| Course | MMPA 6451 Public Policy Analysis |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Memo |
| Length | About 680 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Public Administration (MPA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MMPA 6451 Week 3
Memorandum
To: General Manager, Corliss Area Transit Authority
From: Policy Analyst, Planning Department
Date: Week 3
Re: Defining the fare burden problem before any change to fare products is considered
The Problem
Many riders who pay cash or single fares ride often enough that a monthly pass would save them money. Over a month, they pay more per trip than pass holders, and the evidence suggests they are disproportionately riders with low incomes and no car.
Evidence From Agency Records
The Corliss Area Transit Authority's fare structure is composite and simple: a $2.00 single fare, a $5.00 day pass and a $60.00 thirty-day pass. A rider who takes 30 single-fare trips in a month pays the same as a pass holder; at 40 trips, the single-fare rider pays $80.00, a third more, for the same service.
Fare-media sales and trip records, labeled composite, show how many riders are in that position. In a typical month, the authority's stored-value cards record about 11,400 accounts that pay single fares for 30 or more trips, and about 2,900 of them for 45 or more. Those riders paid an estimated $230,000 a month above what passes would have cost them. Cash riders cannot be counted this way because cash fares are not linked to a person, but operator counts suggest cash is used on about a fifth of boardings, concentrated on the same east-side routes.
Evidence From the Census
The American Community Survey provides context for the neighborhoods along the routes where frequent single-fare riding is highest. In the census tracts served by the three busiest east-side routes, median household income is well below the county median, and the share of households with no vehicle is several times the county share (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). These are area figures, not rider figures, so they cannot show that the riders paying single fares are the same households. They show that the routes where the pattern is strongest serve neighborhoods where a $60 lump sum is hardest to find.
What the National Data Can and Cannot Show
The National Transit Database reports each agency's fare revenue, ridership and service, which lets the authority compare its revenue per trip and farebox recovery with peer agencies (Federal Transit Administration, 2024). It cannot show who pays which fare or how often. The problem defined here can only be measured with the authority's own fare records, which is why this statement relies on them.
Boundary
This problem is about fare structure, the gap between what frequent riders pay depending on how they pay, not about fare levels. Whether $2.00 or $60.00 is the right price is a separate question, with separate consequences for revenue and ridership, and is excluded here. Research on fares in Los Angeles has shown that fare structure, apart from the fare level, affects how the burden of paying for transit is distributed among riders (Brown, 2018).
What Is Not Yet Known
Three gaps limit this statement. The authority does not know how often cash riders ride, since cash is not linked to accounts. It does not know why frequent card riders pay by the trip: some may lack the money up front, while others may not know a pass would save them money, and the two causes call for different responses. And it does not know how many frequent riders split their spending between cash and card in the same month. A short on-board survey on the three busiest east-side routes could close the second gap before any remedy is designed.
Consequences
The burden falls on riders who cannot assemble $60 at the start of a month, who are paid weekly or irregularly, or who do not have a bank account for loading a card online. They pay more for the same service than riders with more money up front. The agency bears a cost as well: its pass, intended to reward frequent riding, mostly serves riders who can afford the up-front price. A product meant to make transit affordable for frequent riders works least well for the frequent riders who need it most, and the gap undermines the authority's stated commitment to equitable service.
References
Brown, A. E. (2018). Fair fares? How flat and variable fares affect transit equity in Los Angeles. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 6(4), 765-773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2018.09.011
Federal Transit Administration. (2024). National Transit Database. U.S. Department of Transportation.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). American Community Survey 5-year estimates.
The Walden MMPA 6451 Week 3 instructions
Problem statement assignments require a policy problem to be pinned down before anyone proposes a fix. Prompts usually require a concise statement, evidence from available data, a boundary that says what the problem excludes and an account of consequences. Instructors expect students to use data appropriate to the question and to explain what each source can and cannot show. Solutions should be left out. Statements are often written as memos of about three pages. Some prompts provide data, while others ask students to locate agency records and census tables themselves. Instructors look for problem statements that a decision maker could accept without first agreeing on a solution.
How the MMPA 6451 Week 3 example is put together
The memo states the problem in two sentences. Agency records show the fare structure, the number of frequent single-fare accounts and their monthly overpayment. Census data describe the neighborhoods along the busiest routes. A paragraph explains the limits of national transit data. A section lists what is not yet known. The boundary excludes fare levels, citing research on fare structure. The consequences section names who bears the burden and how it undermines the pass product. All agency figures are labeled composite. The fare arithmetic shows exactly when single fares overtake the pass, so the problem is visible in one example. The memo closes by naming the cost to the agency as well as to riders. A section on unknowns proposes a short onboard survey to learn why frequent card riders avoid passes.
Reading the MMPA 6451 Week 3 rubric
Graders reward a statement that describes a problem without hinting at a solution. Matching each data source to what it can show earns credit. A boundary that excludes a related issue shows focus. Naming knowledge gaps honestly strengthens the statement. Consequences should be specific to riders and to the agency. Explaining that cash fares cannot be counted the same way as card fares shows awareness of data limits. Using area census data while saying it cannot identify individual riders shows care with inference. Addressing the memo to a specific decision maker is expected. Naming the agency's own cost, a pass that serves the wrong riders, broadens the stakes.
MMPA 6451 Week 3 help: mistakes that cost marks
Write the problem in two sentences without proposing a fix. Find the records that measure it directly and say what they show. Add census or other context and note its limits. Decide what is out of bounds. List what you do not know yet. If you would like a custom sample problem statement for your own policy issue, send us the topic. Use one simple example to make the problem concrete, such as what a rider pays at 40 trips. Keep any hint of a remedy out of the statement; save it for later assignments. Label composite data clearly.
Get a MMPA 6451 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Name the agency and service your section is working with; the Week 3 prompt and rubric complete the request. An MMPA 6451 problem statement comes back remedy-free and sized from sources anyone can check, within 24 to 48 hours at no charge for a first request. The transit authority and its fare records were invented for the example.
More MMPA 6451 papers and MPA samples
- MMPA 6451 Week 1: Broadband Inaction Post
- MMPA 6451 Week 2: Voucher Public Value Memo
- MMPA 6451 Week 4: Transit Policy Tool Comparison
- MMPA 6451 Week 5: Fare System Readiness Assessment
- MMPA 6451 Week 6: Policy Entrepreneur Profile
- MMPA 6451 Week 7: Farebox Revenue Memo
- MMPA 6451 Week 8: Backward Mapping Memo
- MMPA 6451 Week 9: Pilot Performance Measures
- MMPA 6451 Week 10: Fare Equity Analysis
- MMPA 6451 Week 11: Transit Board Decision Memo
- WMBA 6000 Week 3: Leadership Self-Assessment
- MMHA 6220 Week 3: Workplace Violence Policy
- HLTH 8451 Week 3: Problem Structuring Map
- MMHA 6205 Week 3: Duty to Warn Memo
MMPA 6451 Week 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MMPA 6451 Week 3 sample paper?
The fare burden problem statement memo is on this page.
What is the problem?
Frequent riders paying single fares pay more per ride than pass holders, and many have low incomes.
Can the National Transit Database show who pays which fare?
No. It reports agency fare revenue and ridership, not fares paid by individual riders.
What is excluded from the problem?
Fare levels themselves; the statement concerns fare structure.
What is not yet known?
How often cash riders ride, why frequent card riders avoid passes and how many mix cash and card.