Fare evasion
There was a piece last night on the CBC six o’clock tv news on the extension of the fare paid zone to buses on Monday. It does not seem to be on their web page so I am going to have to rely on memory.
(But, usefully, there are a few facts and figures from CKNW who ran a similar story)
The reporter, of course, started off with the usual line that SkyTrain loses millions of dollars every year to fare evasion. There was no attempt to put this into context. If you talk about fare evasion in terms of percentage loss (the way all retailers look at “shrinkage”) and compare that with the cost of increased enforcement, then you have to think about it as a business decision, not a simple “right or wrong” story. Or rather “we wuz robbed” – because of course it is the people who pay the fares and the taxes who pick up the tab for the free riders.
The library has the same magnetic tag alarm system that many shops use. And in both cases, the alarm goes off all the time and nothing happens. I have even had to take back a DVD that had been rendered completely unplayable by the library gluing metal tapes to the playing surface (it was a 2 sided DVD so you could still watch the “special features” just not the movie). Most people in the retail business recognize that they need to keep shrinkage down if they can but they do not want to upset their customers needlessly. And that is what happens when security overrides common sense. As it currently does in airline travel.
The new system on the buses is supposed to reduce the risk of drivers being assaulted. Disputes over the fare being one of the commonest triggers for an assault. And the drivers did not like the idea of reducing assaults by the use of cameras, even though that technology has eliminated assaults on taxi drivers who ran much higher risks.
At this point they trotted out spokesperson Ken Hardie, who did his best, but succeeded in explaining how not only to avoid paying the fare but also how to avoid paying the penalty as well. (Since he used to work for the Vancouver Police you would have thought he would know better.) The problem is that there is no way for the Translink Police to determine if the name and address they are being given when they hand out a ticket is genuine. So when the fine is unpaid it gets handed to a collection agency which usually gives up pretty quickly. Even when the fine is paid (which is very rare), Translink doesn’t get the money, the province does. So there really is not much incentive for them to push harder. And there are a growing number of people (Ken termed them “frequent flyers”) who have worked that out and never pay a fare or a fine.
This is not a new problem. It has been experienced elsewhere, and it is pointless looking at transit systems in Europe that use proof of payment since their legal system is quite different. Code Napoleon reverses the burden of proof and requires all citizens to carry an official identification document.
So let’s look at what happens at systems that use the British legal structure like we do. In London, no one ever paid parking tickets, because the court system was overburdened. Parking rule enforcement collapsed. Wheel clamping was introduced to make the penalty of delay bite hard and immediately on the offender. And it worked. Fare evasion on the London Underground ballooned as the automatic barriers which read the tickets were only installed in the Central Area as an economy measure. Introducing lower fares and zone fares helped a bit, but until barriers could be installed at all stations, there was a gaping hole. And even then, people worked out that all they needed was a ticket that opened the gates they would pass through, not one that necessarily allowed them to travel the entire route. We called it “dumbell fraud”. But it was the use of that second word that inspired the most effective response to the “frequent flyers”. Instead of issuing a penalty ticket, the regulars would be asked to accompany the officer to the police station. An investigation would then start to establish a pattern of activity. At which point the offender would not be issued a ticket but would be charged with a very serious offence – fraud. Because there would now be evidence that this individual rode free or at reduced fares on regular basis. And over the time of these repeated offences, a large sum had been diverted away from the transport system.
Many of the people caught in London turned out to be respectable citizens, with good jobs, often in financial institutions. One of them was even one of my bosses, who when he learned how easy it was to defraud the system, could not resist trying it himself. And the slogan that we came up with for this new enforcement program was “get a ticket, not a criminal record”. Because people who work in positions of trust have a lot more to lose than a few pounds – or dollars.
I would like to say that the program was as effective as wheel clamping, but that is not the case. It still requires regular enforcement and reminders: a few high profile cases every so often, which are given publicity, something that we had formerly been reluctant to do, since the people in the public gallery love to find out new ways to beat the system. Therefore deals for guilty pleas were quite common as it reduced the amount of evidence that had to be given out in public.
