Here’s why some people still evade public transport fares – even when they’re 50 cents
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Public transport should be free for the public. It benefits ~everyone involved:)
Exactly. It's a public service, not a business.
Calm down, Communist! /s
Better service benefits. Free transit benefits the car companies as it forces everyone to drive if they at all can.
I'm no expert on this topic, but I've previously read that when a thing is made free people stop valuing it. I don't know how much weight to put on this, I certainly valued my hospital visits for my children and I and those were free.
I think the simple fact is people evade fares because they believe they will face no consequences for it. If transit authorities put Coles style cameras on the entrances and flagged evaders who were then picked up every single time, evasion would drastically drop. And we'd hate having Big Brother watching us.
I think a token amount is reasonable. It costs me more than 50c to ride my bicycle or walk/run 50km. When a train fare is cheaper than wear on your shoes for walking that distance, I can't see how you can complain about it.
I'm no expert on this topic, but I've previously read that when a thing is made free people stop valuing it.
This sounds like a misunderstanding of economics. If someone gives away something for free, they're only saying the thing has no value to them, etc, or — in the context of gov services — the act of giving it away has more value. It's never that the thing itself has no intrinsic value, "period".
You could definitely argue that the 50c fee prevents homeless people from squatting, or completely unnecessary travel, but I would argue that everyone should be provided with shelter, and 50c probably isn't going to prevent unnecessary travel anyway.
This sounds like a misunderstanding of economics.
I'd give this more weight if other commenters hadn't already helpfully cited studies in this very thread on the topic at hand. The story from Miami in particular was very telling. I also liked the European method where they made fares themselves free, but still enforced people using their smart tickets to record journeys.
Making people pay a token amount isn't about preventing unnecessary travel. It's about keeping everyone with a little 'skin in the game', where they feel they are paying for a service. Even if the amount itself is negligible. It also provides data where journey projections and trends are revealed.
I think valuing the hospital comes the novelty maybe?
We move a lot, and always struggle to remember the little things that differ in the various public transit systems. We were in Melbs recently and got yelled at for trying to tap off on a tram.
Then they introduced 50c fares here in Brisbane and we rode the bus and didn't see anything about tapping off on the signage so we didn't tap off.
For failing to tap off we were charged $5. Even though the fare is 50c.
The income from the fines helps offset the cost of discounted travel.
But only if cost of en execution is low.
It took me a second to realise what you meant, but it's a very good point if I understand you correctly. Income from fares only offsets the cost of discounted travel if the wage of the people doing the enforcement (and any other overhead) is less than the amount brought in by that enforcement. Is that it?
The most common reason I see people evade public transport fares is because they thought they had more money on their account than they did, the machine that accepts cash is broken, or they are literal teenagers. In all of these cases, I feel like taking the $1.50 hit is fine.
The first should be solved by a subscription so you don't feel like you need cash all the time. The second is incompetience - never allow more than one broken machine, if machines are not reliable find a better vender - in court you can end the contract early if they are not filling their end: making machines that work. (If this isn't in your contract sue your own lawyers for incompetence)
i agree teens shouldn't have to pay. Though I would put it in terms of they ride free on their parents subscription which helps get parents riding since they are paying for it.
there are also poor who need some sort of program as sell.