Universal Student U-PASS Advisory Board Winter Quarter Meeting 17 February 2012 Present: Bill Dow, Chair, ASUW Representative Melanie Mayock, Vice-Chair, GPSS Representative Becky Edmonds, GPSS Representative Miles Fernandez, ASUW Representative Sean Wilson, ASUW Representative Sarah Round, ASUW Representative Adrian Servetnick, ASUW Representative Conor McLean, ASUW Representative Rene Singleton, Adviser, Student Life Josh Kavanagh, Adviser, Transportation Services Alicia Halberg, Advisory Board staff, Transportation Services Absent: Colin Morgan-Cross, GPSS Representative 1. 5-minute public comment period a. Nobody came to speak to the Advisory Board. 2. Approval of past meeting minutes, agenda a. Melanie Mayock approved, Sean Wilson seconded 3. Ridership data, branch level, compared to contract a. Transportation Services does not know what parts of these figures can be attributed to students and what part to faculty and staff as this data is for the branch level -- faculty, staff, and students combined. b. As a whole, right now, the University is using fewer rides right now than it is paying for. i.This is absolutely not a bad deal; the University is still paying less per ride, even if the lower ridership is taken into account. ii.When contracting with the various transit agencies, there was a division of risk. TS received concessions as well as the transit agencies, to better spread out the risk. 1. The good news is that TS has come out on the winning end of not experiencing this business risk. iii.Because the estimates are high, this means that there is a better likelihood of program financial stability in the future. 1. One caveat - again, TS does not know if these are students or faculty/staff. 2. When TS returns to the negotiation tables with the transit agencies, they will be in a better position with more stability. 3. Had TS under-modeled ridership, then there would have been plans to correct this, via price increases, for the next contract. 4. But, TS is unable to go back to the transit agencies right now and ask for new pricing based on the lower ridership.
c. Question: Have there been any significant changes to the staff program? Could we use faculty and staff data from previous years to estimate student ridership information? i.Transferring to ORCA was the only real significant change, that took place over Summer Quarter 2011. Trying to estimate this would assume that the error in the survey is divided equally between faculty/staff and students, which TS would not want to do because the groups are behaviorally and demographically very different. ii.Currently, there is talk of the employee program being on the same trajectory as the student program. TS has received a request to talk with pro-staff through SEIU and also potentially WFSE. 1. Students have more flexibility than faculty and staff. 2. There is a point at which the program becomes unsustainable and so-called “falls off a cliff”. a. In negotiations, a firewall was created between the student and faculty/staff programs so that if faculty/staff were to take that tumble, students would not be adversely impacted by that. b. TS will not let this dire scenario happen and the unions are taking a role in helping to prevent that. iii.There has been some noise about TS changes in how they treat carpools as well as the gratis U-PASS for those who purchase SOV permits, but these changes are difficult to tease out in ridership numbers. Their significance is questionable; overall there have been no significant changes, increases, or decreases to the faculty/staff program. d. Question: When will there be data for the student level? i.This data will need to be separated out by late Spring, Summer at the latest. Because the faculty/staff program contract only lasts through one year, that data will be sifted out by the time TS enters negotiations for next year’s faculty/staff transit contract. 1. Not having it parceled out by that time is a risk to the transit agencies in contract negotiations; they will work to ensure that this data is separated out by then. 2. The new faculty/staff contract and pricing will use actual ridership numbers, through the ORCA data, tempered by survey data. a. During this first year, TS knows that there isn’t a 100% tap rate as well as a number of small technical issues--TS does not want to over-rely on the ridership data. 3. Students will rely more heavily on ridership data when they go through re-contracting the next year. TS hopes to have all reporting bugs out of ORCA by that time. a. Though there still may be an argument for tempering it through survey data
