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 83
73
enforcement personnel are directly employed by the 8. Smart Cards and Stored-Value Cards --Smart cards
transit agency, and 58% have police powers. are used by 13 of the 30 operators in either contact-
less (11 operators) or magnetic-stripe (2) versions. Of
2. Monitoring and Inspecting for Fare Payment -- those with smart cards, 10 operators have cards that
Almost all operators (96.5%) allow warnings to be are reloadable (i.e., can be reloaded with additional
issued by inspectors when warranted, and the average value). For smart card fare payment verification pur-
number of citations issued are 3.5 more than the num- poses, 11 operators rely on handheld mobile devices.
ber of warnings. It was found that 39.0% of the opera-
tors issue more warnings than citations. The majority 9. Transit Industry Pulse Regarding Proof-of-Payment
of agencies indicated that they are satisfied with the Fare Collection --A small majority of operators
accuracy of their measured fare evasion rate--86.2% (56.3%) expressed being moderately or very satisfied
were either satisfied or better. with the cost-effectiveness of their PoP fare collection
operation.
3. Measuring Performance --A majority of operators
(62.1%) do not set fare evasion goals, and even more
(72.4%) do not set inspection goals. The predomi- SUMMARY: COMMON PRACTICES FROM CASE
nant action taken by operators to curb fare evasion STUDIES
spikes are special "sweep" tactics during which
100% of the riders are inspected during a specific From the detailed review of the PoP experiences of the seven
time and at a specific location. Across all modes, case study operators, common experiences can be combined
the range of fare evasion rates is from 0.1% to 9.0%, into practices for other operators to consider, whether they
with an average of 2.7% and a median of 2.2%. For have PoP fare collection today or are considering its future
inspection, the rates range from 0.4% to 30.0%, use. A summary of these practices follows:
with the average at 11.3% and the median at 9.2%.
Substantial fluctuations in the fare evasion rates Using a customer-oriented enforcement to fare pay-
were observed when viewed over a 12- to 14-month ment rather than a traditional policing approach --Phoenix
period; data from five operators found that in one METRO reported that its fare enforcement training stresses
case the highest monthly rate was 5 times the low- the three Es: "Engage, Educate, and Enforce." For NYCT, the
est rate. philosophy is to "skillfully educate the public on proper fare
payment" and "get the passengers into the habit of paying
4. Legal Aspects and Adjudication --The fine for a their fare." San Francisco Muni characterizes its approach
first fare evasion offense averages $121; for repeat as a "soft" approach to fare compliance, assisting people to
offenses, the maximum averages $314. For repeat pay by escorting them to TVMs without issuing citations.
offenders, there are also nonfinancial penalties, the
three main ones being that the offense escalates to a Implementing an agency-administered adjudication pro-
misdemeanor, a summons is issued to appear in court, cess--Eight of the 30 PoP operators retain the adjudication
or the individual is excluded from using the system process in house. Los Angeles Metro is in the process of
for a period of time. For most operators (58.6%), the going that route by the end of 2011. In a board report, LA
first fare evasion offense is treated as a civil penalty Metro notes that having a transit court "benefits its custom-
rather than a criminal penalty. ers by providing a more direct, simpler method for resolving
citations issued for transit related violations...and by reduc-
5. Proof-of-Payment Fare Collection Operations --To ing the number of cases that are currently required to be
facilitate enforcement of fare payment, 70% of the adjudicated in the Superior Courts."
operators designate the station platform areas as
"paid zones." Instituting an administrative process for payment of the
fare evasion penalty --Consistent with an in-house adjudi-
6. Fare Media and Fare Purchase Options --All the cation process, the same operators offer an administrative
operators accept single-ride tickets on their PoP ser- process for payment of the fare evasion penalty. A good
vices; less used but prominent are monthly passes example is DART: Its process permits a person to pay a $75
(89.7%) and day passes (82.8%); 86.2% of the opera- "administrative fee" within 30 days and avoid a criminal
tors issue transfers free or for a charge. court proceeding. DART makes payment very convenient,
too. The individual can pay in person at DART offices, by
7. Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs) --Almost all of the mail, or by using the DART store (DARTstore.org).
operators' TVMs issue single-ride tickets (96.6%),
and the majority issue day passes (69%) and monthly Creating a focused fare inspection team with nonsworn
passes (55.2%) as well. officers--Six of the seven case study operators use person-
