SpringerLink
Log in

Fare evasion in public transport systems: a review of the literature

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Public Transport Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fare evasion has become an important issue for public transport companies, especially for those that have adopted proof-of-payment ticketing systems. Recent years have seen strong growth in the publication of studies on fare evasion. This paper reviews 113 studies to identify the characteristics of the research on fare evasion. An overview and classification in five main areas, i.e., fare evader-oriented, criminological, economic, technological, and operational is provided. Next, the status quo of these studies is assessed to support possible unifying research development.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this paper, POP occurs when passengers purchase tickets (or passes) in advance and are required to validate before using the service, regardless of the verification of fare payment. According to this definition, POP can be implemented without barriers (or self-service or honour-based or POPs) and with barriers (or POPB).

  2. https://101innovations.wordpress.com/, accessed on 21/12/2016.

  3. An update has been added to the original review due to the publication of recent papers after the first submission of this review. The same search and selection strategy was applied for the years 2018 and 2019. The publications retrieved for these years are listed in Appendix A, but these papers were not reviewed.

  4. To the best of our knowledge, there are groups of fare evaders that may deal with the elusion of fares by astute tricks. They are clever and well informed about the mazes in the system, or have become experienced in that no harm will come if they adapt their behaviour to the change of the fare system control.

  5. An assault is a physical/verbal act against the mission of the staff by passengers. It may depend on time, location and crowding.

  6. NFC is wireless short-range communication technology.

  7. Recently, there have been court cases in the USA surrounding the ability of police to act as inspectors or ask passengers to show Proof of Payment. For instance, in Cleveland (Ohio), a judge has ruled that police cannot act as inspectors because they do not have probable cause to detain passengers (Groves 2017).

  8. The copycat syndrome refers to a person who adopts, imitates, mimics, or follows the same behaviour of someone else (i.e., fare evaders may follow the behaviour of pass holders that in many worldwide transit systems are not required to tap in/out their tickets).

Abbreviations

AFC:

Automatic fare collection

APC:

Automatic passenger counting

AVL:

Automatic vehicle location

C:

Conductor

fBTS:

Off-board ticketing systems

GIS:

Geographic information system

IT:

Information technology

ITS:

Intelligent transport systems

nBTS:

On-board ticketing systems

NFC:

Near field communication

POE:

Pay-on-entry

POP:

Proof-of-payment

PTC:

Public transport company

QR code:

Quick response code

UITP:

Union Internationale des Transports Publics

References

  • Abrate G, Fraquelli G, Meko E, Rodia G (2008) L’Evasione Tariffaria nel Trasporto Pubblico Locale: un’Analisi Empirica. Conferenza Società Italiana di Economia Pubblica, XX Riunione Scientifica, Pavia, 25–26 Settembre 2008

  • Alshawish A, Abid MA, Rass S, de Meer H (2017) Playing a multi-objective spot-checking game in public transportation systems. In: Proceedings of the 4th workshop on security in highly connected IT systems. ACM, pp 31–36

  • Attoh-Okine NO, Shen LD (1995) Security issues of emerging smart cards fare collection application in mass transit. In: Vehicle navigation and information systems conference, 1995. Proceedings. In conjunction with the Pacific Rim Trans Tech Conference, 6th International VNIS.’A Ride into the Future’, IEEE, pp 523–526

  • Avenhaus R (2004) Applications of inspection games. Math Model Anal 9(3):179–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahamondes B, Correa J, Matuschke J, Oriolo G (2017) Adaptivity in network interdiction. In: International conference on decision and game theory for security. Springer, Cham, pp 40–52

    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 58:29–39

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Barabino B, Di Francesco M, Mozzoni S (2014b) An offline framework for handling automatic passenger counting raw data. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 15(6):2443–2456

    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

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol W (1952) Welfare economics and the theory of the state. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. In: The economic dimensions of crime. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 13–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijleveld C (2007) Fare dodging and the strong arm of the law. J Exp Criminol 3(2):183–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonfanti G, Wagenknecht T (2010) Human factors reduce aggression and fare evasion. Public Transp Int 59(1):28–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Bootheway GBP (2009) On the optimality of fines when enforcement is risky. ASBBS E-J 5(1):33–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Borndörfer R, Omont B, Sagnol G, Swarat E (2012) A Stackelberg game to optimize the distribution of controls in transportation networks. Game theory for networks. Springer, Berlin, pp 224–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Borndörfer R, Buwaya J, Sagnol G, Swarat E (2013) Optimizing toll enforcement in transportation networks: a game-theoretic approach. Electron Notes Discrete Math 41:253–260

