Taxi Scrip Program in Seattle, Washington

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Technical Reference Centerhttps://doi.org/10.21949/15271231982PDFTech ReportKoffman, DavidCrain & AssociatesJohn A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (U.S.)United States. Urban Mass Transportation AdministrationUnited States. Urban Mass Transportation AdministrationSeattle (Washington)AgedFraudPersons with disabilitiesTaxicabsTravel demandUser side subsidiesUMTA-MA-06-0049-82-2;DOT-TSC-UMTA-82-26The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) took over a taxi user-side subsidy program from the City of Seattle in December 1978, which was based on the sale of discounted taxicab scrip. Metro expanded the program, raised the discount, and conducted a marketing campaign, which all lead to greatly increased program registration and use. In the script program, participants may buy up to $2000 worth of scrip per year at discounts which vary between 40% and 60%. The scrip may be used for taxi rides on 26 participating taxicab companies and the companies turn in the scrip to Metro for reimbursement. Metro prarticipated in a case study which would provide information about the program to planners, policy makers, and operators nationwide. The Seattle scrip program differs from user-side subsidies in four ways: 1) the program serves a much more populous area than any evaluated so far; 2) there was no limit on scrip purchase or program use for the first two and a half years of operation; 3) the program incorporated an income test for eligibility; and 4) Metro also operates a substantial amount of fixed-route, accessible bus service, which might also serve some travel needs of taxicab scrip users. The case study, which focuses mostly on 1981 operations, relied on interviews with Metro staff, analysis already conducted by the staff, scrip purchase records, taxi logs maintained by the companies, a survey of scrip registrants conducted by Metro, and interviews with taxicab operators. The program shows that: 1) a user-side subsidy can work in a larger city; 2) unlimited scrip purchases (up to May 1981) did not lead to excessive use, but did permit a few people to profit illegally from buying and reselling scrip to taxi drivers; 3) use of an income test did not lead to administrative or other difficulties; and 4) scrip users are a very different group from users of lift-equipped, accessible, fixed-route service.138