3w ago

Here’s why some people still evade public transport fares – even when they’re 50 cents

theconversation.com Here’s why some people still evade public transport fares – even when they’re 50 cents

Neither lowering fares or simply increasing enforcement can solve fare evasion alone. Investing in better services and winning public trust are just as important.

Neither lowering fares or simply increasing enforcement can solve fare evasion alone. Investing in better services and winning public trust are just as important.

You're viewing a single thread.

48 comments

From TFA:
A crucial question in the Queensland debate is: if public transport is already nearly free, does fare evasion even matter?
A more crucial question is: if public transport is nearly free but still generates overhead to manage and enforce fares, why not make it completely free and eliminate the overhead entirely?
I mean if they chose to make it almost free, they might as well go all the way.
- Because people don't value free things as much.
  Why not make the fares free in Queensland? One reason can be found in the experience of the Miami Beach Transportation Association in the United States. The Association launched free shuttle buses along the coastline. However, the lack of fares led to a diminished sense of responsibility for the upkeep and care of the transit system, ultimately negatively affecting both driver satisfaction and passenger experience. Whilst passenger numbers initially surged, studies show problem riders resulted in raised personal security concerns as transit crime increased. Examples include increased assault, damage, and theft for users, becoming a deterrent for both new and existing riders. An attempt to resolve these issues was introducing a $0.25 flat fare, leading problem riders to avoid the service. Consequently, these negative factors began to rapidly decline, such as vandalism decreasing by 90% whilst passenger numbers remained steady.
  https://ninesquared.com.au/insights/nearly-free-fares/
  
  I don't know if I buy this. In Melbourne we have the free tram zone in the city and people aren't vandalizing the trams. We have free access to public parks, art galleries, libraries, public toilets. I don't think people are more likely to vandalize those places because they're free.
  
  Then erect a small barrier to entry, like the need to request a PTA card to ride the bus - possibly for a flat one-time fee. No card, no ride, even though the ride itself is free. That should keep the problematic impulse riders at bay.
  
  Meh, if a $.25 fee fixes the problem, collect the change and put it back into the system. Anyway, the poster above you got me thinking, it really is the money that's the factor.
  
  that sounds more annoying than a low fare
  
  Just fyi, assuming you're not from around here, most of our transport requires a Go Card already. They don't often take cash.
  
  it's the same here in Melbourne but you still need the fare gate systems working so what's the point?
  
  For a permanent card? One visit?
- I think the main reason to not make it completely free was so they could track information via the tap on. That way they have data to plan route adjustments in the future.
  
  They could quite easily do this with a driver manually counting on and off passengers. It wouldn’t need to be accurate, they could ballpark any numbers above 5. It could also be done with surveys are stops or on board, or with security camera footage. All without the infrastructure need. We also seem to be able to plan roads and spend even more than in public transport, without any need for registering trips.
  
  Drivers don't even have to manually count by hand. They already have a button that they're meant to use to track fare evaders, to collect data on which routes have the most evaders. Just repurpose that button to track all users.
  
  i love adding facial recognition to every single thing we have
  
  It doesn't need facial recognition. If it's for statistical purposes, it only need numbers in and off, not to track us. That's the point.
  
  how are you getting data on the trips people make then?
  
  As in, their connections rather than just simple trips? Why is that necessary for buses and not for cars?
  Remember our whole transport network and all others worldwide used to be plan services prior to centralised tracking. Most would think services have worsened, not improved despite increasing population density and worse car traffic making public transport more attractive.
  So, the tracking they already do doesn't seem to be improving service. However, that's subjective.
  
