5 ms·

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

26 points by yiedyie 12y ago

oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
Don't try this kind of thing in London. There is a zero-tolerance policy in place on public transport, not just for intentional fare evasion, but for honest mistakes including getting on a train at the wrong time or sitting in the wrong part of a train, even if no other seats are available. Even problems with the ticket barriers are the responsibility of the traveller, not the train company. And repeat 'offenders' can end up with a criminal record.
al_gore 12y ago
HEET turnstiles?
- joshstrange 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnstile#Full-height_turnstiles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnstile#Full-height_turnstile...
- vegardx 12y ago
  In my city they tried to install something similar, yet less invasive, ie. you could jump over them. But it was removed pretty much just weeks after being installed. It didn't satisfy the fire department if there had to be an evacuation. Now - you might think that they had investigated that before it was installed, but ... yeah.
vacri 12y ago
Fare dodging of 3% isn't that much, and shouldn't be characterised as "winning". You could spend a lot of money to reduce it to 2% or maybe 1%, but is it really worth it economically? Reducing it by 1% will net you $12M, but to get that you need to train up existing employees, hire new ones, and build more infrastructure. The fare-dodging organisation is an interesting one, but it's worth mentioning that it's net monetary gain each month is enough for a single employee equivalent (on an average wage), with no overheads or other costs. It is interesting that it's profitable, but it's not like the money is pouring in. Edit: For comparison, fare evasion here in Melbourne hit a 5-year low point at 9% back in January.
chrismcb 12y ago
"reasoning that scofflaws might graduate to more serious crimes if left alone." Really, is there any evidence of that? Or do they think that people will get bored with it, and start on harder crimes? I was disappointed that the article didn't really discuss WHY they are doing it, other than as some sort of “collective fare strike,” and the system should be free. But if it is free, then who will pay for it? It isn't like the fares are that outrageous.
- kd0amg 12y ago
  the article didn't really discuss WHY they are doing it, other than as some sort of “collective fare strike,” and the system should be free. But if it is free, then who will pay for it? From the article, "The transit system should be financed through taxes, they said, ensuring that a greater share comes from affluent residents and drivers."
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  "reasoning that scofflaws might graduate to more serious crimes if left alone." Really, is there any evidence of that? Or do they think that people will get bored with it, and start on harder crimes In New York in the 1970s, subways were dirty, unpleasant and unsafe. The panhandlers, thieves, graffiti artists and public defecators tended also to be fare-beaters. I don't think that the fare-beating caused the harder crimes, though. If someone graduates from fare-beating to shoplifting, it doesn't really affect me as a rider. However, if it's true that the criminal or dangerous riders are likely also be fare-beaters, then I'd support a crackdown on the fare-beaters to have a cleaner and safer ride. I doubt that Swedish high school students who beat the fares ($120 per month is a lot of money for a teenager) are going to turn into hardened criminals, though. Sweden doesn't have the deep socioeconomic problems that produce crime to the extent that the U.S. does.
- vacri 12y ago
  NYC (and hence the NYT) is quite familiar with the Broken Windows Theory, which was used to drive law enforcement changes intended to reduce crime in the 90s under Giuliani, if I recall correctly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
hungarian-eel 12y ago
If I were the Stockholm public transit company, I'd get my employees to join Planka, get fined every day, and send the bill to Planka. Let's see how they like being on the receiving end of fraud for a change.
Afforess 12y ago
Clearly the fines are too low. Tripling the fines would defeat the economics of the freeloaders little group: Last year, the group took in more than twice as much money — more than $7,500 per month — as it paid out in fines, organizers said. Triple their fine costs, and the group is suddenly no longer economical. No investment in infrastructure needed.
- GuiA 12y ago
  Triple the fines, and the poorer people who may have paid up before won't be able to anymore. It's a delicate balance; otherwise it would be too easy ("just make the fines $10 000")
  - oh_sigh 12y ago
