustainable • TriMet (Portland) $22M in annual revenue (10x VTA’s) • Lack of data • Popular with users (100,000+ employees) • Different users (professionals, students, etc.), one product

  3. EcoPass Study Surveys Stakeholders Peer & Literature Review Policy & Goals Development Policy & Citizen Input Operations and Ridership Alternatives Development Alternatives Analysis Program Implementation Project Structure

  4. Schedule

  5. Eco Pass Program Goals and Objectives Goals • Attract and retain riders, increase ridership • Revenue neutral Objectives • Ensure program is easy to administer and program rules are understandable and understood • Generate data to understand ridership, usage rates, and value • Minimize opportunities for fraud and abuse • Leverage technology to minimize fraud and abuse and to collect ridership and usage data • Provide a program with strong branding • Provide fairness, equity among participating organizations/individuals

  6. Cost per employee VTA RTD Fee Structure

  7. History of the Eco Pass Program Eco Pass History

  8. Eco Pass Ridership & Revenue/Ride Operation and Ridership

  9. Eco Pass Organization Locations Light Rail and (future) BRT Routes Operation and Ridership

  10. Eco Pass Organization Locations Express Bus Routes Operation and Ridership

  11. Eco Pass Utilization by Route • Core routes get high Eco Pass use • 22 with 15,175 weekday riders in Nov 2011 • 23 with 9,445 • 522 with 5,992 • All Express and Limited Stop routes have a very high percentage of Eco Pass riders • Some close to 50% Operation and Ridership

  12. Survey Results Examples • Project survey response not overwhelming • We selected 4 Example organizations based on good survey response rates: • School • Medium-sized company 500+ employees • Small company ~ 20 employees • Housing organizations ~ 60 residents Surveys

  13. Examples from Survey Results Note: Calculations are preliminary. Not all these trips would be made on transit without the Eco Pass. Studies found that Transit “induced demand” from Eco Pass programs can be up to 200%. Surveys

  14. Additional Findings VTA Eco Pass Ridership • Ridership: 16% (13% Bus, 26% Light Rail) • Revenue: 8% Task Force Meetings • Want a menu of options (Eco Pass, discount bulk passes, Clipper Direct, and Annual Subscription, for example) • Employers want to use Eco Pass to promote transit • Everyone is concerned about lack of data

  15. Alternatives Assumptions In the future, the Eco Pass program should: • Use electronic fare media (e.g., Clipper) with photo IDs to manage eligibility, minimize fraud, provide data • Generate sufficient revenue to become and remain revenue neutral, including regular price adjustments • Distinguish among major institutional markets with significantly different ridership characteristics (Employer, Student, and Residential)

  16. Alternatives Considered • Alternatives based on the “insurance” approach of the traditional Eco Pass • Status quo • Modified status quo • Usage-based design • Non-Eco Pass alternatives • Discounted bulk sales of monthly passes (with or without Eco Pass Program) • Cancel program/rely on Clipper Direct

  17. Question #1 • You are local business leaders. If VTA were your business, how would you design the Eco Pass program?

  18. Question #2 • What program alternative (listed or new) would be best for VTA Eco Pass?

  19. 2. Modified status quo alternative: pros / cons Advantages • Updates pricing and pricing strategy • Addresses abuse concerns • Provides means of validating underlying IDs • May resolve bus ridership data collection • Splits program into groups to better reflect ridership patterns • Maintains potential to attract new/increased ridership • Intended to improve equity across participating organizations • Increased revenue Disadvantages • May not simplify program or make it easier to understand • May not improve availability of light rail ridership data • May continue the lack of data to assess current performance against revenue objectives • May price some employers out of the program • Fairness, equity

  20. Question #3 • What implementation approaches will help make this transition go smoothly?

  21. Next Steps • Alternatives Analysis (Consultant) • Program Implementation

  22. END

  23. 1. Status quo alternative: pros / cons Advantages • Maintains existing revenue and ridership Disadvantages • Does not updates pricing and pricing strategy • Does not simplify program or make it easier to understand • Does not improve availability of light rail ridership data • Does not address abuse concerns • Lack of data to assess current performance against revenue objectives • May price some employers out of the program • Fairness, equity

  24. Usage-based approach: pros / cons Advantages • Updates pricing and pricing strategy • Protects against revenue risk by tying payment to potential and actual usage by market • Considering previous year’s usage reduces cost for organizations where participation is low • Payment due in advance • Maintains potential to attract new/increased ridership • Provides means of validating underlying IDs and addresses abuse concerns • Increased revenue Disadvantages • Requires ability to track ridership by employer, if not by employee • Potential for year-to-year variability in pricing • Requires LR riders to tag • May price some employers out of the program • Fairness, equity • Task Force and VTA program managers do not recommend as it disincentivizes promotion of VTA ridership.

  25. Discounted bulk sales of passes: pros / cons Advantages • Reduce uncompensated boardings • Link payment to volume/size of purchase • Discounts to incentivize large purchases • Reduce abuse associated with “unused” Eco Passes • Increase average fare per Eco Pass boarding • Address concerns of employers who do not understand Eco Pass and do not want to buy a pass for every employee Disadvantages • Attractive primarily to current transit users • May not incentivize much additional/new ridership • Need to decide demand for the year in advance • Fairness, equity

  26. 5. Cancel program/rely on Clipper Direct: pros / cons Advantages • Reduce revenue risk • Reduce abuse associated with “unused” passes • Increase average fare per Eco Pass boarding • 3rd party administrator fees are charged to employers Disadvantages • Attractive primarily to current transit users • May not incentivize much additional/new ridership • May create problems with contract employees

More Related