United States Department of Transportation
ROSA P serves as an archival repository of USDOT-published products including scientific findings, journal articles, guidelines, recommendations, or other information authored or co-authored by USDOT or funded partners.
As a repository, ROSA P retains documents in their original published format to ensure public access to scientific information.
Details:
-
Creators:
-
Corporate Creators:
-
Corporate Contributors:
-
Subject/TRT Terms:
-
Publication/ Report Number:
-
DOI:
-
Resource Type:
-
Geographical Coverage:
-
Edition:Final report; Oct 1981-May 1983
-
Corporate Publisher:
-
Abstract:This report presents an evaluation of the Cincinnati Pass Pricing Demonstration. The demonstration, implemented and operated by Queen City Metro in part through a grant from the UMTA Service and Methods Demonstration Program, began in October 1981 and ran through May 1983. The demonstration consisted of two phases. The first phase included implementation of the pass program and collection of ridership, cost, and revenue data. During the second phase, the pass price was adjusted and data were collected again. The monthly pass (Metrocard) could be purchased in person at Queen City Metro's Customer Service Department or at a second sales office, through the mail, over the telephone, through automated bank teller machines, or at any of four participating employment sites. However, each month 75-85% of all passes were purchased in person at Queen City Metro; 6-10% were purchased at the employment sites; and most of the remaining passes were purchased through the mail. The analysis of trip frequencies of survey respondents revealed that transit users generally buy transit passes only if they stand to benefit financially (i.e., if they make more than the "breakeven" number of trips and thus pay less for a passthan they would if paying cash). On the other hand, many transit users who would apparently benefit from buying a pass do not. Various reasons were cited for not buying a pass, including "too expensive to pay all at once," "increased pass price," "did not know where to get," and "too much trouble to get." Considering all costs and revenues association with the program, Metrocard resulted in a net cost to Queen City Metro. The principal components of the cost, in addition to program administration, were advertising (primarily television), lost revenue due to the diversion of cash fares from pass users, and the cost of carrying new trips by pass buyers. New revenues generated by improved cash flow and travel by new transit users did not offset the revenue loss.
-
Format:
-
Funding:
-
Collection(s):
-
Main Document Checksum:
-
Download URL:
-
File Type:
[PDF-8.57 MB]
