Measuring and Managing Fare Evasion (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3   Fare evasion is generally defined as a passenger using public transit without paying the required fare or possessing the required fare media or valid proof of fare payment. Fares are an impor- tant source of transit agencies’ operating revenues. Even where fares account for relatively low shares of operating costs, any fares that are not collected must be replaced by another revenue source. As such, fare evasion has significant implications for the financial sustainability of transit systems and must be replaced by another stable source of funding. In some cases, particularly when the fiscal environment is lean, the only alternative to offset revenue loss due to fare evasion is to increase fares, making it imperative to ensure that all passengers are paying their fair share. Conversely, reducing fare evasion may help alleviate the need to increase fares. Transit agencies employ a variety of methods to manage fare evasion, including fare inspec- tions; increased transit personnel and police presence at gates, on platforms, and on board vehi- cles; fare policy simplification; efforts to educate passengers on fare payment requirements as well as marketing campaigns; and physical barriers and infrastructure. Fare evasion is a complex issue and is not linked solely to fare enforcement. There are many factors that can influence fare evasion and evasion rates. Thus, an effective fare enforcement program is more than just deploy- ing personnel to inspect fares. It considers the types of fare evaders and the factors that influence fare evasion to develop a multidimensional fare enforcement strategy. In developing or review- ing a fare enforcement program, it is important to develop a fare enforcement policy that defines the objective of the fare enforcement program and how the agency wants to achieve increased fare compliance—zero-tolerance fare enforcement, customer education to achieve compliance, or something in between. This policy, along with goals and objectives for the program, will help in evaluating the type of personnel used for fare enforcement and their roles and responsibilities; developing a fare enforcement deployment strategy; creating customer education campaigns; identifying opportunities for fare policy simplification; and determining changes to fare citation practices and penalties for fare evasion violations. 1.1 Evolution of Fare Enforcement Early transit providers typically employed an operator to drive the vehicle and a conduc- tor who was largely responsible for collecting fares. Following World War II, as public agen- cies assumed responsibility for transit operations and worked to reduce costs, conductors were eliminated, leaving transit vehicles staffed only by an operator. Without a conductor, it became common for passengers to board through the front door and pay cash fares to the operator or at a drop box located near the operator. As a result, operators began to have a role in fare collection, even giving change to passengers. C H A P T E R 1 Background

4 Measuring and Managing Fare Evasion 1.2 Self-Service Fare Collection and Proof of Payment As discussed in TCRP Report 80: A Toolkit for Self-Service, Barrier-Free Fare Collection, self- service fare collection, which places the responsibility for correct fare payment and possession of valid proof of payment on the transit passenger, was developed in Europe in the 1960s by transit agencies facing labor shortages and the need to reduce costs (MultiSystems, Inc., et al. 2002). By introducing self-service fare collection with off-board fare collection, agencies were able to eliminate conductors and replace them with a smaller force of fare inspectors to conduct random proof-of-payment inspections. Self-service fare collection also allowed all-door boarding, which shortened boarding and dwell times, improved vehicle speeds and service reliability, and reduced operating costs (Baur 1985; Deibel 1981; Keuchel and Laurenz 2018; LACMTA 2016a; Multi- Systems, Inc., et al. 2002; NACTO 2017; SFMTA 2014). Self-service off-board fare collection with proof-of-payment inspection was introduced in North America as transit evolved and new light rail and streetcar systems were built. By the early 1980s, proof of payment had been introduced in Canada on the SeaBus ferry in Vancouver and on new light rail systems in Edmonton and Calgary and in the United States on the San Diego Trolley (Larwin and Kaprowski 2012). With the implementation of off-board fare collection, transit agencies introduced prepaid fare products to enable and encourage passengers to purchase fares off board and for more than one trip. This approach introduced new challenges for fare collection. For proof-of-payment systems using fare inspectors, prepaid tickets required a way to validate the ticket for a specific trip, since the ticket would not be collected. In order to validate prepaid tickets and provide the information that a fare inspector needed to verify correct fare payment, stamp validators were introduced. At a minimum, these machines printed the station, date, and time on prepaid tickets inserted into the machine. For more complicated systems and fare policies, the validator might also print the route number, zone number, direction of travel, and other information. Transit agencies also began installing self-service ticket vending and validating equipment on board vehicles and at stations (Baur 1985; Deibel 1981). Since those early implementations, new light rail systems in the United States and Canada, as well as most bus rapid transit (BRT) and commuter rail start-ups and