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.

198 Fare enforcement is a complex topic that requires a multidisciplinary approach. During the work for TCRP A-45, a number of interrelated topics emerged. Fare enforcement programs are multifaceted, spanning functions across a transit agency that include finance, security, law enforcement, operations, customer relations, technology, equipment maintenance, information systems, marketing and communications, civil rights, auditing, and legal issues, 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, and execution of a multidisciplinary program. At a high level, developing a fare enforcement program is about determining the legal authority needed to conduct fare enforcement, which includes determining the type of personnel that can be used, where fares can be enforced, what penalties can be assessed, and whether legisla- tive changes are required. It is also about deploying personnel effectively, efficiently, and productively. Monitoring fare evasion rates and types and the locations of fare evasion is integral to under- standing fare evasion and managing it effectively. This requires defining fare evasion, establish- ing performance indicators, and monitoring performance and fare evasion trends. Consistent data collection methodologies are needed to measure and track accurate fare evasion rates and patterns. Data can also be valuable in deploying and scheduling resources to manage fare eva- sion and are fundamental to effective program management and oversight. Data can also help identify potential racial/ethnic disparities in fare enforcement outcomes. While fare inspection data may be sufficient for most purposes, a survey or audit may provide an independent, objec- tive review of a program and more accurate measurement of fare evasion rates. Given the direct impact on passengers and the importance of promoting a fare-compliant culture, fare enforcement touches on many other areas beyond deployment of personnel. Transit agencies should understand the factors that influence fare evasion and how an agency can use different tools, such as fare policy, customer engagement and education, and capital investments such as gating and station-hardening to deter fare evasion and promote a fare-compliant culture. They should also consider how fare enforcement personnel interact with customers and the outcomes of the fare enforcement program on the diverse populations served. Transit agencies serve a broad cross-section of the population. Some of the communities served have experienced and continue to deal with systemic bias and discrimination. During the research for this report, it was clear that transit agencies are sensitive to the outcomes of their fare enforcement programs and concerned about potential inequities and negative impacts of fare enforcement on the individuals and communities they serve. Accordingly, they are imple- menting initiatives to address potential inequities and discrimination. Increasing numbers of transit agencies are decriminalizing fare evasion to minimize its long-term consequences and are C H A P T E R 4 Conclusions and Suggested Research

Conclusions and Suggested Research 199   increasingly focusing on promoting compliance by educating instead of penalizing fare evaders. These agencies are responding to potential systemic bias and discrimination by • Updating training curricula to provide antibias training that helps in understanding unconscious bias and also training on how to better interact with diverse populations and assist vulnerable populations, • Reviewing and establishing systematic standard operating procedures to minimize potential for discrimination, and • Measuring fare evasion and the impacts of fare enforcement programs on different popu- lations to identify potential racial/ethnic disparities. Transit agencies are partnering with community organizations and social service agencies to address underlying social issues; working with these partners to connect individuals with resources, such as housing and other services; and developing affordable fare programs to extend discounted/concession fares to low-income passengers or free fares to very low-income passengers. Transit agencies are also building trust by increasing transparency through regular reporting on the performance of fare enforcement programs; engaging passengers, the public, and other stakeholders through rider and online surveys, listening sessions, and work groups; and increas- ing hiring diversity by reviewing hiring requirements, conducting ongoing community outreach about the roles and responsibilities of fare enforcement, and increasing diversity of hiring panels. These multidisciplinary programs require coordination and engagement with various depart- ments in the agency as well as passengers, the public, and the diverse communities served. Internal and external work groups can provide valuable insights for developing, revising, and managing a transit agency’s fare enforcement program. 4.1 Areas for Future Research As the research on measuring and managing fare evasion was conducted, several topics were identified that merit further research. Some topics are outcomes of underlying social issues, sensitivity of specific populations to police encounters, and challenges facing individuals expe- riencing poverty, homelessness, housing instability, unemployment, or mental illness. There is also interest in free fare programs and modernization of fare collection systems, benchmarking of fare enforcement data, transitions to systemwide all-door boarding with proof of payment, and elimination of onboard cash acceptance. 4.1.1 Policing of Transit Systems Phone surveys for TCRP A-45 were initiated in February 2020, and phone surveys and follow-up conversations with transit agencies extended into September 2020. During these conversations, transit agency staff expressed evolving thoughts on the role of police, security, and fare enforcement in transit and how to respond to current events. There was increased awareness of police shootings and deaths of persons of color in police custody, the protests following the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, and other recent killings of persons of color. In addition to ongoing conversations within transit agencies on the appropriateness of the use of police and/or armed security, the research identified three studies that may provide a starting point for further research on the role of policing, including transit and fare enforce- ment, and the outcomes of policing different populations: • In addition to developing its Anti-Racism Strategy, TTC recently initiated a Racial Equity Impact Assessment of its revenue protection and special constable activities. This work is being led independently by experts from the University of Toronto with support from TTC’s