  You don't put data of people's trips, you count how many people entered in x stop and how many left in y spot to see which stops are getting more use and thus could require another route in the future, you don't need to individualize the data, the point of interest is the stop, not the individual person using the bus
  
  They could still have taps. I lived in another country that made bus fares free, but you still had to get a card and use it to tap on and off.
- Fare collection typically generates a subtantial amount of revenue and so you assumption that it doesn't fails.
  for most people a fare such that busy routes are profitable is perfectly reasonable and they will pay.That makes your subsidy for less but routes that are still worth having (in part because they feed to the busy route which wouldn't be profitable without those riders).
  as this study has found most people value service higher than the cost of a fare. Free fare advocates are killing the system by taking away a source of revenue that could instead be usedeto make the system better.
  i'm all for helping the poor. Target just the poor with free fares. That lets you help the poor by giving them good service instead of service for the poor but 'normal' people drive*
  
  Free fare advocates are killing the system by taking away a source of revenue that could instead be usedeto make the system better
  Nonsense. It was already subsidised by over 80%, and that was before they reduced the fares to a flat 50 c. With fares now subsidised well over 95%, it's likely that there would actually be more money left over if they didn't have to pay Cubic for the expensive Go Card system and didn't have to hire people to go around wearing body armour fining people who don't pay.
  
  Then raise fares. This study makes it clear that more service is what people want. That fares are so low they are not bringing in money after collection costs is a sign they need to raise them.
  almost no rider is asking for lower fares.
- The problem with free public transport is that’s, once there’s no cost to it, usage goes up qualitatively. People will pack onto a rammed bus rather than walk a few blocks because it’s easier, and those already on the bus will find their journeys becoming more unpleasant. Those who have cars will decide to start driving again, and the buses will become slower as they’re stuck in a traffic jam consisting of people who aren’t getting anywhere either but at least don’t have a stranger’s armpit next to their nose.
  So, anything short of having a communist revolution, confiscating all the private cars and using the seized wealth of the capitalist class to greatly increase capacity to where there’s a conveyor belt of buses with one every 30 seconds, free public transport will result in a soup kitchen system that nobody uses if they have an alternative.
- The zero price effect: "If something is free, you are the product".
  They seem to be enforcing fares much like Frederick the Great guarded his potato fields.
  
  The zero price effect: “If something is free, you are the product”.
  Not in this case. It's not really free: people pay for public transport in their taxes.
  
  A more crucial question is: if public transport is nearly free but still generates overhead to manage and enforce fares, why not make it completely free and eliminate the overhead entirely?
  
  Oh come on, you know what I mean: completely free as in you're free to dump stuff in public trashcans but someone still has to pay for trash collection, and that someone is the taxpayer.
  If a bus fare costs. say, $4, and $3.50 are subsidized so the apparent cost to the bus riders is 50c, someone pays for the $3.50 and that's everybody, including those who don't ride the bus. Just like everybody pays for road maintenance in equal parts, even those who don't drive a lot.
  If policymakers decided to make everybody pay for 88% of a few people's bus fare, they might as well make everybody pay 100% and save the cost of printing bus tickets, programming bus cards and paying ticket controllers to catch fare dodgers.
  
  Yeah, I understood your point. I used "free" the same way you did. There was no need to move the goal posts. .
  We tend to distrust "free".
  How many "free' offers do you have in your inbox right now? How many do you think are scams? We assume there are some sort of hidden costs, or that the service is "worth what you paid". If it is offered "completely free", it will be broadly avoided.
  When charged a token amount, we get the impression of value. A bargain.
  The "penalty" for fare evasion should be the cop looking the other way, or handing out "$5" passes and asking them to "pay it forward".
  
  We tend to distrust “free”.
  I don't think so.
  Most people understand that free stuff offered by for-profits is sketchy and deceitful, while free public services is just another way of saying taxpayer-supported.
  Everybody knows - or at least should know - that a free Google account means Google is going to invade your privacy, while enrolling for free at the local community college or attending school is their right because they paid for it in their taxes.
  At least outside the US, that's the deal most taxpayers understand they have with the state. In the US, people would like free public services but refuse to pay for it because communism or some equally stupid non-sequitur.
  
  No, you clearly don't understand their point. Because everybody (apart from lunatic libertarians) knows that when something is free because taxes pay for it, it's completely different from free-because-they-sell-your-data or "free"-but-it's-a-scam.
  
  do you seriously not have enough brain cells to understand publically funded services like healthcare
  
  They seem to be enforcing fares much like Frederick the Great guarded his potato fields.
  They are absolutely not. If they were, it would be a good idea IMO. Keep the token fare to make tracking data easier and discourage bad behaviour. Enforce it only rarely, and mainly on routes where they have been said behaviour issues. But in fact reports are that their fare enforcement has not slowed down at all.

48 comments