Posts by Michael Perkins

On the budget, Gunn recommended ending the trend toward rising MetroAccess costs and toward growing subsidies for bus relative to rail. Michael analyzed these trends in the past. "He looked at our financial structure and said it was basically unsustainable," said Peter Benjamin in a video released by WMATA.

Gunn had a few bullet points about top management:

• "Recruit a permanent general manager with a strong operating and technical background; the quality of the next general manager will significantly affect the ability to hire competent senior managers."
• "Recruit experienced senior managers with engineering experience to fill many currently open positions. "

While we need top managers who have the specific expertise to fix the problems at Metro, David is skeptical of the wisdom of hiring lots of engineers and technical guys as GM and top managers, and says that as an engineering/technical guy.

Metro's problems go beyond the technical. In particular, Metro will eventually get its safety problems under control and put this nasty episode behind it. At that point, it will a General Manager who can deal with the other problems at Metro: the command and control structure that prevents information from being shared, and the institutional secrecy that prevents the organization from leveling with the public as Gunn recommended. It'll need someone with a strong customer service orientation as well.

The Board needs to look beyond the immediate crisis when selecting its GM. If it can find someone with great technical ability and great customer service ability, terrific. But if not, it seems more likely to try to get an amazing manager and a first-rate number two to handle safety, someone the GM can trust and give free rein, than the other way around.

Regarding people at other levels of the organization, Gunn recommended WMATA stop using hiring freezes to control the budget. Transit professionals tell me that hiring freezes are very harmful for quality people; many of the superstars in an organization, especially more junior ones, decide to leave because a hiring freeze removes all opportunities for them to move into higher-level jobs. This is also the kind of situation a GM could best address if he has experience managing a large organization and keeping it dynamic and innovative.

WMATA also suffers from low morale and high rates of absenteeism, with an absentee rate over 7.5% almost twice the industry average. The Post revealed this part of Gunn's report not included in WMATA's release.

Finally, Gunn echoed part of Pierce Homer's suggestion, "To provide continuity, the Board chairman should serve a multi-year term." Without the details of what Gunn said we can't know why he thought that would really help; it might not make much difference, though it also couldn't hurt.

Like for Metro, the options look pretty limited. The transfer of the Dulles toll road and revenues to MWAA, the airports authority that operates Dulles and National airports, in exchange for capital funding for Metrorail, eliminated much of the funding for bus service in the corridor. These service cuts mean that Fairfax predicts a 12% cut in ridership in FY2010, and a 7% cut in FY2011.

This bus service is extremely valuable to me and my family. Driving in the corridor is often slower than taking the bus. Adding another car to the roads can only make traffic worse. This bus is worth at least $5 per trip to us. Fairfax has proposed a fare increase to $1.50 per trip. If that's not enough to save bus routes from being cut, I would prefer a larger increase to save the routes.

The money from the toll road was supposed to support bus service until rail service opened; it's not clear why MWAA was able to cut off the funding so abruptly before the rail was complete to Wiehle Avenue. Hopefully once rail service opens, Fairfax can restore local bus feeder service to their new rail station in Reston. But two years of little to no bus service may have people pick up the driving habit instead.

• Rail: Fares increase about 15% overall. Regular (peak) fares will increase to $1.90-5.00, with a peak surcharge of an additional ten cents during 7:30-9 am and 4:30-6 pm. Reduced (off-peak) fares will increase to $1.55 to $2.70. Passes would increase proportionally, and transfers would be good for only 2 hours instead of 3. This raises $64 million.

• Bus: Fares increase to $1.50 with a SmarTrip card, or $3.75 for express buses. The 5A and B30 will be $6.00, and transfers will only be good for two hours instead of three. Metro's popular flash bus pass, used by over 20% of riders, will increase from $12.00 to $15.00 per week, becoming equivalent to ten single rides. This raises $23.7 million.

• Paratransit: Fares increase to $3.00 per ride. WMATA says charging the equivalent fare to rail service was considered. This raises $1.1 million.

• Other: Bike lockers will cost $200 per year instead of $70 to raise $200,000.

Administrative staff reductions ($16.3 million): More staff cuts, likely from the Information Technology, Financial Services, and Corporate Strategy and Communications departments, though this is not entirely clear. Metro's administrative staff has been the source of two years of budget-balancing reductions.

