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 31
21
TABLE 15
COMPARISON OF THE VARIATION IN FARE EVASION RATES OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME
Range
Spread Ratio Average
Operator Low High (HighLow) (High/ Low) Span Over Span
A (LRT) 0.58 2.93 2.35 5.05 Jan.Dec. 2010 0.99
B (LRT) 1.34 4.84 3.50 3.61 Jan. 2010Feb. 2011 2.31
C (CR) 0.65 1.19 0.54 1.83 Jan.Dec. 2010 0.87
D (LRT) 1.52 2.85 1.33 1.88 Jan.Dec. 2010 2.19
E (LRT) 1.26 1.60 0.34 1.27 Jan.Dec. 2010 1.40
All numbers are percentages.
LEGAL ASPECTS AND ADJUDICATION TABLE 17
FARE EVASION CITATION ADJUDICATION
The 30-plus years of North American experience with Adjudicator n %
PoP have demonstrated the increasingly significant role of Superior court 5 16.7
the adjudication function. Included here is a discussion of
Municipal court 11 36.7
these subjects: the different legal authorities underlying fare
enforcement, penalty schedules for evasion, percentage of County/province court 9 30.0
fine revenue received by the operator, procedures for issuing Agency 8 26.7
warnings and citations, and the use of judicial and adminis- Total responding agencies 29
trative procedures to adjudicate citations issued. Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%.
For most operators, either the state/province or a regional/
county/local jurisdiction provides the legal basis for the fare Each agency operates with either an approved policy
enforcement of fare payment. As indicated in Table 16, 69.0% statement or a set of administrative procedures, or both.
(20 of 29) of the operators are legally authorized to enforce All 29 respondents indicated that they have a policy and/
fare payment by a state or province, and 51.7% (15) by a local or an administrative procedure that provides guidance to
political entity. There were six (20.6%) of the operators that the enforcement function. Table 18 shows the distribution;
showed up in each category as they have a combination of of the total, 18 operators (62.1%) indicated that they have a
both the state and local laws providing their legal basis. policy or administrative procedure. Further, of the total, nine
(31.0%) have a combination of both.
TABLE 16
LEGAL BASIS OR AUTHORITY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF TABLE 18
FARE PAYMENT POLICY OR PROCEDURES USED IN ADMINISTERING POP
Authority n % INSPECTION
Federal law 1 3.4 Type n %
State/provincial law 20 69.0 Adopted policy 18 62.1
Regional/county/local ordinance 15 51.7 Administrative procedures 18 62.1
Total responding agencies 29 Other 3 10.3
Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. Total responding agencies 29
Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%.
The survey results show that the adjudication process
for fare evasion does not find its home in any single type The survey found that in almost every case the penalty
of court. Table 17 shows that a municipal/local court serves schedules for each of the operators differ. As shown in Table
the largest number of operators, 11 (36.7%). Eight (26.7%) 19, the experiences are balanced among agency policies and
of the agencies have their own agency adjudication process ordinances, state or provincial laws, and regional or local
and another one is in process. As indicated in chapter four, ordinances, with 11 of the respondents for each of the three
LA Metro expects to have an in-house adjudication process categories. In addition, however, four (13.8%) operators
implemented by the end of 2011. have a penalty schedule from a combination of the regional/
OCR for page 32
22
county/local ordinance and either the state or agency policy/ · In one case, the penalty is court fees of $220 plus an
ordinance. amount that ranges from $25 (first offense) to $75
(maximum). In a similar case, a flat cost of $50 is
added to the court fees.
TABLE 19 · One operator determines the cost of the fine as 2 times
HOW BASIC PARAMETERS OF THE PENALTY SCHEDULE the amount of the adult monthly pass.
FOR FARE EVASION ARE SET
· For another operator, the maximum penalty is "theft
Source n % in the 3rd degree," which carries with it a maximum
Agency policy/ordinance 11 37.9 penalty of 1 year in jail and/or $5,000 fine.
State/provincial law 11 37.9
Regional/county/local ordinance 11 37.9 There were several comments about fare evasion uniquely
related to a particular system:
Total responding agencies 29
Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%.
· "We use an exclusion process. The customer is
removed from the vehicle and shown how to use the
The survey sought information pertaining to the penalty TVM. Subsequent violations result in longer exclu-
and fine schedules for fare evasion offenses. A summary of sions. Once excluded, if they return to a vehicle or
the results is provided in Table 20, and key findings follow: transit property, they are cited by law enforcement
for trespass."
· Unlike some international practices, there were no · "Our PoP tickets are automatically validated with time
reported instances where riders without PoP could pay and direction of travel when they are issued. The fare
at the time of the offense. payment officers issue summonses to customers at
· Three operators only provide warnings for a first offense. their discretion on a case-by-case basis."
· The average fine for a first offense is $121, and the · "Another violation is when the passenger does not pos-
median is between $100 and $110. sess a proper ID card to utilize a reduced fare or student
· Of the 26 respondents, five operators increase the pen- ticket."
alty for a second offense. · "In some cases, fare inspectors may issue two cita-
· The average fine for second offense is $142, 17% tions (e.g., counterfeit pass or misused senior or youth
greater than the average fine for a first offense. passes)--one citation would be for failure to display
· The maximum fines average $314, and the median is $250. valid proof of payment while the other citation would
The average does not include two operators that have be for a misused pass."
maximum fines of $5,000 and up to $25,000, respectively.
· For nine of the 26 respondents, the maximum fine is There was also interest in whether there is any penalty
applied to the first offense and any repeat offense. difference for different offenses. The numbers in Table 20
are for a basic situation when the passenger has no valid form
of fare payment. The following additional situations were
TABLE 20 examined to find out whether operators have different fines
SUMMARY OF FINES FOR FARE EVASION OFFENSES for more specific offenses. The results show that there are
For a 1st For a 2nd Maximum virtually no differences for any of the following offenses,
Offense Offense Fine with one exception as noted:
Fine n % n % n %
$0 or warning only 3 11.5 0 0 0 0 · Passenger had ticket...but failed to validate-- no
difference.
$50$99 10 38.5 6 28.6 2 8.3
· Passenger had ticket...but was not valid for trip or
$100$199 9 34.6 11 52.4 5 20.8
day--no difference.
$200$299 4 15.4 4 19.0 7 29.2 · Passenger had ticket...but time was expired-- no
$300 and up 0 0.0 0 0 10 41.7 difference.
Average $121 $142 $314* · Passenger had ticket...but wrong fare type-- one of 26
Median $100$110 $124 $250
respondents indicated that this offense has a higher fine.
· Passenger had monthly pass...but was expired-- no
Total responding agencies = 26; no distinction made between U.S. and
Canadian currencies. difference.
*This average excludes data from two operators with a $5,000 and $25,000 · Passenger had stored-value card...but failed to "tap in"
maximum, respectively.
or swipe--no difference.
· Passenger had stored-value card...but there was no
Some other comments regarding fines: value remaining--no difference.
