Internal Analytical Report
Market Analysis • Prepared by S. Hill
Document No.
MKT-MOD-02 · Rev A
Author
Steve Hill, Fare Analyst
Prepared For
Portfolio Reference
Classification
Illustrative
 Abstract

Demand, elasticity, and scenario projections for a fare-structure change.

UTA leadership required quantitative projections of demand, revenue, and ridership impact under three fare-structure scenarios (5%, 10%, 15%). Previous fare changes had been implemented without forecasting, leading to unexpected revenue fluctuations. This report documents the data pipeline, modeling approach, and scenario outcomes that guided the phased 8% increase decision.

The pipeline extracts 18 months of ridership and fare data, computes price elasticity by route and rider segment via log-log regression, layers an ARIMAX forecast with exogenous demand drivers (gas prices, employment, weather), and simulates three fare scenarios with 95% confidence intervals. Actual post-implementation results fell within forecast confidence bands, establishing this as the template for future fare-change planning.

Section 1

Data pipeline & modeling architecture

End-to-end: fare collection systems through executive recommendation
SOURCES INGEST MODEL SURFACE DECIDE Fare Collection Data Ridership by Route Pass Usage Logs TVM Error Logs GAS PRICE EMPLOYMENT WEATHER DATA SQL + Python Pipeline Extract • Cleanse Aggregate by route/segment Join with exogenous drivers 18-month baseline 7 lines • 60+ routes ELASTICITY REGRESSION Log-log by route × segment % Δvolume / % Δprice ARIMAX FORECAST Time-series w/ exog drivers Gas • employment • weather SCENARIO SIMULATION 5% / 10% / 15% scenarios Monte Carlo • 95% CIs REVENUE & DEMAND MODEL Projected outcomes + CIs Stakeholder-reviewed Revenue · Volume Divergence & trend Scenario Projections 5% / 10% / 15% side-by-side Elasticity Map 60+ routes plotted Sensitivity Panel Driver-level impact Phased 8% Student A/B Senior targeting Vendor SLA Route mix Post-implementation data re-enters the pipeline — closing the forecast-to-reality loop
Stage
Inputs
Method
Deliverable
1. Data Layer
Fare collection, ridership by route, pass usage, TVM error logs; exogenous drivers (gas, employment, weather)
SQL extract • Python cleansing • route × segment aggregation • 18-month baseline
Clean panel dataset
2. Elasticity
Historical price/volume pairs per route and segment
Log-log OLS regression by route × demographic segment
Elasticity table, 60+ routes
3. Forecast
Cleaned ridership + exogenous drivers (gas, employment, weather)
ARIMAX with rolling-window cross-validation
Base-case demand forecast
4. Scenarios
Forecast + elasticity + proposed fare deltas
Monte Carlo simulation with 95% confidence intervals
3 scenarios · revenue + volume + CIs
5. Review
Projected outcomes, sensitivity analysis
Stakeholder review with Finance, Operations, CX
Executive recommendation
Section 2

Price elasticity estimates by segment

Illustrative values — structure and framing reflect the actual analysis
Rider Segment
Elasticity
Implied ΔVolume at +10%
Implied ΔRevenue at +10%
Policy Implication
Commuter • Peak
−0.18
−1.8%
+8.0%
Revenue-optimize
Off-Peak Discretionary
−0.82
−8.2%
+0.9%
Hold or promote
Student
−1.25
−12.5%
−3.6%
Targeted discount
Senior / ADA
−0.34
−3.4%
+6.3%
Mixed — see segment
Low-Income Pass Holder
−0.41
−4.1%
+5.5%
Protect via pass

Note. Elasticities estimated via log-log OLS over 18-month panel; segment-specific coefficients statistically significant at p < 0.05. Confidence intervals and route-level variance documented in the full forecasting workbook.

Section 3

Scenario projections: three fare-increase paths

Annualized impact with 95% confidence intervals; base year = pre-change ridership
 Scenario A · +5%

Conservative

Volume Δ−4.2%
Revenue Δ+$1.1M
Farebox recovery+0.9 pts
Rider impactLow
CI: Revenue $0.6M – $1.5M
 Scenario B · +10% → adopted at +8%

Recommended

Volume Δ−8.5%
Revenue Δ+$2.3M
Farebox recovery+2.1 pts
Rider impactModerate
CI: Revenue $1.7M – $2.9M • ±5%
 Scenario C · +15%

Aggressive

Volume Δ−13.4%
Revenue Δ+$2.1M
Farebox recovery+1.8 pts
Rider impactHigh — equity risk
CI: Revenue $1.2M – $2.9M
UTA
 Executive Recommendation

Implement a phased 8% increase with targeted student-segment protection.

Scenario B at a moderated +8% level captures ~$2.3M incremental annual revenue while holding volume loss below the 10% elasticity threshold. Confidence bands (±5%) gave leadership comfort to proceed. Post-implementation outcomes fell within forecast CIs, validating the methodology and establishing it as the template for all future fare-change planning.

Internal Analytical Report • Prepared by Steve Hill • All values illustrative
← Return to UTA fare dashboard