Rail service cuts ($15.4 million): All the proposed rail service cuts from this past budget round are back, with larger budget impacts because they would be implemented for the whole year. Only $15.4 million out of the proposed $23.4 million in changes has to be approved to meet the budget target:

• Less frequent trains: Same as previously proposed, 15 minutes between trains during the daytime, as much as 30 minutes at night. This saves $8.5 million.

• Shorter trains: No 8 car trains during peak, which would save $2.7 million.

• Shorter hours: Open later on weekdays by half an hour, open later by an hour and up to three hours on weekends. This saves up to $7.7 million.

• Closed entrances: Close ten station entrances on weekends, close 5 station entrances at 8pm on weekdays. I assume it's the same list as proposed before. $870,000.

• Closed stations: Metro doesn't explain what exactly they mean, but closing three stations on the weekends could save $100,000.

• No Yellow Line weekends: On weekends or during late night (after 9:30 pm), operate the Yellow line only as a shuttle between King Street and Huntington, requiring passengers to transfer to the Blue line. Saves $1.32 million.

• No Yellow Line north of Mt. Vernon Square: Eliminate the Yellow line extension to Fort Totten, all the time. Saves $1.84 million.

Bus service cuts ($18.3 million): This is really too long to list, but it's comprehensive. Trips are eliminated, buses will come less frequently, routes and segments are eliminated, weekend late night service is cut, and bus stops are cut.

Bus stop reduction to five per mile on four lines in DC would save $800,000 per year. Similar bus stop reduction proposals in Virginia and Maryland would save $250,000. WMATA proposed a total of $26.5 million in cuts, of which $18.3 million have to be taken to balance the budget.

MetroAccess service cuts ($10 million): WMATA is considering reducing the service area to the federally-mandated 3/4 mile corridor and the hours of service for that corridor, implementing conditional eligibility for new participants, and charging the equivalent transit fare, which could include rail transit fare for trips that non-participants would typically travel by rail.

What do you think? Next week, we'll post our reactions.

The occupancy data shows that parking in the area is mostly under-utilized. On Nationals home game days, more than 3000 spaces in the pilot area are on blocks that have less than 50% maximum occupancy. Some blocks reported less than 10% occupancy at peak. For example, even during Nationals baseball games, DDOT did not observe any cars parked on Virginia Avenue SE between 2nd and 6th. DDOT stated that those meters have been relocated.

On the other hand, major commercial corridors like Pennsylvania Ave SE had too many cars for too few spaces. Like the 14th street corridor in the Columbia Heights district, Pennsylvania had over 100% occupancy for the 200 through the 600 blocks.

I would expect the same result for the 400 through 600 blocks of 8th Street SE, but unfortunately DDOT aggregated those blocks together with much less popular blocks on 8th south of the freeway. The whole length of 8th is reported as 80% occupancy, but based on personal observation and comparison with nearby blocks, it's probably better described as over 100% occupancy for the blocks closest to Eastern Market, and below 80% for the blocks south of the freeway.

DDOT collects and reports this data to guide decisions on performance parking pricing in the pilot area. That's why it's frustrating that the performance parking blocks aren't identified or separated out in the occupancy data tables. It's hard to tell whether low-occupancy blocks are meters that need to have their rates lowered, or they're residential permit parking blocks without many residents. The same goes for blocks with very high occupancy.

For the next report, I would recommend to DDOT that they report the performance parking meter controlled blocks in a separate table, on a block-by-block basis, with a specific recommendation for the meter price for each block (increase, decrease or stay the same).

The performance parking idea has great potential for reducing congestion and driver frustration, promoting access to parking, and providing revenue for improvements in the local area. It's important that DDOT learn all it can from these pilot programs. When the time comes to extend the program to more congested areas like Downtown, Adams Morgan or Georgetown, DDOT needs to have experience measuring, reporting and reacting to parking occupancy data and how customers respond to price changes, to minimize any disruption associated with performance parking.

Ultimately, performance parking belongs downtown. It's the most congested part of the city, with the biggest disparity between on-street and off-street parking prices, and therefore has the most incentive to cruise for a cheaper parking space rather than just pay for garage parking.

Downtown also has the greatest potential for revenue that can provide other transportation options besides driving. Based on rough figures, the parking revenue from a commercial corridor can pay for most of the operating subsidy for a streetcar or bus line along that corridor.