some regular bus and heavy rail systems, have incorporated self-service off-board fare collection and proof-of- payment inspection. TCRP Synthesis 96: Off-Board Fare Payment Using Proof-of-Payment Veri- fication found that the most common methods for off-board fare payment included station ticket vending machines (TVMs), third-party retail outlets, and agency ticket offices (Larwin and Kaprowski 2012). Less-common methods included station ticket offices or booths, ticket- by-mail, and Internet sales. Since the publication of TCRP Synthesis 96, mobile ticketing has become increasingly popular and is now one of the most common methods of off-board fare payment. Fare media, fare products, fare policies, and fare collection technologies have also evolved to facilitate fare payment and inspection. Smart card and contactless fare media have had a sig- nificant impact on fare collection and introduced new opportunities for all-door boarding with onboard validation. They have also enabled quick electronic validation of fares. While all-door boarding is common on most rail services, North American agencies have also begun enabling all-door boarding on bus services by introducing proof of payment with off-board fare collection or with both onboard and off-board fare collection. In 2012, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) extended proof-of-payment inspection beyond its light rail services to include its regular bus routes and streetcars; the agency installed smart card validators at each door, providing access through all doors to passengers with Clipper smart cards or paper proof of payment (SFMTA 2014). Many BRT systems in North America also

Background 5   have off-board fare collection with all-door boarding. Increasingly, BRT-like rapid bus systems are also implementing all-door boarding with proof of payment [e.g., King County Metro’s RapidRide and select Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) Rapid lines]; these systems have been less reliant on off-board fare collection. As transit agencies install smart card validators at more stops or at each door and smart card market penetration increases, the advantages of off-board fare collection will be further diminished for BRT and BRT-like systems. Although there are significant operational advantages with self-service fare collection and all-door boarding, without access controls or fare enforcement, there are also increased oppor- tunities for nonpayment and lost fare revenue (Barabino et al. 2013). There is also the potential for a negative impact on the public image of the agency. In a study of determinants of the pro- pensity to evade fare payment, Barabino et al. (2015) observed that “[f]are evasion mainly causes problems due to lost fare revenues and damage to corporate image, social inequity and low levels of security.” A viable fare enforcement program is necessary for transit agencies “to keep the normally honest passenger from the temptation to cheat the system” (Deibel 1981) and to avoid the appearance of ignoring fare evasion. For reasons such as these, some transit agencies, including Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA), LA Metro, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), and Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), have installed or plan to install fare gates, especially at key stations with the highest boardings, primarily to increase fare compliance and address concerns about revenue losses with proof-of-payment fare collection. 1.3 Fare Enforcement Personnel Proof-of-payment inspection enabled by self-service fare collection has minimized the role of operators in fare collection and enforcement, created a need for fare enforcement personnel, and reduced the need for access controls such as turnstiles, fare gates, and attendants at many locations. While operators are primarily responsible for vehicle operations, they have often been expected to monitor the farebox, provide information to passengers about fares, and verify and sometimes record fare payment. With proof-of-payment systems, transit agencies have moved away from relying on the operator to collect fares. Proof-of-payment systems commonly desig- nate personnel to check passengers for proof of payment in fare-paid areas, including at stations or stops and on board vehicles. These fare enforcement personnel conduct checks on a random basis and may enforce payment by explaining fare payment requirements and issuing warnings or citations to passengers without proof of payment. As TCRP Synthesis 93: Practices to Protect Bus Operators from Passenger Assault points out, by reducing the need for operators to check fares, proof-of-payment systems may decrease the likelihood of fare confrontations and disputes with passengers (Nakanishi and Fleming 2011). Confrontations over fares account for most of the conflicts between passengers and operators, are stressful, and can be dangerous for operators (ATU n.d.a., n.d.b.). Because of such conflicts, many transit agencies have stopped asking operators to enforce fares. In some cases, operators no longer even state the fare to minimize the likelihood of conflict. As fare enforcement respon- sibilities have shifted to fare enforcement personnel, their safety has also become a consider- ation. Fare enforcement personnel are often deployed in teams for security purposes as well as for conducting inspections more efficiently and effectively. The personnel who are assigned fare enforcement responsibilities vary among transit agencies, but include civilian fare inspectors, civilian security personnel, and sworn peace officers who are See Section 3.3.1, Fare Enforcement Personnel.

