Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 25


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 24
14 CHAPTER THREE SURVEY OF TRANSIT OPERATORS USING PROOF-OF-PAYMENT FARE COLLECTION A survey was sent to the 33 agencies described in chapter one 9. Transit Industry Pulse Regarding Proof-of-Payment for purposes of canvassing transit operators employing PoP Fare Collection. fare collection in North America. All 33 responded (a 100% response rate). This chapter discusses the results of the survey. ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONNEL ASPECTS OF Table 1, in chapter one, listed the survey respondents and THE FARE ENFORCEMENT FUNCTION showed the diversity of services on which PoP fare collec- tion is used by the 30 North American transit operators that The fare enforcement function was found to be largely car- were surveyed. Each of the 30 operators relies on off-board ried out by agency employees, in some cases with assistance fare collection for at least part of its services where PoP is from other local agencies or through contracts with private used. However, some systems use fare inspectors on services forces. Table 3 shows the predominant use of agency employ- where a modified or hybrid form of PoP is used. ees for fare enforcement by 26 of the respondents (86.7%). Even so, a variety of employercontract arrangements were Modified or hybrid PoP is defined as a situation in which found. Eighteen (60%) of the operators use agency employ- there is a combination of off-board and on-board fare collec- ees only for fare enforcement, whereas in seven cases secu- tion along with random fare inspection on the transit vehicle. rity contractors provide fare enforcement assistance. For example, SFMTA uses PoP on all its services but is not using completely off-board fare payment, requiring front- TABLE 3 door boarding on buses, with the driver being involved in FARE INSPECTOR EMPLOYER ARRANGEMENTS fare collection and inspection. Other operators, especially Arrangement n % with buses, operate in similar ways, with their buses being Agency employees 18 60.0 equipped with fareboxes to allow single-ride on-board pur- chase. The primary reasons for using fare inspectors in these Agency employees + city/county jurisdiction 4 13.3 situations are rear-door boarding by pass users and the use of Agency employees + private contractor 3 10.0 smart card fare media. Agency employees + city/county jurisdiction + 1 3.3 private contractor Responses to the survey questions in the paragraphs that Private contractor 2 6.7 follow are organized into nine sections: Private contractor + city/county jurisdiction 1 3.3 City/county jurisdiction 1 3.3 1. Organizational and Personnel Aspects of the Fare Total responding agencies 30 100.0 Enforcement Function, 2. Monitoring and Inspecting for Fare Payment, As might be expected, the fare enforcement function typically resides within a transit agency's police or security 3. Measuring Performance, department. Of the 30 operators responding, for 83% (25 of 30), the fare enforcement function is within the police 4. Legal Aspects and Adjudication, or security department. In four of the cases, the function is within the operations department or is in a shared function 5. Proof-of-Payment Fare Collection Operations, between operations and security. In one case, the function is under the risk management department. 6. Fare Media and Fare Purchase Options, It was found that 58.6% (17 operators) of the fare inspec- 7. Ticket Vending Machines, tion forces have police powers (see Table 4). In 10 of the 17 instances, 100% of the fare inspection force possesses such 8. Smart Cards and Stored-Value Cards, and powers. Thus, slightly more than one-third (34.4%) of the 29