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.

C-1   A P P E N D I X C Steps to Develop and Implement a Fare Enforcement Program

C-2 C O N T E N T S C-3 Introduction C-3 Key Steps for Creating/Revising a Fare Enforcement Program C-4 Step 1: Evaluate the Need for Fare Enforcement C-5 Step 2: Define the Focus and Scope of the Fare Enforcement Program C-5 Step 3: Understand Legal Authority and Requirements and/or Necessary Legislative or Governing Board Policy Changes C-7 Step 4: Define Fare Evasion C-8 Step 5: Establish Fare Evasion Penalties C-9 Step 6: Designate Personnel Responsible for Fare Enforcement C-11 Step 7: Identify Technology and Capital Investments to Assist with Fare Enforcement C-12 Step 8: Develop a Deployment Plan and Standard Operating Procedures C-14 Step 9: Establish Processes and Data Collection Necessary for Oversight C-15 Step 10: Engage the Community C-15 Step 11: Define the Role of the Transit Agency and Fare Enforcement Program in Addressing Social Issues C-16 Step 12: Consider How Fare Policy Influences Fare Evasion Behavior and Identify Strategies to Mitigate Unintentional Evasion

Steps to Develop and Implement a Fare Enforcement Program C-3   Introduction As transit agencies develop a fare enforcement program or revise an existing fare program, there are several important considerations. Fare enforcement is a complex topic that requires a multidisciplinary approach, spanning functions across a transit agency that include finance, security, law enforcement, operations, customer relations, technology, equipment maintenance, information systems, marketing and communications, equity, auditing, and legal, as well as other functions specific to a particular transit agency. Successful fare enforcement programs begin with defining clear goals and objectives that create a common vision and expectations and are integral to the design, development, implementation, and execution of a multidisciplinary fare enforcement program. This appendix provides a structure that transit agencies can use to apply the results of TCRP Project A-45 and a summary of current leading fare enforcement practices discussed in the report. How fare enforcement is conducted and how fare evasion penalties are imposed have evolved since the publication of TCRP Report 80: A Toolkit for Self-Service, Barrier-Free Fare Collection (MultiSystems, Inc., et al. 2002), and TCRP Synthesis 96: Off-Board Fare Payment Using Proof- of-Payment Verification (Larwin and Kaprowski 2012). Changes are in part due to reevaluat- ing the use of police and increased use of civilians for fare enforcement, as well as increased sensitivity to potential racial/ethnic disparities resulting from fare enforcement programs and negative impacts of fare enforcement on vulnerable populations. As a result, there is a growing focus on decriminalizing fare enforcement and resolving citations administratively to minimize individuals’ interactions with the court system and better address the needs of low-income pas- sengers and other vulnerable populations. Transit agencies are also increasingly interested in using customer education and public engagement to improve fare compliance rather than focusing on imposing penalties. Public engagement, especially through the use of external stakeholder work groups, has helped transit agencies improve their fare enforcement programs and secure participation from populations that might not otherwise have had an opportunity to inform decision-making. Following is a list of key steps for developing or reviewing a transit agency’s fare enforcement program. These are followed by a more detailed discussion of how agencies can pursue each step, and important considerations for doing so, based on valuable insights gleaned during agency interviews conducted as part of TCRP Project A-45. Readers are also directed to the relevant sections of the report to explore these topics further. Readers may also reference the Appendix A case studies to learn more about the fare enforcement programs of specific agencies. Key Steps for Creating/Revising a Fare Enforcement Program Step 1: Evaluate the need for fare enforcement. Step 2: Define the focus and scope of the fare enforcement program. Step 3: Understand legal authority and requirements and/or necessary legislative or governing board policy changes. Step 4: Define fare evasion. Step 5: Establish fare evasion penalties. Step 6: Designate personnel responsible for fare enforcement. Step 7: Identify technology and capital investments to assist with fare enforcement. Step 8: Develop a deployment plan and standard operating procedures. Step 9: Establish processes and data collection necessary for oversight. Step 10: Engage the community.

C-4 Measuring and Managing Fare Evasion Step 11: Define the role of the transit agency and fare enforcement program in addressing social issues. Step 12: Consider how fare policy influences fare evasion behavior and identify strategies to mitigate unintentional evasion. Step 1: Evaluate the Need for Fare Enforcement As a transit agency considers developing a fare enforcement program or reviews its current program, the agency should identify the reasons for having such a program. Transit agencies may establish a fare enforcement program for various reasons, including • Fare enforcement for new proof-of-payment (POP) service with off-board fare payment, • Introduction of all-door boarding, • Reduction of fare revenue loss from gated systems, and • Minimization of the role of bus operators in fare enforcement. In evaluating the need for fare enforcement, an agency should also consider its capacity to implement or expand a fare enforcement program. Financial and staffing resources must be considered as well as the cost-effectiveness of implementing such a program, and alternatives to creating a fare enforcement program. When the advantages and disadvantages of a fare enforcement program are considered, the disadvantages may outweigh the advantages. For example, although many agencies instruct bus operators not to enforce fare collection, so as to avoid altercations with passengers, Sun Metro (El Paso, TX) recently discontinued POP inspections and now bus operators on its bus rapid transit (BRT) service verify fare payment as passengers board through the front door. Dwell time savings (i.e., reductions in the time a vehicle spends at stops or stations for loading and unloading passengers) were not significant enough to justify continuing all-door boarding and POP inspections. In addition to transitioning fare enforcement to the operator, offering free fares on certain services (e.g., streetcar) may be more cost-effective than developing a fare enforce- ment program specifically and exclusively for that service. Transit agencies should also consider technology or capital investments that can help address fare evasion or fare collection issues rather than focusing on the use of enforcement personnel. For example, to reduce operator/passenger conflicts, rather than having the bus operators state Step 1: Evaluate the need for fare enforcement ● What are the reasons for needing to conduct fare enforcement? ● What are the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a fare enforcement program? Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? ● Does the transit agency have the capacity and financial or staffing resources to implement a fare enforcement program? ● Could technology or capital investments be implemented instead of (or in addition to) a fare enforcement program to minimize staffing resources required? Relevant sections of the report: ● Section 1.1, Evolution of Fare Enforcement ● Section 3.1, Overview of Fare Evasion ● Section 3.2, Fare Enforcement Program Goals and Objectives ● Section 3.6, Fare Inspection Levels ● Section 3.9, Public Perception of Fare Evasion and Passenger Security ● Section 3.12, Capital Infrastructure to Reduce Fare Evasion

