BART’s scofflaws also don’t pay fines
Critics call crackdown on fare cheats ineffective without power to arrest
BART’s fledgling effort to crack down on widespread fare evasion has run into a stark problem: People unwilling to pay a few bucks to ride the rails are rarely willing to cough up $75 when handed a citation.
In March and April, the first two months of ticketing riders who couldn’t show they’d paid their fares, a team of transit agency inspectors issued roughly 1,300 citations — but only about 100 of the alleged cheats paid up, officials said.
To critics, the low rate of return is evidence that the $800,000-a-year crackdown on fare scofflaws is a waste of money that would be better spent raising barriers in stations or installing fare gates to make it tough on fare evaders to vault over or squeeze through.
To BART’s police union, it’s proof that sending civilian inspectors to issue citations is ineffective without the accompaniment of sworn police officers with the power to arrest.
BART officials, meanwhile, say it’s too early to make any judgments and insist that the goal of the team of six roving fare inspectors assigned to catch fare cheats is not to make money through citations but to reduce the number of violators.
“We are not in business of writing tickets,” said Jim Allison, a BART spokesman. “We want people to buy tickets — to ride.”
Citations begin at $75 for adults and $55 for juveniles up to age 18 and increase after a second offense, and why so few people pay up is unclear. One possibility is that some of those cited are giving false names or addresses.
When fare evaders are caught, they’re asked for identification. Most are able to produce some form of identification, said Lance Haight, BART’s deputy police chief. Those who can’t are asked to provide their name and current address, which are then checked on the spot via police radio against a database.
Ultimately, fare cheats are given a copy of their citation, including directions on how to pay. They can choose community service, instead, or appeal. Violators have 30 days to act, and BART reminds them of that in letters, some of which are returned because of incorrect postal addresses.
The names of those who don’t take care of their citations can be turned over to the state Franchise Tax Board, which can dock any state income returns or state lottery winnings, Haight said.
But that’s the extent of BART’s collection effort. The transit agency does not turn over non-payers to a private collection agency — yet.
“We’re not saying we wouldn’t consider it,” Haight said. “It could be a remedy we would seek in the future.”
The proof-of-payment system is part of a strategy the BART board approved in 2017 after learning that fare cheats are costing the agency as much as $25 million a year. It means that about 5 percent of riders aren’t paying.
Other facets of the strategy include a campaign reminding riders to pay or be fined. BART has also started “hardening” stations against cheats by building taller barriers around paid areas, reconfiguring elevator entrances to prevent them from being used to avoid fare gates, and controlling some swing gates that act as emergency exits or disabled access so they’re tougher for scofflaws to sneak through.
Fare gates are also being designed to make them difficult to breach without paying. And the transit system plans to install additional cameras to monitor gates, count cheaters and help determine the system’s most vulnerable areas.
The improvements will come gradually. Meanwhile, the bulk of the war on fare evasion involves enforcement. BART police have always been able to cite fare evaders, but only if they caught them in the act.
The proof-of-payment system, featuring random fare inspections, was the answer. It wasn’t a novel idea. Such systems are in place at 34 transit operators around the nation, according to the American Public Transportation Association. They require passengers to carry valid transit tickets, passes, smart cards or transfers, and be prepared to show them.
At BART, the six fare inspectors wear blue, black and white checkered vests, reminiscent of British police, with a large patch on the back identifying them in bold letters. They typically work together, traveling from station to station, spending more time at those with the biggest problems. They also ride trains where they inspect fares.
“Please be ready to show your transit tickets or Clipper cards,” inspector Carlos Escobar called out as four of the team gathered on the Civic Center Station platform Thursday morning at the bottom of an escalator. Two other inspectors headed for a nearby elevator.
Using handheld scanners, the inspectors who’d staked out the escalator checked the tickets and Clipper cards of each person. The machines beep or buzz and flash a message to inspectors, indicating whether a passenger has legally entered through the fare gate.
Passengers without valid fares are pulled aside, asked for identification and given citations. The first two citations are civil citations, similar to parking tickets. But three or more offenses can result in criminal citations, with fines up to $250.
During the hour and 15minute enforcement effort Thursday at the Civic Center Station platform, 17 citations were issued, slightly lower than usual, Haight said, probably because the focus has been on that station, which also has new, harder-to-climb 5-foot walls around its concourse.
Among those cited was Pastia Johnson, 23, of San Francisco, who was on the way to her job in the hospitality industry.
“I don’t have either one,” she told the inspectors asking for tickets or Clipper cards. One took her aside and wrote her a citation.
As she jumped aboard a train, Johnson said she wasn’t offended by the fare inspection process, or the ticket she was now holding in her hand.
“They’re doing their jobs, and I didn’t pay,” she said.
But will she pay the ticket? The train doors closed before she could answer.
Most people approached by fare inspectors, even those given citations, are cooperative, said Sgt. Jaswant Sekhon, who’s in charge of the fare inspection team. But some spot the team and head the other way, and others try to push past the inspectors, usually unsuccessfully.
Inspectors are not allowed to chase or apprehend fare evaders, but they’ll try to block their path of escape or tell them to stop. They can radio for help from a sworn police officer, but the suspected cheat usually disappears into the crowd or onto a train quickly.
“Sometimes they just walk away,” said Karen Seiler, an inspector. “There’s not much we can do about it.”
The union representing BART’s police officers said the program would work better if the fare checkers were accompanied by a sworn officer able to stop those who would flee inspections or cite those who give false identification.
“I think it’s a start,” said Keith Garcia, union president, “but it needs to be improved upon. I don’t see the current model being efficient. There needs to be a sworn police officer in uniform.”
Three other Bay Area transit agencies — Muni, Caltrain and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority — use proof-of-payment systems.
Muni relies primarily on civilian fare-enforcement officers, though they sometimes work with San Francisco police officers in crackdowns on specific lines. About 38 percent of the 48,000 citations issued in 2017 were paid.
On Caltrain, conductors, who are not sworn officers, conduct intermittent fare checks, writing 300 to 500 citations a month. Caltrain did not make the percentage of paid citations available.
Santa Clara VTA issued 1,357 citations in 2017, all by sworn law-enforcement officers on its light-rail lines. The citations are handled by Santa Clara County Superior Court, so VTA receives no information on how many are paid — and no revenue when they are.
In Los Angeles, 20 to 30 percent of fare evasion citations, primarily issued by non-sworn officers, are paid, said spokesman Dave Sotero.
As for BART, its directors are divided on the efficacy of the proof-of-payment program. The program is due for a sixmonth review this fall.
Director Joel Keller of Brentwood said he backs the idea of fare enforcement, if only to keep the number of fare evasions from growing. Nick Josefowitz, a San Francisco director, also said he believes it’s necessary.
“BART obviously suffers when people are fare-evading and not paying their fair share,” he said, “but it is also insulting to people who work hard and commute on BART every day, to see people just walking in and out without paying. It’s not a cheap system, and everyone should pay.”
For Debora Allen of Clayton, the low citation-payment rate reinforces her skepticism about the program. From the beginning, she said, she thought the money would be better spent on building walls and barriers to keep cheaters out.
“If we’re giving out tickets and no one is paying and there’s not much consequence,” she said, “it’s not going to have much impact.”