Eco Pass
Program Evaluation
Update
SVLG Transportation Policy Committee
October 2012
1
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
Stakeholders
Surveys
Peer &
Literature
Review
Policy &
Goals
Development
Policy &
Citizen Input
Operations
and Ridership
Alternatives Development
Alternatives Analysis
Program Implementation
3
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 Collection
Peer 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
Eco Pass Utilization by Route
60.0%
50.0%
Express Buses: 1,645 daily boardings, 47%
Eco Pass (May 2012)
40.0%
Line 22: 14,376 daily boardings, 11% Eco Pass
30.0%
Line 23: 9,773 daily boardings, 21% Eco Pass
20.0%
10.0%
522
330
328
321
304
182
181
180
168
140
122
121
120
104
103
102
101
89
88
82
81
77
73
72
71
70
68
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
58
57
55
54
53
52
51
49
48
47
46
45
42
40
39
37
35
34
32
31
27
26
25
23
22
19
18
17
16
14
13
11
0.0%
Monthly Total Ridership <10,000
10,000 < Monthly Total Ridership <100,000
Monthly Total Ridership > 100,000
6
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
7
Alternatives
ECO PASS ALTERNATIVES
#1 Status Quo
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
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
#5 Clipper Direct
 Customizable; members not required to
participate
 Eliminates deep discounting
 Pricing determined by products employee
chooses to buy
8
Recommendation: Modified Status Quo
Recommendation focuses on eight main program areas for modification
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.
9
Recommendation: Organizations by Category
Reduce # of Participant Size Categories from 4 to 3: 1 to 99; 100 to 2,999; 3,000+.
Existing 15,000+ category dropped.
Employers
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
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
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
10≤ ¼ mile of light rail
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
Location
Residential
Location
Colleges/Universities
Location
> ¼ mile from light rail
10
Recommendation: Location
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: Stepping
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.
Stepped Pricing
Total Cost
Total Cost
Existing Pricing
Number of employees
Number of employees
12
Recommendation: Price Matrix Changes
Pricing based on new categories and usage:
Adopt changes to fees based on different usage rates
among the 3 distinct categories of Eco Pass
subscribers.
Employer
1-99
1002,999
3,000+
≤ ¼ mile of
rapid service
$144
$84
$44
 ¼ mile of
rapid service
$72
$48
$30
1-99
1002,999
3,000+
Current
1-99
1002,999
3,00014,999
15,000+
Residential
Downtown
San Jose
$144
$108
$72
$36
≤ ¼ mile of
rapid service
$240
$180
$120
≤ ¼ mile of
light rail
$108
$72
$36
$18
 ¼ mile of
rapid service
$200
$150
$100
 ¼ mile of
light rail
$72
$36
$18
$9
University
1-99
1002,999
3,000+
≤ ¼ mile of
rapid service
$108
$76
$54
 ¼ mile of
rapid service
$85
$65
$45
13
Alternative Price Matrix Proposal
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
Proposed Pricing
Proposed Alternate Pricing
Residential
1-99
1002,999
3,000+
Residential
1-99
1002,999
3,000+
≤ ¼ mile of
rapid service
$240
$180
$210
≤ ¼ mile of
rapid service
$154
$115
$91
 ¼ mile of
rapid service
$200
$150
$100
 ¼ mile of
rapid service
$128
$96
$64
University
1-99
1002,999
3,000+
University
1-99
1002,999
3,000+
≤ ¼ mile of
rapid service
$108
$76
$54
≤ ¼ mile of
rapid service
$69
$49
$35
 ¼ of rapid
service
$85
$65
$45
 ¼ of rapid
service
$55
$41
$29
14
Recommendation: Clipper Transition and
Incremental Price Increase
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.
22 subscribers
38 subscribers will see no
change to
will take 7
years or longer their fees
to meet new
price point
49 subscribers will
reach the new price
point within 6 years
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.
15
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
ec pass lite
16
Recommendation: Reevaluation in Year 4
Implementation: The implementation strategy is designed to introduce changes
gradually and collect data through Clipper usage. After 4 years, the program will be
reevaluated.
2013
2014 – 2016
2016/2017
• Adopt Eco Pass program modifications
• Implement program changes in Fall 2013
• 15% maximum annual price increase
• Develop new marketing materials, new subscribers subject to new
charges
• Reevaluation of program pricing and modifications, using available
data from widespread Clipper utilization
• Review pricing and other modifications, consider changes to
program
17
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
18
Boardings vs. Revenue (from Eco Pass organizations)
25,000
$12,000,000
Total Boardings
Total Revenue
20,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
15,000
$6,000,000
10,000
$4,000,000
5,000
$2,000,000
0
$Existing Eco Pass Proposed Eco
Pass
Cancel Eco Pass
Highest $
Highest %
increase cancel increase cancel
19
Next Steps
• 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
20
20
END
21
21
Schedule
Jan
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
2014
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
2013
Existing Conditions
Task 8
Alternatives
Development
Alternatives
Assessment
Task 9
Task 7 Tasks 1-6
Feb
2012
Implementation
Task Force
Meetings
Title VI and Other
Stakeholders input
VTA Committees
and Board
Implement
proposed changes
22