Steps to Develop and Implement a Fare Enforcement Program C-5   the fare, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA, Washington, DC) has programmed automated announcements to direct passengers to pay the fare as they board. Other agencies have gated their terminal or busiest stations to ensure revenue collection from most passengers. Step 2: Define the Focus and Scope of the Fare Enforcement Program Fare enforcement programs can have different priorities that influence the focus of the pro- gram. Some programs are focused on increasing compliance through enforcement, although others emphasize education to build compliance. As part of education, transit agencies may have their fare enforcement personnel focus on fare revenue collection rather than issuing citations. For example, the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT, CA) fare enforcement focuses on educating passengers and only issues citations to passengers who refuse to purchase a fare or fare evaders who refuse to get off a light rail vehicle. Similarly, as part of the Phase 1 Pilot for the Metropolitan Transit System’s (MTS, San Diego, CA) Diversion Program, MTS provides fare evaders an opportunity to purchase a fare before issuing a citation. Fare enforcement programs can also be focused on increasing the presence of uniformed personnel representing the agency, whether to deter fare evasion, provide customer service, enforce code of conduct provisions, or increase security. Defining the scope of the fare enforce- ment program helps define the responsibilities of fare enforcement personnel, which is criti- cal in assessing the type of personnel needed and how personnel are deployed. The primary responsibility of law enforcement personnel involved in fare enforcement is safety and security. For civilian personnel, primary responsibilities may vary. While civilian staff may be focused narrowly on fare enforcement at some agencies, they may also be responsible for enforcing the code of conduct at other agencies [e.g., the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transporta- tion Authority (LA Metro), MTS, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet, Portland, OR), and Valley Metro (Phoenix, AZ)] and/or station area security [e.g., Regional Transportation District (RTD, Denver, CO)]. Step 2: Define the focus and scope of the fare enforcement program ● What are the priorities and focus areas for the fare enforcement program? ● Is the focus of the fare enforcement program to increase compliance through enforcement or education? ● What are the responsibilities of fare enforcement personnel? Should their responsibilities extend beyond fare enforcement (e.g., code of conduct compliance, security)? ● How do the responsibilities influence the type of personnel needed and how they are deployed? Relevant sections of the report: ● Section 3.2, Fare Enforcement Program Goals and Objectives ● Section 3.3, Fare Enforcement Strategies and Practices ● Section 3.8.2, Customer Education Step 3: Understand Legal Authority and Requirements and/or Necessary Legislative or Governing Board Policy Changes Transit agencies require legal authorization to request POP and cite fare evaders. Legal autho- rization for fare enforcement comes from one of three authorities: state/provincial laws, local ordinance(s), or an agency’s governing board. Understanding current authorities is foundational to identifying what changes may be necessary for the chosen fare enforcement strategy. It is also important to anticipate the impacts of changes to laws and ordinances, as such changes may

C-6 Measuring and Managing Fare Evasion require updates to policies, procedures, and handling of fare evasion citations. For example, in 2018, the Washington, DC, District Council approved a measure that decriminalized fare evasion in the District of Columbia. Although WMATA is considering the implications of that change for its fare enforcement procedures in the District, the change did not impact fare enforcement procedures and fare evasion penalties in the parts of WMATA’s service area that are in Maryland and Virginia. A transit agency’s legal authority may distinguish among the roles and authorities of different types or levels of personnel authorized to enforce fares, based on the hierarchy of powers or level of authority granted to them, as discussed in Section 3.3.1, Fare Enforcement Personnel. For example, laws may limit the personnel that can issue citations. Most agencies that use civilians for fare enforcement can designate civilian personnel to inspect and issue citations. However, in some cases, agencies (e.g., Metro Transit, Minneapolis–Saint Paul, MN) may be able to use civilians to inspect POP (e.g., conductors), but they are unable to issue citations, limiting the effectiveness of using civilians for fare enforcement. Likewise, codes and/or ordinances may impose additional requirements that indirectly impact an agency’s ability to use certain types of personnel for fare enforcement. For example, California’s Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) of 2015 requires law enforcement agencies to collect and report demographic and other detailed data to the California Department of Justice regarding all pedestrian and traffic stops where a person was searched and/or detained by a peace officer, including the reason for the stop and perceived demographics of the individual stopped. As a result, RIPA has an indirect impact on the viability of using police for POP inspections. State codes define fare evasion as a criminal infraction or misdemeanor or civil violation. However, depending on the state, the law may also provide some flexibility, such as those in California that authorize transit agencies to issue administrative citations. When and where fare enforcement can occur is influenced by whether applicable codes and/or ordinances require a passenger to present POP after the journey has begun. On systems that do not issue or require POP, fare enforcement can only occur when fares are paid (e.g., at the time of boarding or when entering through a fare gate). Conversely, on ungated, open systems, as well as some partially gated systems, codes may require passengers to carry and present POP upon request from authorized personnel. Codes and/or ordinances may also define fare-paid areas where passengers must present POP and consequently where fare enforcement can occur or cannot occur. For example, when the Colorado legislature decriminalized fare evasion in 2012, the reference to “fare-paid zones” was replaced by “public transit vehicles,” requiring RTD to modify its inspection and enforcement processes to eliminate fare inspections on rail platforms and allowing inspections to occur only on board vehicles. New laws and changes to codes and/or ordinances may also require updates to training, poli- cies, and procedures or prompt agencies to codify existing authorities, practices, and protocols. After the California Act to Save Lives became effective on Jan. 1, 2020, revising the state’s legal standard governing the use of force, law enforcement agencies had to incorporate the changes into their policies and procedures and provide training for sworn peace officers on the new standards. Although the act applies only to California sworn peace officers, it is an important consideration when armed security is used (such as the armed, contracted security officers who accompany MTS code compliance inspectors for fare enforcement). Finally, court decisions, including trial cases, may also have an impact on policies and pro- cedures. Although trial judge rulings do not result in binding precedent for subsequent cases, transit agencies may update their policies and procedures in response to such rulings. For example, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA, Ohio) modified its fare enforce- ment procedures and discontinued POP inspections as a result of City of Cleveland v. Ronnie Williams (2017), and TriMet revised its ordinances to clarify and address the unmet conditions