    What do you mean? Why were they evading the fare in the first place? Tripling the fine may decrease the number of people that pay it, but it would also essentially shutdown the group that encourages people to skip fares.
    - blibble 12y ago
      or adopt something similar to the UK's penalty fare system, which generally allows innocent mistakes to be dealt with with a minor fine, whilst persistent offenders end up with a potentially large fine (upto £1000) and a criminal record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_fare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_fare
      - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
        Unless you're rich, in which case you can just get off by paying the original ticket price, and avoid a criminal record altogether [1]. By punishing innocent mistakes, and mainly operating outside rush-hour, the UK penalty system unfairly targets tourists, the elderly, and anyone else who is unfamiliar with the nuances of all the various rules, prices, etc. It also treats honest citizens like dirt and is wholly regressive and outdated in my opinion. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/13/man-avoids-prosecution-pay-back-43000-train-fares http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/13/man-avoids-pr...
bowlofpetunias 12y ago
A somewhat off-topic but honest question: why is it that the NYT gets a free pass when it comes to linking pay-walled sites? Others would get ignored, not upvoted, flagged or at least come with a clear warning label in the title. Linking to pay-walled content without warning is generally considered bad form on open discussion platforms.
- mattraibert 12y ago
  Speaking of fare-evasion, try viewing the article in private-browsing/incognito mode.
- mikeash 12y ago
  It's not difficult to evade the paywall, especially for this (skilled with computers) group.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Some HN users don't mind paying for decent content? Some paywalls are leaky, so the person posting the link might not know the article is paywalled? Maybe NYT is gaming HN? (Other souces have done this. I understand they can sometimes be large vote rings).
ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
Being able to pay the fare really is an issue for poor people. Every time I've seen MUNI or VTA (Santa Clara County) agents checking for fare evasion, the perpetrators are invariably poor, homeless, look like they are mentally ill, etc. Good luck collecting those fines.
- enjo 12y ago
  I was a fare evader the first time I road the MUNI. I couldn't figure out how to pay for the damn thing:)
- BrainInAJar 12y ago
  Some cities subsidize low income peoples' passes.
- vegardx 12y ago
  We have that problem in Oslo, Norway too. Usually homeless and/or addicts are just silently let go, without a fine, even when they have big sweeps. It costs the company and by extension society (things end up in court) too much money trying to collect something that, by all standards, are uncollectible. There has been some discussion about how they can solve the issue, but so far everything is at a stand still. Some people want to make it so that public transport passes are a part of welfare, others mean that they should use the welfare money to pay for the passes if they need it, etc. It's a tough question, and I can see good arguments being made on each side.
vinkelhake 12y ago
As someone who has been a paying rider in the Stockholm mass transit system for decades, this doesn't really bother me. I'd rather have a small group of people freeload than have the fines jacked up or HEET turnstiles installed. I don't think having 100% paying riders in the transit system is a goal worth pursuing. The measures that some here advocate have downsides.
scotty79 12y ago
Why public transport is paid is beyond me. Why would city spend significant resources to discourage usage of public transport by putting price on it? Do they really prefer for the people to buy cars and stand in traffic for hours on overcrowded streets and subsequently be disgruntled and pressure local governments for more roads? Why only public traffic commuters pay if all benefit from the fact that they are not on the street crawling in 1.5 tonne of steel each?
- noxxten 12y ago
  Traveling the DC metro from baltimore literally cost me like $2 one way. It would otherwise be a 50 mile drive. So I could either spend roughly $5 on the metro, or $20 in gas (plus a long ass commute and gridlock wait time). For what you get, most metro costs ARE planned to be at a significant advantage to most people.
  - JeffDClark 12y ago
    How do you only pay ~$5 for a DC-Baltimore commute?
  - CPLX 12y ago
    The DC metro system does not go to/from Baltimore.
  - sp332 12y ago
    For all the money they already paid to make that possible, paying an extra $2 to make your trip free would be a very small addition.
