01594535

Component

https://doi.org/10.3141/2540-05

Pay-on-entry (POE) fare control for on-street transit allows effective revenue protection. However, the POE systems requires single door boarding and therefore increased stop dwell times compared with proof-of-payment (POP) systems. Most light rail transit (LRT) uses POP but is often criticized for poor revenue protection. This paper explores the trade-offs between the POE and POP systems through the comprehensive modeling of revenue protection, dwell time, ridership, revenue, and operational resource impacts in a case study of the conversion of the Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, POP system to a POE system; the paper uses data from LRT in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, which uses a POE system. The results show that the POE system increases journey times (+15%) and decreases ridership (−10%) and that 49 (+14%) additional light rail vehicles are required. POE conversion costs a net 29.4 million Australian dollars (A$) per annum and A$276 million for new vehicles, compared with a fare evasion reduction of A$8.1 million per annum. A 30-year discount cash flow analysis of the POE system results in a benefit–cost ratio of 0.44. The results are most sensitive to POE stop dwell time but not to fare evasion rates. Stop dwell times have a significant impact on LRT financial performance; alternative methods of revenue protection, such as increased inspection rates, are more effective than the POE system. The results justify the widespread adoption of POP systems in LRT and should provide a strong basis for defending against criticisms of the higher fare evasion rates of POP systems. The results should also act as a wake-up call to any LRT (or bus) system that still uses a POE rather than POP system and provide a basis for assessing the impacts of POP conversion for all modes.

01594378

16-4758

English

pp 39-45

2016

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board

9780309369848

Print

Figures; References; Tables

Dwell time; Fare collection; Fare prepayment; Light rail transit; Revenues; Ridership; Ticketing

Melbourne (Australia)

Finance; Public Transportation

TRIS, TRB, ATRI

Mar 24 2016 1:40PM

• Alternative Methods for the Calculation of Pedestrian Catchment Areas for Public Transit
• Development and Application of a Scale to Measure Station Design Quality for Personal Safety
• Geographic Information System Concept of Operations as a First Step Toward Total Enterprise Asset Management: Metro-North Commuter Railroad Case Study
• Group and Single Pedestrian Behavior in Crowd Dynamics
• Impact of Platform Edge Doors on Passengers’ Boarding and Alighting Time and Platform Behavior
• Integrated Line Planning and Train Scheduling for an Urban Rail Transit Line
• Planning Urban Ring Rail Transit Lines: Case Study of Shanghai, China
• Redesigning Rail Transit Short-Turn Operations: Case Study of Line 2 of the Shanghai Metro in China
• Streetcar Resurgence in the United States: Transit Strategy, Growth Machine Tactic, or Some of Both?
• Study of Standing Passenger Density in Subway Cars Based on Passengers’ Spatial Comfort: Case Study of Beijing Subway Line 4
• Tapping into Delay: Assessing Rail Transit Passenger Delay with Data from a Tap-In, Tap-Out Fare System
• Time-Expanded Network Model of Train-Level Subway Ridership Flows Using Actual Train Movement Data
• Tram Safety in Mixed Traffic: Best Practices from Switzerland
• Use of Agent-Based Crowd Simulation to Investigate the Performance of Large-Scale Intermodal Facilities: Case Study of Union Station in Toronto, Ontario, Canada