Usage, Impacts, and Benefits of Innovative Transit Pass Program

Meyer, James H.; Beimborn, Edward

doi:10.3141/1618-16

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we are aware that an increase in active transport use may occur as an unforeseen side effect of interventions with a different aim. For example, Lane (2005) showed that a carsharing programme in Philadelphia reduced vehicle ownership after one year and caused a mode shift from car driving to active transport and Meyer and Beimborn (1998) showed that the implementation of the UPASS (a pass which provides students with unlimited transit travel) reduced car use and increased transit use as well as walking. Future research could also include such interventions.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of This Reviewmentioning

confidence: 98%

Shifting from car to active transport: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions

Scheepers

Wendel-Vos

Broeder

et al. 2014

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of This Reviewmentioning

confidence: 98%

Shifting from car to active transport: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions

Scheepers

Wendel-Vos

Broeder

et al. 2014

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several case studies of U-Pass programs have shown that they increase ridership (Boyd, 2003;Brown, 2003Meyer et al, 1998Meyer et al, 2006). Fare elasticities of transit demand across campuses in the United States range from -0.26 to -0.50 (Brown, 2001), implying that free transit would increase transit demand by 26-50%.…”

Section: U-passmentioning

confidence: 99%

No free rides: winners and losers of the TTC U-pass

Butler¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the financial gains and losses for students from the U-Pass scheduled to be implemented by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) at universities in Toronto, Ontario in fall 2019. The U-Pass offers students unlimited travel on the TTC for $70 per month, but students are unable to opt-out. Toronto already has high existing student transit ridership and fares that are not integrated across municipal boundaries, setting a context in which U-Pass impacts different students in different ways. This study uses data from the 2015 StudentMoveTO survey to determine the financial losses and gains from students across different campuses, commute modes, and geographies. Students that benefit live within the City of Toronto and use TTC to get to school, while those expected to experience welfare losses either live outside of Toronto or live close enough to their campus to walk or bike to school. 1. An article about U-Pass in Toronto, used the key words: transit fares, student travel, equity

show abstract

“…Importantly, students have free transit passes, called UPASS, to access MCTS buses during the semesters they enroll. The UPASS program was implemented in 1994, and it was successful in shifting some automobile users to commute by bus (22).…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifts between Automobile, Bus, and Bicycle Commuting in an Urban Setting

Schneider

2015

J. Urban Plann. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an urban setting, investments in bicycle and transit modes are expected to produce benefits such as reduced automobile vehicle miles traveled and reduced automobile parking demand. In reality, these benefits might be lower than expected if users simply shift between non-automobile modes. This article investigates shifts between automobile, bus, and bicycle use among students commuting to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) in 2008 and 2012. We found that a significant decline in driving was associated with a significant increase in bicycle mode share, suggesting that bicycling replaced certain automobile commute trips. Analysis by distance revealed nuances in mode substitution. There were significant increases in bicycle commuting for students living between 1.0 and 9.9 miles (1.6 and 15.9 km) from campus. However, the increases in bicycling for students living between 1.0 and 1.9 miles (1.6 and 3.1 km) corresponded with decreases in bus rather than automobile commuting, suggesting bus and bicycle substitution for short commutes. There was a significant shift in long-distance commuting-greater than 10 miles (16 km)-from automobile to bus. Differentiation between primary and secondary travel modes revealed an increasing proportion of regular drivers who bicycled as their secondary commute mode between 2008 and 2012. Also, approximately twothirds of the students who bicycled and nearly half of the students who used the bus as their primary mode used a different, secondary commute mode. Many students who already bicycled were inclined to use the bus when they were not able to bicycle, but fewer bus users tried bicycle commuting.

show abstract

Usage, Impacts, and Benefits of Innovative Transit Pass Program

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Shifting from car to active transport: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions

Shifting from car to active transport: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions

No free rides: winners and losers of the TTC U-pass

Shifts between Automobile, Bus, and Bicycle Commuting in an Urban Setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About