- barrkel 12y ago
  You get other problems if it's completely free; homeless people start living on public transport, drunks using it for extended napping. Fares also act as a congestion control mechanism. Higher rush-hour and central prices push information into the rest of the market. Also, cars are not the only alternative to public transport. In central London where I work, cars face congestion charges that normally exceed the cost of a day ticket on public transport (if a single occupant). But bicycles and motorcycles are not charged, since they don't create congestion in the same way. Bicycles are cheaper than public transport, and governments have an incentive to encourage their use, since they hopefully have health benefits too - reducing healthcare costs. Motorcycles can be cheaper than public transport too, but the calculation is much more complicated, owing to depreciation, maintenance, increased risk, increased fun factor, etc. A scooter is my personal choice.
the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
Sometimes I wonder how Vienna's metro works. The year long ticket is 360 EUR which is not a lot and there are no gates anywhere, just manual enforcement. The fine is also low at 103 EUR.
barrkel 12y ago
Increase fines and capture rates until the expected benefits of fare-dodging are negative. Nobody needs to run to catch the evaders. Periodically, ticket inspectors need to check everyone on a carriage / vehicle, covering all exits. $180 isn't much of a fine, especially since it can be covered by 50% of a $15/month membership charge. That implies a catch chance of about 4.2% per person per month. If an unlimited ticket is $120, then the fine should be closer to $3000, if there is no increase in catch rates. A $3000 fine would be unjust for people who make genuine mistakes, however. So a different strategy should be followed: crack down on individual routes, greatly increasing the catch rate, combined with a modest increase in the fine; focus on changing behaviour, one route at a time. Alternatively, fines could escalate for repeat offences. All assuming anyone is interested in decreasing fraud, of course. It may be a socially acceptable loss for more complex reasons.
- vacri 12y ago
  $180 isn't much of a fine, especially since it can be covered by 50% of a $15/month membership charge. $180 is a significant fine, if you're poor. I've always liked the idea that a fine should be generally tied to your level of wealth, perhaps with a floor so it's not pointlessly low. If the idea of a fine is to deter repeat activity, wealthy people should be equally deterred.
  - barrkel 12y ago
    I agree (there was a time, maybe 10 years ago, that ~$60 was my weekly rent and I still ran arrears), but my girlfriend vehemently disagrees for reasons I don't fully follow but do respect (she's an economist by profession, in healthcare microeconomics, not macroeconomic weather forecasting). It had something to do with maximizing overall welfare / utility for society. She's very touchy about it though, finds it hard to talk to me about it because she thinks I sound condescending when discussing it :) She also rejects the declining marginal utility of money as an axiom. And she rejects the concept of irrational economic actors; economic actors are rational by definition, therefore all their actions are rational, it's just your theory of their action that is wrong. You can imagine this doesn't make discussion easy :)
  - 12y ago
hellbreakslose 12y ago
That also started in Greece after they announced the austerity measures. (2008) It's still an ongoing thing, and there is an organisation called (WeDon'tPay) that does that stuff, they'll gather and they will not let people pay any fare. This happens also in Tolls, that have been abused by contractors and the goverment and 60 years after the complitation of the road they still have tolls.
nostromo 12y ago
> If travelers keep their side of the agreement, the group will cover any of the roughly $180 fines that might result. What an ingenious and devious application of risk pooling. Imagine risk pools being created for other fines, like tax evasion penalties or speeding tickets. I wonder if such agreements are legal?
- viraptor 12y ago
  I guess that the patent / IP infringement indemnity clauses in business contracts come close to that. The company offering the service takes the risk of being sued, but offsets that with money earned from the contract. Quite popular and apparently legal.
unicornporn 12y ago
To top this off, SL (the public transit company in Stockholm) adopted the MIFARE Classic cards which are now being hacked. Much like this: http://vimeo.com/49664045 http://vimeo.com/49664045
Executor 12y ago
Taxation is theft. These people need better values.

