 | ||
Fare evasion or ticket evasion, as distinct from fare avoidance or ticket avoidance, is the act of travelling on public transport in disregard of the law and/or regulation, having deliberately not purchased the required ticket to travel (having had the chance to do so). It is a problem in many parts of the world, and revenue protection officers operate on many systems. Often ticket barriers, manned or automatic, are in place at stations etc., to ensure only those with valid tickets may access the transport.
Contents
- About
- Panic bars
- Closed circuit television
- Penalty fare
- Civil and criminal penalties
- Ticket barriers
- Ticket inspectors
- Uniformed guards
- Undercover public transit police officers
- Manual fare collection
- References
Fare evasion and fare fraud is generally a crime in most jurisdictions. The fare not paid, compared to potential penalties and hassle, is generally considered “not worth it”.
One method of fare evasion is jumping over the turnstiles which mark the entryway into a subway system; hence the term, “turnstile jumping”. Other methods include adults traveling on children’s tickets, or using discounted tickets or free passes that the passenger is not entitled to. The most extreme method is train surfing.
Another issue occurs on the bus, passengers would either bypass the bus driver or simply enter through the rear door of the bus. This is commonly found under the New York City Bus system which causes its operators to lose millions of dollars a year. In most countries passengers board a bus from any door, validate their tickets at machines and have no contact with the driver thus increasing the potential for fare evasion.
About
Fare evasion can be a chronic problem in transit systems, especially large systems like New York or Paris. From classic turnstile “vaulting” and “slugs” instead of legitimate tokens to elaborate schemes involving stolen faregate keys, fraudulent electronic fare media, “forgetting” proof-of-payment (POP) receipts, or “two card monte” that takes advantage of fare system features, many ways exist to avoid paying fares. Indeed, industry standard revenue ‘leakage’ is reportedly 3%~6%. Evasion is so rampant in some cities that conversion from POP to turnstiles is being proposed or seriously considered.
In the transit world, fare abuse studies are sometimes shrouded in utmost secrecy and treated like classified information, but it is widely discussed in popular press, local television news, criminal justice literature, economics research, and internet blogs; in New York, New Jersey, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Vancouver, Edmonton, London, and Paris. Four agencies (TransLink, King County Metro, Edmonton, New York) made evasion audit findings public, San Francisco (Muni) and Atlanta (MARTA) presented papers, while Toronto addressed evasion in a fare collection study, at least one confidential international benchmarking study was published, and Federal Transit Administration has even requested special studies of non-farebox passengers within the context of National Transit Database ridership reporting.
To understand evasion, it is imperative to first understand interactions between fare control hardware, fare tariff, and passengers. Evasion occurs when passengers gain access from unpaid to paid side by interacting with fare controls in manners inconsistent with tariff. Transit’s tariff is complex, sometimes requiring legitimate revenue passengers to defeat fare controls with behaviors that resemble evasion to casual observers. Additionally, entry procedures are not always strictly followed, though usually no actual revenue losses takes place. There are, therefore, real debates about what constitutes evasion.
Different observation methodologies were used to estimate evasions: staff interviews (Edmonton), operator counts (King County Metro), surveyor counts (New York and San Francisco), and third party audits (TransLink Vancouver).
Panic bars
Panic bars on emergency exit doors, which sound an alarm when the door is opened, are in all stations of the New York City Subway.
Panic bars were also installed on Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) in Boston and on Chicago Transit Authority (CTA). This provided an impetus for renewed interests in evasion, because evaders could enter through gates when already opened by exiting passengers.
Closed circuit television
Closed-circuit television (CCTV) monitoring is used by many public transport companies to combat vandalism and other public order crimes. Using CCTV to apprehend fare-dodgers in the act requires full-time human monitoring of the cameras. Sophisticated CCTV systems discriminate the scenes to detect and segregate suspicious behaviour from numerous screens and to enable automatic alerting. However, the attentiveness of the surveillance personnel may be threatened by false reliance on automatics.
Penalty fare
A penalty fare is a special fare charged at a higher than normal price because the purchaser did not comply with the normal ticket purchasing rules. Typically penalty fares are incurred by passengers failing to purchase a ticket before travelling or by purchasing an incorrect ticket which does not cover their whole journey.
Penalty fares are not fines, and are used when no legal basis for prosecuting fare evasion exists, prosecution is deemed too drastic and costly, or is unlikely to result in conviction.
Civil and criminal penalties
On some systems, fare evasion is considered a misdemeanor. In such cases, police officers and in some cases transit employees are authorized to issue tickets which usually carry a heavy fine. Then, charged persons can then be tried in court. Repeat violators and severe cases, such as ticket forgery, are punished more severely and sometimes involve incarceration. Wealthy offenders face stiffer penalties than poorer offenders.
Evasion fines vary. On Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), evasion fines range from $85 to $235, whereas they “start at $50” on the San Francisco Municipal Railway. In Boston, prior to CharlieCard AFC implementation and conversion of booth clerks to roving agents, MBTA quietly asked Massachusetts State Legislature to make evasions a civil offense punishable by progressive fines ($15 first offense; $100 second; $250 third or subsequent). On Newark City Subway, where POP is in effect, evasion penalty was initially $75, but increased to $100 in 2008.
In the US, the MBTA, CTA, and Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) also use sophisticated camera equipment. The MBTA even apprehended vandals damaging AFC equipment while evading, and published the video footage.
Ticket barriers
Turnstiles are used to obstruct invalid access. Since most fare-dodgers know how to pass a gate without paying, turnstiles may be replaced with ticket barriers in a less easily transversed form, or may be integrated more closely with an electronic ticket system.
Ticket barriers can also require the travellers to show their tickets upon exiting.
Ticket inspectors
With manual fare collection, fare evasion can become more difficult and stigmatizing for the fare-dodging traveller. Ticket inspectors may or may not be allowed to use force to prevent or apprehend fare-dodgers.
Uniformed guards
The presence of uniformed guards can act as a deterrent to fare evasion. Guards may or may not be allowed to use force to prevent or apprehend fare-dodgers.
Undercover public transit police officers
It is sometimes common for police officers dressed in plain clothes to patrol subway stations. As such, they have all the jurisdiction that normal officer have when policing the transit system.
Manual fare collection
Transit systems which use honor systems under normal circumstances may employ staff to collect fares at times and places where heavy use can be expected - for example, at stations serving a stadium after the conclusion of a major sporting event.