11–20 of 57 posts
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.
The measures that some here advocate have downsides.
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.
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?
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.
The fine is also low at 103 EUR.
"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 l…
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.
"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 l…
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.
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.