    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 

  • Bratton WJ (1999) Great expectations: how higher expectations for police departments can lead to a decrease in crime. In: Measuring what matters: proceedings from the policing research institute meetings. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, pp 11–26

  • Brisman A (2016) The corners of crime: an introduction. In: Geometries of crime. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 1–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucciol A, Landini F, Piovesan M (2013) Unethical behaviour in the field: demographic characteristics and beliefs of the cheater. J Econ Behav Organ 93:248–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucknel, C, Muñoz JC, Schmidt A, Navarro (2015) The impact on fare evasion of a credit-based fare system in Transantiago. In: Conference on advanced systems in public transport, July 2015

  • Bucknell C, Muñoz JC, Schmidt A, Navarro M, Simonetti C (2016a) Impact of a loan-based public transport fare system on fare evasion: experience of Transantiago, Santiago, Chile. Transp Res Rec 2544:20–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucknell C, Muñoz JC, Schmidt A, Navarro M, Simonetti C (2016b) The impact on fare evasion of a loan-based fare system in Transantiago. In: Transportation Research Board 95th annual meeting (No. 16-4009)

  • Buehler S, Halbheer D, Lechner M (2014) Payment evasion. Working Paper, University of St. Gallen

  • Buehler S, Halbheer D, Lechner M (2017) Payment evasion. J Ind Econ 65(4):804–832

    Google Scholar 

  • Buneder C, Galilea P (2017) Temporal and spatial analysis of fare evasion in Transantiago. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung YS, Chiou YC (2017) Willingness-to-pay for a bus fare reform: a contingent valuation approach with multiple bound dichotomous choices. Transp Res Part A 95:289–304

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke S, Forell S, McCarron E (2008) Fine but not fair: fines and disadvantage. Justice Issues 3:1

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cools M, Fabbro Y, Bellemans T (2018) Identification of the determinants of fare evasion. Case Stud Transp Policy 6(3):348–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2017.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper HM (1989) Integrating research: a guide for literature reviews. In: Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol 2. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park

  • Correa JR, Harks T, Kreuzen VJ, Matuschke J (2014) Fare evasion in transit networks. ar**v preprint, ar**v:1405.2826

  • Cosby S (1985) A method for measuring the revenue loss due to fraud within a public transport undertaking. Traffic Eng Control 26(2):59–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins K, Porter B, Durham J, Heinrichs J (2012) Seattle sound transit’s experiences with proof-of-payment fare collection. Sustaining the Metropolis, 96

  • Currie G, Delbosc A (2017) An empirical model for the psychology of deliberate and unintentional fare evasion. Transp Policy 54:21–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie G, Reynolds J (2016) Evaluating pay-on-entry versus proof-of-payment ticketing in light rail transit. Transp Res Rec 2540:39–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Dai Z, Galeotti F, Villeval MC (2016) Cheating in the lab predicts fraud in the field. An experiment in public transportations. Working paper

  • Dai Z, Galeotti F, Villeval MC (2017) The efficiency of crackdowns: a lab-in-the-field experiment in public transportations. Theor Decis 82(2):249–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Dai Z, Galeotti F, Villeval MC (2018) Cheating in the lab predicts fraud in the field. An experiment in public transportations. Manag Sci 64:1081–1100

    Google Scholar 

  • Dauby L, Kovacs Z (2007a) Fare evasion in light rail systems. Transp Res E-Circ E-C112

  • Dauby L, Kovacs Z (2007b) Fare evasion in light rail systems. Public Transp Int 56(2):6–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Castillo V, Lindner C (1994) Fare evasion in New York City transit system: a brief survey of countermeasures. Secur J 5(4):217–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbosc A, Currie G (2015) Qualitative segmentation of fare evasion attitudes and behaviours. In: Transportation Research Board 94th annual meeting (No. 15-0808)

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbosc A, Currie G (2016b) Cluster analysis of fare evasion behaviours in Melbourne, Australia. Transp Policy 50:29–36

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Delle Fave FM, Brown M, Zhang C, Shieh E, Jiang AX, Rosoff H, Sullivan J (2014b) Security games in the field: an initial study on a transit system. In: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp 1363–1364

  • Delle Fave FM, Brown M, Zhang C, Shieh E, Jiang AX, Rosoff H, Sullivan JP (2014c) Security games in the field: deployments on a transit system. In: International workshop on engineering multi-agent systems. Springer International Publishing, pp 103–126

