November 5, 1999 - Update On Fare Policy Development

8m ago
5 Views
0 Downloads
4.08 MB
48 Pages
Last View : 6d ago
Last Download : n/a
Upload by : Aliana Wahl
Transcription

November 5, y’PlazaAngdes,CALos9{30t1-29QFROM:SUBJECT:BOARD OF DIRECTORSA,/./-- iJAMESL. de la LOZA" ::::;’ ) :"EXECUTIVE OFFICER,’REGIONALTRANSPORTATIONPLANNING AND DEVELOPMENTUPDATE ON FARE POLICYDEVELOPMENTISSUEMTAstaff and its consultant, Multisystems, Inc., have completed the initialtasks of the Fare Policy Study. Attached is an executive summaryand the fullreport of the progress to date. Staff expects to provide Board Memberbriefings in earl) Decemberto review the attached material and obtain inputon any additional fare structure and pricing strategies to be modeledandconsidered for a fare policy.BACKGROUNDThe MTA’sFiscal Year 2000 Budget assumes that a limited adjustment tofares would be implemented effective November1, 1999 and the budgetedadditional revenues for these eight months was 10.2 million, Staff has beenworking on a comprchcnsivc farc policy with theInc., which is providing technical and policy support.The consultant has prepared a matrix of possible fare strategies to be modelledIbr their impact on revenue and ridership (Attachment 1). Consultant hasrequested that the Board review the alternatives to be evaluated andrecommendany additional strategies to be analyzed and modeled.In addition to the matrix, the consultant has prepared a report (Attachment 2)that evaluates MTA’scurrent fare structure, comparesit to 10 peer agencies inCalifornia and nationally, and summarizesthe results of the Board, Board staffand MTAstaff"visioning" and fare policy goal analysis.The report supports the previous staff recommendation for an immediate CP1increase and provides documentation of the need to create a fare policy andrestructure MTA’sexisting fare system. Because of the limitations imposed bythe Consent Decree, the limitations of current fare collection technology andthe complexity of the strategy trade-offs, the consultant has recommendedthat

the MTAadopt an interim policy of approving a biannually increase in fares, linked to theCPI until the technology is installed or new fare policy adopted.NEXT STEPSFollowing the board memberbriefings in December, the consultant expects to complete theanalysis of individual strategies, develop scenarios that combinepromising strategies andevaluate the scenarios through their model. Staff will return with the results of the modelingexercise in January 2000.Attachments1.Alternative Fare Structure / Pricing Strategies2.Evaluation of MTAFare Structure and Identificationof Alternative Pricing Strategies

Attachment]AlternativeFare Structure/PricingOptions/Strategies to be ConsideredStrategiesApplicable Time FrameNearTermLong Range(allowed by(after endof(requiresConsent Decree) Consent Decree)UFS)!tain current structure (i.e., zonesonly on expressbus),ntroducezones(rail only)introduce off-peak discount in the mid-day*expandoff-peak discount to majority of day: makeoff-peak "base" fare**XXXXXXXXretain current transfer structureoffer free transfersoffer free transfers, but only with electronic farecardeliminate transfers andreduce cashfareeliminate transfers, sell day passon bus/in stationXXXXXXXretain current pricing and"breakeven"levels (relative to cash)***increase pass breakevenlevelintroduce low-incomepass, increase prices of other passesreducepassprices, as part of overall fare reductionreplace passes(and tokens) with discounted stored value farecards onlyeliminate monthly pass, keep weekly/bi-weeklyintroduce"capped"pass(i.e., that limits no. of trips)introduce County-widepass, usable on any operator in the CountyXXXXXXXXXXX:tam tokensat current discount (e.g., 10 for 9: 33%disc. vs. 10 for 1.35)retain tokens, reducediscount (e.g., 10-15%)retain current token discount, but raise cashfare andtoken price significantlyreplace tokens with farecards, with a lower discount than currentkeepcashfare at current levelraise cashfare accordingto CPI(biennial increase)raise cash fare beyondCPIraise cash fare beyondCPI, with discounted farecardreducebasecashfare, as part of overall fare reductionreducebase cash fare, increase passand token prices (to lower discount)retain current structureincreasesenior/disabledfare to 50%of full cashfare (not tokenfare)eliminate lower off-peak fare ( 0.35)eliminate discount duringpeakhours(i.e., chargefull fare)creat esingl e reducedfare (seniors. disabled students)eliminate student pass (K-12)eliminate student pass(college/vocational)tighten criteria for all studentpassesXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX,XXXXXXXX*A peak/off-peakdifferential is possible without UFS,but wouldbe mucheasier to administer with UFS.**This wouldhaveFAPfunding implications, resulting in morefunding for the MTA,but less funding for the municipal operators.***The pass"breakeven"level is the numberof trips (at the peakcashfare) a personwouldhaveto take to cover the cost of thepass. At the current monthlypassprice of 42, the breakevenlevel is 42/ 1.35 31. X