If DDOT can prove the viability of performance parking in the ballpark and Columbia Heights districts, extending the policy to other areas will be more likely, and businesses, residents and visitors to crowded neighborhoods will enjoy less congestion and more attractive amenities like clean sidewalks, street trees, and transit options.

If DDOT can't figure out how to make performance parking work, either by keeping the prices so high the blocks go empty, or keeping the prices so low that customers avoid crowded areas, there's little chance stakeholders will request an extension.

Again, thanks to DDOT for providing this report.

Here are some of the specifics behind each of the choices:

Capitalize parts or preventive maintenance ($6.4-16M depending on board action): If the maximum amount of money is shifted to the operating budget, then a renovation of three rail yards will be delayed by one year. Metro has provided a lot of detail about the possible effect of delaying this renovation in the docket.

Fare increases ($4.8-9.6M depending on board action): This option would raise bus, rail, and paratransit fares anywhere from five to ten cents, and passes up to $1.00 to $1.50 per week or $4.00 per month. The $9.6M represents the maximum gained by fare increases. Options like a nickel fare increase for bus and a dime for rail or just peak rail are possible, but will increase revenue somewhere in the middle of the range given.

It's interesting that for rail passes, Metro considers $1.50 per week to be an "equivalent" raise for a ten cent fare increase, but for bus, it considers $1.00 per week to be an "equivalent". The Metrorail Short Trip Pass is based on ten times the cost of the maximum fare it's valid for, priced at $26.40 for weekly trips up to $2.65. It seems more equivalent to change this price to $27.50 and make it valid for trips up to $2.75. Now it will cost $27.90 and will only be valid for trips up to $2.75.

Service cuts (up to $4M): Customers will comment on the following cuts to rail and bus service (highlights discussed below, full details in the docket):

Reducing train frequency during off-peak periods, including cutting frequency after 6 pm on Saturday and Sunday to 20 minutes, and after 9:30 pm to every half hour. On weekdays after 7 pm, trains will come only every 20 minutes.
• Cutting 8-car peak period trains to 6-car trains

• Reducing the trains between 6am and 6:30am

• Re-do the train frequency and scheduling on the Red line to reflect current operating conditions. While this is listed in the service cuts, it's probably a necessary change to reflect the addition of the New York Avenue rail station, longer station times due to increased ridership, and to space the trains out slightly to accommodate manual operation.

• Close station entrances on weekends: Currently, four rail stations with multiple entrances only open one entrance on weekends. This is at Farragut North, Farragut West, Judiciary Square, and L'Enfant Plaza. Metro proposes closing a station entrance at Anacostia, Stadium Armory, New York Avenue, Friendship Heights, Shaw/Howard University, L'Enfant Plaza, King Street, Navy Yard, U Street and Silver Spring.

  Some of the station entrances to be closed on weekends are also proposed for evening closure: King Street, Stadium Armory, McPherson Square, Shaw/Howard University and Friendship Heights.

As requested by Board member Chris Zimmerman, Metro has proposed an option of opening the system up to an hour later and/or closing the system an hour earlier.

• Opening the system at 8am instead of 7am on Saturday and Sunday would save $150,000 for the four-month period.
  
• Opening at 5:30am instead of 5am on weekdays would save $198,000.
  
• Closing the system at 11pm Sunday through Thursday and at 2am on Friday and Saturday would save between $560,000 and $1M.

These reductions in operating hours cut eleven operating hours per week, and save about $1M. My initial estimate was based on Metro reportedly charging groups $27,000 per hour to open early or stay open late. These cost savings actually divide out to about $9,500 per hour. Since the board has put fare increases on the table, and the cost savings per hour were less than I estimated, none of these reductions in span are appealing enough to recommend.

Metro also proposes reductions in bus frequencies or elimination of specific trips on 32 bus routes.

For certain bus lines, Metro proposes "rationalization", which in this case means cutting back low ridership portions of the line, cutting routes during certain times of the day, or consolidating routes.

For the service cuts, I will only support the ones that are good for the long-term. From the list presented, that's probably only the red-line redesign, since that aligns the system with the actual operating conditions while maintaining 3 minute or 6 minute headways. The rest of the changes are service cuts that in less lean times I'd rather see put back. So in all, I support option 4, with the red line realignment and an effort by Metro staff to look into bus stop and route consolidation for more efficient service.

