Metrobus farebox audit reveals payment and data problems

Many bus operators are not correctly counting bus passengers or unlimited passes, a recent audit by WMATA’s Inspector General found.

The audit examined the quality, accuracy and timeliness of data collected by Metro’s bus fareboxes and found problems with bus ridership and financial data in some key areas.

Bus operators are not consistently recording the types of passengers (elderly, disabled, etc.) or alternate fare payments like flash passes. In some cases, the auditors found that drivers that were distracted did not collect payment.

The auditors recommended management review of bus operators. This information is key to ensuring the Metrobus subsidy is correctly divided up between jurisdictions, and that Metro gets its fare share of flash pass revenues. In addition, ridership figures are reported to federal agencies.

Farebox malfunctions caused a loss of revenue. Sometimes, a farebox will stop accepting one type of payment. In that case, the bus operator is supposed to call in and get instructions. It appears to be standard Metro procedure if one payment type is disabled to continue collecting the other payment types.

In this case, Metro might suffer from fraud, when customers claim to only have the non-working form of payment. Metro is supposed to get a bus with a working farebox in operation promptly, both to restore the ability to collect revenue and ridership data.

When a Metrobus farebox has one function broken, Metro has three options: take the bus out of service, continue operating but do not collect fares from anyone, or to continue operating but attempt to collect fares from people who are paying with a method the farebox can still collect.

Of these, clearly the worst option is to take the bus out of service. Metro operates to move people from place to place, and buses operate at a very low cost recovery ratio. The jurisdictions pay for most of the cost of operating Metrobus, and to take a bus out of service because Metro cannot collect fares from some people would seriously impact reliability.

Next worst is to collect fares only from customers that are able to pay the mode that’s still working. This is inequitable treatment of customers, and could encourage them to avoid payment by claiming they don’t have cash or a Smartrip card, depending on what’s broken. I don’t think the system should reward customers who cheat, and Metro should not be in the business of taking fares from some customers and not others based on what’s broken.

When a Metrobus farebox is broken, instead, the driver should attempt to collect ridership data but not collect any payment. Operations control should arrange a replacement bus for the end of the trip.