  • Des Champs S, Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1991) The British Columbia transit fare evasion audit: a description of a situational prevention process. Secur J 2:211–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Diebel LE (1981) The introduction of European fare collection techniques in the United States. J Adv Transp 15(1):55–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong Hoon B, Taik W (2014) Social capital as a design parameter for product-service system design. J Digit Des 14(3):43–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Eddy D (2010) Fare evasion—is it a youth issue? Transit Aust 65(12):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Fürst E (2012) Free riders and ticket fraud in public transport: a Delphi analysis. In: European transport conference 2012

  • Gneezy U (2005) Deception: the role of consequences. Am Econ Rev 95(1):384–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves E (2017) Cleveland municipal court. https://p.clevescene.com/media/pdf/groves_rta_fareenforcement.pdf

  • Guarda P, Ortúzar J de D, Handy S, Galilea P, Munoz JC (2015) Optimal mixed strategies for dealing with fare evasion in public transport. In: Proceeding of conference on advanced systems in public transport, Rotterdam

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen S, Whitelaw B, Leong JD (2012) Tackling fare evasion on Calgary transit’s CTrain system. Sustaining the Metropolis, 84

  • Hauber AR (1980) Daily life and the law: discrepancies in behavior. Int J Law Psychiatry 3(2):187–192

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauber AR, Hofstra B, Toornvliet L, Zandbergen A (1996) Some new forms of functional social control in the Netherlands and their effects. Br J Criminol 36(2):199–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Horizon Research Corporation (2002) Metropolitan transit authority: fare evasion study. Horizon Research Corporation, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Huth PK (1999) Deterrence and international conflict: empirical findings and theoretical debate. Ann Rev Polit Sci 2:25–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Insua DR, Cano J, Pellot M, Ortega R (2014) From risk analysis to adversarial risk analysis. In: Upadhyay SK, Singh U, Dey DK, Loganathan A (eds) Current trends in Bayesian methodology with applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 311–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Insua DR, Cano J, Pellot M, Ortega R (2016) Multithreat multisite protection: a security case study. Eur J Oper Res 252(3):888–899

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel SI, Strathman JG (2002) Analysis of transit fare evasion in the rose quarter. Technical report. Center for Urban Studies, College of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland State University, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Jankowski WB (1991) Fare evasion and noncompliance: a game theoretical approach. Int J Transp Econ 38:275–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang AX, Yin Z, Johnson MP, Tambe M, Kiekintveld C, Leyton-Brown K, Sandholm T (2012) Towards optimal patrol strategies for fare inspection in transit systems. In: AAAI Spring symposium: game theory for security, sustainability, and health

  • Jiang AX, Yin Z, Zhang C, Tambe M, Kraus S (2013) Game-theoretic randomization for security patrolling with dynamic execution uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp 207–214

  • Juntunen A, Luukkainen S, Tuunainen VK (2010) Deploying NFC technology for mobile ticketing services—identification of critical business model issues. In: 2010 Ninth international conference on mobile business and 2010 ninth global mobility roundtable (ICMB-GMR). IEEE, pp 82–90

  • Khoeblal R, Laohapensaeng T, Chaisricharoen R (2015) Passenger monitoring model for easily accessible public city trams/trains. In: 2015 12th International conference on electrical engineering/electronics, computer, telecommunications and information technology (ECTI-CON). IEEE, pp 1–6

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinisky TD, Hewitt MD, Kwei D, Qin C (2005) Analysis and design of a smart card transit security system. UBC Engineering

  • Kooreman P (1993) Fare evasion as a result of expected utility maximisation. Some empirical support. J Transp Econ Policy 27(1):69–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogvig LB (2014) Fare inspection optimization in train networks. Dissertation Norwegian University of Science and Technology

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

  • Larwin TF, Koprowski Y (2012b) Off-board fare payment using proof-of-payment verification. Transit Cooperative Research Program, Synthesis 96. Washington, D.C.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Leischnig A, Woodside AG (2017) Who approves fraudulence? Configurational causes of consumers’ unethical judgments. J Bus Ethics 158:713–726

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung LC (2003) A study of fare evasion in railway systems in Hong Kong. Degree thesis

  • Li S, Min J (1985) Riding public buses without tickets results in numerous problems. Chin Sociol Anthropol 17(3):49–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenc JM, Lutin JM (2000) Conversion of Newark City subway from conventional fare payment to proof of payment fare system. In: Light rail: investment for the future. 8th Joint conference on light rail transit