26 points by yiedyie 12y ago

Don't try this kind of thing in London. There is a zero-tolerance policy in place on public transport, not just for intentional fare evasion, but for honest mistakes including getting on a train at the wrong time or sitting in the wrong part of a train, even if no other seats are available. Even problems with the ticket barriers are the responsibility of the traveller, not the train company. And repeat 'offenders' can end up with a criminal record.

al_gore 12y ago

HEET turnstiles?

joshstrange 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnstile#Full-height_turnstiles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnstile#Full-height_turnstile...
vegardx 12y ago
In my city they tried to install something similar, yet less invasive, ie. you could jump over them. But it was removed pretty much just weeks after being installed. It didn't satisfy the fire department if there had to be an evacuation. Now - you might think that they had investigated that before it was installed, but ... yeah.

vacri 12y ago

Fare dodging of 3% isn't that much, and shouldn't be characterised as "winning". You could spend a lot of money to reduce it to 2% or maybe 1%, but is it really worth it economically? Reducing it by 1% will net you $12M, but to get that you need to train up existing employees, hire new ones, and build more infrastructure. The fare-dodging organisation is an interesting one, but it's worth mentioning that it's net monetary gain each month is enough for a single employee equivalent (on an average wage), with no overheads or other costs. It is interesting that it's profitable, but it's not like the money is pouring in. Edit: For comparison, fare evasion here in Melbourne hit a 5-year low point at 9% back in January.

chrismcb 12y ago

"reasoning that scofflaws might graduate to more serious crimes if left alone." Really, is there any evidence of that? Or do they think that people will get bored with it, and start on harder crimes? I was disappointed that the article didn't really discuss WHY they are doing it, other than as some sort of “collective fare strike,” and the system should be free. But if it is free, then who will pay for it? It isn't like the fares are that outrageous.

kd0amg 12y ago
the article didn't really discuss WHY they are doing it, other than as some sort of “collective fare strike,” and the system should be free. But if it is free, then who will pay for it? From the article, "The transit system should be financed through taxes, they said, ensuring that a greater share comes from affluent residents and drivers."
michaelochurch 12y ago
"reasoning that scofflaws might graduate to more serious crimes if left alone." Really, is there any evidence of that? Or do they think that people will get bored with it, and start on harder crimes In New York in the 1970s, subways were dirty, unpleasant and unsafe. The panhandlers, thieves, graffiti artists and public defecators tended also to be fare-beaters. I don't think that the fare-beating caused the harder crimes, though. If someone graduates from fare-beating to shoplifting, it doesn't really affect me as a rider. However, if it's true that the criminal or dangerous riders are likely also be fare-beaters, then I'd support a crackdown on the fare-beaters to have a cleaner and safer ride. I doubt that Swedish high school students who beat the fares ($120 per month is a lot of money for a teenager) are going to turn into hardened criminals, though. Sweden doesn't have the deep socioeconomic problems that produce crime to the extent that the U.S. does.
vacri 12y ago
NYC (and hence the NYT) is quite familiar with the Broken Windows Theory, which was used to drive law enforcement changes intended to reduce crime in the 90s under Giuliani, if I recall correctly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

hungarian-eel 12y ago

If I were the Stockholm public transit company, I'd get my employees to join Planka, get fined every day, and send the bill to Planka. Let's see how they like being on the receiving end of fraud for a change.

Afforess 12y ago

Clearly the fines are too low. Tripling the fines would defeat the economics of the freeloaders little group: Last year, the group took in more than twice as much money — more than $7,500 per month — as it paid out in fines, organizers said. Triple their fine costs, and the group is suddenly no longer economical. No investment in infrastructure needed.