At tacb nent 2EVALUATION OF MTA FARE STRUCTURE AND IDENTIFICATIONOF ALTERNATIVE PRICING STRATEGIES: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEvaluationof LACMTA’sFare StructureThe MTA’scnrrent fare structure was evaluated based on a review of a group of "peer" transitagencies. In this assessment, the details of MTA’sfare structure were compared with those ofa group of comparable transit systems in California and around the U.S. The peer groupincludes:six of the largest systems outside of California, all of which operate both bus andrailservice:MTA-NYCT(New York City),CTA (Chicago),WMATA(Washington,DC), SEPTA (Philadelphia),MTA(Baltimore)and(Cleveland)four of the larger California systems, representing bus and/or rail operations:Muni (San Francisco),BART(San Francisco),SD Transit (San Diego)OCTA(Orange County)These agencies represent a range of types of l:are policies and structures, and are at variousstages in terms of automation of their fare collection systems. They also vary in terms of howrecently they have madesignificant changes to their fare structures or payment options. Theassessment of LACMTA’sfare structure has yielded the following key findings; these resultsare displayed graphically in Figures 1-6:MTA’s 33%token discount is the highest ojall the systems reviewed here, morethan twice the average discount offered by these agencies (15%). The otheragencies’ discounts range fi’om 4% (Baltimore) to 28%(Philadelphia). Thecommondiscount level is 10%, offered by Orange County Transit authority, aswell as the agencies in NewYork, Chicago and Washington, DC.The MTA’s monthly ( 42) and weekly ( I1) passes are priced considerablylower than those qf most of its’ peers - for instance, they are 50%cheaper thanthose in NewYork and Philadelphia and more than 75% less than in Chicago.Moreover, the pass "multiple" or "breakeven" level (i.e., the number of cashrides the passholder has to take to cover the cost of the pass) for MTA’spass islower than in all but one of the peer systems. MTA’smonthly breakeven of 31 isconsiderably lower than the group average of nearly 40.

Figure 1- Percentageof Operating Costs Coveredby Fare Revenues7O%60%50%O%Figure 2: OperatingCost per Hour 250 200S50 0

Figure 3: Average Fare Per BoardingS2.00 1 80 1.60 m 1.40mo 1.20"S1.00 0.80so.6o 0.40 0.20 0.00Figure 4: Per-Ride (TokenlTicket/Farecard) PrepaymentDiscount/Bonus35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%

Figure 5: Peak Period Cash Fares 200il Full!IIISt./Dis. 1.80 1.6O 1.40 1 2Osl.oo50.80S0.60S0.40S020S0,00Figure 6: Monthly Pass Breakeven Level and Price 8O60.0 7050 0 6040.0 5O30.0 3O20.0 2010.0 10 00.0Los Angeles NewYorkCityChicagoWashington, Philadelphia BaltimoreDCCleveland San Fran.(Muni)San DiegoOrangeCountyAverage

