Header banner MUST have an alt or title

The component interventionHeader has not been created yet or is not available for this content page type.

The component headerBackButton has not been created yet or is not available for this content page type.

General Overview

EICS Framework


Region of Reference

  • AfricaAfrica
  • AsiaAsia
  • AustraliaAustralia
  • EuropeEurope
  • North-AmericaNorth-America
  • South-AmericaSouth-America
  • WorldWorld


This intervention refers to limiting access to public transit stops/stations for youths/Agberos and gangs through appropriate access control. Agberos (also known as ‘area boys’) are a “cohort of dreaded urban youth [predominantly male] who survive through their parasitic dependence on the spatial regulation of public transport in Lagos, Nigeria” (Agbiboa, 2018). [1,2] Agberos operate in most car parks and bus stops in Lagos, demanding daily ‘transport taxes’ from drivers of both private and public transport, often in a violent manner. [3,4] Gangs and groups of youth are also present at transport stops/stations in other parts of the world, which poses potential safety problems for public transport users. [6,8]

The presence of youths/Agberos and gangs in the public transit space increases the fear of crime for users and, therefore, limiting their access will increase their feeling of safety. [1,7] Access control measures such as ticket gates, turnstiles, and other barriers are appropriate tools to limit the access of those without tickets. [5]

Types of Impact

Area Impacted

  • To/from the stop/station/rank
  • Waiting for train/bus/paratransit
  • In the vehicle
  • At interchanges
This intervention would impact areas such as stations and stops, as well as transport interchanges. Access control could also be implemented on vehicles to prevent passengers without tickets using the service.

Time of Day of Impact

  • Day-time travel
  • Night-time travel
  • Peak-time travel
  • Off peak-time travel
All travel time categories could be positively impacted by this intervention.

Mode Impacted

  • Bus
  • Train
  • Rideshare
  • 4 wheelers informal
  • 3 wheelers informal
  • 2 wheelers informal
  • Cycling
  • Walking
Modes with formal infrastructure and the ability to control boarding/alighting of passengers will be impacted, such as train stations and bus stops.

Demographic impacted

  • Girls
  • Boys
  • Adult Women
  • Men
  • Elderly Women
All public transport users could be positively impacted by this intervention, as access control protects all passengers. However, literature shows that women and the elderly experience a significant increase in fear of crime due to public transit loiterers, so this intervention will have a greater positive impact on them. [7,9]

SWOT Analysis

  • Prevents youths/Agberos and gangs from entering public transit spaces, which increases the feeling of safety of passengers.

  • Reduces the potential for crime, as only passengers can enter the space.

  • Scalable to suit budget and need

  • As soon as implementation stops, the benefits stop

  • Not effective in parts of the transport system where the intervention is not physically present

  • To improve the safety of the station or stop.


Literature shows that females have an increased fear of crime when people loiter in public transit stations/stops. [7,9] Since this intervention prevents that from happening, it should be perceived positively by female passengers, as well as governing bodies who want to keep their stations/stops safe. As there is a small amount literature to support this, confidence in these ratings is moderate.

  • Perception by (female) passengers
  • Perception by governing bodies
  • Level of confidence in these ratings


Implementation of this intervention is quick. The benefits ensue immediately once the intervention has been implemented. Unfortunately, if the intervention ends, so do the benefits.

Implementation timeframe

  • 0-1 year
  • 1-3 years
  • >3 years

Timeframe to realise benefits

  • 0-1 year
  • 1-3 years
  • >3 years

Scale of Implementation

This intervention can be implemented at a station or suburb level.

Station or

Ease of Implementation

This intervention is relatively easy to implement.

List of References



1. Agbiboa, D.E. 2018. Informal urban governance and predatory politics in Africa: The role of motor-park touts in lagos. African Affairs. 117(466):62–82. DOI: 10.1093/afraf/adx052.

2. Ayodele, J., Atere, A. & Bayewu, H. 2013. “ Agbero ” an d Maintenance of Social Order : A Study of Iyana Iba , Mile 2 and Oshodi Motor Parks. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences. 13. [2022, January 19].

3. Anudu, O. 2021. Money for the boys: How agberos pocket billions of Lagos transport revenue. [2022, January 19].

4. Agbiboa, D.E. 2020. Between cooperation and conflict: the national union of road transport workers in Lagos, Nigeria. Crime, Law and Social Change. 73(5):605–622. DOI: 10.1007/s10611-019-09878-x.



5. Abbott, J. 2006. Controlling access to metros. [2022, January 13].

6. Hine, J. & Scott, J. 2000. Seamless, accessible travel: Users’ views of the public transport journey and interchange. Transport Policy. 7(3):217–226. DOI: 10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00022-6.

North America

North America

7. Felson, M., Belanger, M.E., Bichler, G.M., Bruzinski, C.D., Campbell, G.S., Fried, C.L., Grofik, K.C., Mazur, I.S., et al. 1996. Redesigning hell: preventing crime and disorder at the Port Authority Bus Terminal. Preventing Mass Transit Crime. 5–92.

8. Miguel Cruz, J. 2019. The Politics of Negotiating with Gangs. The Case of El Salvador. Bulletin of Latin American Research. 38(5):547–562. DOI: 10.1111/blar.12847.

9. Kooi, B. 2015. Security Concerns at Hot-Spot Bus Stop Locations. Journal of Applied Security Research. 10(3):277–307. DOI: 10.1080/19361610.2015.1038762