  • Mace E (1997) Public service and lower-class suburbs, a coproduction on crime: the Parisian Transit Authority’s bus network. Sociol Travail 39(4):473–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Matyášek M (2013) Optimization of ticket inspection in public transport networks. Degree thesis. Czech Technical University, Prague

  • Mauri R, Cooney NA, Prowe GJ (1984) Transit security: a description of problems and countermeasures (No. UMTA-MA-06-0152-84-2). United States Urban Mass Transportation Administration

  • Mayes KE, Markantonakis K, Hancke G (2009) Transport ticketing security and fraud controls. Inf Secur Tech Rep 14(2):87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istr.2009.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D (2008) The dishonesty of honest people: a theory of self-concept maintenance. J Mark Res 45(6):633–644

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehlkop G, Becker R, Imhof R (2007) Extending the rational action theory of crime: success, norms and risk-taking. An empirical re-assessment of the theory of subjective expected utility. In: Proceedings of the international conference on rational choice and social institutions, Zurich, 6–8 Sep

  • Mirbaha B, Foroshani HA, Amirpashaei N (2016) Technical and economical evaluation of e-ticketing in Tehran bus network. WCTRS 2016

  • Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(6):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Multisystems, Inc., Mundle and Associates, Inc., and Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. (2002) A toolkit for self-service, barrier-free fare collection. Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 80. TRB, Washington, D.C.

  • Nahuis R (2005) The politics of innovation: self-service on the Amsterdam trams. Technol Soc 27(2):229–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahuis R (2007) The politics of innovation in public transport. Issues, settings and displacements, vol 357. KNAG

  • Nahuis R (2009) The rise and fall of self-service in Amsterdam trams: user–technology relations in a case of service innovation. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 21(2):233–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakanishi YJ, Fleming WC (2011) Practices to protect bus operators from passenger assault, vol 93. Transportation Research Board

  • New Law Journal (1974) Volume 123, part 1, p 358

  • Peat M (1982) Portland self-service fare collection evaluation implementation technical memorandum: pre-implementation data collection and analysis

  • Perrotta AF (2017) Transit fare affordability findings from a qualitative study. Publ Works Manag Policy 22(3):226–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollan EB (2013) Smart cards and proof-of-payment: a marriage of necessity. Sustaining the metropolis. Transp Res Circ E-C177: 110–122

  • 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, Québec

  • Prokosch A, Gartsman A (2017) All-door boarding without proof-of-payment: revenue impacts and operational implications (No. 17-06500). Transportation Research Board 96th annual meeting compendium of papers

  • Puhe M (2014) Integrated urban e-ticketing schemes—conflicting objectives of corresponding stakeholders. Transp Res Procedia 4:494–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy AV, Kuhls J, Lu A (2011) Measuring and controlling subway fare evasion. Transp Res Rec 2216:85–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Salis S, Barabino B, Useli B (2017) Segmenting fare evader groups by factor and cluster analysis. WIT Trans Built Environ 176:503–515

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasaki Y (2014) Optimal choices of fare collection systems for public transportations: barrier versus barrier-free. Transp Res Part B 60:107–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwerdtfeger S (2016) Fare evasion: the last resort of social exclusion or simply a way to save money? In: RGS-IBG annual international conference 2016. 10.13140/RG.2.2.18674.50889

  • Smith MJ, Clarke RV (2000) Crime and public transport. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice. A review of research, vol 27. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 169–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Snijders H, Saldanha RL (2016) Decision support for scheduling security crews at Netherlands Railways. Publ Transp 9:193–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterner A, Sheng S (2013) The effect of social stigma on fare evasion in Stockholm’s public transport. J Transp Lit 7(4):50–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Suquet JB (2005) Moral standards: underpinning or (re) constructing social order? The case of fraud in a french collective transportation service. In: 17th Annual meeting of the Society for the Advancement of the Socio-Economics (SASE)

  • Suquet JB (2008) The professional dynamics of the service encounter. An inquiry into RATP’s approach to fare evasion. PhD thesis

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamblay S, Gschwender A, Dragicevic M, Muñoz JC (2017) Risks involved in transit provision of bus contracts: case study of Transantiago, Chile. Transp Res Rec 2649:89–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorlacius P, Clausen J (2010) Scheduling of inspectors for ticket spot checking in urban rail transportation. DSB S-tog (Copenhagen). 2008 Trafikdage på Aalborg Universitet

  • Torres-Montoya M (2014) Tackling fare evasion in Transantiago: an integrated approach. In: Transportation Research Board 93rd annual meeting (No. 14-4641)