Steps to Develop and Implement a Fare Enforcement Program C-7   for a valid administrative search identified in the trial judge’s ruling for State of Oregon v. Rosa Giovanna Valderrama (2018). Step 4: Define Fare Evasion Transit agencies have taken different approaches to defining what constitutes fare evasion. While some transit agencies define fare evasion generally as failure to pay a fare or provide POP, others define specific types of fare evasion and in some instances assess different penalties based on the type of fare evasion. Commonly defined types of fare evasion include failure to pay the fare, payment of less than the correct fare (e.g., short fare on a bus), failure to provide POP, illegal entry to a station (e.g., turnstile jumping) or fare-paid area, use of a discount/concession fare without meeting the qualifications or without proof of eligibility, and use of stolen or counterfeit fare media. In general, it is easier to define fare evasion for passengers traveling with “no ticket” than for those without a “valid ticket.” Several factors can influence whether a ticket is “valid,” including whether an active pass or transfer has been validated for each boarding, whether a transfer has Step 3: Understand legal authority and requirements and/or necessary legislative or governing board policy changes ● Under current laws, is fare evasion considered a criminal or civil violation? Does the transit agency have the authority to issue administrative citations? ● Who has the authority to conduct fare enforcement? Are they able to request POP or must they observe someone evade? Are they able to cite an individual for fare evasion or only request POP? ● Are there additional requirements or constraints imposed by laws, codes, ordinances, etc., that impact the conduct of fare enforcement? ● For the desired fare enforcement program, what changes would need to be made? Who needs to make the changes? Relevant sections of the report: ● Section 3.7, Legislating and Adjudicating Fare Evasion Step 4: Define fare evasion ● What should be defined as fare evasion? ● Should the types of fare evasion be codified in policy, tariff, code of conduct, or ordinance? Should different types of fare evasion be treated differently (e.g., zero tolerance, higher penalty, criminal vs. civil citation, warning vs. citation)? ● What are the implications of a passenger failing to validate an active pass or transfer (e.g., revenue sharing, pass pricing, ridership data collection)? Should the individual be subject to citation? ● Should the use of someone else’s pass constitute fare evasion? Or should passes be transferable? ● Should passengers who have forgotten their ticket or proof of eligibility be cited? Should there be a process for an individual to present proof of eligibility or valid fare within some time frame (e.g., 72 hours)? Relevant sections of the report: ● Section 3.1.1, Defining Fare Evasion ● Section 3.3.2.3, Standard Operating Procedures (subsection on fare enforcement discretion)

C-8 Measuring and Managing Fare Evasion expired after a passenger boarded the vehicle but before fare inspection, and whether a passen- ger activated their mobile ticket upon seeing fare enforcement, or whether a fare was paid with someone else’s transit benefit program pass or stored value. Understanding the implications of instances like these for ridership data collection, service planning, revenue sharing, and pass pricing is critical in determining what constitutes fare evasion. Step 5: Establish Fare Evasion Penalties As noted earlier, the types of penalties that a transit agency can assess for fare evasion are established by laws, codes, and/or ordinances approved at the state/provincial, local municipal/ county, or transit agency governing board level. Historically, fare evasion has been considered a criminal violation, often as a criminal infraction or misdemeanor, which is handled through the court system. Often, any fines collected are kept by the courts, although in some instances, revenues from fines paid for fare evasion violations are shared with the transit agency. If this fine revenue is not shared with the transit agency (or a large share of fines are unpaid), a transit agency may choose to focus on collecting fare revenue instead, by having the passenger purchase a fare rather than issuing a citation. There has been increasing interest in decriminalizing fare evasion as a way to respond to con- cerns about the effects of onerous criminal penalties and interactions with the court system on those who are most affected by them, including individuals experiencing poverty, homelessness, housing instability, unemployment, and mental illness. There has also been a push to decrimi- nalize fare evasion given the low priority district attorneys place on prosecuting fare evasion. Decriminalizing fare evasion, however, can have undesirable effects on compliance and cooper- ation because the consequences associated with civil or administrative citations are less serious. In some cases, fare evasion that has been “decriminalized” is treated as a civil violation that is still handled through the courts, while in other cases it is handled as an administrative violation either in-house by the transit agency (e.g., LA Metro’s Transit Court) or by a citation processing company [e.g., Bay Area Rapid Transit’s (BART, San Francisco Bay Area, CA) use of a con- tractor]. Some agencies use a hybrid model, with administrative processes that allow individuals to resolve citations directly with the transit agency within a set period (e.g., 90 or 120 days) before unresolved citations are transmitted to the court system (e.g., MTS and TriMet diversion programs). Part of the impetus for bringing the resolution process in-house is to minimize court interac- tions over a fare evasion violation. Offering an option to resolve a citation outside of the court system has also proven to be an effective de-escalation strategy as fare enforcement personnel can inform individuals about non-court resolution options. It can also offer an opportunity to assess a lower fine for early resolution. The penalties for fare evasion vary. For citations handled through courts, the fine amounts are generally set by the court and also include court fees. For administrative citations and cita- tions that can be resolved directly with the transit agency before being transmitted to the court system, transit agencies have control over the fines. In these instances, transit agencies can also define alternative resolution options, such as community service, enrollment in a discount/ concession fare program (e.g., a low-income program) instead of paying a fine, and decreased fines for attending transit school. For repeat fare evaders, some transit agencies have established schedules for escalating pen- alties. These may include increased fine amounts [e.g., the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA, Boston, MA), Interurban Transit Partnership (The Rapid, Grand Rapids, MI,