e. Question: Will anything happen to the student program if the staff/faculty program also turns universal? Would the firewall between the two programs stay in place? i.The deal TS has with students is that the firewall is there and will remain there. Unless students and the labor forces both decide that taking down the firewall is a better option and agree to that, then the firewall will remain in place. f. Question: Are these numbers off due to survey errors? i.TS is tempted to point at survey errors as the source of these issues right now. ii.The largest errors or false predictions are taking place in Sound Transit and Community Transit, which tend to be the core service areas for faculty and staff more than students. 1. But, this could be a false prediction. The Advisory Board and TS will not know until the student and faculty/staff data has been parcelled out. iii.Sound Transit also uses a different survey method than some of the other transit agencies -- using on-board surveys. 1. These number differences may come from a number of issues; perhaps a behavior change was predicted that didn’t materialize. g. Question: Are these figures a reflection of the new program, or an estimate from last year, before students started the universal program? i.The program estimates took into account that students were moving into a universal program. h. Question: Will this be the baseline for us, going forward? i.Towards the end of spring quarter the Advisory Board will be able to look at winter quarter data and start getting an idea of if these numbers are increasing or decreasing -- TS will break down the numbers for trends like these. ii.The Advisory Board would also like to see statistics relating to the universal program and the University’s environmental mission. 1. For example, has the percentage of students that drive to campus regularly, has that increased or decreased since the universal program was implemented? a. TS can provide this data after the next biennial survey, which shows student mode share over time at an aggregate level. The next survey will be available in spring 2013. i. Question: Were we assuming that more people would ride once the universal program was implemented? i.TS is not going to count the induced demand, but rather tweaked other variables in the formula used in brokering these deals with the transit agencies. King County Metro, where the program has seen the greatest growth, previously tried to enforce a formula from some time ago. As
ridership and fares increased, they did not feel a need to go back and revisit that. When the program experience trouble, they agreed to come to the table and look at things differently, particularly as students made the commitment to a universal program. 1. This resulted in a few million dollar move in favor of students. 4. U-PASS Scholarship a. When the Student Transportation Task Force (STT) initially met, they considered a recommendation that TS needed to explore a scholarship program for the UPASS. i.At that time, TS did not view this idea favorably. b. U-PASS, in and of itself, is a scholarship; it has the effect of reducing the cost of attendance for a majority of students. Although, each student benefits a little bit differently. i.Giving somebody a further financial benefit on top of that wasn’t something that had a lot of weight with TS. ii.But, as TS has heard testimonies from these students, it’s become clear that there is a small fraction of the student population that is not only highneed but also low-utility. They are, for whatever personal circumstance, unable to derive value from the pass. 1. The U-PASS is not acting as a scholarship for this group; it is not decreasing their cost of attendance, it’s increasing it. 2. There’s a very small portion of students at that nexus. c. Josh Kavanagh believes that it is more credible to look at scholarships than to look at programmatic exemptions. Exemptions run contrary to past assertions made by the Advisory Board: that this is a community based fee and that utility shouldn’t be an issue in it. d. TS contacted Bill Dow and Melanie Mayock about the idea of a scholarship program. They suggested that TS bring the idea to the entire Advisory Board. e. TS has begun a logistical investigation about the ability to validate financial needbased information as well as information about other financial aid programs. i.There are ways to do this that would still honor FERPA and successfully protect students’ rights to privacy, particularly as it pertains to their financial information. ii.Currently, students receiving scholarships or other forms of financial aid can apply it to the U-PASS fee in the same way they would towards tuition and other mandatory fees. All mandatory fees are coded in the same way. f. There are a variety of ways that one could determine program utility. TS is comfortable with self-assertion. g. Based off of responses and testimonies received, TS estimates that providing about 20 such scholarships would be the way to go.
