New Thinking Needed On Half Fares
by Joe Caruso
I’m about to commit transit heresy but in doing so I’m betting that those of you reading this have had similar thoughts. So here it is … let’s rethink the whole idea of half fares for seniors and people with disabilities.
Back in the 1970s, transit systems began providing seniors and the disabled with half fares in non-peak hours as prescribed by federal law. In 1975 the first transit system I worked for was charging seniors and the disabled only 10 cents, which at the time was less than half the 25-cent base fare. Fast forward to today and often half fares are in the range of 75 cents to $1. Not bad over nearly 35 years, unless you’re a transit operator strapped for funds. Then the revenue losses can be quite significant. In the extreme instance of Chicago, Ill., the CTA estimates it will lose $60 million in 2010 due to giving free rides to seniors, the disabled and other economically disadvantaged groups. No wonder they are considering going back to doing only what is required by law. In Pennsylvania, seniors and the disabled ride free too, but at least the commonwealth provides a reimbursement for those rides.
At the time half fares were mandated the rationale was that, aside from being a huge voting block, seniors were mostly poor. There was also a much narrower interpretation of what a disability was which meant a much smaller eligible population. Transit systems then, as today, had off-peak capacity they wanted to fill. And let us not forget that at the time the feds provided both capital and operating assistance.
The premise that most seniors are poor is inaccurate and demeaning of that population segment. The U.S. Census estimates that only about 10 percent of seniors are below the poverty level. My guess is that there is another 10 percent or so at or on the edge of the poverty level. Yet so are a significant number of non-seniors who rely on transit and have to pay full fares.
Even if we buy into the economic argument being more relevant to people with disabilities, there is still the expense of operating two parallel services and the expansion of the definition of disabled through the Americans with Disabilities Act. These are factors that didn’t exist when the original mandates were legislated.
Basing transit fares solely on age, income or disabilities is dicey at best and potentially unjust to non-senior and non-disabled transit riders who pay full fares as well as taxpayers, all of whom are likely making up the difference.
It’s time to rethink the half-fare policy, not just in Chicago, but nationwide. For example, seniors and the disabled could benefit from lower average fares simply by buying passes and other discounted fare forms. These fare forms are more equitable ways to pass along savings and at the same time reward loyalty, simplify most fare structures and speed up operations.
Is there a middle ground between where we are today and no half fares? Possibly, but as an industry, transit and those who make decisions for transit need to recognize that, just like many other aspects of our business, we should not continue half fares just because “we’ve always done it that way.”
Joe Caruso is senior consultant for Brecon Hill Consulting. He’s the former marketing director for the Milwaukee County Transit System (WI) and has nearly 35 years of transit marketing experience. He welcomes your comments at jcaruso@breconhill.com.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
If non-peak capacity is a problem, and subsidized fares unfair to the full pay commuters/work force, then why not reduce fares to all during non-peak, and full fare to all during peak ? If a senior, or disabled person is still in the workforce and must use roadways during the peak, then they can pay just like everyone else. If a senior, or disabled is not working, they can adjust their travel to off peak. If a workforce person can arrange their schedule to travel during non-peak, why not reward them with a reduced fair ? Lynne of TC2inc.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Offering a strong price incentive to encourage use of fixed route transit, as opposed to paratransit, is an important tool in attracting seniors to transit.
I also expect that a more in-depth look at census data (long form, now the American Community Survey) will show that those seniors without access to cars are also more likely to be low income.
Another factor to consider is that one’s perspective of funds available for discretionary uses declines with age - even though the bank account may remain the same. I’ve known a number of seniors who were very money-conscious even with a comfortable level of savings and investment income.
A change in federal legislation would be needed to get rid of the 1/2 fare off-peak requirement. Not worth the effort!
November 9th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Enforcement of special fares for seniors, disabled riders, and children is difficult in the field. There is no way for fare collectors to verify a disability or an age (that’s a violation of privacy). People who have issues with communication or handling currency, are actually more inconvenienced because special fares usually require paying in cash with exact change; modern swipe-and-go cards are usually only available for regular fares. Special fares beyond a simple one-way ride can result in a half-price math quiz at the farebox, and that challenge is reserved for people who presumably are already challenged. Any re-thinking of special fares should take practicality into account in the modern fare collection era.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:26 am
The calculus does need to be revisited relatives to the free rides. As a member of the 65+ club, I do not expect special treatment, nor do I expect discounts at all levels. A discount or a free ride does not in any way influence my thinking, but it does impact the budget of the organization making the offer. The CTA in Illinois was the victim of ex-gov. “Blago” with his sudden impulse to offer free rides! It makes sense to ratchet this back so that the CTA can “make cents” with their budget. And maybe Newton needs to revisit his calculus of fare structures in the USA, too!
November 13th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I think it depends on who is eligible for the demand responsive system. In some jurisdictions that is ADA passengers only, in others it is seniors and ADA. Any passenger using the fixed system instead of paratransit is saving you 20-30 times the fixed route fare. You can make an argument those passengers should be free on the fixed system.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
There is no heresy in this business; just merely the need to balance budgets. But if eliminating senior discounts “drives” people to para-transit then we are all losers. A thoughtful piece to raise the issue.