Steps to Develop and Implement a Fare Enforcement Program C-9   and Valley Metro)] and/or suspension from service (e.g., Metro Transit, RTD, Valley Metro). Implementing such a program requires a database that tracks prior citations so that the proper penalty can be assessed at the time of the offense. Smaller transit agencies without access to a database in the field (e.g., The Rapid) may opt to mail warnings and citations after looking up an individual in the database at the end of each shift. For unpaid fines, there may be mechanisms to compel payment, including the use of collec- tion agencies. The options vary depending on state/province, but they may include the inability to renew a driver’s license (e.g., RTD) or car insurance [e.g., the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TransLink, Vancouver, BC)], garnished wages, and/or a lien on tax refunds [e.g., BART, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA, CA)]. How- ever, there are two challenges to implementing these options: the ability to confirm the identity of the individual cited, particularly when fare evaders are not required to provide identification, and technology barriers to effective implementation (e.g., an update to a state computerized system that no longer supports data integration). Step 6: Designate Personnel Responsible for Fare Enforcement Staffing for fare enforcement varies by agency, but increasingly transit agencies are using civilian personnel rather than sworn peace officers (e.g., police officers, sheriff’s deputies). A sig- nificant advantage of using civilians for fare enforcement is that civilian personnel may provide fare enforcement at a lower cost as well as offer a more customer-focused approach. The type of personnel that can be used by an agency is often established by the state/provincial code. Step 5: Establish fare evasion penalties ● Should fare evasion be subject to criminal, civil, or administrative citations? What legislative changes may be required? ● Should different types of fare evasion have different penalties? Should more serious violations (e.g., fraud) be considered criminal violations, while other types of violations (e.g., failure to provide POP) be considered civil violations? ● Does a transit agency have the authority to issue an administrative citation and/or the capacity to handle administrative resolution in-house? ● What is the appropriate fine amount? Should the associated fines for fare evasion vary and/or be proportional to the type of fare evasion? ● What are the options to encourage early payment of a citation (e.g., reduced fine amount, resolution directly with the transit agency before transmittal to the court system)? ● Should there be alternative non-monetary resolution options (e.g., community service, transit school, enrollment in discount/concession fare program)? ● Should penalties escalate for repeat fare evaders? ● Should repeat fare evaders be suspended from service? ● What options are there to compel individuals to pay unpaid citations? ● Are there regulations that influence how juveniles are cited compared to adults? Relevant sections of the report: ● Section 3.7.2, Fare Evasion Penalties ● Section 3.7.3, Decriminalization of Fare Evasion

C-10 Measuring and Managing Fare Evasion In general, fare enforcement is not a primary focus for sworn peace officers. The use of peace officers for fare enforcement is further complicated by recent challenges to the constitutionality of POP inspections by police, brought under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. For several U.S. transit agencies using peace officers in their fare enforcement programs [e.g., MBTA, New York City Transit (NYCT, NY)], the peace officers are not able to request POP and are only able to cite an indi- vidual for fare evasion when they observe the evasion occurring. However, there are some transit agencies (e.g., Metro Transit) that use transit police who can request POP as part of their fare inspection responsibilities. Fare enforcement may be performed by agency employees and/or contracted personnel. Con- tractual arrangements are most commonly with local law enforcement agencies and/or with private security firms. Labor agreements may impact the ability to use contracted personnel. Personnel responsibilities also influence hiring. While some transit agencies require prior law enforcement experience (e.g., contracted security at RTD and TriMet), an agency should con- sider how hiring requirements may affect the applicant pool. As transit agencies have increased their focus on customer service, some agencies [e.g., the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC, ON)] have reevaluated requirements for new hires. Rather than requiring law enforcement experience, it may be worthwhile to consider job responsibilities and relevant competencies and experience that are important for success. It is also important to consider potential barriers to employment (e.g., required completion of specific training before consideration). A transit agency will also need to determine whether personnel will be in uniform and what the uniform will look like. Uniformed personnel can provide a visible presence and increase compliance, while the use of non-uniformed or “plainclothes” personnel can result in a more accurate assessment of fare evasion. At the same time, a uniform’s appearance may be intimi- dating for some passengers. Although uniforms help indicate authority, some transit agencies [e.g., SFMTA, Sound Transit (Seattle, WA), TTC] have considered ways to redesign their uni- forms to make fare enforcement personnel more approachable in their customer service roles and to distinguish them from other types of law enforcement, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel. The protective and defensive equipment carried by fare enforcement personnel can vary sig- nificantly and may vary by personnel type. Some transit agencies use armed police officers or contracted security personnel, some provide defensive equipment (e.g., baton, handcuffs, flex cuffs, pepper spray) but do not arm personnel, and others provide no defensive equipment and instead focus on training personnel on de-escalation techniques. Similarly, some transit agencies require personnel to wear protective vests, some allow vests but do not require them, and others do not allow vests. Personnel may also carry life-safety equipment [e.g., tourniquet, NARCAN (naloxone hydrochloride)]. When determining what equipment is appropriate, a transit agency should consider that although protective and defensive equipment can help protect personnel, passengers may be sensitive to a militaristic appearance. Transit agencies may also consider the use of body cameras. For example, MTS code compli- ance officers and accompanying security officers all wear body cameras to increase account- ability. All BART police officers and fare inspectors, as well as community service officers and ambassadors who are not involved in fare enforcement, wear body cameras per BART Police Department Policy 451. When evaluating the implementation of body cameras, transit agencies should consider the implications of any state laws regarding how to use, store, retain, transmit, download, or review body camera footage. Determining the training necessary for success is another critical personnel consideration. Training requirements for fare enforcement depend on the type of personnel assigned to fare