6 Measuring and Managing Fare Evasion commonly referred to as “police officers” or “sheriff deputies.” Although most agencies among those surveyed use civilian fare inspectors or security personnel, a few use a combination of law enforcement and civilian personnel. Sworn officers are more commonly used for fare enforce- ment on gated systems without proof-of-payment inspection. In those cases, peace officers must have reasonable suspicion of evasion to contact an individual. 1.4 Emerging Issues in Fare Enforcement Fare enforcement has evolved from the need to reduce costs of fare collection and the approaches transit agencies implemented to achieve that goal. While controlling costs continues to drive fare collection decisions, a number of emerging issues are affecting fare enforcement. These include considerations such as the role of the operator in fare collection and enforcement, the role of sworn peace officers in fare enforcement, the constitutionality of the use of sworn officers for proof-of-payment inspection and the authority of transit agency personnel to con- duct fare inspections, the potential for discrimination and inequitable impacts on vulnerable communities, the penalties assessed for fare evasion and the processes for adjudicating those penalties, and concerns about decriminalizing fare evasion. 1.4.1 Role of the Operator While operators’ primary responsibility is vehicle operations, in some cases they have also been expected to serve as gatekeepers at the farebox. However, TCRP Synthesis 93 found that fare enforcement was a primary factor contributing to bus operator assaults (Nakanishi and Fleming 2011). More recently, Bliss (2018) found operator assaults and confrontations over fare enforce- ment continue to rise, especially as fares increase to cover budget shortfalls. Due to safety concerns, the transit agencies surveyed as part of this research project have deemphasized the role of operators in fare collection and enforcement. At some agencies, opera- tors are not involved in fare enforcement and have limited involvement in fare collection (e.g., the only role of SFMTA’s operators in fare collection is to push a button on the farebox to issue proof of payment to cash passengers; the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) uses automated fare announcements so bus operators do not even need to state the fare). Other agencies give their operators discretion on whether to state the fare on the basis of the situation and consider them “fare informers” rather than “fare enforcers.” By policy, Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus operators are instructed to enforce fares by educating passengers on the appropriate fare and where and how to purchase fares and then to docu- ment fare disputes and evasions by using the fare dispute button on operator consoles (City of Toronto Auditor General 2019b). Deployment of sworn peace officers, security guards, or fare enforcement personnel may help reduce operator assaults and reinforce fare payment. A 2019 article on preventing driver assaults suggests that transit agencies could better support and protect their operators by taking actions such as identifying and stationing police at locations where violence is most likely to occur (DiBartolomeo 2019). 1.4.2 Role of Police Transit agencies are increasingly moving away from the use of sworn peace officers and instead assigning civilian personnel to conduct fare enforcement and to cite and educate pas- sengers who do not have proof of payment. Law enforcement’s role in supporting fare inspec- tors is also being limited to those aspects of fare enforcement that civilian personnel may not have the authority to perform, such as obtaining and verifying identification (ID) or addressing See Section 3.3.1.1, Fare Enforcement Staffing.