MTA’s fitrebox recovery ratio of 30% is lower than all but two of the peeragencies (Greater Cleveland RTA, at 23%, and OCTA,at 27%), and fallssignificantly below the average recovery ratio of 43%. The major reason for theMTA’slow recovery ratio is the level of fare revenue, rather than a highoperating cost. MTA’soperating cost per hour ( 111) is lower than the peeraverage of 117.Comparing the average fare per boarding for these agencies reveals that theMTA,at 0.57, is lower than all but one of the peers (Muni at 0.47). The MTAfalls well below the peer average of 0.89. However, the MTA’sdistribution ofrevenues by fare category (see accompanying graph) is reasonably consistentwith the revenue breakdownat other large transit agencies.MTA’s relatively low cash fare also contributes to the low average fare and low./ rebox recovery ratio. Although the MTA’ssingle-ride full cash fare, at 1.35,is somewhathigher than cash fares of the Municipal operators in L.A. County, itis lmver than the fares at most of the other very large transit agencies reviewedhere (i.e.,those in NewYork, Chicago, Philadelphia and Cleveland); thedistance-based fares at WMATA(Washington) and BARTfares start out lower( 1.10), but reach maximumlevels over 3. San Diego Transit’s bus fares aresignificantly higher, at 1.75. The MTAfare is roughly equivalent to the overallpeer average bus fare ( 1.32) and somewhat higher than the peer average railfare ( 1.25)., 17 4 ’s reeh/ced, ,rex are a/xo lowertha tho e at mo.vl !f lhe peer age ,.cie.v. TheMTA’scash fare for seniors and the disabled is higher than the comparable fareat only three of the other agencies. However,it should be noted that, at several ofthe peer agencies, reduced fares are at least partially subsidized by city(NYMTA,by the City of New York), county (OCTA, through "Measure M,"sales tax-based countywide transportationfunding program) or state (SEPTA,through funds from the Pennsylvania State Lottery) programs.Thus, the MTA’scurrent fare structure is out of line with comparable transit agencies inseveral areas. Its relatively low base fare, deeply discounted tokens and low-priced unlimitedride passes have resulted in a low average fare per boarding and thus a relatively low fareboxrecovery ratio.Identificationand Rating of Fare Policy Principles and GoalsIn order to begin the process of establishing a formal fare policy for the MTA,interviews wereheld with MTAmanagement/staff and Board members and their Deputies regarding theirviews on key fare-relatedissues and potential fare policy goals. A questionnaire was

Percentageof MTA Annua Fare BoardingsOther6%by Fare TypeCash16%(reduced/student}23%Token15%Pass (furl fare 19%Percentageof MTA AnnUal Revenue by Fare TyPe(reduced student)11%Othe 1%Cash40%"]-ransfe[8%Token23%

developed to help guide these discussions, particularly in ranking the relativevarious fare policy principles, goals and possible fare structure changes.importance ofThe results of this survey are depicted graphically in Figures 7-10; the key findings can besummarized as follows:qfhe most important fare policy goals for the MTAare to provide a fare structureand payment options that are convenient for the customer to use and simple tounderstand. The current fare structure is seen as doing a poor job in both areas.An important element of this convenience is clearly seen as improving the abilityI0 lt,S’( tt’al?Si[ ill a "seamless" mannerihroughoullhe Coun - e.g.,through convenient inter-operator transfer mechanisms and/or County-wide fareinstruments.Q/I’iCt’c’I’SThe overall feeling of Board and staff melnbers who participated in this effortwas that generating additional ridership and maximizing revemw are lessimportant fare policy goals at this point.The highest rated potential fare structure modifications were the introduction oJa reRionwide stored value jhrecard and the elimination of tran4" rs - withintroduction qfia [email protected] 1-day pass.The results of this exercise will be useful in establishing a fare policy and specific goalsthe Authority and in identifying - and subsequently evaluating -- potential fare structuremodifications.Identificationof Alternative Fare Structure/Priciug StrategiesIn developing a formal fare policy and recommendedfare structure modifications, the firststep is to identify potential policy/pricing strategy options that should be considered. Theseoptions fall into the following basic fare categories: differential pricing (e.g., transfer policy/pricing (e.g., consideration of free transfers,transfers, more expensive transfers) pass pricing (e.g., consideration of zones and time of day differentials)elimination oftypes and purchase prices of passes and breakeven levels)multi-ride discount pricing (e.g., percentage discount - compared to cash -- forbulk purchase tokens, tickets and stored value farecards)vii

Figure 7: Ranking of Fare Policies& Goalskeep faressimple/understandablefacilitate seamlesstravelrecognize special fare needsfacilitate quick boardingusers pay reasonable sharecontrol fareevasion/counterfeitingparticipate in multipleapplication 1-7)Figure 8: Ranking of Fare Policy Goalsmaximize conveniencepromote seamlesstravelmaximizesimplicitymaximize prepaymentinsure equityimprove ease of admin.allowlocal fare structureflexibilityassurecontrol/security of revenueincreaseridershipmaximize )7.08.09.010.0