i. Bill Dow and Melanie Mayock have concerns about limiting the number. They had a meeting with 20 students from the School of Social Work that might all fall under this category. ii. Sean Wilson agrees that finding out who has this financial burden is not the difficult part, but determining that low-utility usage. 1. The Advisory Board agrees that there should be a more specific way to assess that low utility. h. Question: Don’t scholarships need to be tied to some sort of academic program? Would they have to write something about how the U-PASS fee adversely impacts their academic work? i.The Advisory Board was using the term “scholarship” loosely and likely should use the term “grant” or “fee waiver” instead. 1. Considering this or treating it as a fee waiver may push the Advisory Board back towards the slippery slope of who is and who is not in the population of this community-based fee. ii.Even still, as TS explored the possibility of a scholarship with the financial aid office, they showed all signs that this would be permissible to do. 1. It would need to be tied with a specific administrative unit, rather than an academic unit. 2. This has nothing to do with how people study and they would not be required to write anything like that. i. Question: Does this idea undermine the idea of this being a universal benefit for all? i.Many Advisory Board members still see this as a concern. ii.If this body were to consider any sort of a waiver program, this would set a precedent that would raise the question of high-burden low-utility users paying for other mandatory fees as well; for example, an online learner paying for the IMA is just as questionable as an online learner paying for transportation. j. Once students find out about this option there may be more requests than TS anticipates. k. Question: Would students have to turn in their U-PASS? How could this be accomplished? i.This is a good question. Currently, there is no way to track that membership on an individual basis because of privacy concerns and commitments around ORCA technology and the RFID chip. l. Sarah Round brought up the point that a large portion of students’ tuition goes toward financial aid -- she sees the U-PASS scholarship being no different than how financial aid works. i.Next year student fees will dramatically increase as the HUB comes online. ii.UW-Seattle student fees are already very high compared to UW-Bothell and UW-Tacoma. iii.All Advisory Board members agree that they would like to see more about the scope and details of this $228-304 scholarship per year.
m. The Advisory Board is charging one member, Vice-Chair Melanie Mayock, with looking into this matter more and working with TS. i.The Advisory Board will need to set up a clear expression of intent and set up very clear parameters surrounding the scholarship. ii.Nobody would like to see a decision made on this now, everybody wants more details. 5. Exemptions policy a. The Advisory Board has articulated to many people that it would formalize an exemptions policy this quarter. This exemptions policy is a recommendation to both the ASUW Board of Directors as well as the GPSS Executive Committee. i.Both have indicated that they will pass this measure. b. Advisory Board Chair Bill Dow read the policy. Sarah moved to approve it and there were no objections. c. There was some discussion about the permanence of this policy. All Advisory Board members agreed that the second “That” clause was sufficient in allowing for future policy changes or recommendations. i.If the Advisory Board says something like, “Currently the Advisory Board is not considering exemptions” it may indirectly give people hope that it might be exempted in the future. 6. Changing the fee name a. Both the ASUW Board of Directors and GPSS Executive Committee have approved changing the fee name and have charged ASUW President Conor McLean and GPSS President Charles Plummer with finding the new name. b. TS at this point needs some input from the Advisory Board about what the fee name ought to be changed to i.TS has found that other universities use names such as Transportation Fee, TMP (Transportation Management Program) Fee, CTR (Commute Trip Reduction) Fee, or Access Fee. 1. North Seattle Community College uses CTR Fee to show that their program is in compliance with, and indeed mandated by, the state’s Commute Trip Reduction Law. ii.Access Fee is the fad word in transportation circles today. iii.Many members like CTR or TMP fee as it showcases the program’s ties to the state law. It’s wonky and takes some burden off of the Advisory Board’s backs when explaining the legality of the program. c. The next step will be an addendum to the MOU and an item for the Board of Regents. It will likely be passed through on their consent agenda. d. Question: What is the timeline for this change? i.Stephanie Parkins and Alicia Halberg worked with Laurel Cheap at the student database to find a timeline for changing the fee name. Laurel estimates that to make the change for Spring Quarter 2012, a request would need to be in no later than the week of March 12. To make
