Photo by MattHurst via Flickr
(This was originally published at MobilityLab.org by Mobility Lab contributor Adam Davidson a geography PhD candidate at the City University of New York and an urban planner.)
How many cell-phone minutes do you pay for in a month? Or gigabytes of data? Are you on a family plan? Do you get a group discount from work? What does this even have to do with transit?
If we think of a transit trip like we do a cell-phone minute (or megabyte) we start to realize that there are many ways to package our usage. While cell-phone plans have many flavors that pertain to many different types of users, public-transit fares tend to come in variations of just two flavors: single ride or unlimited.
But, electronic-payment infrastructure, such as Smart Cards, can allow market segmentation that wasn’t possible with cash, token or paper fare media.
Governing bodies of transit agencies should adopt average fare revenue based on ridership projections rather than set actual fare prices. This will allow agencies and their marketers to create many price points based on other pricing models, such as the one used by the cell phone industry that was instrumental in encouraging the adoption of cell phones.
Doing so will allow customers to decrease their marginal costs by increasing their fixed costs. The result would be a more competitive transit trip and greater perceived value of the transit service.
The main hindrance to this system is political. The technology needed to make this work has been around for years now. However, fares are still set under models that were created when the token or travel ticket were the best methods available. Thus, when a fare is set by the government, they approve specific prices for specific journeys and passes with discounts broadly applied or only for specific protected classes of people. Instead of having government set the price, they should set a revenue goal that is based on average fare and ridership.
This arrangement would allow the transit agency to engage in market segmentation — a term implying that people who have different values for a service are charged differently for it. Thus a Wall Street banker could end up paying more to get to work than the janitor in the same office because they have different price-points and needs where they find value.
One way to accomplish this is to sell transit fares the way we sell cell-phone minutes. A customer (a term I differentiate from a rider, since it implies that the person has a choice in how they travel) could conceivably select from a matrix of needs like off-peak usage, the ability to trip chain, their frequency of use and their desire to share their plan with a family member. Promotions and bundling could also serve to attract customers (see examples in my presentation here in this Slideshare).
Ideally, the fare solicitation process would be overseen by the transit agency but managed by a third-party marketing and sales-force contractor. This agent would be responsible for creating, managing and adjusting pricing scenarios, staffing customer-service centers, and maintaining account portals on the Web, at kiosks and at key transit stations. What is critical here is that they are given an average fare target to meet, with incentives for meeting and improving their performance in terms of revenue, customer satisfaction and social equity.
However, emulating cell phone plans is just one direction that pricing models could go. The main point is that transit agencies should be freed from the political restriction of mandated prices, and instead, be given incentives to innovate and grow their customer support via flexible pricing that meets revenue targets.
Current technology can support this kind of service and experimentation. Pilot projects could begin right away between transit agencies with supportive fare infrastructure and marketers to test such new pricing matrices.
In a successful program, Smart Fares would achieve multiple goals:
- Transit would be able to compete more directly with car travel at the point of decision due to decreased marginal costs, while sunk costs would encourage a boost in ridership and revenue.
- This system would encourage the view that transit riders should be treated as customers rather than users, a distinction which implies that they have a choice when they travel.
- Equity can be enhanced as the transit dependent could be actively encouraged to find value in a plan that fits their needs, and special pricing could still be targeted to them.
As our transportation infrastructure evolves, so should our payment infrastructure.
Smart fares supported by a revenue-based — rather than a price-based — fare policy can allow this innovation to move forward, thus enhancing our public transit systems and all the benefits that they provide.
In case you missed it...
Read our METRO blog, "Operator training: Mastering right turns."
While PTC may have just recently entered the consciousness of the public at-large, it has been an issue for freight and commuter rail systems since Congress passed the Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) (P.L. 110-432) in 2008 following the collision between a Metrolink commuter train and a Union Pacific freight train in Los Angeles. Since that time, rail organizations have been working toward meeting the federally-mandated PTC implementation deadline of December 31, 2015. With less than six months to go, several commuter rail systems have said that, not only will they not meet the deadline, they will need several more years before having full PTC implementation on their trains.
Disruptive technologies and the new era of information sharing are helping to evolve and advance public transportation in our nation’s greatest cities. Nearly 300 mayors and government officials convened in San Francisco June 19-22 for the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ 83rd Annual Meeting, featuring remarks from President Obama and former U.S. Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. I was invited to speak in front of these influential government leaders to discuss “Technology and the Transformation of Urban Transportation.” This article will give readers an inside look at the conversation.
In times of disaster or tragedy, public transit agencies are frequently called upon to assist their communities and other transportation organizations. In case of fire, evacuation or accident, buses may be used to shelter or transport the displaced or injured, or serve as a respite site for first responders.
As a city, Leipzig is an excellent example of the German principals of transport planning and service as well as eastern Germany’s long history. The city has benefitted from large amounts of investment in infrastructure over the years since German reunification and most transport systems seem to be new or rebuilt, expanded and in a very good current state of repair. The most notable element in the transport mix is inevitably the enormous and historic main railway station, which is one of the largest, but certainly not busiest, in Europe.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority’s Regional (commuter) Rail system was inherited from the Pennsylvania and Reading Railroads and the infrastructure in many sections of the system has been serving the Philadelphia area for more than 100 years. Fifteen years ago, overhead catenary system (OCS) failures were a common occurrence on SEPTA Regional Rail, a result of fatigue cracks and wear. The all too common OCS failures were frustrating for SEPTA customers who occasionally found it difficult to depend on train service for their travels and for SEPTA, whose crews were constantly working to repair and maintain the system.