Download - Eco Pass Discussion
Eco Pass Discussion
Eco Pass Program Evaluation
UpdateSVLG Transportation Policy Committee
October 20121
Eco Pass Program Evaluation
• Evaluation of program’s effectiveness• First major evaluation of program since inception• Revisit policy objectives of Eco Pass Program• Pressure on transit agencies to achieve efficiencies• Clipper introduction provides opportunity • Opportunity to work with subscribers and future subscribers
2
3
Alternatives Analysis
Policy & Citizen Input
Peer & Literature
Review
Stakeholders Surveys
Policy & Goals
DevelopmentOperations
and Ridership
Alternatives Development
Program Implementation
3Project Structure
Eco Pass Program Goals and Objectives
Goals• Attract and retain riders, increase ridership• Revenue neutral
– Board-adopted policy of average adult fare, currently $1.53
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
4
Data CollectionPeer and Literature Review
- 9 programs interviewed, employer-based- Other program types: college/university (>60), housing (2+), and student (2)- Themes: capacity, revenue generation, TDM programs, pricing
Surveys- VTA & Employer-based surveys (19,000 completed surveys) - Usage rates vary dramatically between different types of organizations- Survey data reconciled with ridership tabulations for a “reality check”
Ridership - Eco Pass boardings tabulated on bus system
- Fare checkers tabulated Light Rail boardings over 5-week period (15,569 passengers)
Revenue information- Revenue data from 2000 to today examined- Steady decline in revenue per Eco pass boarding
since 2000
Eco Pass makes up a total of 16% of all VTA fare payment
* 13% of all bus boardings* 26% of all Light Rail boardings
Current revenue per Eco Pass boarding: $0.67
6
11 13 14 16 17 18 19 22 23 25 26 27 31 32 34 35 37 39 40 42 45 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 55 57 58 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 68 70 71 72 73 77 81 82 88 89 101102103104120121122140168180181182304321328330522
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Monthly Total Ridership > 100,000Monthly Total Ridership <10,000 10,000 < Monthly Total Ridership <100,000
Eco Pass Utilization by Route
6
Line 23: 9,773 daily boardings, 21% Eco Pass
Line 22: 14,376 daily boardings, 11% Eco Pass
Express Buses: 1,645 daily boardings, 47% Eco Pass (May 2012)
7
Program NOT meeting revenue goal• Board-adopted Revenue Goal of Average Adult Fare ($1.53)• Current Eco Pass revenue per boarding is $0.55
In 2011, Eco Pass was 16% of all VTA ridership, but only 8% of total revenue
8
ECO PASS ALTERNATIVES#1 Status Quo No market distinctions Pass for every member Maintain current pricing strategy
#2 Modified Status Quo Introduce market distinctions Retain pass for every member Restructure price matrix;
Prices changes regularly to reflect usage; changes phased to achieve revenue goals
#3 Usage Based Introduce market distinctions Retain pass for every member Annual fees unique to each organization;
See fees based on previous year’s usage
NON ECO PASS ALTERNATIVES#4 Discounted Bulk Sales Customizable; organizations may purchase
different numbers, product combinations All members eligible, but not required to
participate Future pricing based on actual use
#5 Clipper Direct Customizable; members not required to
participate Eliminates deep discounting Pricing determined by products employee
chooses to buy
8
Alternatives
9
1. Reduce Number of Participant Size Categories from 4 to 3. Eliminates category for organization of 15,000 or more.
2. Reduce Location Categories from 3 to 2. Within ¼ mile from Rapid service; outside of ¼ mile from Rapid service (Light Rail, BRT, Express Bus).
3. Stepping. Eliminates loophole in pricing that unfairly provided a discount and encouraged abuse in reporting.
4. Market-based Pricing. Employer, residential, and college/university programs are priced separately, based on usage.
5. Transition to Clipper. Should occur over the next 3 years. Addresses lack of data and prevents fraud associated with stickers.
6. Incremental Price Increases. Price increases are capped at 15% per year until the existing subscriber reaches the target price. New subscribers pay the target price.
7. Diversify Pass Offerings. VTA will offer a range of transit pass products including Clipper Direct, Monthly Subscription, Eco Pass and the new Eco Pass Lite bulk discount annual passes.
8. Re-evaluation after 4 years. Pricing matrix and program revisions will be revised in 4 years, allowing Clipper to gain wide spread use, benefitting from resulting data.
Recommendation: Modified Status QuoRecommendation focuses on eight main program areas for modification
1010
Reduce # of Participant Size Categories from 4 to 3: 1 to 99; 100 to 2,999; 3,000+. Existing 15,000+ category dropped.
Recommendation: Organizations by Category
Location Size:1 to 99
Size:100 to 2,999
Size:3,000 to 14,999
Size:15,000+
Downtown San Jose 0 0 0 1≤ ¼ mile of light rail 1 0 0 0> ¼ mile from light rail 0 4 0 1
Location Size:1 to 99
Size:100 to 2,999
Size:3,000 to 14,999
Size:15,000+
Downtown San Jose 6 3 0 0≤ ¼ mile of light rail 17 8 6 1> ¼ mile from light rail 16 18 0 1
Location Size:1 to 99
Size:100 to 2,999
Size:3,000 to 14,999
Size:15,000+
Downtown San Jose 0 1 0 0≤ ¼ mile of light rail 2 5 0 0> ¼ mile from light rail 10 9 0 0
Employers
Residential
Colleges/Universities
11
Reduce Location Categories from 3 to 2: Within ¼ mile from Rapid service; outside of ¼ mile from Rapid service. Rapid service is defined as light rail, BRT, and Express services. Existing Downtown San Jose category dropped.
