Skip to main content
Log in

Can we estimate accurately fare evasion without a survey? Results from a data comparison approach in Lyon using fare collection data, fare inspection data and counting data

  • Case Study and Application
  • Published:
Public Transport Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a context of worldwide urbanization and increasing awareness for environmental issues, it is undeniable that public transport will play an important role in the cities of the future. This will require increased attractiveness of public transit and adequate funding. In this regard, fare evasion could be considered as a threat that needs to be quantified accurately. To do this, transit operators often rely on on-site surveys that are limited in terms of spatiotemporal coverage. Yet, new data sources such as farebox transactions, fare inspection logs and automated passenger counter are now available and little research examines how they could help in estimating the fare irregularity rate. In this paper, we initiate research in this direction. To do this, we followed the operator’s viewpoint and used a comparative approach to analyse the potential of those new data sources. We introduced a classification of fare irregularities and then applied data fusion methods to derive two fare irregularity rates. Results are then compared to a survey and the area of relevance of each data source is discussed. The research is done with data from the public transport network of Lyon which is an interesting case study because different access control types coexist (open and closed environment). The research results suggest that the fare inspection logs might have significant limitations to measure accurately the level of fare evasion. They also suggest that the merging of automated count and farebox transactions is a more promising direction of research. Still, it will probably not be enough to completely replace on-site manual survey. These findings can help operators in identifying the pros and cons of all data sources and implement new measurement methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Available online at https://www.tcl.fr/a-propos-de-tcl/reglements-du-reseau.

  2. Available on-line at https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr.

References

  • Ardilly P (2006) Les techniques de sondage. Editions Technip

  • Barabino B, Salis S (2019) Moving towards a more accurate level of inspection against fare evasion in proof-of-payment transit systems. Netw Spat Econ 19:1319–1346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabino B, Salis S, Useli B (2013) A modified model to curb fare evasion and enforce compliance: empirical evidence and implications. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 58:29–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabino B, Salis S, Useli B (2014) Fare evasion in proof-of-payment transit systems: deriving the optimum inspection level. Transp Res Part B Methodol 70:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabino B, Salis S, Useli B (2015) What are the determinants in making people free riders in proof-of-payment transit systems? Evidence from Italy. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 80:184–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd C, Martini C, Rickard J, Russell A (1989) Fare evasion and non-compliance: a simple model. J Transp Econ Policy 23(2):189–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke RV (1993) Fare evasion and automatic ticket collection on the London underground. Crime Prevent Stud 1:135–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke RV, Contre S, Petrossian G (2010) Deterrence and fare evasion: results of a natural experiment. Secur J 23(1):5–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correa J, Harks T, Kreuzen VJ, Matuschke J (2017) Fare evasion in transit networks. Oper Res 65(1):165–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dauby L, Kovacs Z (2007) Fare evasion in light rail systems. Transportation Research E-Circular (E-C112)

  • Delbosc A, Currie G (2016) Four types of fare evasion: a qualitative study from Melbourne, Australia. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 43:254–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbosc A, Currie G (2019) Why do people fare evade? A global shift in fare evasion research. Transp Rev 39:376–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delle Fave FM, Jiang AX, Yin Z, Zhang C, Tambe M, Kraus S, Sullivan JP (2014) Game-theoretic patrolling with dynamic execution uncertainty and a case study on a real transit system. J Artif Intell Res 50:321–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furth PG, Strathman JG, Hemily B (2005) Making automatic passenger counts mainstream: accuracy, balancing algorithms, and data structures. Transp Res Record 1927(1):206–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarda P, Galilea P, Handy S, Munoz JC, Ortúzar JdD (2016a) Decreasing fare evasion without fines? A microeconomic analysis. Res Transp Econ 59:151–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarda P, Galilea P, Paget-Seekins L, Ortúzar JdD (2016b) What is behind fare evasion in urban bus systems? An econometric approach. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 84:55–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauber AR (1993) Fare evasion in a European perspective. Stud Crime Crime Prevent 2:122–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Killias M, Scheidegger D, Nordenson P (2009) The effects of increasing the certainty of punishment. Eur J Criminol 6(5):387–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King County Department of Transportation (2010) Report on fare evasion on metro transit, April 2010

  • Kooreman P (1993) Fare evasion as a result of expected utility maximisation: some empirical support. J Transp Econ Policy 27:69–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Larwin TF (2012) Off-board fare payment using proof-of-payment verification, vol 96. Transportation Research Board

  • Lee J (2011) Uncovering San Francisco, California, Muni’s proof-of-payment patterns to help reduce fare evasion. Transp Res Record J Transp Res Board 2216:75–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Multisystems I, Mundle& Associates I, Parsons Transportation Group I (2002) A Toolkit for Self-service, Barrier-free Fare Collection, vol 80. TRB, Washington D.C

  • Munizaga MA, Palma C (2012) Estimation of a disaggregate multimodal public transport origin-destination matrix from passive smartcard data from Santiago, Chile. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 24:9–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearsall B (2010) Predictive policing: the future of law enforcement. Natl Inst Justice J 266(1):16–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier MP, Trépanier M, Morency C (2011) Smart card data use in public transit: a literature review. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 19(4):557–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pourmonet H, Bassetto S, Trépanier M (2015) Vers la maîtrise de l’évasion tarifaire dans un réseau de transport collectif. 11e Congrès International De Génie Industriel–CIGI2015

  • Public Transport Victoria (2018) Victorian official fare compliance series, https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/footer/data-and-reporting/revenue-protection-and-fare-compliance/

  • Reddy A, Kuhls J, Lu A (2011) Measuring and controlling subway fare evasion: improving safety and security at New York city transit authority. Transp Res Record J Transp Res Board 2216:85–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Martínez GE (2017) Estimating fare noninteraction and evasion with disaggregate fare transaction data. Transp Res Record J Transp Res Board 2652:98–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith MJ, Clarke RV (2000) Crime and public transport. Crime Justice 27:169–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snijders H, Saldanha RL (2017) Decision support for scheduling security crews at netherlands railways. Public Transp 9(1–2):193–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suquet JB (2010) Drawing the line: how inspectors enact deviant behaviors. J Serv Mark 24(6):468–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tirachini A, Quiroz M (2016) Evasion del pago en transporte público: evidencia internacional y lecciones para Santiago. Documento de Trabajo, Departamento de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad de Chile

  • Troncoso R, de Grange L (2017) Fare evasion in public transport: a time series approach. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 100:311–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted as part of a research agreement between Keolis Lyon and the Urban Planning, Economics and Transport Laboratory (LAET). Their financial support is gratefully acknowledged. We would like to thank our colleagues from Keolis Lyon who provided the data and expertise that greatly assisted the research. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers whose comments/suggestions helped improve and clarify this manuscript. The views expressed in this paper remain those of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oscar Egu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Egu, O., Bonnel, P. Can we estimate accurately fare evasion without a survey? Results from a data comparison approach in Lyon using fare collection data, fare inspection data and counting data. Public Transp 12, 1–26 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-019-00224-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-019-00224-x

Keywords

Navigation