Fare dodging spawns protest movement in Sweden

[CHamilton]

Fare Dodging Is an Organized Rebellion in Stockholm, and It’s Winning

Every transit network has its fare beaters, the riders who view payment as either optional or prohibitively expensive. Many cities, most notably New York, view turnstile-jumpers as a top policing priority, reasoning that scofflaws might graduate to more serious crimes if left alone.
But in Stockholm, the offenders seem to have defeated the system.

This sort of thing is going to happen as long as:

1. Cars are subsidized (and so perceived as "free") while one has to pay for each ride on other forms of transit.
2. Fare collection systems (especially of the "honor system" variety) are so transparently enforced only at certain locations and at certain times.
3. Buying fares continues to get harder. As more systems get rid of fare boxes and paper transfers, users have to wade through difficult-to-use, hard-to-find and often-malfunctioning TVMs with complicated fare structures, and tourists have to learn a new system for each city.

Research into "fare-free" transit systems suggests that it might be the way to go (PDF).

 

[CHamilton]

There are two ways to shift more commuters out of single-occupancy vehicles and into other modes of transportation, whether that's biking, carpooling, walking, or transit. We can incentivize transit by making all of those other options more attractive. Or we can disincentivize driving by making it less so. What's become increasingly apparent in the United States is that we'll only get so far playing to the first strategy without incorporating the second.

America's Cities Are Still Too Afraid to Make Driving Unappealing

 

[beautifulplanet]

Thank you for posting these interesting articles.

Wouldn't disincentivizing driving be a completely different topic though, from fare-free transit systems and fare evasion?

 

[CHamilton]

I was thinking about the connection between "fare-free" transit and disincentivizing driving, but didn't make the connection clear.

 

[rickycourtney]

I agree Charlie, at the end of the day... you need to disincentivize driving (and car ownership in general).

My fiancée and I have been "carless" since moving to Seattle, my better half sold her car and my parents were kind enough to let me store my truck at their home in Southern California.

There's plenty of great, altruistic reasons why I enjoy not having a car... but at the end of the day it all comes down to economics.

The articles talk about the "carrots" and "sticks" for commuters. For me there is one BIG stick... parking at my apartment building is $225 a month for a non-assigned space in a public garage.That's a tough pill to swallow, but the decision was made easier by all the "carrots" provided to me. Seattle has a pretty solid transit system, my employer pays 75% of my monthly pass (in exchange for surrendering my free parking sticker) and when I need a car my building has 10 Zipcars for short term rentals (residents get a sweetheart deal with no sign-up fees).

Overall I really don't mind taking the bus... but it requires a bit of planning before every trip and you need to leave yourself a lot more time. That directly goes against the concept of "freedom of movement" that carmakers have sold to us.

But I must admit... If the "stick" wasn't there (say parking was only $75 a month) I would have brought my truck... and I would likely get lazy and decide to drive for many of my trips.

That's why I'm a fan of charging drivers for the "true cost" of parking and setting up a national standard for charging drivers for road maintenance based on the weight of their vehicle on a "per mile" basis. The problem is how do you put these fees into place without unfairly targeting the poor.

 

[rickycourtney]

Also... when it comes to fare evasion the "stick" has to be painful.

I think that LA has a pretty good punishment for fare evasion. The fare is $1.50 ($75 per month) and the fine for fare evasion "up to" $250 *and* 48 hours of community service. Fare evaders are given the ticket on the spot by a sworn officer (who can arrest the violator if they have skipped out on previous tickets). The Stockholm example shows why the community service punishment is especially important. If a group in LA tried to setup a organized fare evasion group... the courts would just sentence them all to community service (time is sometimes more valuable than money!)

For example in Seattle the fare is $2.50 ($90 per month) but the fine for fare evasion is a measly $124 and at the moment the fare enforcement officers aren't allowed to issue citations because they aren't sworn officers. They have to write down the information on the fare evaders driver license (which they can't demand they produce), have a sworn officer issue them a ticket, mail the fare evaders the ticket and hope they respond.

I'm not opposed to the idea of "fare-free" systems supported by taxpayers, but I don't think they are politically palatable at this point in the US.

 

[seat38a]

Also... when it comes to fare evasion the "stick" has to be painful.

I think that LA has a pretty good punishment for fare evasion. The fare is $1.50 ($75 per month) and the fine for fare evasion "up to" $250 *and* 48 hours of community service. Fare evaders are given the ticket on the spot by a sworn officer (who can arrest the violator if they have skipped out on previous tickets). The Stockholm example shows why the community service punishment is especially important. If a group in LA tried to setup a organized fare evasion group... the courts would just sentence them all to community service (time is sometimes more valuable than money!)

For example in Seattle the fare is $2.50 ($90 per month) but the fine for fare evasion is a measly $124 and at the moment the fare enforcement officers aren't allowed to issue citations because they aren't sworn officers. They have to write down the information on the fare evaders driver license (which they can't demand they produce), have a sworn officer issue them a ticket, mail the fare evaders the ticket and hope they respond.

I'm not opposed to the idea of "fare-free" systems supported by taxpayers, but I don't think they are politically palatable at this point in the US.

On Metrolink, they have been really good at checking tickets. Ever since Amtrak took over, it seems the conductors much more frequently check tickets. It maybe a carry over from working the Amtrak trains where ALL tickets are checked and validated.