The parking problem and fare evasion problem have one feature in common. They extended the range of criminal activity from a smallish minority to a larger segment of the population. The extent to which we are honest is not absolute. Most people comply with the rules and regulations, most of the time, because we see the necessity of them. When these rules are openly flouted, and we see no penalty attaching to the offenders, our assessment of the risk of getting caught changes. And when there is a risk of getting caught but paying no penalty at all, then the percentage of people willing to try to get away with something starts to rise. The job of law enforcement is to keep that line where it is or push it back a bit. What has happened is that instead of a small percentage of generally criminal individuals ripping off the system, more people are now seeing that they can get away with not paying. And they spread that message.
As has the CBC, with this story. Thanks a lot.
Translink of course knows all about what I have written. And they will say that London is different and that wouldn’t work here. But the idea of continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different outcome is a useful working definition of madness.
Oh, one other thing I meant to mention. The CBC also dug out Rom Stromberg. He used to work for Transit, and told them what would happen if they went for proof payment on SkyTrain. But of course, as usual, they were trying to save money on the stations, and if they had had barriers, they would have had to have much bigger entrances and exits to allow for emergency evacuations. While the barriers are not cheap, it was the cost of these additional exits that killed the idea of barriers. Plus the fact that they would need to be manned all the time at every station in case they stopped working or someone with a pram or a wheelchair needed to be let through. Like I said, fare enforcement is not about morality, it is about economics. And the people who do not pay their fares are behaving with perfect economic rationality.
Interesting article! It’s a subject that’s somewhat near and dear to my heart, as I deal first hand with these issues every day.
- “And the drivers did not like the idea of reducing assaults by the use of cameras, even though that technology has eliminated assaults on taxi drivers who ran much higher risks.”
I cannot speak for Drivers in Vancouver, but operators of Transit in Victoria have quite the opposite feelings about this. We have been pushing for the introductions of cameras on buses, as the rates of assault have grown over the years. The reason the technology has not been implemented is privacy concerns for the PASSENGERS. If fact, 3 buses in Victoria have been fitted with security cameras on a trail run, but the cameras were never turned on while in service due to pressure from the privacy commissioner of BC.
– “Many of the people caught in London turned out to be respectable citizens, with good jobs, often in financial institutions.”
I have not seen a study on this done in Victoria, but from purely unscientific observations I’ve made this is not the case. The majority of fare evasion in Victoria seems to be commited by either young people in groups(teenagers), or “non-respectable” citizens.
“Like I said, fare enforcement is not about morality, it is about economics. And the people who do not pay their fares are behaving with perfect economic rationality.”
In life, I don’t think economic reality should ever trump morality (and by morality I’m talking about basic morals. Don’t steal, do unto others, etc). Using economic reality as an excuse for immoral behaviour doesn’t fly in other industries or areas of life According to a growing number of people, it seems to. And it frustrates me.
I would like to see some enforement and consequences for fare evasion, but I cannot think of a way to do it. Hiring extra security or police would be a costly move, but until there are some changes to the Transit Act or criminal code, enforcement would be difficult if not impossible.
Which leaves it up to the operators to enforce the fare rules. Some do, and are often involved in many heated disputes. Sometime they’re assaulted. Others, like myself, do not. I have already been assaulted in the line of work, and I will not get assaulted over a fare in the future. I guess you can say it’s my economic rationality at work! It’s not economical for me to run the risk of being hurt, contaminated or killed over a $2.25 fare that transit isn’t too concerned about collecting.
colin
June 25, 2007 at 2:49 am
cameras: the Privacy Commissioner does not have the last word. BC Transit could say. “Yes, we recognize your concerns but we can meet them this way …”(for example wiping tapes that have no evidentiary value, restricting access to stroed tapes) or “But the concerns you raise do not out weight the concern we have for the safety of our staff and passengers:.