Steps to Develop and Implement a Fare Enforcement Program C-11   enforcement. Basic training requirements as well as continuing, refresher, and recertification training needs are different for sworn peace officers and civilian personnel. Basic training typi- cally has two main components: classroom and in-the-field training. The length and types of training vary based on the responsibilities of the personnel. Civilian fare inspector training is evolving, particularly as transit agencies move to expand their inspectors’ skills in recog- nition of some of the challenges that come with the job and changes that are being made to it. Transit agencies also work with outside organizations to conduct specialized training (e.g., interacting with youth, individuals experiencing mental health issues, and people experiencing homelessness). In addition to designated fare enforcement personnel, other agency staff members may have roles in fare enforcement as part of their other responsibilities. This is particularly true of opera- tors, security personnel, station agents, customer service agents, and transit ambassadors. When developing a fare enforcement program, an agency should clearly define the roles and responsi- bilities of all staff potentially involved in fare collection and enforcement. Step 7: Identify Technology and Capital Investments to Assist with Fare Enforcement Technology and capital investments can help increase the efficiency of personnel and effective- ness of a fare enforcement program and provide alternatives when developing a fare enforcement program. Handheld devices or smartphones with appropriate apps can assist personnel in conducting fare enforcement, whether to check fare media, verify ID by swiping or scanning, record and track warning or citation information, access a database of repeat offenders, and/or enter and print warnings or citations. Some transit agencies (e.g., LA Metro) are also able to use their handhelds to deduct the fare from a smart card. The creation of a database of prior warnings and citations can help in collecting data to analyze fare evasion trends and in identifying repeat fare evaders to implement a warning-first policy and/or impose escalating fare evasion penalties for repeat offenses. Capital investments to restrict access, such as station hardening and gating, can reduce fare evasion. Installing gate sensors and automatic passenger counters (APCs) can help identify potential discrepancies between ridership and fares paid at certain locations when those data Step 6: Designate personnel responsible for fare enforcement ● Who should be primarily responsible for fare enforcement? What changes in laws or codes may be required to grant these personnel authority to conduct fare enforcement? ● What other personnel may have a role in fare enforcement? How should responsibilities be delineated among different personnel? ● What should the hiring requirements be and how may they influence the applicant pool? Do they pose barriers to more inclusive hiring? ● Should fare enforcement be conducted in uniform? What should uniforms look like? ● What defensive, protective, and life-saving equipment should personnel carry? ● What training should be required? What refresher training should occur and how frequently? Relevant sections of the report: ● Section 3.3.1, Fare Enforcement Personnel

C-12 Measuring and Managing Fare Evasion are compared against fare collection (e.g., farebox key) data. Other capital investments, such as the installation of cameras, video analytic software, and public address systems, can also help respond to and address fare evasion and other nuisance behavior. The use of on-vehicle, plat- form, and body cameras can help in reviewing complaints and investigating appeals. Step 8: Develop a Deployment Plan and Standard Operating Procedures Inspection deployment strategies enable transit agencies to address and minimize fare eva- sion. Factors that influence the development of a deployment plan include the size and design of the transit network to be inspected, hours of operation, ridership levels and peak load points, inspection level goals, staffing levels, and financial resources. Developing a deployment plan for a limited number of light rail or BRT lines, for example, is simpler than developing a systemwide plan for all bus and rail modes. Transit agencies use two main deployment strategies for fare enforcement: systemwide patrols and focused inspections. Systemwide patrols deploy personnel to cover the entire system to pro- vide the same probability of inspection, while focused inspections deploy personnel based on peak periods, problem areas, and/or ridership. A transit agency may use a combination of these and also conduct sweeps by deploying multiple teams to a specific assignment. Although transit agencies use data to help inform and monitor the effectiveness of their fare enforcement pro- grams, many agencies are reducing their use of these data to minimize the potential for targeting specific, potentially vulnerable, populations. Fare enforcement scheduling decisions can impact both the effectiveness and the efficiency of fare enforcement activities. Fare enforcement must be scheduled to deploy fare enforcement staff spatially and temporally. Fare enforcement personnel may be deployed spatially to a zone/ sector, specific line, segment of a line, an intersection of lines, or a peak load point. In general, most personnel have discretion on how they move through their assigned area. However, stan- dard operating procedures establish guidelines and expectations, and personnel regularly check in with their supervisors. Temporally, fare enforcement is often focused during peak periods on weekdays when ridership is highest, but transit agencies may also try to provide coverage to establish an expectation that passengers may be inspected during all operating hours. Inspec- tions may occur on board a vehicle, on a platform, or within the fare-paid area of a station or stop. The locations where transit agencies can conduct fare enforcement may be defined by codes and/or ordinances. Step 7: Identify technology and capital investments to assist with fare enforcement ● How could handheld devices be used to assist fare enforcement? What are the software and/or hardware investments? ● Could a database be created to track warnings and citations? How would the database be populated and accessed? Could it be accessed and updated in the field? ● What capital investments (e.g., station hardening, gating) could be implemented to restrict access to fare-paid areas? ● What other capital investments (e.g., gate sensors, APCs, cameras, public address systems) could be used to identify and help address fare evasion? Relevant sections of the report: ● Section 3.12, Capital Infrastructure to Reduce Fare Evasion ● Section 3.13, New Fare Collection Technologies and Fare Enforcement