The hearing for public comment is Wednesday, January 27, at 5:30 pm. Unlike most comment periods, this one is closed at the end of the meeting, so staff can summarize the comments to present to the Board the next day.

Mr. Catoe outlined the budget difficulties Metro is expecting this year and next, and the steps Metro is considering to close an anticipated $40M gap for this year and a $170M gap for the following fiscal year.

He also said that he deeply understands recent rider frustration. As a frequent Metro rider, he has customers come up all the time to vent their frustrations to his face. Recently, those frustrations have become more frequent and more severe. "I'm very aware of how angry people are, because they tell me to my face," he said. "I've always ridden Metro regularly and there has been a change in the comments. It doesn't make me feel good."

He explained for why Metrorail service during the latter half of 2009 has been so frustrating and unreliable. While ridership has decreased somewhat from its high peak during 2008, ridership is very high, and close to the theoretical limit that the system was designed for. At the same time, since the June 2009 accident, Metro has not been able to operate its trains in automatic mode.

Manual mode is not as smooth or efficient as automatic mode, limiting the number of trains that can be run during rush periods. As the trains get fuller, people have a hard time getting on and off the cars, increasing the station time and slowing down the system further. Under crowded conditions, people blocking or holding doors becomes more likely, and with the aging cars in the system, blocked or held doors are more likely to malfunction.

Additionally, while operating trains in mixed configurations (for example, a six-car train made up of 3000, 1000 and 5000-series cars) is safe, differences between the ways the doors operate in mixed configurations makes them less reliable and efficient.

Mr. Catoe outlined a strategy for improving Metrorail service. First, within the next couple months to a year, Metro will be rolling out an additional train detection system as a backup to the system that is suspected to have failed, causing the June 22 accident. Combined with the NTSB releasing its findings of the accident's cause, Metro should be able to return to automatic mode this year.

Metro will also soon ask the Board to approve ordering hundreds of 7000-series railcars, to replace the aging 1000-series cars. As these cars are delivered, the 1000-series cars, which are at the end of their design life, will be retired. Since the minimum time from ordering to delivery of new rail cars is about 2-3 years, this will improve service in the long-term as opposed to right away.

At the end of the meeting, Mr. Catoe also announced a change Metro is making to make its top staff more accountable: managers, from the level of superintendent up to the top executives, will now be "at will" employees, subject to dismissal at any time, without probation, if they fail to meet Metro's high expectations for its people.

The participants were still brimming with questions when Mr. Catoe had to leave for his next meeting, but Metro's PR Director Lisa Farbstein suggested there could be more blogger roundtables in the future. Based on the way the glimpses bloggers received into the more human side of Metro and its General Manager seem to have softened some of his fiercest critics' anger, that'd be a very smart move.

It's interesting to note that the average cost of a Metrobus ride is higher than the average Metrorail ride. They're subsidized at two different levels. On average, bus passengers pay $0.83 when you take into account passes and free transfers, while the average rail rider pays $2.27. Part of this is a difference in fare policy, and part of this is that the region needs to subsidize a bus system in order to bring customers to its rail system.

Metrorail fare elasticities were much lower than I expected, within the range of reason, and had the same pattern of variability as expected. Peak riders are very insensitive to small price changes, with an elasticity of about 12% (That is, for a 10% fare increase, you would expect about 1.2% of riders to not take a trip).

The most sensitive riders were weekend riders experiencing greater than 20% fare changes, but even then the elasticity was less than 30%. I recently had a debate with a commenter who argued that cutting fares would boost ridership. In the opinion of Metro's fare model, cutting fares would increase ridership, but would drain revenues even faster.

The only change to Metro's recommended fare policy principles compared to the current stated principles: Adding "Achieve parity between passes and the cash fare". I infer from this that Metro is likely to push for an increase in the price of the bus pass, currently offered at only 8.8 times a single-ride fare. They will also likely push for an increase in the unlimited rail fast pass, which offers a discount even to regular commuters that ride no additional trips.

The policy based on current prices would be to push the bus pass to around $12.50, and the unlimited rail pass to $45.00 per week. Recently, I recommended flexible pass pricing which would allow riders to choose how much their pass was worth and pay Metro accordingly.