11
Recommendation: Location
12
Stepping: Each organization would pay the price per employee from the first step for its first 99 employees, then the per employee price from the second step for employees 100-2,999, etc.
Recommendation: SteppingTo
tal C
ost
Tota
l Cos
t
Number of employees Number of employees
Existing Pricing Stepped Pricing
13
Current 1-99 100-2,999
3,000-14,999 15,000+
Downtown San Jose $144 $108 $72 $36
≤ ¼ mile of light rail $108 $72 $36 $18
¼ mile of light rail $72 $36 $18 $9
13
Residential 1-99 100-2,999 3,000+
≤ ¼ mile of rapid service $240 $180 $120
¼ mile of rapid service $200 $150 $100
University 1-99 100-2,999 3,000+
≤ ¼ mile of rapid service $108 $76 $54
¼ mile of rapid service $85 $65 $45
Employer 1-99 100-2,999 3,000+
≤ ¼ mile of rapid service $144 $84 $44
¼ mile of rapid service $72 $48 $30
Recommendation: Price Matrix ChangesPricing based on new categories and usage: Adopt changes to fees based on different usage rates among the 3 distinct categories of Eco Pass subscribers.
14
Colleges/Universities and Affordable Housing -- prioritize ridership over revenue?Offer the same discount as Youth pass: 36% (based on monthly pass cost of $45 instead of $70 for Adults)• Results in a $1.2M (12%) reduction in total revenue
Alternative Price Matrix Proposal
Residential 1-99 100-2,999 3,000+
≤ ¼ mile of rapid service $240 $180 $210
¼ mile of rapid service $200 $150 $100
University 1-99 100-2,999 3,000+
≤ ¼ mile of rapid service $108 $76 $54
¼ of rapid service $85 $65 $45
University 1-99 100-2,999 3,000+
≤ ¼ mile of rapid service $69 $49 $35
¼ of rapid service $55 $41 $29
Residential 1-99 100-2,999 3,000+
≤ ¼ mile of rapid service $154 $115 $91
¼ mile of rapid service $128 $96 $64
Proposed Pricing Proposed Alternate Pricing
15
Transition to Clipper: Within 3 years all Eco Pass subscribers will be transitioned to Clipper cards with an identifying photo ID. This will reduce fraud and allow VTA and Eco Pass administrators to track usage data.
Recommendation: Clipper Transition and Incremental Price Increase
15
Cap price increase at 15% per year: While some subscribers may face an increase of over 100%, others will have no increase at all. Cap price increases at 15% per year to allow predictability and adverse impacts.
22 subscribers will see no change to their fees
38 subscribers will take 7 years or longer to meet new price point
49 subscribers will reach the new price point within 6 years
1616
Recommendation: Diversify Discount Pass Offerings
Offer a range of transit products to meet the needs of all organizations / populations: Clipper Direct, annual subscription, monthly pass, Eco Pass and Eco Pass Lite
lite
ec passec pass
1717
Recommendation: Reevaluation in Year 4Implementation: The implementation strategy is designed to introduce changes gradually and collect data through Clipper usage. After 4 years, the program will be reevaluated.
2013 • Adopt Eco Pass program modifications• Implement program changes in Fall 2013
2014 – 2016• 15% maximum annual price increase• Develop new marketing materials, new subscribers subject to new
charges
2016/2017• Reevaluation of program pricing and modifications, using available
data from widespread Clipper utilization• Review pricing and other modifications, consider changes to
program
18
Eco Pass Revenue Expectations
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Board-Adopted Policy of Average Adult Fare $3.9M $4.4M $5.1M $5.7M $6.2M
Adopt new revenue policy for colleges/universities and
affordable housing$3.9M $4.3M $4.7M $5.1M $5.6M
Status quo $3.9M $3.9M $3.9M $3.9M $3.9M
1919
Boardings vs. Revenue (from Eco Pass organizations)
Existing Eco Pass Proposed Eco Pass
Cancel Eco Pass Highest $ in-crease cancel
Highest % increase cancel
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
Total Boardings
Total Revenue
2020
• Title VI Analysis
• Subscriber outreach
• January 1, 2014 – Phase 1 of implementation (with incremental increases as appropriate)
• 2016/2017 – next evaluation (for CY 2018 implementation)• Based on improved data collected through Clipper implementation or
annual survey
Next Steps
20
22
Schedule
22
2012 2013 2014Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec Jan
Tasks
1-6 Existing Conditions
Task 7
Alternatives Development
Task 8
Alternatives Assessment
Task 9 Implementation
Task Force Meetings
Title VI and Other Stakeholders input
VTA Committees and Board
Implement proposed changes