Steps to Develop and Implement a Fare Enforcement Program C-13   Operating environments may make inspections difficult in some instances. For example, pas- senger loads during peak periods may make it difficult to conduct inspections on board. It may also be difficult to conduct inspections on platforms without sufficient personnel to stop pas- sengers from escaping or eluding fare inspection. Conducting off-board fare enforcement can also be difficult if there is not a dedicated, clearly identified fare-paid platform. Standard operating procedures that establish inspection processes are key to effective and consistent inspection processes. An increasing number of agencies are implementing 100% inspections to minimize the potential and perception of bias and profiling. With 100% inspec- tions, every passenger in a vehicle, on a train, or at a location (e.g., a platform or a station) is asked to show POP. Fare enforcement personnel systematically conduct the inspections so they do not miss any passengers. Standard operating procedures and/or ordinances adopted at the local municipal/county or transit agency governing board level may also provide guidance on the level of discretion fare enforcement personnel have for issuing warnings versus citations. These guidelines establish consistency, provide transparency into the decision-making process, and minimize the potential abuse of discretion. Finally, standard operating procedures, inspection processes, personnel types and responsibili- ties, and available staffing all influence personnel deployment. Fare enforcement personnel are often deployed in teams of two or three to increase efficiency and for safety reasons. For example, NYCT fare inspectors are deployed in teams of three on Select Bus Service (SBS) routes, which enables one fare inspector to enter each door and complete inspections of an entire SBS three- door articulated bus in less than a minute, minimizing operational delays. Deploying personnel in teams can be especially important for the safety of civilian personnel who do not carry defensive equipment. However, to increase coverage, some agencies deploy personnel alone (e.g., SacRT). They may also be deployed as a pair where they can board separate cars of a train or where one Step 8: Develop a deployment plan and standard operating procedures ● What is a sufficient fare inspection level to meet fare evasion targets? Is there sufficient staffing to meet this inspection level? ● Should fare enforcement be deployed systemwide or focused on the basis of peak periods, problem areas, and/or ridership? Should special sweeps be conducted in combination with regular fare enforcement? ● How should fare enforcement be assigned spatially and temporally? How should data be used to inform deployment and scheduling? ● Where should fare enforcement be conducted (e.g., on board the vehicle, on the platform, at fare gates)? What operational, staffing, and capital investments are required to conduct fare enforcement there? What law or code changes may be required? ● What should the standard operating procedures be for conducting fare enforcement? How can standard operating procedures minimize bias and perception of bias? ● What level of discretion should fare enforcement have for warning or citing a fare evader? ● How can personnel be deployed to maximize efficiency and safety? Relevant sections of the report: ● Section 3.3.2, Deployment Strategies and Locations ● Section 3.6, Fare Inspection Levels

C-14 Measuring and Managing Fare Evasion may inspect fares while the other performs security responsibilities nearby. For example, RTD deploys its armed transit security officers in pairs within a zone where one transit security officer conducts fare inspections on board while the other transit security officer patrols the platform, station area, and park-and-ride facilities. If either transit security officer requires assistance, the other is nearby to provide support. Step 9: Establish Processes and Data Collection Necessary for Oversight Oversight is important to establish accountability and transparency. Oversight begins with defining the goals, objectives, and performance targets, and using them to allocate resources and measure performance. Analyzing performance results provides an opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of the program and determine how well allocated resources are achieving the program’s goals, objectives, and performance targets. Reporting performance results to management and the public (e.g., through board or agency reports) can improve program understanding and transparency. Based on the results of an analysis, a transit agency can identify and recommend program changes and revise perfor- mance activities and targets. Quality assurance and performance audits can also provide oppor- tunities to conduct in-depth, independent reviews of a fare enforcement program and provide recommendations for improvements. Establishing complaint review and appeal processes is also important to ensure account- ability. These processes may be conducted by the department responsible for fare enforcement or by another department to minimize potential conflicts of interest, especially concerning complaint reviews. Transit agencies are also exploring ways to minimize barriers to submitting complaints. The TTC simplified its complaint process by creating a Unit Complaints Office to handle complaints against fare inspectors and transit special constables and strengthened the independence of the complaint investigation process. Step 9: Establish processes and data collection necessary for oversight ● How can the efficacy and performance of the fare enforcement program be measured? ● What data should be collected and analyzed (e.g., number of inspections, warnings, citations; demographics; location)? ● How can the data be recorded and compiled to enable analysis? ● What are the requirements for reporting? How frequently should the transit agency report and to whom? ● Should fare surveys or audits of fare evasion rates be conducted to supplement inspection/citation data? How frequently should these be conducted? ● For an existing program, is there a need for an independent review or audit? ● How should the complaint review and appeal process be handled? Should these complaints be handled outside of the department responsible for fare enforcement? Relevant sections of the report: ● Section 3.4, Fare Enforcement Program Management and Oversight ● Section 3.5, Methods for Measuring Fare Evasion ● Section 3.10.3, Data Challenges in Assessing and Addressing Discrimination