changes for Summer Quarter 2012, the change would need to be submitted no later than the week of June 4. e. This will not change the name of the board or the program, just the name of the fee. 7. U-PASS as a percentage of transit agency ridership a. These charts show how U-PASS members make up a significant portion of our transit agency partners’ total ridership. b. The percentages are meant to demonstrate what percentage we are of the transit agency’s total ridership. For example, in 2010 all students, faculty and staff members holding a U-PASS from all UW-affiliated campuses made up 10.3 percent of all King County Metro ridership. i.These are not percentage increases or decreases. ii.The percentage change (column of green and yellow) is the change in ridership between 2008 and 2010. It is not a percentage increase, but a percentage change. c. The charts with students, faculty and staff combined are more accurate than those estimating wit just students. i.This is due to the way TS estimated student trips. Student ridership numbers are estimated based on the distribution of pass sales between students and faculty/staff. This assumes that students ride at the same rate as faculty/staff, which may not be accurate. d. These numbers were calculated using the total transit trips provided by each transit agency to the National Transit Database (NTD) as well as U-PASS ridership data taken from the contracts with the transit agencies. e. U-PASS ridership data for Pierce, Everett, and Kitsap Transit for 2008 and 2009 was unavailable and uses 2010 ridership data in its place. Therefore, those numbers should be considered estimated. f. Those interested in seeing more about the methodology or numbers behind these figures should contact Alicia Halberg at TS for a full copy. 8. U-PASS 20th Anniversary event a. This school year is the 20th anniversary of the U-PASS program. To celebrate the program’s success and longevity there will be a U-PASS Day event in late April. b. TS is still working on an official date for the event, but hopes to have it coincide with the University’s sesquicentennial event, Huskyfest, in late April. c. TS is also working on inviting a number of student leaders, past and present, as well as public officials and others who have been integral to the program’s success. i.For example, students might find it interesting that current Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn was GPSS President when the U-PASS was first implemented in 1991. d. TS is still working on an official date for the event, but hopes to have it coincide with the University’s sesquicentennial event, Huskyfest, in late April.
e. TS will update students about the event and the planning process as changes occur and plans are made. f. On Friday evening, April 20, ASUW will host an alumni event from 5-8 p.m. This might be a conflict for some people. 9. Future meeting planning a. Advisory Board members may notice that there are fewer personnel from TS in attendance at more recent meetings. b. The MOU articulates that “Transportation Services will give the Advisory Board regular briefings during transit contract negotiations and quarterly updates on program finances.” (MOU) i.The MOU does not define “regular briefings” ii.Question: How often would Advisory Board members like to see updates from TS? -- Quarterly? Monthly? As issues arise? 1. Chair Bill Dow and Vice-Chair Melanie Mayock will work with Alicia Halberg to plan agendas as necessary.
Autumn 2011 UW‐Seattle branch‐level ridership data February 17, 2012
Community Transit Everett Transit King County Metro King County Ferry District Kitsap Transit Pierce Transit Sound Transit
Actual Ridership Autumn 2011
Contract ridership estimates Autumn 2011
Difference
239,997 1,248 2,673,973 1,399 8,149 61,116 82,792 3,068,674
138,568 5,699 3,313,605 1,342 16,922 40,866 377,800 3,894,802
‐101,429 4,451 639,632 ‐57 8,773 ‐20,250 295,008 826,128
Greater than contract estimate Less than contract estimate
Notes: 1) Contract ridership has been seasonally adjusted.
2) Contract ridership was established during summer 2011 using best available data prior to ORCA ridership being available.
3) Transit agencies shared mutual risk using ridership estimates and stability (locking in for two‐years) and favorable pricing was the goal.
4) While projected ridership exceeds actual ridership, favorable pricing terms mean that the contract price is still significantly below the retail cost of the actual trips taken.
5) The funds we pay help the transit agencies provide services for our students, staff, and faculty.