200 Measuring and Managing Fare Evasion Diversity and Human Rights staff. It includes reviewing historical enforcement data and developing a framework for data collection and retention and the use of disaggregated race/ ethnicity data. The University of Toronto team will be conducting information sessions, focus groups, public town halls, and surveys to enable the public and community groups to share their experiences with special constables and fare inspectors. • In July 2020, TriMet initiated a study to explore national best practices for transit security and is conducting extensive community-wide listening sessions in an effort to reimagine public safety on transit. As part of this process, TriMet redirected $1.8 million in police contracts and additional funding to explore new community-based public safety services and plans to pilot mobile crisis intervention teams for mental and behavioral health issues. • Also in July 2020, TCRP released a request for proposals to research and draft a report on policing and public transportation under TCRP Project J-05, “Legal Aspects of Transit and Intermodal Transportation Programs” (https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay. asp?ProjectID=1171). The research study will explore the policing of public transportation systems, including the applicable constitutionality issues, discrimination/profiling, dealing with people experiencing homelessness, and fare enforcement. 4.1.2 Addressing Homelessness and Other Social Issues on Transit Transit agencies are continuing to define their roles and responsibilities in addressing social issues that have a direct impact on fare evasion and compliance. Several transit agencies are exploring new initiatives to respond to and address underlying issues related to individuals experiencing poverty, homelessness, housing instability, unemployment, and mental illness. Some agencies (LA Metro, MTS) have undertaken initiatives since the publication of TCRP Synthesis 121 (Boyle 2016). Another TCRP study, TCRP Project J-11/Task 40, “Homelessness: A Guide for Public Transportation” (https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp? ProjectID=4889), is underway. The objective of this research is to develop a guide for public trans- portation agencies and concerned stakeholders on an effective approach and best practices that are responsive to those who are experiencing homelessness. Transit agencies are implementing a variety of initiatives with regard to vulnerable popula- tions. They are participating in regional work groups that involve agencies and organizations with different roles to develop solutions. Specific to fare enforcement and transit enforce- ment, transit agencies are deploying outreach teams to help connect vulnerable populations to resources. They are increasing training for fare enforcement personnel on how to improve interactions with vulnerable populations. Transit agencies are also restructuring their pro- grams to reduce the negative outcomes of fare evasion and potential criminalization of home- lessness by providing alternatives for resolving citations and alternative nonmonetary fines for fare evasion and other code-of-conduct violations. They are looking at ways to increase the affordability of transit through discounted low-income fares and free fares and other policy changes. Additional research could build on prior research by exploring what the role of transit agencies should be in providing social service assistance and addressing underlying issues. It could also identify opportunities for partnerships and successfully deployed models. 4.1.3 Free Fare Programs Free fares would eliminate the need for fare enforcement and fare collection. TCRP Syn thesis 101 (Volinski 2012), as well as a number of studies, including Perone and Volinski (2003), Sharon Greene & Associates et al. (2008), and Houston Metro (2020), have explored this topic. Several transit agencies, most recently LA Metro, have considered implementing free fare programs. TCRP Project J-11/Task 39, “Evaluation Framework for Fare-Free Public Transportation” (https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4888), See Section 3.11, Transit’s Role in Assisting Vulnerable Populations.

Conclusions and Suggested Research 201   is exploring the merits of free fare programs. The research will explore the trade-offs of free fare programs, including costs and benefits. Free fares can help attract additional ridership and address inequities in affordability by removing financial barriers. In addition to eliminating the need for fare enforcement and fare collection, free fares can also eliminate fare disputes between passengers and operators. How- ever, there can be negative consequences, including potential impacts on service quality, lost fare revenues, and potential increases in operating and capital costs. TCRP Project J-11/Task 39 will be valuable to understanding some of these trade-offs, so as to better understand when elimi- nating fares may be appropriate. 4.1.4 Standardization and Benchmarking of Fare Enforcement Performance Indicators Performance indicators are key to understanding the extent of fare evasion and the effective- ness of an agency’s approach to fare enforcement. However, transit agencies do not have common definitions for fare evasion and may track, calculate, and report performance indicators differently (i.e., in the calculation of fare evasion rates, agencies may or may not include warnings in addition to citations or may exclude passengers who are not required to provide proof of payment). These inconsistencies have made it difficult to benchmark peer fare enforcement data in the course of the work on TCRP A-45 and in other research. Research on this topic could establish a methodology for defining and calculating fare enforce- ment performance metrics. It would entail prescribing the data to be collected and how perfor- mance indicators are calculated to provide consistency for benchmarking. Consistent approaches to collecting and reporting fare evasion and inspection data would enable agencies to compare their performance to that of other agencies and provide valuable data for research and analysis. Correlating performance results by agency size, mode, and service characteristics would make the resulting information useful to transit agencies developing and/or updating a fare enforcement program. The benchmarking data would also provide opportu- nities for transit agencies and researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of different fare citation practices, deployment and scheduling strategies, and inspection levels. The data could also be helpful to agencies working to define performance measures and attainable performance targets for fare enforcement programs. 4.1.5 Fare Enforcement with Implementation of All-Door Boarding Systemwide Implementing all-door boarding systemwide, especially for an entire bus network, poses unique challenges, particularly for deploying resources. As more transit agencies gain expe- rience with planning and implementing all-door boarding systemwide, they would benefit from additional research. In addition to providing guidance on planning and implementation, research could explore how to efficiently and equitably deploy fare enforcement to provide coverage systemwide. While many transit agencies offer all-door boarding with proof of payment on select services (e.g., BRT, light rail, streetcar), in North America only SFMTA offers all-door boarding system- wide. However, a few transit agencies are in the initial phases of planning for implementation of all-door boarding systemwide. MBTA is planning to implement all-door boarding as part of the launch of its next generation smart card system and its Fare Transformation Program. With its plans to eliminate cash collection on board, MBTA is enlarging the retail network and adding bus stop TVMs. NYCT is also considering all-door boarding as part of the full rollout of its See the discussion of free fares in Section 3.8.1.3, Affordability.