Steps to Develop and Implement a Fare Enforcement Program C-15   Step 10: Engage the Community Community engagement in the development of a fare enforcement program can garner public input and build community trust and legitimacy. It can also help to identify potential sensitivi- ties and challenges that may be encountered during fare enforcement due to passenger disabili- ties, differences in social, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds, or English language proficiency. MBTA has been conducting outreach as it plans to implement the Fare Transformation Plan, which will involve migration to a POP environment systemwide and discontinuation of cash fares on board. Agency staff has engaged community partners throughout the process, from the drafting of new legislation governing who can conduct fare enforcement to the details regarding ticket vending machines (TVMs) and retail network coverage. MBTA has also developed some working and advisory groups specifically designed to incorporate public feedback on system design and implementation. Engaging the public can also assist in reviewing and revising existing fare enforcement pro- grams to be responsive to issues identified by the community. The TTC recently created a Com- munity Engagement Unit to increase communication and public education and plans to consult the public on revisions to fare enforcement procedures, policies, uniforms, etc. In addition to online and onboard surveys, Sound Transit conducted “listening sessions” in locations meant to facilitate attendance from marginalized communities that might not respond to the survey efforts and to guide internal work group conversations about future fare enforcement policies. King County Metro (Seattle, WA) and TriMet engaged long-standing community partners, advocacy groups, and agency advisory committees as they revised their citation resolution pro- cesses. Through engaging the communities that they serve, the transit agencies were able to gain insight into the perspectives of different communities, including people of color, low-income, homeless, immigrants, refugees, and other vulnerable and/or marginalized populations. Step 10: Engage the community ● With whom should the transit agency engage as it develops or reviews its fare enforcement program? ● How can the community and stakeholders, including community partners and advocacy groups, be engaged and help inform the development or review of a fare enforcement program? ● What methods are effective for engaging the community? ● How will input and feedback be incorporated into the review and development process? Relevant sections of the report: ● Section 3.4.2.4, Customer and Stakeholder Feedback ● Section 3.8.2.1, Customer Education Through Public Engagement Efforts Step 11: Define the Role of the Transit Agency and Fare Enforcement Program in Addressing Social Issues Transit agencies are increasingly sensitive to individuals experiencing poverty, homelessness, housing instability, unemployment, and mental illness. The role of a transit agency in addressing social issues is evolving and varies. It can be dependent on the unique needs of a region and the communities served, and the financial capacity of the transit agency to assist. Transit agencies are increasingly partnering with community organizations and social service agencies to help address underlying issues that affect fare enforcement and security and connect customers with services they may need. For example, as part of LA Metro’s Transit Homeless

C-16 Measuring and Managing Fare Evasion Action Plan, Metro coordinates with homeless and mental health outreach teams from local police departments and contracts with the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services to staff Metro’s community outreach teams. LA Metro also works with several organizations that assist individuals experiencing homelessness or with serious mental illnesses. With the assistance of these organizations, Metro provides interdisciplinary outreach teams, including health and mental health practitioners and case workers who work in conjunction with Metro’s fare compliance officers, to contact individuals needing services who are encountered on the transit system. Other transit agencies (King County Metro, SacRT) are also exploring using a case management approach to work with repeat fare evaders to help them pay fares, enroll in low-income fare programs, and access needed resources. Transit agencies are responding to public sensitivities to potential systemic bias and discrimi- nation using standard operating procedures and updating training curricula. There is a growing focus on providing anti-bias training to fare enforcement personnel that helps in understanding unconscious bias. Agencies are also introducing training on how to better interact with diverse populations and assist vulnerable populations, including people experiencing homelessness, drug addiction, and/or mental health disorders, or other vulnerable populations, including youth and persons living with disabilities. Several agencies are partnering with organizations to provide this specialized training. For example, WMATA and King County Metro are partner- ing with Strategies for Youth to help personnel connect better with the community and learn strategies for interacting effectively with youth. Step 12: Consider How Fare Policy Influences Fare Evasion Behavior and Identify Strategies to Mitigate Unintentional Evasion In addition to providing direct deterrents to fare evasion, such as fare enforcement and cita- tions/penalties, transit agencies may use fare policies to help reduce unintentional fare evasion. Although operators are sometimes available to explain fare policies when they are involved in fare collection, passengers may not always have opportunities to interact with someone who can explain fare payment options when riding transit. As such, in developing a fare enforce- ment program, an agency should review fare policies and provide opportunities to simplify or Step 11: Define the role of the transit agency and fare enforcement program in addressing social issues ● What is the transit agency’s and the fare enforcement program’s role in addressing underlying social issues? ● What opportunities are there for partnerships with community organizations and social service agencies to help address underlying issues? ● How can the transit agency help connect individuals with social service agencies and community organizations providing resources? ● How can transit agencies revise their standard operating procedures to address potential systemic bias and discrimination? ● How can transit agencies revise their fare enforcement training programs to reduce bias and improve interactions with diverse populations and vulnerable populations? Can the agency engage with outside organizations to support its training program? Relevant sections of the report: ● Section 3.3.1.4, Fare Enforcement Training ● Section 3.3.2.3, Standard Operating Procedures ● Section 3.10, Discrimination in Fare Enforcement ● Section 3.11, Transit’s Role in Assisting Vulnerable Populations

Steps to Develop and Implement a Fare Enforcement Program C-17   Step 12: Consider how fare policy influences fare evasion behavior and identify strategies to mitigate unintentional evasion ● Is the current fare policy easy for passengers to understand? Are there ways to simplify fare payment to make it easier to understand and minimize unintentional fare evasion? ● Are there ways to improve communication with passengers on the appropriate fare and how to pay, including discount/concession fare requirements? ● What improvements should be made to customer education materials, including outreach, websites, signage, and translations? ● Does the inability to afford the fare influence fare-evading behavior? Are there ways to address this affordability issue by creating a new fare program or connecting individuals with organizations/agencies to obtain a fare? Relevant sections of the report: ● Section 3.8.1, Fare Simplification, Passes, and Affordability ● Section 3.8.2.2, Educational Campaigns and Strategies improve communication on how to pay the appropriate fare. Educational campaigns can also help passengers and the public understand the importance of paying fares and any changes in the fare enforcement program. For ongoing issues with fare evasion by lower-income passengers, transit agencies may also want to consider whether the inability to afford the fare influences fare evasion behavior. Solu- tions to these issues may include developing a new fare program for low-income passengers or coordinating with community organizations or social service agencies to connect individuals with an organization/agency that can provide fares for these individuals. For example, King County Metro recently implemented a free-fare program for very low-income or no-income passengers in addition to its discounted fare program for low-income passengers.