[] cash fare pricing (for full and reduced fare riders)An initial set of alternative strategies to be considered for each of these categories has beendeveloped based on suggestionsof MTAmanagement/staff;Board members and theirDeputies. and the Bus Riders’ Union, as well as from the types of options in place at othertransit agencies. This initial list is presented in the accompanyingtable. Each strategy isidentified as being a possible "near term" or "long range" option. A near term option is onethat is allowed under the terms of the Consent Decree, and is feasible prior to theimplementation of the Universal Fare System (i.e., automated fare collection).Long rangeoptions are those that are not allowed under the cun’ent terms of the Consent Decree; some ofthese options also require the presence of UFS.Next Steps in Fare Policy Stud)’Each of these pricing options has certain advantages and disadvantages relative to otherswithin its particular category: it is necessary to evaluate the options based on a combinationof:[]an assessment as to how well each addresses the fare policy principles and goalsidentified here[]a relative assessment of the benefits it offers the Authority vs. the drawbacks orbarriers that would have to be addressedIn evalua*ing the various possible s{rategies, we will work with MTAstaff and o .b.er interestedparties to develop a series of fare structure scenarios madeup of various combinations of theseoptions, with specific pricing levels for each. The revenue and ridership impacts of eachscenario will then be tested in the MTA’s Fare Revenue/Ridership Model. Based on theevaluation of alternatives and revenue/ridership impacts, we will develop a "short list" ofrecommendedfuture (i.e., long term) fare structure scenarios for review by MTAmanagementand the Board. Accompanying this list xvill be recommendations regarding a fare policyframework for guiding future fare decisions (e.g., related to the timing of fare structurereviews and guidelines for making fare changes).PreliminaryRecommendationAs suggested above, LACMTA’sfares definitely fall below industry guidelines for a transitagency of its size and scope. This is reflected in the low average fare per boarding and the lowfarebox recovery ratio. The Authority should therefore strongly consider increasing fares.In the near term, the MTAis limited by the Consent Decree to a CPI-based increase: the MTAcan legally raise the cash fare to 1.45, and MTAmanagementhas proposed to implement

AlternativeFare Structure/PricingStrategiesApplicable Time FrameNear TermLong Range(allowed by(after endof(requiresUFS))Consent, Decree Consent Decree)Options/Strategies to be ConsideredDifferential Pricingeta ncurrent structure (i.e. zonesonly on expressbus),n:roduce zones(rail only)n:rcduce off-peak discount in the mid-day*expandoff-peak discount to maiorit’y of day: makeoff-peak ’;base" fare**XXXXTransfer Policy/Pricingretain current transfer structureoffer free transfersoffer free transfers, but only with electronic farecardeliminate transfers and reduce cashfareeliminate transfers, se!l day passon bus/in station,,Unlimited.Ride Pass Pricingretain current pricing and"breakeven"levels (relative to cash)*** ncreasepass breakevenlevelintroduce low-incomepass. increase prices of other passesreducepassprices, as part of overall fare reductionreplace passes(and tokens) with discounted stored value farecards onlyeliminate monthly pass, keep weeklytbi-weeklyintroduce"capped"pass(i.e., that limits no. of trips)introduce County-widepass, usable on any operator in the County,,Per-Ride Discount Pricingretain tokensat current discount(e.g., 10 for 9: 33%disc. vs. 10 for 1.35)re a ntokens, reducediscount (e.g., 10-15%)retain current token discount, but raise cashfare andtoken price significantlyreplace tokens with farecards, with a lower discount than currentCashFarePi’icingkeep cashfare at current levelraise cash fare accordingto CPI(biennial increase)raise cash fare beyondCPIraise cash fare beyondCPI, with discounted farecardreducebasecash fare, as part of overall fare reductionreduce base cashfare, increase pass and token prices (to lower discount)retain current structure ncreasesenior/disabledfare to 50%of full cashfare (not tokenfare)eliminate lower off-peak fare ( 0.35)eliminate discountduring peakhours(i.e., chargefull fare)create single reducedfare (seniors, disabled, students)eliminate student pass (K-12)eliminate student pass(college/vocational)tighten criteria for all studentpassesXXXX,I.:XXX XXXXXXXXXXX-, .XXX’- . :.XX.:,,:XXXXX.XXXXXXXXXXXXX*A peak/off-peakdifferential is possible without UFS,but wouldbe mucheasier to administer with UFS.*’This wouldhave FAPfunding implications, resulting in morefunding for the MTA,but less funding for the municipaloperators.*’*The pass"breakeven"level is the numberof trips (at the peak cashfare) a personwouldhave to take to cover the cost of thepass. At the current monthlypassprice of 42, the breakevenlevel is 42 / 1.35 31.X

EVALUATIONOFMTA FAREOF GIESOctober 21, 1999This technical memorandumpresents an assessment of LACMTA’scurrent fare structure, andidentifies alternative fare structure options and pricing strategies to be considered inimproving the current structure. The memorandumincludes the following sections:Evaluation of Current LACMTAFare Structure.This section discusses theresults of a comparison of the MTA’sfare structure to those of a group of peeragencies.Identification and Rating of Fare Policy Principles and Goals. This sectionreviews the results of interviews with MTAmanagement, staff, Board membersand Board staff regarding the relative importance of potential fare policyprinciples, goals and fare structure modifications.Identification of Alternative Fare Policy/Pricing Strategies. This sectiondescribes a range of potential fare structure/pricing strategies to be consideredfor the MTA.[]Next Steps in the Fare Policy Study. This section outlines the next steps in theprocess.The key findings are summarized in tile1.Executive Summary.EVALUATION OF CURRENT LACMTA FARE STRUCTUREPeel" Agencies ReviewedAll important input to the assessment of LACMTA’sexisting fare structure and pricing levelsis the findings of the review of a group of "peer" transit agencies. In this assessment, thedetails of MTA’sfare structure were compared with those of a group of comparable transitsystems in California and around the U.S. The peer group includes six of the largest systems outside of California, all of which operate both bus andrail service four of the larger California systems, representing both bus and rail operations

TableMetropolitanOperatorAreaLACMTANew York CityChicagoMTA-NYCTCTARecommended PeerModeBusLos Angeles1:HeavyRailSystems - OverviewAdult BaseAnnualAFC/smartcards,Fare *Ridership**regional integration? 1.35385,576, 767studying AFC/ntegration optionsLight Railxxxx 1.502,214,829,101AFC,studying integration optionsxx 1.5O438,638,667AFC,considering smart cardsXWashington,DC WMATAxx 1.10-3.25323,038,552AFC/smartcards, studying integration optionsPhiladelphiaSEPTAxx 1.60268,899,015studying AFCoptionsBaltimoreMTAxx 1.35103,482,184studying AFCoptionsClevelandGCRTAxxx 1.25-2.5066,797,056AFC,planningmult. application smart card demoSan FranciscoMunix 1.00207,375,467part of TransLink smart card programSan FranciscoBART 1.10-4.7083,011,793AFC,part of TransLink smart card programSan DiegoSDTC 1-3.2557,704,744no AFC,uniform regional fare structureQrange CountyOCTA 1.0047,463,546studying AFCoptionsxx* Adult single trip peak fares - Transit Fare Summary,APTA1998**Annual Unlinked Trips - National Transit Database,FTA1997

Thus, each of these systems offers lessons for LACMTAin various aspects of fare policydevelopment and regional coordination.Results of Peer Agency ComparisonThe information reviewed for LACMTAand the peer agencies includes the following:service area and operating characteristics (e.g., population, ridership, miles/hoursof service, no. of vehicles, operating expense, average fare per boarding, farerevenue/recovery ratio)tile uature ol" the current fare structure for each system, iucluding base fare, faredifferentials/surcharges (e.g., zonal charges, express premiums), transfer policy,pass pricing, and discounted multi-ride or stored value options.This intbrmation is presented in Tables 2 - 4. The key findings of this review with regard toLACMTA’sthre-relatedfinancial performance and fare structurecan be summarized asfollows.Low Farebox Recovery Ratio attd Average Fare. As indicated in Table 2 and Figure 1, theMTArecovers a relatively low percentage of its operating expenses through fares, with one ofll e lowestfarebox recovery ratios of the peer systems. MTA’s*hrebox recovery ratio of 30%is lower than all but t o of the peer agencies (Greater Cleveland RTA,at 23%, and OCTA,at27%); the average recovery ratio for this group is 43%, O{" course, the fare recovery ratio is.:;p, y partia!ly dependent on the lc\cl of farc rcvcnucs; operating cost must also bc considered.’Fable 2 and Figure 2 indicate that MTA’soperating costper revenue-vehicle hour, at 111, ismore in line with the peer agencies. The peer average is 117, while three of the agencies havecosts per hour higher than MTA:SEPTA(Philadelphia)at 191, BARTat 177 and WMATA(Washington, DC) at 141. NewYork MTA’scost per hour is identical to LACMTA’s.Given the l;act that the MTA’soperating cost is reasonable in comparison to the peer agencies,the low farebox recovery ratio indicates a particularly low level of fare revenue. Indeed, acomparison of the average fares per boarcling for these agencies reveals that the MTA,at 0.57, is the second lowest; only Muni( 0.47) is lower. In contrast, OCTA,despite the factthat the cash fare is only 1, collects an average of 0.60 per ride. As shownin Table 2 andFigure 3, the MTAfalls well below the overall average ( 0.89). However, if we excludeBART,which has an average fare per boarding, 1.80, that is much higher than any of theothers, the average drops to 0.76.With regard to the components of MTA’s fare revenue, a breakdown by fare category isshownin the accompanyinggraph. As indicated, cash currently represents by far the largest

tI

0I’---000 000u300(D

Figure1 : Percentageof OperatingCostsCoveredby Fare Revenues7O%60%5O%40%30%20%10%Figure2: OperatingCostper Hour 250 200 150 100 50 0