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Andel H (1989) Crime prevention that works: the care of public transport in the Netherlands. Br J Criminol 29(1):47–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Noorden R (2014) Online collaboration: scientists and the social network. Nature 512(7513):126–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner D, Harper W, Schueftan O (1986) Self-service fare collection on buses in Portland, OR

  • Watry DJ, Straus P (2000) Muni metro goes POP: implementing proof of payment fare collection on Muni Metro. In: Light rail: investment for the future. 8th joint conference on light rail transit

  • Weidner RR (1996) Target-hardening at a New York City subway station: decreased fare evasion–at what price? Crime Prev Stud 6:117–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin Z, Jiang AX, Johnson M, Tambe M, Kiekintveld C, Leyton-Brown K, Sandholm T, Sullivan J (2012a) TRUSTS: scheduling randomized patrols for fare inspection in transit systems. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fourth AAAI conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence (IAAI). AAAI Press, Menlo Park

  • Yin Z, Jiang AX, Johnson M, Tambe M, Kiekintveld C, Leyton-Brown K, Sandholm T, Sullivan J (2012b) TRUSTS: scheduling randomized patrols for fare inspection in transit systems using game theory. AI Mag 33(4):59–72

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Professor M. Di Francesco, and Dr. S. Salis for very helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. The authors are very grateful to the Editor-in-Chief Professor S. Voß and four anonymous referees for their valuable comments. However, the content of this article is the full responsibility of the authors.

Funding

This work has been partially supported by the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MIUR), within the Smart City framework (project: PON04a2_00381 “CAGLIARI2020”).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil, Environment, Land and Architecture Engineering and Mathematics (DICATAM), University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy

    Benedetto Barabino

  2. CRS4, Center for Advanced Studies, Research and Development in Sardinia, Pula (CA), Italy

    Cristian Lai

  3. Department of Civil, Environment and Architecture Engineering (DICAAR), University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

    Alessandro Olivo

Authors
  1. Benedetto Barabino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristian Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alessandro Olivo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benedetto Barabino.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix: Overview of publications for 2018 and 2019—not reviewed

Appendix: Overview of publications for 2018 and 2019—not reviewed

  • Allen J, Muñoz JC, Ortúzar JD (2019) On evasion behaviour in public transport: dissatisfaction or contagion? Transp Res Part A 130:626–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.10.005

  • Ayal S, Celse J, Hochman G (2019) Crafting messages to fight dishonesty: a field investigation of the effects of social norms and watching eye cues on fare evasion. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.10.003(in press)

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-019-09468-3

  • Dai Z, Galeotti F, Villeval MC (2019) Fare-dodging in the lab and the moral cost of dishonesty. In: Dishonesty in behavioral economics. Academic Press, pp 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815857-9.00004-2

  • Delbosc A, Currie G (2019) Why do people fare evade? A global shift in fare evasion research. Transp Rev 39(3):376–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1482382

  • González F, Busco C (2019) Fare evasion in public transport: grou** Transantiago users’ behavior. Sustainability 11(23):6543. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236543

  • Fabbri M, Nicola Barbieri P, Bigoni M (2019) Ride your luck! A field experiment on lottery-based incentives for compliance. Manag Sci 65(9):4336–4348. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3163

  • Hughes P, Maroske K (2019) Fare evasion in Queensland-compounding inequity and the need to improve social inclusion on public transport. Parity 32(4):18–19

  • Tan ES (2019) “Paying” the way for a better BART future: a call for better enforcement of fare evasion policies and strategic planning at BART. Scholarship repository, University of San Francisco

  • Delfau JB, Pertsekos D, Chouiten M (2018) Optimization of control agents shifts in public transportation: tackling fare evasion with machine-learning. In: 2018 IEEE 30th international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (ICTAI). IEEE, pp 409–413

  • Keuchel S, Laurenz K (2018) The effects of a higher ticket inspection rate in a medium-size public transportation system. Transp Res Procedia 31:56–66

  • Fürst E, Herold D (2018) Fare evasion and ticket forgery in public transport: insights from Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Societies 8(4):98

  • Kulkarni V, Chapuis B, Garbinato B, Mahalunkar A (2018) Addressing the free-rider problem in public transport systems. ar**v preprint, ar**v:1803.04389

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barabino, B., Lai, C. & Olivo, A. Fare evasion in public transport systems: a review of the literature. Public Transp 12, 27–88 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-019-00225-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-019-00225-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation