Social Equity in Distance Based Fares

Steven Farber, University of Utah

GIS in TransitOctober 16-17, 2013

Background• UTA transitioning from a flat fare to a distance

based fare

• Title VI and EJ requirements (differential impacts)

• Different populations will be impacted differently since trip gen’s and distances travelled vary systematically with demographics

• Understanding of travel behavior required to assess differential impacts

Fares and Sustainability

• Competing goals of transit agencyo Economic – Increase Revenueo Environmental – Decrease automobile useo Social – Provide transit service to those in need or

equally to all

• Distance based fares o Economically efficient (capturing external costs)o Socially beneficial (shorter but more frequent trips)o Environmentally detrimental (increased costs for long

distance discretionary riders)

Fares and Equity

Equity

Fairness

Transit Fare Taxation

Flat fare per trip Fixed tax dollar amount regardless of income

/ Distance based fare (DBF)

Single tax rate for all

DBF with reduced cost of successive starts

Progressive tax rates (sliding scale)

Social equity in transportation is summarized by Sanchez as the distribution of “benefits and burdens from transportation projects equally across all income levels and communities”

Fairness: Whether the costs and benefits are equal after taking needs, means, and abilities into consideration.

Are we interested in equality or fairness?

Research Questions• What are the social equity and fairness impacts of

a transition to DBF?

• How can travel behavior be used to assess social equity in this case?

• If DBFs are generally desirable, how can we find and address exceptions to this rule?

Data• Utah Household Travel Survey

o Spring 2012o 1 day travel diaryo 9,155 Households o 27,046 Peopleo 101,404 Trips

• Filtered to only those residing in UTA’s core service area - 68% of respondents

• # daily of transit trips • Daily distance travelled by transit

 Ridership Percentage

Trips

Distance Travelled(miles)

Household Income       No Answer 1.91 1.73 20.09 Under $35,000 5.17 1.94 13.25 $35,000 - $49,999 2.94 1.88 19.14 $50,000 - $99,999 2.24 1.85 20.56 $100,000 or more 2.17 1.86 24.51Hispanic       Yes 4.38 1.89 17.39 No 2.60 1.88 19.60 Prefer not to answer 3.02 1.64 5.34Race       White or Caucasian 2.50 1.89 19.93 All other 4.61 1.77 14.25Age       18-24 years old 6.87 1.82 17.47 25-34 years old 4.07 1.88 17.51 35-44 years old 3.37 1.84 24.19 45-54 years old 3.49 1.87 19.73 55-64 years old 3.13 1.88 17.82 >65 years old 1.59 2.08 13.91

 Ridership Percentage

Trips

Distance Travelled(miles)

Education       High school or less 3.73 1.85 13.08 Some College/Vocational/Associates

3.40 1.87 18.56

Bachelors 2.90 1.80 19.34 Grad/Post Grad 5.26 1.95 21.88Licensed       Yes 3.14 1.86 20.39 No 13.67 1.96 11.34Number of vehicles       Zero vehicle household 27.34 2.26 7.42 1 vehicle household 5.40 1.78 14.04 2 vehicle household 1.87 1.89 23.70 3+ vehicle household 1.99 1.81 23.21Home Ownership       Rent 5.56 1.86 11.66 Own 2.17 1.87 22.77 Other 0.77 2.00 17.61Residence Type       Single-family house (detached house)

2.17 1.88 22.82

Apartments 6.17 1.92 11.38 Other 3.34 1.74 13.89

Observed Travel Behavior

Selection of Fares• UTA is considering fares that consist of a flat

component and a distance-based component

• For this study, we selected a revenue-neutral fareo $0.50 + $0.19 per mile

• Distance is measured as Euclidean distance so that users are not penalized by indirect network design

 Transit Trips

 Distance Travelle

dFlat Fare

Distance Based Fare

Percentage

ChangeHousehold Income     Under $35,000 1.94 13.25 4.85 3.49 -28.1% $35,000 - $49,999 1.88 19.14 4.70 4.58 -2.6% $50,000 - $99,999 1.85 20.56 4.63 4.83 4.5% $100,000 or more 1.86 24.51 4.65 5.59 20.1%Hispanic     Yes 1.89 17.39 4.73 4.25 -10.1% No 1.88 19.6 4.70 4.66 -0.8%Race     White or Caucasian

1.89 19.93 4.73 4.73 0.1%

All other 1.77 14.25 4.43 3.59 -18.8%Age     18-24 years old 1.82 17.47 4.55 4.23 -7.0% 25-34 years old 1.88 17.51 4.70 4.27 -9.2% 35-44 years old 1.84 24.19 4.60 5.52 19.9% 45-54 years old 1.87 19.73 4.68 4.68 0.2% 55-64 years old 1.88 17.82 4.70 4.33 -8.0% >65 years old 2.08 13.91 5.20 3.68 -29.2%

Method• Estimate a joint model of transit trip generations

and distance travelled

• Spatially expanded coefficients – controls for contextual information not captured in the dataset

