Transit agencies lose millions of dollars in revenue each year due to fare evasion. Although fare evasion has been around for as long as transit has existed, as the number and types of payment methods expanded, so have the ways in which riders can exploit fare collection systems. While fare evasion remains a persistent challenge, exacerbated by the pandemic, there are ways to combat the issue and recover revenue.

This article will outline the problem of fare evasion. A second post will explore the ways transit agencies can address it, particularly with open payment and other modern fare collection methods.

The impact of fare evasion

Large agencies report losses ranging from 3 percent to 15 percent of fare revenue. Figures range from nearly $1 billion lost in New York City to $25 million lost in San Francisco in 2024. (Both cities embarked on efforts to curb fare evasion in 2025 and are already seeing significant results.)

While dollar amounts at small and mid-sized agencies are smaller, the impact of the 5-10 percent hit on operational budgets can be proportionally larger.

Beyond financial loss, fare evasion creates a perception of lawlessness or unfairness that can drive riders away and diminish confidence and support for public investment in transit. It also undermines the equity and sustainability of public transit systems.

The prevalence of fare evasion

Fare evasion is most prevalent on urban rail and bus rapid transit systems, facilitated by higher rider anonymity, larger crowds, and fixed, unattended infrastructure. Bus networks in large metro areas are also hard-hit due to rear-door boarding, operator discretion, and safety concerns that limit fare enforcement efforts.

Fare evasion is also rampant in transit systems with honor-based fare collection, such as in Seattle and Portland, Oregon, unless it is paired with frequent inspection.

Methods of fare evasion

Riders can evade fares accidentally, opportunistically, or deliberately. Other riders may not pay fares simply because they can’t afford them. The most common methods of fare evasion can be grouped into physical and electronic scenarios. Physical methods, which can be difficult to address due to safety issues, include:

  • Tailgating, gate jumping, or using emergency exits to enter BRT and rail stations
  • Rear door boarding on buses
  • Failure to tap or pay, which can be facilitated by operator inattention or unwillingness to enforce fare payment
  • Exploitation of proof-of-payment systems, where riders take their chances avoiding inspectors
  • Groups entering on a single tap without operator detection

Electronic/digital methods of fare evasion can be more safely and effectively controlled. These include:

  • Use of invalid or fraudulent fare media such as stolen, expired, or cloned cards or manipulated QR codes
  • Use of invalid open payment methods, such as prepaid or debit cards lacking funds; expired, stolen, or revoked credit cards; or cards configured to decline contactless transactions
  • Contactless payment exploitation such as tapping too quickly for validation or multiple riders entering together on a single tap from one member of the group
  • Chargebacks, where a rider disputes valid transit charges with their bank, claiming they are fraudulent

Measurement of fare evasion

Most transit agencies struggle to calculate true fare evasion rates. However, there are steps agencies can take to build a more accurate picture.

Passenger counts: Automatic passenger counters or manual operator counts can be used to compare the number of riders with the number of payments recorded. Once that comparison is made, agencies may choose to set “expected-to-paid” thresholds for each route to flag anomalies.

Payment exception analysis: Genfare Link data can be examined to analyze tap errors, repeated non-payment attempts by the same card or device, or high volumes of unlinked boardings.

Sampling: Periodic manual counts or fare inspection audits can be performed on selected routes to estimate broader trends, which can then be repeated over time to track the impact of mitigation strategies.

Rider surveys: Discreet surveys can estimate uncollected fare percentages, reasons for non-payment, and awareness of enforcement.

Reducing fare evasion

There are several strategies transit agencies can take to deter and reduce fare evasion. Tactics include low-cost operational changes, education campaigns, data-driven enforcement, and optimizing existing technology. Part two of this series will discuss these methods, along with open payment debt recovery and fare collection hardware and software features designed to mitigate fare collection.