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 84
74 nel for fare inspection who do not possess police powers: a step further and had a series of short--roughly 2 min in Buffalo Metro fare inspectors, DART fare enforcement length--YouTube videos on a range of subjects related to officers, Los Angeles sheriff's security assistants, NYCT using the system, including fare payment. "Eagle Team" special inspectors, Phoenix police assistants and private security, and SFMTA/Muni transit fare inspec- Deploying a "show of force" on a new service using PoP tors. The two primary advantages of this approach are labor fare collection--As demonstrated in Los Angeles and New cost savings and a force dedicated to one primary purpose, York City, heavy use of inspection enforcement as a show of fare enforcement. In each case, the inspectors are uniformed force can be a valuable part of educating users exposed to PoP but not armed. For incidents that require police support, the fare collection for the first time. However, the show of force is inspectors have radio contact with either transit police or not limited to enforcement activities. In its case study, NYCT municipal police. provided an example of a customer focus on its two new BRT routes, where it placed "customer ambassadors" at BRT stops Adding smart cards to the menu of fare media available along the routes for first 2 to 3 weeks of service. for fare payment--LA Metro, MinneapolisSt. Paul Metro, Phoenix METRO, and SFMTA have smart cards as part of Using sweeps (also referred to as blitzes, surges, enhanced their fare payment mix, and DART is in the process of adding fare enforcement) to demonstrate uniformed presence on the them. Smart cards are a popular medium for fare payment but system in a serious way --Fare-paying passengers want to add complications to the PoP fare collection process. The pri- see inspectors. These sweeps, randomly deployed, also send mary issue for PoP is related to there being nothing printed on a message to evaders, keeping them guessing as to where the card to allow visual inspection of PoP. Although NYCT's and when a sweep may be called. is not a smart card, NYCT handled this issue by requiring its MetroCard users to access special TVMs, insert their card, Using temporary barriers and turnstiles for crowd con- and acquire a printed receipt. Most operators provide their trol at special events--MinneapolisSt. Paul Metro Transit, inspectors with handheld verification devices. Smart cards Phoenix METRO, and SFMTA serve major sporting venues have provided a new fare evasion offense whereby a patron and rely on special techniques for managing crowds, espe- with a card with value on it does not "tap in" to the system to cially post event. Use of temporary barriers and turnstiles pay a fare (and have it deducted). Knowingly or not, without also helps with PoP fare inspection, which can be done off- "tapping" the person has avoided paying a fare. board rather than on crowded trains. Employing PoP fare collection on BRT services--LA Met- ro's Orange Line and the two NYCT Select Bus Service routes SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH have shown that PoP can beneficially work for BRT--just as it does for LRT. The daily ridership on the Orange Line is about Based on the literature review, surveys, and case study inter- 24,000, and both NYCT routes exceed 30,000. Use of the rear views, there are various gaps in data and questions that could doors for passenger boarding is necessary to minimize station not be answered within the scope of this study. These gaps dwell times for those services and provide a high operating and questions led to areas identified for further research: speed. However, for BRT services where station loading vol- umes may not be sufficient to warrant use of the rear doors in The range of loading volumes that would result in PoP boarding, it may not be cost-effective to use PoP. fare collection being a cost-effective alternative. At what range of loading volumes at stations/stops is all-door board- Using independent management audits as an aid in ing necessary to attain a high operating speed? The evalu- reviewing an agency's PoP experience --As part of the ation of the cost-effectiveness of alternative fare collection study, audits for two case study operators, MinneapolisSt. strategies and whether to implement off-board fare payment Paul Metro Transit and SFMTA, were reviewed. Another and use PoP fare collection depends on whether all-door study, performed for LA Metro in 2007 but not called an boarding is necessary. audit, had objectives similar to those of an audit and pro- vided a useful review of fare evasion on Metro's high-capac- The relationship among the evasion rate, rates of inspec- ity routes. However, to be useful, the audit needs to provide tion, and penalty amounts. The relationship among these practical and constructive assistance and not merely search three factors is unclear. How high does a financial penalty for problems. have to be set to significantly influence the evasion rate? Which is more important to curbing fare evasion, higher Expanding the provision of public information via the penalties or higher rates of inspection? What is the best Internet and YouTube --All of the operators provided some balance between financial penalties and inspection rates? information on their websites regarding how to pay fares How much discretion is tolerable when it comes to issuing and the PoP process. Several sites were fairly minimal. On warnings, and what influence, if any, does the rate of issuing the positive side, MinneapolisSt. Paul Metro Transit went warnings have on evasion?
OCR for page 85
75 A manual or guidelines for statistical analysis of fare The cost-effectiveness of alternative adjudication pro- evasion. Would there be industry benefit to having a tech- cesses. Are the local agency processes more cost-effective nical manual that would provide elements of a sampling than the court-oriented approaches? An evaluation of alter- method for measuring fare evasion and a common defini- native adjudication processes now in operation would con- tion? Such a manual would help practitioners--most of firm advantages and disadvantages, as well as costs and whom are not schooled in statistics--with statistical analy- benefits. Such an evaluation would include reviewing the sis to ensure a reasonable level of accuracy (i.e., number details of the administrative processes, the associated costs of samples to obtain, inspection techniques, sampling and revenue return to the operator, and the effectiveness in approaches to ensure representativeness, levels of disaggre- discouraging repeat fare evasion offenses. gation, and frequency). The costs--capital, operating, and maintenance--of A transit smart card forum for PoP operators. How does alternative off-board PoP fare collection and enforcement the industry keep up with the rapidly changing technologi- approaches. One of the primary data gaps uncovered in this cal aspects of smart cards? How effective are the handheld synthesis was related to costs (i.e., the capital, operating and verification devices, and in what ways can they be used to maintenance associated with TVMs, verification devices, be increasingly cost-effective? There is currently no forum and inspection forces). In addition, some transit proper- that would facilitate ongoing communication and transfer of ties are implementing fencing and gating to assist in fare experiences among PoP users. enforcement. What are the added costs--as well as any cost savings--associated with these measures?