Laserfiche WebLink
SAN MARCOS TRANSIT PLAN I FINALREPORT <br />City of San Marcos <br />Case Studies <br />This section highlights the experiences ofthree transit agencies that eliminated on -board fare <br />collection. <br />Chapel Hill Transit(CHT), Chapel Hill, NC <br />CHT transitioned from charging fares to operating with a prepaid fare in 2002, <br />no el Hill funded through an agreementwith the Town of Chapel Hill, Town of Carrboro, <br />0 S� 1, and University of North Carolina (UNC). Shortlyafter this change, annual <br />ridership began to increase and ultimately doubled in 10 years. CHT credits this <br />growth in part to its decision to operate fare free. <br />Corvallis Transit System (CTS), Corvallis, OR <br />CTS began operating with prepaid fares in 2011, funded through a Transit <br />Operations Fee (TOF) on utility services. The change was linked to a 43% <br />cts increase in ridership within the first two months with no increase in service hours. <br />Missoula Urban Transportation District (Mountain Line), Missoula, MT <br />WL7'U"rajn In January of 2015, all fares on Mountain Line were eliminated fora three year <br />, Ling? zero -fare demonstration project funded by community partners. After community <br />investment replaced fare revenue, ridership increased about 30-40%. The zero - <br />fare policy continues today and as of March 2019, the agency had 24 funding <br />partners, with a goal of 40. <br />Fare Free Cost/Benefitfor San Marcos <br />Aside from the reasons outlined earlier, there are several otherlocal compelling reasons for <br />eliminating on -board fare collection, as outlined below: <br />■ Fares cover only a small portion of operating costs: Between 2015 and 2018 <br />under normal operations, the City of San Marcos collected between$58,000to $71,000 <br />in fares annually for both fixed route and p aratransit services. During the same time <br />frame, fares coveredlessthan 5% of annual operating costs, lower than most peertransit <br />systems. Giventhe costto maintainthe fareboxes, collect and countthe fares, and print <br />and distribute fare media, there is very minimal return on that investment. <br />■ Makes fleet integration with Texas State University's Bobcat Shuttle easier: <br />This studyrecommendsthe integration of the bus fleet usedbythe Texas State University <br />Bobcat Shuttlebuses andthe City of San Marcos. Since the Bobcat Shuttles does not <br />collect fares, discontinuing on -board fare collection for the City of San Marcos will <br />eliminate the needto purchase and install fareboxes on the Bobcat Shuttle fleet. <br />■ The City of San Marcos is already operating without on-boardfare collection: <br />During the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of San Marcos has elected to waive fare <br />collection to reduce interactions between drivers and passengers. While unexpected, this <br />pilot is givingthe city the chance to test outthe process and, if the results/feedback is <br />positive, couldbean easy transition to a permanent policy. <br />■ Going to Fare -Free would generate positive publicity and ridership: Currently, <br />there is no transit agency in Texas that is operating without on -board fare collection. <br />Eliminating the on -board fares would generate p ositive news for transit in San Marcos <br />and possiblyspur some ridership gains. <br />Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-2 <br />