Percentage of MTA Annual Fare Boardings by Fare Pass (full 19%of MTA Annual Revenue by Fare TypeOther1%Cash4O%Pass(full fare)17%Trans r8%Token23%

source of revenue, at 40%of the overall total, followed by passes (i.e., full and reducedcombined) at 28%. This is not inconsistent with other large agencies. The CTAin Chicago,for instance, receives an even higher percentage of its revenue from cash (52%); SEPTAPhiladelphia receives a significantly higher percentage from prepaid sources, with only about20%from cash. The MTAfalls between these two in terms of pass revenue (SEPTA’s is 38%of the total, while CTAreceives only 6% through passes). On the other hand, CTAgeneratesmore revenue (36%) through its discounted per-ride option -- stored value farecards - thandoes MTA’stokens (23%); SEPTA’stoken sales account for 31%of its revenue total.Very Deep Per-Ride Discotmt. One of the major strengths and major weaknesses of MTA’scurrent fare structure are both related to prepayment. From the rider’s point of view, thedeeply discounted prepayment options (i.e., tokens and unlimited ride weekly and monthlypasses) represent a strength of the current structure - offering several opportunities forreducing day-to-day transit expenditures. However, the extent of these discounts is a majorf: ctor in the low average fare and farebox recovery ratio. In comparison to the peer systems,MTA’s33%token discount (10 for 9) is the highest: SEPTAiu Philadelphia is next, at28%token discount, and only San Diego Transit (25% on light rail, 11-26% on bus) and SanFraucisco’s Muni(20%) also offer discounts of 20 /; or more. As shown in Table 3 and Figure4, the average discount/bonus for tokens, tickets or stored value farecards is around 15%. Theother California systems reviewed have discounts of 7% (BART)and 10% (OCTA), vhileother very large systems (those in NewYork, Chicago and Washington) all offer 10%bonuseson their farecards. The lowest discounts are those in Baltimore and Cleveland - 4 /,, and 5%.respectively. Thns. MTAcurrently provides a multi-ride discount that is more than twice theaverage discount found in the peer agencies.Low Uttlimited-Ride Pass Prices. Also contributing significantlyto the MTA’slow fareboxrecovery rate is the pricing of unlimited ride pass. There are two elements to be consider inaddressing unlimited ride pass pricing: l) the actual purchase price ( 42 for a monthly pass, 21 Ibr a bi-weekly pass and 11 for a weekly pass at LACMTA),and 2) the "breakeven"level, which is the number of trips (at the peak cash fare) a person would have to take to coverthe cost of the pass. Thus, the breakeven level for the MTA’smonthly pass is 42/ 1.35, orapproximately 31 trips per month; in other words, if a rider takes more than 31 trips permonth, he/she saves moneyby buying a pass. (An alternative way to calculate breakeven isbased on the token price rather than the cash fare; the token breakeven level for MTAis 42/ 0.90, or 47 trips per month.) The lower the breakeven level, the greater the "discount"offered by the pass - and the less revenue per ride the agency receives.In comparing the MTA’spass pricing to that of the peers (see Table 3 and Figure 5), we findthat only three of the peer agencies offer louver-cost monthly passes: Muni ( 35), OCTA( 37.50) and WMATA(bus-only passes are 40; rail passes are 100). MTA’spass pricemuch lower than in the other very large systems: NewYork MTA( 63), SEPTA( 64 - 142,11

Figure 5: Peak Period CashFares 2.00S1 80S1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80S0.60S0.40S0.20 0.00Figure 6: Monthly Pass BreakevenLevel and Price60.0 80 7050.0 6040.030.020.010.00.0Los Angeles NewYork Chicago Washington, PhiladelphiaCityDCBaltimore Cleveland