Universal Student U-PASS Advisory Board Resolution 1.01 Friday, February 17, 2012 Submitted by: William Dow, Chair and Melanie Mayock, Vice-Chair
A recommendation to formalize a no exemptions policy for the Universal Student U-PASS Program WHEREAS: The Universal Student U-PASS Advisory Board sees the Universal Student UPASS program as a common good to students and the university community; and WHEREAS: The U-PASS program has decreased traffic volumes approximately 30 percent despite an increase in the campus population, allowing the university to expand without having to invest more in parking; and WHEREAS: The Advisory Board does not see the program as a user fee but rather a collective contribution to improve the quality of life of UW students; and WHEREAS: Because the Advisory Board views the fee as a collective contribution for the benefit of all, it believes that offering even one exemption would undermine the goals of the program; and Therefore, the Universal Student U-PASS Advisory Board formally recommends to the ASUW Board of Directors and GPSS Senate: THAT: There be no change in the Memorandum of Understanding between the ASUW, GPSS, Transportation Services, and the UW administration to allow for exemptions of any kind; and THAT: The Advisory Board continue to monitor the budget and ridership trends of the program to recommend program changes in the future; and THAT: A copy of this recommendation be sent to the ASUW Board of Directors and the GPSS Executive Committee.
TOTAL: All students, faculty and staff, all campuses. King County Metro Sound Transit Community Transit Pierce Transit † Everett Transit † Kitsap Transit †
2008 7.8% 4.6% 6.4% 1.6% 1.1% 1.3%
2009 9.5% 6.7% 6.6% 1.7% 1.1% 1.5%
TOTAL: All students (Tacoma, Bothell, Seattle) * King County Metro Sound Transit Community Transit Pierce Transit † Everett Transit † Kitsap Transit † Kitsap Transit †
2008 5.2% 3.0% 3.7% 1.1% 0.7% 0 9% 0.9%
2009 6.2% 4.3% 3.8% 1.1% 0.7% 1 0% 1.0%
TOTAL: UW‐Seattle, students + faculty/staff King County Metro Sound Transit Community Transit Pierce Transit † Everett Transit † Everett Transit † Kitsap Transit †
2008 7.4% 3.9% 5.1% 1.0% 0 9% 0.9% 1.2%
2009 8.9% 5.8% 5.1% 1.1% 0 9% 0.9% 1.4%
TOTAL: UW‐Seattle, students only * King County Metro Sound Transit Community Transit Pierce Transit † Pierce Transit Everett Transit † Kitsap Transit †
2008 5.2% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%
2009 6.1% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%
2010 10.3% 7.6% 7.1% 1.7% 1.2% 1.7% ...See graph A S hA 2010 6.7% 4.9% 4.1% 1.2% 0.8% 1 1% 1.1% …See graph B 2010 9.6% 6.6% 5.5% 1.1% 1 0% 1.0% 1.6% …See graph C 2010 6.7% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1%
Used for charts 3 + 4, graphs C + D: p g Students: percentages of U‐PASSes sold that are student U‐PASSes 2008 2009 Seattle 69.6% 68.9% Bothell 78.3% 81.5% Tacoma 79.4% 74.0% Source: Sales sheet: Average purchased student U‐PASS/Average total sold
2011 Difference between 2.5% 3.0% 0.7% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 2011 1.5% 1.9% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0 3% 0.3% 2011 2.2% 2.8% 0.4% 0.1% 0 1% 0.1% 0.4% 2011 1.5% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%
2010 69.0% 82.1% 80.7%
* Student ridership numbers are estimated based on the distribution of pass sales between students and Student ridership numbers are estimated based on the distribution of pass sales between students and faculty/staff. This assumes that students ride at the same rate as faculty/staff, which may not be accurate. Therefore, charts and graphs encompassing both students and faculty/staff together are more accurate than charts and graphs with estimated student data.
† U‐PASS ridership data for Pierce, Everett, and Kitsap Transit for 2008 and 2009 was unavailable and uses 2010 ridership data in its place. Therefore, those numbers should be considered estimated.