202 Measuring and Managing Fare Evasion OMNY smart card system. Transit agencies have also been experimenting with all-door board- ing in response to COVID-19, to minimize interactions between passengers and operators. 4.1.6 Implementing Cashless Fare Collection Systems As transit agencies have launched new fare collection systems, they have continued to accept cash on board or at TVMs at stations or stops with off-board fare collection to address poten- tial impacts on unbanked or underbanked passengers. And as transit agencies have introduced incentives for passengers to use electronic fare media (e.g., stored-value discounts, transfer privileges), access to retail locations that accept cash to add value to fare media has been a key consideration. In the United States, most transit agencies are required to conduct such fare equity analyses under FTA’s Circular 4702.1B, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients (FTA 2012). These analyses must assess the proposed fare changes, including access to fare media, to determine whether they pose an adverse impact on low-income and minority passengers. Adoption of electronic fare media has increased significantly, and transit agencies have begun exploring the potential of going cashless and discontinuing the acceptance of cash on board. This is a sensitive topic that requires robust planning as well as careful attention to communicating changes in fare payment and educating the public about those changes and proof-of-payment fare collection. There have been limited implementations of cashless systems (e.g., Transport for London buses), limited pilots (e.g., the WMATA Route 79 MetroExtra pilot), and only a few transit agencies are actively planning to go cashless (e.g., MBTA Fare Transformation). As part of its Fare Transformation Program, MBTA will migrate to proof of payment system- wide; discontinue accepting cash on board; remove fareboxes from buses, BRT, and light rail vehicles; and move to all-door boarding on bus, BRT and surface light rail services. Passengers will be required to pay fares by using prepurchased fare media upon boarding at any door. Allowing customers to board at rear doors will eliminate the ability of bus and light rail opera- tors to ensure that everyone has paid and necessitate the transition to proof-of-payment fare collection on buses and surface light rail. This represents a major change for passengers who have always been able to pay at the farebox onboard and had the ability to load cash onto smart cards to receive transfer privileges. Fare Transformation will also take discretion out of fare enforcement because the fare system will determine whether a passenger has a valid fare. As more transit agencies explore and/or transition to cashless fare collection, they would ben- efit from additional research into mitigation strategies to address equity impacts on unbanked and underbanked passengers as well as communication methods to explain the significant changes in the new payment process. The research could also explore strategies to respond to specific challenges in fare policy (e.g., negative balance) and fare enforcement policies (e.g., discretion and warning-first policies) to address potential fringe cases and exceptions. 4.2 Information Sharing and Communication Transit agencies are exceptional at talking with each other to identify leading practices as they explore new fare enforcement programs or revise existing programs. In several instances during the phone surveys conducted as part of TCRP A-45, transit agencies mentioned that they had reached out to other agencies or helped other agencies to understand how they underwent specific changes (e.g., transition to administrative citations or creation of an in-house citation resolution process) and the lessons they learned in the process. APTA, TRB, and other orga- nizations have groups, seminars, workshops, and conferences that discuss topics relevant to

Conclusions and Suggested Research 203   measuring and managing fare evasion. These events afford the opportunity to look at the topic comprehensively and regularly. They include the following: • TRB National Transit Safety and Security Conference, • APTA Mid-Year Safety Seminar, • APTA Security and Emergency Management Roundtable, • APTA Fare Collection/Revenue Management and TransITech Conferences, • APTA Legal Affairs Seminar, • TRB Public Transportation Marketing and Fare Policy Committee, and • Transit Finance Learning Exchange (TFLEx). Because opportunities to share fare enforcement information are limited, transit agencies conduct their own outreach and research and have informal discussions with other agencies. Agencies would benefit from hearing about each other’s fare enforcement best practices and lessons learned through more regularly held roundtables, webinars, work group meetings, or conferences on this specific topic. These discussions could provide opportunities for transit agencies to discuss methods considered and implemented, ongoing challenges, and the results and findings from implementing various strategies. These discussions would also be especially beneficial given how rapidly fare enforcement programs are evolving. While formal research may provide an opportunity for comprehensive discussion and review, sole reliance on formal research may inhibit the distribution of informa- tion that would meaningfully and positively benefit transit agencies as they develop or review their fare enforcement programs.