• New York (MTA): this system has so many lines operating on so many combined tracks and lines that analysis and comparison to WMATA would be both pointless and time-consuming. I looked at a sampling of lines and noted headways ranging from 5 to 10 minutes. It's unlikely that WMATA would be convinced by any argument to run our service as frequently as in New York, which has approximately eight times our ridership.

• Toronto: this transit agency does not bother producing a train schedule, listing only a peak and off-peak headway and a span of hours. They send trains at least every 6 minutes, day and night, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included.

• Montreal: except for a three station stub line on the periphery, the system operates a train every 6-8 minutes. They produce a schedule but also a table of frequencies which made it easy to see when the trains are close together.

• Chicago: most lines operate every 10 minutes, with some every 6-8 minutes. Their green line operates every 10 minutes, with a split two stations from one end. There is a two-stop spur line on the periphery operating every 15 minutes.

• Philadelphia (SEPTA): operates every 10 minutes on the two subway lines.

• Boston (MBTA): Red line every 14 minutes 7 minutes, but blue and orange every 8 or 10. The green line light rail lines each operate every 7 or 10, but when they combine in the downtown tunnel service becomes very frequent.

• New Jersey (PATH): every 10 minutes to Midtown (33rd Street), every 15 minutes to the World Trade Center.

• Los Angeles: Every 12-15 minutes. Service picks up after 11 am, when the 12-minute frequency is the rule.

• Baltimore: every 15 minutes.

• Atlanta (MARTA): every 15 or 20 minutes. Like the blue/orange and yellow/green lines, their system operates in pairs, but they don't have nearly the same number or extent of single-line service we have. In their presentation, Metro staff stated that the impact of reduced frequencies would be "minimum" because most of the system is essentially doubled.

• San Francisco (BART): every 20 minutes. Downtown the service is essentially quadrupled, limiting even peak headways to 12 minutes typically.

• Miami: every 30 minutes.

Just comparing frequencies for Saturday mid-day, Metro currently runs trains about as often as Los Angeles for the ends and Chicago for the core. With the cuts as proposed, our service would drop to something like Baltimore or MARTA on the ends, and like Boston's core service on a smaller core.

That puts the Washington area near the bottom of frequencies for North American systems, despite its being the second most heavily used system of them all.

Headways are really important. Assuming evenly distributed trains, your average wait time is half of the headway. If you have to transfer, add another half of a headway. For a rail trip involving a transfer and a couple minute walk on each end, with a fifteen minute headway you're looking at 20 minutes before you even go anywhere. During non-peak time when the roads are not congested, it's going to be easier to justify taking the car if one is available. Long headways might even convince someone to go get or keep a car, and once a car is available, they're more likely to use it, even during rush hours.

These service cuts are only $2 million per year for the remaining part of FY2010, or about $5M for a whole year. WMATA should find other ways to cut costs or raise fares rather than decreasing train frequency.

Update: Thanks Frank G and Charlie for the corrections marked above.

• Deferred maintenance: $30.7M from the FY2010 approved budget and an additional $10M proposed yesterday.

• Retiree health liability: $4M from FY2010 approved budget, which Metro will have to pay in future years.

• Money diverted from the capital fund: $12M proposed yesterday.

• Insurance payoff from the 6/22 crash: $6M realized as operating funds, when most should probably go to replacing damaged/destroyed railcars and fixing equipment rather than paying to keep fares and subsidies low.

• 2010 service cuts: $14M based on annualizing the proposed $4M in cuts.

• Stimulus: Metro used $200M in one-time stimulus money to pay for their 2010 capital program, freeing up local money for operating expenses. That won't be an option again in future years.

• The reserve fund: They are taking $18.6M from their reserve, of which $13M was previously approved in the FY2010 budget and an additional $5.6M proposed yesterday.

There may be additional holes. They did plug one last year, the $36M in additional one-time fare revenue they created by approving a 18-month fare increase that was applied only to 12 months worth of budget. However, in reality, Metro faces some probable revenue declines:

• Long-term reduction of advertising revenue: The current advertising contract is a big money-loser for the company that bid high during a roaring ad market. The next contract will probably yield about $5M/year less, estimating a 10% reduction in revenue.

• Pass migration to SmarTrip: Many people will start using passes once they're part of SmarTrip. Metro hasn't quantified the expected cost. I estiamte $5M based on 5% of off-peak rail trips becoming free.