• Convert travel behavior to fares and compare results

Ordered Model Estimates Continuous Model Estimates

B p-value

B p-value

Age less than 17 years 0.9052 0.0000 Constant -3.9564 0.0000

Age 18-24 years -0.1468 0.0607 Two transit trips 1.1045 0.0000

Age over 65 * 𝑢2 1.4356 0.0193 Three transit trips 1.5018 0.0000

Age over 65 * 𝑣2 0.8022 0.0167 Age over 65 -0.2700 0.1709

Mobility Limitation * 𝑣 -0.3858 0.0956 No children or retirees -0.1596 0.0821

Household w/ retirees -0.3449 0.0004 Student, em. < 25 hrs/week -0.2771 0.1868

Self employed 0.9011 0.0000 Unemployed/retired -0.2670 0.0483

Student, emp. 25+ hrs/week -0.4158 0.0000 High school or less * D_CBD -0.0072 0.0619

Unemployed/retired * 𝑢2 -1.1084 0.2099 Hispanic - Refusal -0.5133 0.0464

Unemployed/retired * 𝑢 1.8918 0.0003 Race: non-white * D_CBD 0.0199 0.0052

Grad. or post-grad. degree -0.3251 0.0000 Race: non-white * 𝑣 -0.4355 0.1926

Female 0.1842 0.0001 Zero vehicles * D_CBD -0.0132 0.0275

Hispanic 1.1440 0.0446 Income < $25K * 𝑢𝑣 -0.8834 0.0818

Hispanic * 𝑣 -1.2459 0.0902 Income $75-$100K -0.4831 0.0001

Hispanic * 𝑣2 -2.4449 0.0011 4 people 0.1759 0.1779

No driver’s license -1.3931 0.0000 3+ workers 0.2371 0.0917

No driver’s license * 𝑣 1.4272 0.0016 3+ children’s bikes 0.2400 0.1706

Zero vehicle household -0.7612 0.0000 5+ years in current res. 0.1163 0.1723

2 vehicle household 0.3455 0.0000 City, residential neigh. -0.1825 0.0500

3+ vehicle household 0.5623 0.0000 Distance to CBD 0.0522 0.0000

Income < $25K * 𝑢𝑣 -0.5827 0.1106 Distance to bus stop 0.1788 0.0003

Income – Refusal 0.1421 0.1002 𝑣 17.4178 0.0000

Household rents * D_CBD 0.0087 0.0001 𝑣2 -15.0180 0.0000

Household rents * 𝑢𝑣 -1.1271 0.0004 Joint Model Parameter Estimates

Household Tenure - Other 0.6485 0.1282

B p-value

Household Tenure - Refusal 0.8261 0.0700 𝜇1 -1.3672 0.0000

3+ workers -0.1580 0.0740 𝜇2 -1.5167 0.0000

3+ children’s bikes 0.2259 0.0186 𝜇3 -2.4753 0.0000

6+ people -0.2206 0.0076 𝜌 -0.1883 0.0625

Suburban mixed neighborhood -0.1226 0.0211 𝜎 0.8322 0.0000

Distance to Commuter Rail 0.0024 0.2466 𝑢2 0.4476 0.0410

Log-Likelihood: -3701.04; p(𝜒2)<0.0000; McFadden’s Adj. 𝜌ҧ2 : 0.1144; pseudo-𝑟2=0.5782; 𝑛=16071

A B C D

0 10 Miles0 10 Miles0 10 Miles

Distance Travelled (Miles)

Bus Routes

> 55

0 10 Miles

< 2

2 - 3

3 - 4

4 - 5

5 - 6

6 - 7

7 - 8

8 - 9

9 - 10

10 - 14

14 - 18

18 - 22

22 - 26

26 - 30

30 - 35

35 - 40

40 - 45

45 - 55

Ref.Low Income & Education

Low Income & Elderly

Non-White

A B C D

0 10 Miles0 10 Miles0 10 Miles0 10 Miles

Ratio of Expected Distance Based Fare to Flat Fare

< 0.35

0.35 - 0.45

0.45 - 0.55

0.55 - 0.65

0.65 - 0.75

0.75 - 0.85

0.85 - 0.95

0.95 - 1.05

1.05 - 1.25

1.25 - 1.50

1.50 - 2.00

2.00 - 2.50

2.50 - 3.00

3.00 - 4.00

> 4.00

Bus Routes

Ref.Low Income & Education

Low Income & Elderly

Non-White

Census Tracts

Most Non-White

Most Hispanic

0.95 - 1.05

1.05 - 1.25

1.25 - 1.50

1.50 - 2.00

2.00 - 2.50

2.50 - 3.00

3.00 - 4.00

> 4.00

Cost Ratio

< 0.95

Conclusions• Distance based fares generally result in cheaper

fares for those who need it most

• Pockets of mismatch exist – suburbanization of the poor poses a problem

• Burden on long-distance low-income travellers can be mitigated through reduced flat-fare components

• Changes in price are likely to shift wealthy discretionary riders back to their cars, but it may attract a plethora of new low-income riders

Next Steps• Developing a GIS Decision Support System

• Analysts at UTA can compute fare surfaces for different demographic profiles and different fare structures

• Targeted studies of riders in particular at-risk neighborhoods identified by the DSS

Acknowledgements• Xiao Li, Graduate RA• Keith Bartholomew, UofU• Antonio Páez, McMaster University• Khandker M. Nurul Habib, University of Toronto

• Utah Transit Authority

• Partial support from:o National Institute for Transportation and Communities (DTRT12-G-

UTC15-540)o National Science Foundation (BCS-1339462)