GuiA 12y ago
Triple the fines, and the poorer people who may have paid up before won't be able to anymore. It's a delicate balance; otherwise it would be too easy ("just make the fines $10 000")
- oh_sigh 12y ago
  What do you mean? Why were they evading the fare in the first place? Tripling the fine may decrease the number of people that pay it, but it would also essentially shutdown the group that encourages people to skip fares.
  - blibble 12y ago
    or adopt something similar to the UK's penalty fare system, which generally allows innocent mistakes to be dealt with with a minor fine, whilst persistent offenders end up with a potentially large fine (upto £1000) and a criminal record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_fare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_fare
    - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
      Unless you're rich, in which case you can just get off by paying the original ticket price, and avoid a criminal record altogether [1]. By punishing innocent mistakes, and mainly operating outside rush-hour, the UK penalty system unfairly targets tourists, the elderly, and anyone else who is unfamiliar with the nuances of all the various rules, prices, etc. It also treats honest citizens like dirt and is wholly regressive and outdated in my opinion. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/13/man-avoids-prosecution-pay-back-43000-train-fares http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/13/man-avoids-pr...

bowlofpetunias 12y ago

A somewhat off-topic but honest question: why is it that the NYT gets a free pass when it comes to linking pay-walled sites? Others would get ignored, not upvoted, flagged or at least come with a clear warning label in the title. Linking to pay-walled content without warning is generally considered bad form on open discussion platforms.

mattraibert 12y ago
Speaking of fare-evasion, try viewing the article in private-browsing/incognito mode.
mikeash 12y ago
It's not difficult to evade the paywall, especially for this (skilled with computers) group.
DanBC 12y ago
Some HN users don't mind paying for decent content? Some paywalls are leaky, so the person posting the link might not know the article is paywalled? Maybe NYT is gaming HN? (Other souces have done this. I understand they can sometimes be large vote rings).

ZanyProgrammer 12y ago

Being able to pay the fare really is an issue for poor people. Every time I've seen MUNI or VTA (Santa Clara County) agents checking for fare evasion, the perpetrators are invariably poor, homeless, look like they are mentally ill, etc. Good luck collecting those fines.

enjo 12y ago
I was a fare evader the first time I road the MUNI. I couldn't figure out how to pay for the damn thing:)
BrainInAJar 12y ago
Some cities subsidize low income peoples' passes.
vegardx 12y ago
We have that problem in Oslo, Norway too. Usually homeless and/or addicts are just silently let go, without a fine, even when they have big sweeps. It costs the company and by extension society (things end up in court) too much money trying to collect something that, by all standards, are uncollectible. There has been some discussion about how they can solve the issue, but so far everything is at a stand still. Some people want to make it so that public transport passes are a part of welfare, others mean that they should use the welfare money to pay for the passes if they need it, etc. It's a tough question, and I can see good arguments being made on each side.

vinkelhake 12y ago

As someone who has been a paying rider in the Stockholm mass transit system for decades, this doesn't really bother me. I'd rather have a small group of people freeload than have the fines jacked up or HEET turnstiles installed. I don't think having 100% paying riders in the transit system is a goal worth pursuing. The measures that some here advocate have downsides.

scotty79 12y ago

Why public transport is paid is beyond me. Why would city spend significant resources to discourage usage of public transport by putting price on it? Do they really prefer for the people to buy cars and stand in traffic for hours on overcrowded streets and subsequently be disgruntled and pressure local governments for more roads? Why only public traffic commuters pay if all benefit from the fact that they are not on the street crawling in 1.5 tonne of steel each?