Background 7   criminal issues. The relationship between law enforcement and vulnerable communities has been complicated by over-policing in communities of color and sensitivities among immigrant populations to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Transit agencies are becoming increasingly sensitive to these issues. Some agencies, such as the Tri-County Metro- politan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet), have developed pages on their websites to identify the personnel that passengers may encounter and their roles, duties, and uniforms. Some agencies, such as SFMTA, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit), and TTC, have also considered ways to redesign uniforms to make fare enforcement personnel more approachable in their customer service roles and to distinguish them from other types of law enforcement. These issues have also driven agencies’ decisions to use civilian per- sonnel to conduct fare enforcement. In addition to reviewing the types of personnel used for fare enforcement, U.S. transit agencies are beginning to explore more broadly the reimagining of public safety on transit. 1.4.3 Constitutionality and Authority to Conduct Fare Inspections There continue to be legal challenges to the constitutionality of proof-of-payment inspec- tions conducted by sworn peace officers and to the authority of transit agency personnel to conduct proof-of-payment inspections as an administrative search. Transit agencies have been reevaluating their fare enforcement programs in response to these challenges, often as a pro- active measure. 1.4.4 Discrimination in Fare Enforcement As awareness of the potential for bias and discrimination in fare enforcement has risen in the public consciousness, transit agencies’ fare enforcement policies, procedures, and data have come under increasing scrutiny from passengers, advocacy groups, media outlets, oversight bodies, governing boards, and internal stakeholders. Transit agencies have taken on initiatives to respond to concerns related to discrimination by analyzing citation demographic data and establishing standard operating procedures that require systematic inspections of all passengers and minimize personnel’s discretion of whether to issue a warning or citation in order to limit the potential for bias. Transit agencies are also reconsidering the role of discretion in issuing citations for fare evasion. Agencies have adopted different policies with respect to the discretion given to fare enforcement personnel to assess each situation and decide whether to cite an individual or to issue a formal or informal warning. Policies on discretion range from zero-tolerance to lenience. Zero-tolerance policies are intended to ensure that fare violations are handled consistently. More lenient policies give fare enforcement personnel more flexibility in assessing a situation and determining how best to handle it. The more lenient approaches also provide opportu- nities to educate customers about fare payment requirements and options for both fare pay- ment and handling citations. However, discretion requires a formal policy to provide guidance and prescriptive steps to respond to different scenarios to minimize the potential for bias and discrimination. 1.4.5 Decriminalization of Fare Evasion There is also an increasing interest among organizations such as transit agencies and transit and social justice advocates in decriminalizing fare evasion to address concerns that criminal citations are criminalizing poverty and to better align penalties for fare evasion with the severity of the offense. Among the issues are the appropriateness of criminal penalties and the possibility See Section 3.7.4, Constitutionality of Fare Enforcement. See Section 3.3.2.3, Standard Operating Procedures, and Section 3.10, Discrimination in Fare Enforcement. See Section 3.7.2.1, Civil Versus Criminal Penalties, and Section 3.7.3, Decriminalization of Fare Evasion.

8 Measuring and Managing Fare Evasion of a criminal record relative to the price of a transit fare as well as the affordability and equity of potentially sizable fines for individuals with low or no income. Attitudes about fare enforcement and penalties are changing, particularly where fare evasion entails criminal penalties. 1.4.6 Resolution of Fare Enforcement Violations Several transit agencies have addressed concerns about the onerous nature of criminal penal- ties for fare violations by seeking to minimize the interactions of fare violators with the court system. King County Metro, LA Metro, and SFMTA have done this by divorcing the adjudica- tion process from the court system and bringing it in-house. San Diego’s Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and TriMet have developed diversion programs that give individuals a set time frame to resolve citations directly with the transit agency before unresolved citations are trans- mitted to the courts. These programs offer lower fines and nonmonetary ways to address cita- tions such as community service, attending transit school, adding value to a fare card, and signing up for low-income or discount-fare programs. They have reduced the level of inter- actions with the court system for fare violations, reduced the costs of managing fare enforce- ment, and reduced court caseloads. These changes have made the process more cost-effective by giving transit agencies more control over penalties and the revenues derived from fines that are paid. See Section 3.7.3, Decriminalization of Fare Evasion.