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

Type of stakeholder

EICS Framework

Region of Reference

Africa
Asia
Australia
Europe
North-America
South-America
World

Description

This intervention refers to limiting access to public transit stops/stations for homeless people and loiterers through appropriate access control. Increased homelessness and lack of shelters have led to homeless people using transit stops, stations, and vehicles as places to sleep and find shelter. [4]

The presence of the homeless and of loiterers in the public transit space increases the fear of crime for users and, therefore, limiting their access will increase their feeling of safety. [2,3] Access control measures such as ticket gates, turnstiles, and other barriers are appropriate tools to limit the access of those without tickets. [1]

Facts/Illustrations/Case studies

An image of ticket gates at a train station in England, UK. Source: https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/ticket-barriers-to-stop-fare-283876
An image of ticket gates at Gautrain in Gauteng, SA. Source: https://www.gautrain.co.za/pdf/Gautrain_User_Guide_FA.pdf

Types of Impact

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.

Day-time travel✓
Night-time travel✓
Peak-time travel✓
Off peak-time travel✓

All travel time categories could be positively impacted by this intervention.

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.

Girls✓
Boys✓
Adult Women✓
Men✓
Elderly Women✓
LGBTQI+✓

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. [2,3]

Resources

Monetary Resource Requirements
The capital costs and operational costs of this intervention are relatively low. Capital cost would include the purchasing and installing of access control infrastructure such as ticket gates, while operational cost would include maintenance and electricity (if needed). Cost is dependent on scale of implementation: the more access control interventions are implemented, the higher the costs.
Capital Cost Requirements Operational Cost Requirements
Non-Monetary Resource Requirements
This intervention requires some skills to implement, specifically relating to design and installation of access control infrastructure. Some time will be needed to install the infrastructure and set up the new access control system. There will also be some political will needed, as problems may arise with the prevention of homeless people from accessing certain spaces.
Skills Time Political Will

SWOT Analysis

Prevents loiterers 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.

Effectiveness

Literature shows that females have an increased fear of crime when people loiter in public transit stations/stops. [2,3] 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 of 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

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.

National

Regional

City

Station or
Suburb

Ease of Implementation

This intervention is relatively easy to implement.

List of References

Europe

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

North America

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Ding, H., Loukaitou-Sideris, A. & Wasserman, J.L. 2021. Homelessness on public transit: A review of problems and responses. Transport Reviews. DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2021.1923583.

SHE CAN Tool