Appendix A-142 Table A-5. TTC By-law No. 1 Part I Notice Offences and Fine Schedule Section Part I Offense Set Fine Amount Admin Fee + Victim Surcharge Total Payable 2.1 Refuse to pay fare (e.g., entering a paid area (station or vehicle) and not paying or declining to pay when asked) $195 $40 $235 2.2a Alter fare media (e.g., altered transfer to appear valid, ‘splitting’ a ticket) $345 $80 $425 2.2b Travel with altered fare media (e.g., altered transfer to appear valid, ‘splitting’ a ticket) $345 $80 $425 2.2c Alter identification card (e.g., altered TTC photo ID to appear valid) $345 $80 $425 2.2d Travel with altered identification (e.g., fake ID) $345 $80 $425 2.3a Invalid fare media (e.g., expired transfer, old (already used) ticket, use of child PRESTO by adult) $345 $80 $425 2.3b Failure to comply with conditions of use of fare media (e.g., no TTC photo ID for student fare) $195 $40 $235 2.4a Invalid identification card (e.g., expired TTC photo ID) $195 $40 $235 2.4b Failure to comply with conditions of use identification card (e.g., not following any conditions of use on the TTC photo ID) $195 $40 $235 2.6 Failure to surrender fare media or identification card (e.g., not providing fare media, TTC photo ID, or proof of payment) $345 $80 $425 2.12 Improper use of transfer (e.g., not following conditions of use for transfer) $195 $40 $235 3.3 Enter or exit transit system through non-designated entrance or exit (e.g., walk in illegally through bus bay) $345 $80 $425 3.13a Failure to comply with posted sign (e.g., not having proof of payment on a POP service, such as streetcar that has a POP decal on all doors) $195 $40 $235 In 2019, 20,764 tickets were filed with the courts, resulting in 17,993 cases in which a fine was imposed. The $235 fine is used most frequently for tickets. More than 80 percent of the tickets issued in 2019 were attributed to two offenses: ● 3.13a Failure to Comply with Posted Sign (58 percent of tickets) ● 2.3b Failure to Comply with Conditions of Use of Fare Media (25 percent of tickets) Misuse of a Child PRESTO card accounted for 13 percent of the fare evasion matters within the court system in 2019. While there is not a specific offence for the misuse of a Child PRESTO card, 2.3a Invalid Fare Media is commonly used to issue a ticket for this type of fare evasion. Defendants for Part I Notices are given the option to exercise one of three options regarding their charge, through the City of Toronto: ● Pay Full Fine: Fine paid, individual pleads guilty, matter concluded.

Appendix A-143 ● Early Resolution: One-on-one meeting with the TTC prosecutor, typically ending with a reduced fine (individual pleads guilty) or the option to proceed to trial at a later date. ● Trial: Issuing officer (fare inspector or special constable) and defendant are required to attend for an examination of the evidence in front of the justice of the peace. While the TTC does not have any alternative resolution options, the justice of the peace can impose a fine lower than the minimum amount or even suspend the sentence if the defendant agrees to plead guilty. Suspended sentences are often based on the defendant’s socioeconomic circumstance, mental health, effects on the defendant, etc. Defendants may be allowed to perform a period of probation rather than paying a fine or being offered a payment plan. If the individual does not exercise one of the options within 15 days of receiving the notice, they will be deemed not to dispute the charge and the court may enter a conviction against them. If a trial has been requested by the defendant, the court services coordinator will receive a “Notice of Trial” from the City of Toronto (the turnaround time is typically three to five months from the offence date, but will fluctuate depending on volume). Notices of trial indicate the date/time/location of the trial, provincial offences officer in charge (fare inspector or special constable), defendant information, offence information, etc. Part III Summons Although less commonly used for fare evasion than Part I Notices, an individual can be issued a Provincial Offences Act Part III, which is a summons to appear, with no set fine amount. If found guilty, the amount of the fine to be paid and/or any conditions are determined by the justice of the peace overseeing the trial. For Part III fare evasion charges, defendants have the option to conclude the case on the first appearance date with a guilty plea and a $400 CAD fine. For a reduced fine, defendants have the option to return to court at a later date to pay a fine of $300 CAD ($200 CAD in restitution made payable to the TTC and $100 CAD to be collected by the City of Toronto). The maximum fine for Part III Summons is up to $5,000 CAD and/or a probation order for a term of not more than two years, with conditions. On average, Part III fines levied are approximately $400 CAD, including $200 CAD in restitution payable to the TTC. Fines have been levied as low as $25 CAD or as high as $1,200 CAD. A probation order (e.g., suspension from service) can only be implemented through judicial process. Suspension from service is generally reserved for more serious criminal offences, not fare evasion. Conditions for suspension may vary, including but not limited to “not to be found” at a particular station, on a particular bus route, etc. If the defendant breaches the probation order terms, they may be charged with a breach of probation, which upon conviction may result in incarceration of up to 30 days per charge. Criminal Charges Individuals found to be intentionally committing fare evasion through fraudulent means may be charged with fraud or obtaining transportation by fraud as per the Criminal Code of Canada. The crime is codified in Section 393 (3) of the criminal code which reads: “Everyone who, by any false pretense or fraud, unlawfully obtains transportation by land, water or air is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.” The offence carries a maximum penalty of up to six months in jail and a criminal record. As