depending on the zone covered), and CTA( 75). SD Transit’s passes range from 50 - 75,also depending on the zone covered. The average monthly pass price is 51 ; the average whenthe higher rail passes (WMATAand Cleveland RTA) are added in is 67. BARTis the onlypeer agency that does not currently sell unlimited ride passes. MTA’sweekly passes ( 11) aresimilarly among the lowest-priced passes among the systems reviewed here; since OCTAdoesnot sell weekly passes, only Muni ( 9) and WMATA’sbus service ( 10) passes cost less.MTA’sbreakeven level of 8 trips per week is the lowest of these agencies. (MTAis the onlyagency in this group with a bi-weekly pass.)The MTA’smonthly breakeven level (compared to cash) is actually the second lowest of thisgroup; only SDTransit’s pass (29, vhen comparedto the bus cash fare) has a lower breakevenlevel. The overall average breakeven level (bus) is 38, while the average rail level is about 40.It should be kept in mind that the current MTApass pricing and breakeven level are a result ofthe Consent Decree; prior to the Consent Decree, the monthly pass was priced at 49, and thebreakeven level (with the former cash fare of 1.10) was 44.5. Such a level would place MTAmore in line with its peers, and, given the very heavy usage of its passes (estimates are thatMTA’s monthly passes are used for an average of over 100 boardings per month), wouldrepresent a more reasonable pricing basis for the pass. Instead, though, the MTAcurrentlyoffers one of the lowest-price passes around - 50% cheaper than those in NewYork andPhiladelphia and more than 75%less than the pass in Chicago.Low Cash Fate. Besides the deep per-ride discount. MTA’srelatively low cash fare alsocontributes to the low average fare and low farebox recovery ratio. Although the MTA’scashfare, at 1.35, is somewhathigher than cash fares of the Municipal operators in L.A. County,it is lower than the fares at the other very large agencies that have flat fares (i.e., those in NewYork, Chicago, Philadelphia and on the rail lines in Cleveland); the peer agency fare levels arecompared in Table 4 and Figure 6. While WMATA(Washington) and BARTfares start outlower ( 1.10), their distance-based fares top out at 3.25 and 4.70, respectively. Therefore,the only systems reviewed here with cash fares lower than MTA’sare Muni ( l), OCTA( 1),the SD Trolley ( 1), and Cleveland RTA(the bus fare is 1.25); buses in San Diego charge 1.75. The MTA’sfare is actually very close to the overall average ( 1.32 for bus services,

OCTA (Orange County) These agencies represent a range of types of l:are policies and structures, and are at various . falls well below the peer average of 0.89. However, the MTA’s distribution of revenues by fare category (see accompanying graph) is reasonably consistent . peer average bus fare ( 1.32) and somewhat higher than the peer .

Related Documents:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD – GRASSCYCLING FOLLOW-UP SURVEY 2 Dates Los Angeles September 7-19, 1999 Napa September 16-27, 1999 Contra Costa October 3-24, 1999 Riverside November 9-29, 1999 San Bernardino November 17-29, 1999 Solano November 26 – December 2, 1999 The primary purposes of the survey were to follow up on a

10.1 Liquiça Church Massacre (April 6, 1999) 10.2 Cailaco Killings (April 12, 1999) 10.3 Carrascalão House Massacre (April 17, 1999) 10.4 The Killing of Two Students at Hera (May 20, 1999) 10.5 Arbitrary Detention and Rape in Lolotoe (May-June 1999) 10.6 Attack on UNAMET Maliana (June 19, 1999) 10.7 Attack on Humanitarian Convoy (July 4, 1999)

26 Extended essay results November 2010 39 27 Theory of knowledge results November 2010 40 28 Distribution of additional points November 2006–November 2010 41 29 Mean points score worldwide November 2006–November 2010 42 30 Mean grade worldwide November 2006–November 2010 42 31 Pass rate worldwide November 2006–November 2010 43

The International Roadmap for Devices and Systems 2017 edition (published in Q1 2018). Prior to this, the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) was published in 1999, 2000 Update, 2001, 2002 Update, 2003, 2004 Update, 2005, 2006 Update, 2007, 2008 Update, 2009, 2010 Update, 2011, 2012 Update, 2013, and 2015

November 2: Broiler Order Due November 2, 9, 16, 23, & 30: Youth Leadership Mtg, 6-8pm, CEO November 3-4 : Major Show Sign-up, 5-8pm, CEO November 5: Scholarship Training, 6-8pm, CEO November 6-8: Junior Leadership Retreat, Brownwood November 9: Consumer Meeting, 5pm, CEO November 10: Photo Workshop Planning

Applied Mathematics Grade 10. Final bound resource June 1, 1999 Teacher Resource Manual in three. stages August 1999, October 1999, December 1999. Applied Mathematics Grade 11. Entire manuscript June 15, 1999. Entire preprint document without. colour August 15, 1999 Final bound resource June 1, 2000.