• Elimination of paper transfers: Staff assumed Metro would gain $3M in revenue during last year's budget process, but the Board asked them to budget $10M. It ended up being closer to $6M.

And some probable cost increases:

• MetroAccess: Based on current trends, Metroaccess costs will probably increase at least $15M/year more.

• Employee compensation: Combining the arbitrator-mandated 3% raise with more increases in health care costs, step and longevity increases, assume a 5% increase in employee compensation, or $10M.

• Valuable staff: Assuming just 20% of the 300+ positions Metro eliminated in 2009-2011 actually did something we would like them to continue to do, like handle customer complaints, supervise service, plan service (Metro cut half its planners in 2010), make maps, or maintain vehicles, we'd probably like to hire them back. Assume $5M for that.

All of this adds up to a big structural deficit looming in future years. Just as Metro identified about $8 billion in capital funding needs over the next 10 years just to run the service we already have, this list sums to about $150M in operating subsidy increases that Metro will need soon just to continue operating the service we had in 2009. And that doesn't include the cost of improving service based on more people moving here and using transit.

One difficulty with the customized rail pass is how to get people to buy the pass for the full value of their typical commute. There's an incentive to lowball the requested amount so that less money is wasted on days that you might be sick, on travel or leave, or travel outside of rush periods. The system will automatically deduct any extra, so it would still work and be just as convenient to buy a $23.00 pass, commute with it and enjoy unlimited nights and weekends.

Is this undesirable? One of the benefits for the transit agency is that they receive a steady stream of revenue, and it might be good to increase that by encouraging rail commuters to buy larger passes. Although it raises some city/suburb balance and equity concerns, it might be desirable to encourage larger passes by offering something like a 5% discount on the pass price above $23.00 or even on the entire pass price.

Another difficulty with encouraging pass use is that many workers are on alternative work schedules, sometimes involving alternate Fridays or Mondays off, or working one or more days from home. These workers might end up having half of the weeks a pass being a good deal, and half not. Would it be worth it to encourage those workers to buy a pass all the time rather than buying them only some weeks?

One way to do this would be to provide a loyalty program, where if you buy twelve passes in a row, the thirteenth is free. Some transit systems sell more heavily discounted monthly passes, and a few even offer a yearly subscription with the twelfth month free. This would be a return to the situation before 2001, where large farecard purchases enjoyed a 10% bonus, but it would be applied only to riders using passes, and it would be available to bus riders too.

Under this system, here are some scenarios:

• Unlimited Bus and Rail (annual): $2,577.60 (compare to $2,600 today for 52 bus and rail passes, or $2,646 for maximum rail + bus fare with transfers for all work days)

• Medium distance rail ($2.65 each way): $1,262.40 per year (compare to $1,372.80 for 52 short rail passes)

• Long-distance rail: The biggest discount over existing passes would go to those riding exactly $3.90 each way, who would pay $2,121.60 per year for service that used to cost $2,600.00, and would enjoy unlimited bus and nearly unlimited rail.

• Bus-only rider: This person would go from paying $572 a year for unlimited bus to paying $528 (8% decrease over what was already discounted about 13%) and getting unlimited off-peak rail, a really good deal when you take into account the extent of Metro's bus and rail service.

To balance out these additional discounts, which can be up to 18% off the current pass price, Metro would likely have to increase the single ride fares (though not by the full 18% because some people would get smaller discounts than 18%). This is somewhat consistent with the opinion I've seen frequently here and other blogs, that we should increase prices on non-SmarTrip, non-commuter fares more than others.

Metro is going to have to do something when passes are migrated to SmarTrip. They need to figure out what the rules are for transfers, since we haven't had any transfer possibilities with passes. They're also going to need to deal with a fairly large revenue loss if they just port over the passes we already have. There are some passes that a lot of people are going to start using once they get more convenient, and their off-peak revenue is going to decline.

Therefore, Metro should completely redesign the bus and rail pass system. For bus passengers, giving pass holders unlimited off-peak rail is both fiscally and technologically feasible. For rail passengers, there's no need to offer only two options when a pick-your-price pass would suit riders' needs. For customers that ride both rail and bus, Metro should offer a combination pass that takes into account transfer discounts available to cash passengers. Purchasing passes should be encouraged through appropriate volume and loyalty discounts.