BACKGROUND

Public transportation systems continuously evolve to meet the demands of growing urban populations and advancing technologies. A critical component of these systems is the fare enforcement policy, which directly impacts revenue, operational efficiency, and passenger satisfaction. Many transit agencies face challenges in fare enforcement, such as balancing passive and active methods and adopting the latest fare collection technologies. They struggle to justify the costs and optics of hardening fare gates and implementing other security measures to ensure fare collection while providing transit service that makes riders feel comfortable on all transit modes. 

The evolution of fare collection systems and the use of proof-of-payment systems by some agencies necessitates an evaluation of their effectiveness and integration within modern transit networks. Agencies need guidance on the different fare collection approaches and fare products, including innovative concepts unlocked by the latest fare enforcement methods and technologies, and how to integrate these products, methods, and technologies into their fare enforcement policy. 

Agencies are looking for guidance on fare enforcement that balance operating revenue pressures with the capital costs. This research seeks to address these challenges by analyzing current practices, evaluating new strategies and technologies, and providing actionable recommendations for transit agencies seeking guidance on how to balance these elements.

OBJECTIVE 

The objective of this research is to produce guidance and resources to help transit agencies develop and implement an effective transit fare enforcement policy and integrate applicable fare collection technologies and strategies into their operations. 

RESEARCH PLAN

The TCRP is seeking proposals on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and subaward time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meet the research objective.

The research shall:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of existing studies on fare collection technologies’ effects on fare enforcement strategies.
• Document successful, innovative strategies and new technologies that transit agencies have implemented in the post-COVID-19 transit environment to improve fare enforcement and compliance (e.g., video surveillance).
• Describe and evaluate the latest fare collection technologies and their impact on fare enforcement in transit systems.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of passive (e.g., proof-of-payment), active (e.g., fare gates), and hybrid (passive and active) fare enforcement methods and their applicability for different modes.
• Assess the evolution and impact of faregates on fare evasion, operational efficiency, and passenger satisfaction.
• Describe which strategy or technology is more appropriate for each transit mode.
• Identify methods to measure the multidimensional return on investment (ROI) of the strategies and fare enforcement used (including, for example, considerations of costs, customer satisfaction, increase in ridership, reduction in crime rates, and service reliability).
• Develop best practices and propose recommendations for transit fare enforcement policy, including guidelines for selecting different fare enforcement technologies and strategies for specific physical configurations (stations, stops, and vehicles) and modes (transferring between modes, microtransit, special events, etc.). 

Proposers should include recommendations for a project approach and deliverables that would help transit agencies develop and implement an effective transit fare enforcement policy and applicable fare collection technologies and strategies. These recommendations should identify innovative ways to conduct research (focus groups, stakeholder interviews, etc.) and present the information (case studies, creation of evaluation frameworks, checklists, online resources, fact sheets, etc.). This research will result in a guide and products that will assist transit agencies and other stakeholders in implementing the results of the study. 

The research plan shall be divided into tasks that present, in detail, the work proposed in each task. The research plan shall describe appropriate deliverables that include, but are not limited to, the following (which also represent key project milestones):

• An amplified research plan that responds to comments provided by the project panel at the subawardee selection meeting.
• An interim report and panel meeting. The interim report should include the analyses and results of completed tasks, a plan for the remaining tasks, and a detailed outline of the final research product(s). The panel meeting will take place after the panel review of the interim report. The interim report should be submitted and the panel meeting should occur after the expenditure of about 40 to 50 percent of the project budget.
• Final deliverables. The final deliverables should fully address this research project’s objective. 
• A technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note J).
• A slide deck that presents the research findings and conclusions that may be used in webinars.

The research team may propose additional deliverables as well as additional panel meetings via teleconference. The research plan shall have a schedule for the project that includes 4 weeks for panel review of the interim report, 4 weeks for panel review of the draft final report, and 4 weeks for contractor revision of the draft final report.

SPECIAL NOTES

A. Revisions to the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs are highlighted in yellow within that document.

B. Proposals must be submitted as a single PDF file with a maximum file size of 10 MB. The PDF must be formatted for standard 8 ½” X 11” paper, and the entire proposal must not exceed 60 pages (according to the page count displayed in the PDF). Proposals that do not meet these requirements will be rejected. For other requirements, refer to chapter IV of the instructions.

C. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs have been modified to include a revised policy and instructions for disclosing Investigator Conflict of Interest. For more information, refer to chapter IV of the instructions. A detailed definition and examples can be found in the CRP Conflict of Interest Policy for Subawardees. The proposer recommended by the project panel will be required to submit an Investigator Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form as a prerequisite for subaward negotiations.

D. Proposals will be rejected if any of the proposed research team members work for organizations represented on the project panel. The panel roster for this project can be found HERE. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.

E. Proprietary Products - If any proprietary products are to be used or tested in the project, please refer to Item 6 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals.

F. Proposals are evaluated by the TCRP staff and project panels consisting of individuals collectively knowledgeable in the problem area. The project panel will recommend their first choice proposal considering the following factors: (1) the proposer's demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the proposed research approach and experiment design; (3) the experience, qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related problem area; (4) the plan for ensuring application of results; and, if relevant, (5) the adequacy of the facilities. A recommendation by the project panel is not a guarantee of a subaward. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS - the contracting authority for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) will conduct an internal due diligence review and risk assessment of the panel’s recommended proposal before subaward negotiations continue.

G. Copyrights - All data, written materials, computer software, graphic and photographic images, and other information prepared under the subaward and the copyrights therein shall be owned by the National Academy of Sciences. The subawardee and lower-tier subawardees will be able to publish this material for non-commercial purposes, for internal use, or to further academic research or studies with permission from TRB Cooperative Research Programs. The subawardee and lower-tier subawardees will not be allowed to sell the project material without prior approval by the National Academy of Sciences. By signing a subaward with the National Academy of Sciences, subawardees accept legal responsibility for any copyright infringement that may exist in work done for TRB. Subawardees are therefore responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions for use of copyrighted material in TRB's Cooperative Research Programs publications. For guidance on TRB's policies on using copyrighted material please consult Section 5.4, "Use of Copyrighted Material," in the Procedural Manual for Subawardees.

H. The text of the final deliverable is expected to be publication ready when it is submitted. It is strongly recommended that the research team include the expertise of a technical editor as early in the project timeline as possible. See Appendix F of the Procedural Manual for Subawardees Conducting Research in the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Program for technical editing standards expected in final deliverables.

I. Proposals should include a task-by-task breakdown of labor hours for each staff member as shown in Figure 4 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals. Proposals also should include a breakdown of all costs (e.g., wages, indirect costs, travel, materials, and total) for each task using Figures 5 and 6 in the brochure. Please note that selected proposers are considered subawards to the National Academy of Sciences, the parent organization of TRB. TRB Cooperative Research Program subawards must comply with 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. These requirements include a provision that proposers without a federally Negotiated Indirect Costs Rate Agreement (NICRA) or audited indirect rates shall be subject to a maximum allowable indirect rate of 15% of Modified Total Direct Costs (de minimis rate). Modified Total Direct Costs include all salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each lower-tier subaward. Modified Total Direct Costs exclude equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each lower-tier subaward in excess of $50,000.

J. The required technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” should (a) provide recommendations on how to best put the research findings/products into practice; (b) identify possible institutions that might take leadership in applying the research findings/products; (c) identify issues affecting potential implementation of the findings/products and recommend possible actions to address these issues; and (d) recommend methods of identifying and measuring the impacts associated with implementation of the findings/products. Implementation of these recommendations is not part of the research project and, if warranted, details of these actions will be developed and implemented in future efforts.

K. All budget information should be suitable for printing on 8½″ x 11″ paper. If a budget page cannot fit on a single 8½″ x 11″ page, it should be split over multiple pages. Proposers must use the Excel templates provided in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs.

L. The National Academies have an ethical and legal obligation to provide proper attribution whenever material from other sources is included in its reports, online postings, and other publications and products. TRB will review all Cooperative Research Programs draft final deliverables using the software iThenticate for potential plagiarism. If plagiarized text appears in the draft final deliverable, the research team will be required to make revisions and the opportunity to submit future proposals may be affected.