leaked update fortnite, leaked updates animal crossing, leaked update, among us leaked update, acnh leaks updates, minecraft leaked update, modern warfare leaked update, gta 5 leaked update

Always update your product before installing on a vehicle using the Update Agent internet update software. Get a free copy of the Update Agent online at bullydog.com. See the system requirements below for running the Update Agent on your PC. Sorry the Update Agent is not Mac compatible. Hardware & Software requirements for the Update Agent include:

PCC UPDATE G SPRING 1999 3 ‘90 2,600 Students ‘92 2,900 ‘94 3,450 ‘96 4,000 ‘98 4,220 1992 PCC UPDATE G SPRING 1999 mission had not changed, but based their decision on A Beka Book’ s growth. 1991 Several needed buildings were completed for the transport

Vendor Letter Introduction Update Table of Contacts 1 Update Advanced Ship Notice Requirements 9 Update GS1-128 Label Placement 16 Update Hibbett Expense Offset Fees 24 Update Vendor Hiring Policy 30 Update Terms of Purchase Agreement 34 Invoice Submission Deadline in ¶ 11; Warranty in ¶ 15; Insurance Requirements .

Update #230—Should Women study the “Hidden Secrets” of the Bible? Update #232—How can we be perfect, since we all sin? Update #237—What Is A True Christian? QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO PROPHECY Update #121—What is the key of David? Update #123—Who are the 144,000 of the book of Revelation? Update #126—The modern identity of Biblical .

Yellow Book 1999 – Conditions of Contract for Plant and Design Build, for Electrical and Mechanical Plant, and for Building and Engineering Works Designed by the Contractor (first Ed 1999). Silver Book 1999 – Conditions of Contract for EPC/Turn Key Projects (first Ed 1999). Green Book 1999 –

Table IV.A.2 Asset Limits for Recipients, July 1999 112 Table IV.A.3 Income Eligibility Tests for Recipients, July 1999 116 Table IV.B.1 Family Cap Provisions, July 1999 118 Table IV.C.1 State Time Limit Policies, July 1999 120 Ta

Hall, Ferdinand L. Civil War 7 November 1987 Hall, Henry H. Civil War 7 November 1987 Hanes, George A. Civil War 7 November 1987 Hanes, Jack H. Civil War 7 November 1987 Hanes, Jacob H. Civil War 7 November 1987 Harding, John Charles, Jr. Vietnam 7 November 1987 Harper, John

Nov 29, 2020 · v. 34 n o. 48 november 28/29, 2020 first sunday of advent 4-week average 16,063.25 online giving october: 42,596.45 november: 37,392 in person giving november 1 7,368 maintenance 80 november 8 5,757 maintenance 142 november 15 5,847 maintenance 8 november 22 7,889 maintenance 50 easy online giving at st-martha.org

Nov 29, 1999 · November 29,1999 Cainers 4.95 Broadcasting&Caflie www.broadcastingcable.com Bloomberg [distribution] and Braun [production] join forces to conquer prime time Satellites dish P11.111 local television Cable rates on the rise Affils wary of Fox DTV plans 1111111111 IIII II I II UII IIIIIIIIIII

3 Choose Your Update Method You have two options to update your Subaru: 1. Via a WI-FI connection: This will update the multimedia system software but not the on-board TomTom navigation maps. 2. USB Drive Using Your Computer: This will update the multimedia system software AND the TomTom navigation maps at the same time.

FULL BOARD MEETING - 9:00 a.m. 1. Call to Order and Establishment of a Quorum 2. Opening Remarks 3. President’s Report 4. Executive Officer’s Report Staff Update Budget Update Exam Update: Audit of NCCAOM exam, March Exam 2016 Enforcement: Data Report Regulatory Update Legislative Update 5. Election of Officers: President

Updating Digital SLR Camera Firmware 4 Select Firmware version in the setup menu. 5 The current firmware version will be displayed. Highlight Update and press the 6 A firmware update dialog will be displayed. Select Yes. 7 The update will begin. Follow the on-screen instruction during the update. 8 Confirm that the update was completed successfully. 8-1.Turn the camera off and remove the .

strong 2 /strong Real Estate Licensee Update Real Estate Licensee Update strong Volume /strong II, No. 1 Spring/ strong Summer /strong 2009 The Real Estate Licensee Update is produced semi-annually. The information in this update is being made available to you as an educational service by the Washington Real Estate Commission and does not constitute legal or professional advice.