noxxten 12y ago
Traveling the DC metro from baltimore literally cost me like $2 one way. It would otherwise be a 50 mile drive. So I could either spend roughly $5 on the metro, or $20 in gas (plus a long ass commute and gridlock wait time). For what you get, most metro costs ARE planned to be at a significant advantage to most people.
- JeffDClark 12y ago
  How do you only pay ~$5 for a DC-Baltimore commute?
- CPLX 12y ago
  The DC metro system does not go to/from Baltimore.
- sp332 12y ago
  For all the money they already paid to make that possible, paying an extra $2 to make your trip free would be a very small addition.
barrkel 12y ago
You get other problems if it's completely free; homeless people start living on public transport, drunks using it for extended napping. Fares also act as a congestion control mechanism. Higher rush-hour and central prices push information into the rest of the market. Also, cars are not the only alternative to public transport. In central London where I work, cars face congestion charges that normally exceed the cost of a day ticket on public transport (if a single occupant). But bicycles and motorcycles are not charged, since they don't create congestion in the same way. Bicycles are cheaper than public transport, and governments have an incentive to encourage their use, since they hopefully have health benefits too - reducing healthcare costs. Motorcycles can be cheaper than public transport too, but the calculation is much more complicated, owing to depreciation, maintenance, increased risk, increased fun factor, etc. A scooter is my personal choice.

the_mitsuhiko 12y ago

Sometimes I wonder how Vienna's metro works. The year long ticket is 360 EUR which is not a lot and there are no gates anywhere, just manual enforcement. The fine is also low at 103 EUR.

barrkel 12y ago

Increase fines and capture rates until the expected benefits of fare-dodging are negative. Nobody needs to run to catch the evaders. Periodically, ticket inspectors need to check everyone on a carriage / vehicle, covering all exits. $180 isn't much of a fine, especially since it can be covered by 50% of a $15/month membership charge. That implies a catch chance of about 4.2% per person per month. If an unlimited ticket is $120, then the fine should be closer to $3000, if there is no increase in catch rates. A $3000 fine would be unjust for people who make genuine mistakes, however. So a different strategy should be followed: crack down on individual routes, greatly increasing the catch rate, combined with a modest increase in the fine; focus on changing behaviour, one route at a time. Alternatively, fines could escalate for repeat offences. All assuming anyone is interested in decreasing fraud, of course. It may be a socially acceptable loss for more complex reasons.

vacri 12y ago
$180 isn't much of a fine, especially since it can be covered by 50% of a $15/month membership charge. $180 is a significant fine, if you're poor. I've always liked the idea that a fine should be generally tied to your level of wealth, perhaps with a floor so it's not pointlessly low. If the idea of a fine is to deter repeat activity, wealthy people should be equally deterred.
- barrkel 12y ago
  I agree (there was a time, maybe 10 years ago, that ~$60 was my weekly rent and I still ran arrears), but my girlfriend vehemently disagrees for reasons I don't fully follow but do respect (she's an economist by profession, in healthcare microeconomics, not macroeconomic weather forecasting). It had something to do with maximizing overall welfare / utility for society. She's very touchy about it though, finds it hard to talk to me about it because she thinks I sound condescending when discussing it :) She also rejects the declining marginal utility of money as an axiom. And she rejects the concept of irrational economic actors; economic actors are rational by definition, therefore all their actions are rational, it's just your theory of their action that is wrong. You can imagine this doesn't make discussion easy :)
- 12y ago

hellbreakslose 12y ago

That also started in Greece after they announced the austerity measures. (2008) It's still an ongoing thing, and there is an organisation called (WeDon'tPay) that does that stuff, they'll gather and they will not let people pay any fare. This happens also in Tolls, that have been abused by contractors and the goverment and 60 years after the complitation of the road they still have tolls.

nostromo 12y ago

> If travelers keep their side of the agreement, the group will cover any of the roughly $180 fines that might result. What an ingenious and devious application of risk pooling. Imagine risk pools being created for other fines, like tax evasion penalties or speeding tickets. I wonder if such agreements are legal?

viraptor 12y ago
I guess that the patent / IP infringement indemnity clauses in business contracts come close to that. The company offering the service takes the risk of being sued, but offsets that with money earned from the contract. Quite popular and apparently legal.

unicornporn 12y ago

To top this off, SL (the public transit company in Stockholm) adopted the MIFARE Classic cards which are now being hacked. Much like this: http://vimeo.com/49664045 http://vimeo.com/49664045

Executor 12y ago

Taxation is theft. These people need better values.