Benefits of Campus Transit Pass: Study of Students' Willingness to Pay for Proposed Mandatory Transit Pass Program

Abstract

The problem of estimating the expected net benefits of an unlimitedaccess campus transit pass, which would also fund an increase in critically needed services, is an example of the problem of estimating the value of a public good. Students at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington, used a referendum-format contingent valuation survey to measure students' willingness to pay (WTP) for a mandatory transit pass. Responses by 935 students (a 44.7% response rate) were analyzed with censored logistic regression and revealed a mean WTP of $32.08 per academic quarter (corrected for estimated self-selection bias) for the proposed program. The program could actually be provided by contract with the local transit agency for $20.00 per student per quarter. Thus the estimated net benefit per student per quarter is $12.59, or $428,624 across the campus population. On-campus residents and those who commute via bus or bicycle showed higher WTP. WTP was substantially lower for those who live more than 10 mi from campus. Frequencies of "yes" votes showed majorities supporting the pass up to the $35.00 per quarter fee level, and strong majorities up to the $20.00 level, suggesting the proposal would pass easily by a student vote. Content analysis of reasons given for support, lack of it, or indecision showed that students were persuaded by nighttime bus service, safety, monetary savings, and environmental benefits. Doubts were raised by the mandatory nature of the proposed fee, services not meeting needs, and opposition to more student fees.

Microeconomic Model for Designing Public Transit Incentive Programs

“…(1) Depending on the magnitude of the cost of public funds, all riders are eligible for the monetary incentives, or only certain rider groups are eligible, or none of them are eligible. (2) The shadow price of the individual rationality constraint is bound by the cost of public funds and when all riders receive incentives, the shadow price equals the cost of public funds. (3) Sensitivity analyses show that as the minimum profit level increases, more financial incentives are applied while the rider surplus remains the same, which jointly contributes to the decline of social welfare.…”

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

“…Beyond funding, a U-Pass program also requires student support. Myers et al (2006) found that students at Western Washington University in Bellingham had a much higher support for a U-Pass if they lived closer to campus. Of those that indicated they would vote against U-Pass, the most popular reasons were that the price is too high, it did not meet the student's needs, and that they prefer an optional fee (Myers, 2006).…”

“…Myers et al (2006) found that students at Western Washington University in Bellingham had a much higher support for a U-Pass if they lived closer to campus. Of those that indicated they would vote against U-Pass, the most popular reasons were that the price is too high, it did not meet the student's needs, and that they prefer an optional fee (Myers, 2006). This is significant because a student referendum is usually required to implement a U-Pass through student fees (Miller, 2001) and the TTC U-Pass proposal is no exception.…”

“…U-Pass programs are often implemented to increase ridership or achieve other transportation demand management objectives (Brown et al, 2001). They are frequently supported by students because they offer cost savings and environmental benefits (Myers et al, 2006). The motivations and implementation of U-Pass programs relate to increasing ridership, decreasing parking demand, and saving money for students.…”

“…Students at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington were asked if they favoured a U-Pass. Of those that did, their top reasons were added night service, money saved, and positive environmental impacts (Myers et al, 2006).…”