I sat on a government advisory committee that dealt with cameras in taxis. Privacy was never raised as a concern around that table.
morality: I do not excuse immoral behaviour: nor do I condone illegal behaviour. But I do seek to understand it. Simple prohibition is clearly not enough to ensure compliance. So what do we need to do that will be both effective and efficient?
Operators are NOT expected to enforce the fare rules. That has been the case since at least 1997 and probably earlier. The advice given to operators is that they should inform passengers of the correct fare. It would seem that with the change of buses to “fare paid zones” even that duty has been relaxed.
The loss is not just $2.25. Most of the fare evasion is committed by a small percentage of passengers. The system therefore needs to identify these individuals and seek redress and behaviour change from them. That is why I recommend the approach that treats regular fare evasion as fraud, because I know that can work. BUT it requires a commitment of resources, and a determined effort to identify people who use false identities. Sadly, identity theft is also an escalating crime, so it is going to be harder now.
In London, we expected to find that fare evaders would be wanted for other offences. That was not the case. When we got serious about traffic offences, we found a hard core of unlicensed and uninsured drivers on the street. This was a much higher percentage than anticipated since most of them drove carefully enough to avoid collisions, or paid cash to get out of the insurance company/police follow up of a collision. Fare evasion had got to the extent that it was no longer confined to the small percentage of people who simply regard rules as things to get around, but had got into the next segment of the population – those who comply usually but do not mind taking a slight risk.
You will never get 100% compliance with any system. You can keep the percentage low by good housekeeping. To get a high percentage of evasion back to a reasonable level you need some pretty draconian methods until you have achieved that level. If you do not succeed in improving compliance, expect it to continue to deteriorate at an accelerating rate.
Stephen Rees
June 25, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Japanese rail systems (above and below ground) have always had barriers because fares are based on distances. Few few “flat fare” systems around.
Busses, on the other hand, are a mix of “flat fare” (urban, short-run) and “per km” (suburban) systems. In neither case are there transfers, so getting around Tokyo solely by bus would be prohibitively expensive.
Nemo's great uncle
June 25, 2007 at 9:48 pm
London always had barriers too, but they were manned. They also had fare by distance and interchange with what was then British Railways.
The real problem was that the staff were less than honest – which did not become apparent until they went on strike and LT put out honesty boxes (actually big shiny dustbins) for passengers to drop their fares into. Takings rocketed! The ticket collectors at the barriers had had a systemic fraud worked out with booking office staff. Tickets were not punched, but collected, sent back to the station of origin and resold, and the takings divided up between them. This discovery prompted LT to look for alternatives – hence the London Underground Ticketing System.
It is often forgotten that the reason London adopted enclosed docks (i.e. behind high walls) was due to the dishonesty of the dockworkers. The gated system was meant to control theft of cargo. The later introduction of containers was largely prompted by continuing problems of damage and other losses in conventional cargo handling.
In both cases many jobs were lost because employers were forced by the economics of losses to look at alternate means. Unions, of course, in both cases resisted these changes.
Stephen Rees
June 26, 2007 at 4:50 am
Very, very well written article. I work in car park management myself, and I hope that doesn’t annoy anyone, we’re just trying to do our jobs. The thing is, wheel clamping is on its way out. Now that the Security Industry Authority is not providing licences like it used to, companies that demand services are at least referring to legitimate / legal ones.
Have you heard about the online ticketing system services that have come out? Now it looks like not only car park managers can enforce, but it looks like regular civilians can as well. Also, very, very interesting, and I’d like your input if possible, have you heard of an organisation called ET3 that is working on tube-based magnetic levitation transportation?
While I agree people are opting to just get away with not paying, it is still at the burden of the violator because credit control agencies can be contacted depending on how well the enforcement company is organised.
Paul
March 31, 2009 at 7:52 am