4 ms·

> "To discourage fare evasion, the agency should set up regular inspections (on moving vehicles, with unarmed civilian inspectors)." no, no, no, no, no. we do

> "To discourage fare evasion, the agency should set up regular inspections (on moving vehicles, with unarmed civilian inspectors)." no, no, no, no, no. we do this in LA and it sucks. fare-paying riders (i.e., most riders) are regularly accosted by transit police for fare checks and thus pay most of the cost of this in time and humiliation. instead, costs should primarily accrue to fare evaders, not fare payers. for instance (off the top of my head), technology should be used to (anonymously) deduct fares at a distance while simultaneously detecting fare evaders (maybe triangulated from multiple NFC readers). transit police can then choose to fine the evader. to incentivize getting it right, give the rider free rides if the system pinpoints the wrong person. or even just allow cards to go negative (to repay later) and save on transit policing.

c3534l 7y ago
We have that in Portland and they're reall not a hastle if you're just sitting there anyway. It's no different than showing the bus driver your ticket before you get on the bus, except you do it less and don't create lines that slow down the bus/train.
- whycombagator 7y ago
  This is how it is in the UK. You will occasionally have a ticket inspection, and it's just a person wandering through the train asking to glance at peoples tickets. Sure, I wish I didn't have to reach into my pocket and pull out my ticket for 5 seconds - but never heard anyone complain about it, nor thought about it much myself.
monknomo 7y ago
What if we just make transit free at point of service? It isn't like those fares are really paying the costs
- clairity 7y ago
  that would be ok with me and would really simplify the solution, but economically speaking, riders generally should pay more than non-riders, since they get more direct benefit. also, by paying, riders feel a little more invested and less likely to take transit for granted. fares are $1.75 per ride in LA, and from what i remember, that pays about half of the metro's costs. without thinking too deeply about it, that seems a reasonable split.
  - jimktrains2 7y ago
    > but economically speaking, riders generally should pay more than non-riders, since they get more direct benefit. Like fewer cars on the road, less pollution, and less space wasted to store cars?
    - clairity 7y ago
      yup, those benefits accrue to everyone, so it makes sense that everyone pays for (part of) public transit, even if they don't directly use it. it's the same for roads, everyone benefits, but the people who use it more should pay more (gas tax, registration fees, etc.).
      - jimktrains2 7y ago
        Fewer cars on the road is a direct benefit to those who drive.
- kiliantics 7y ago
  Exactly. And measures to get fare-payment or prevent evasion are very costly in themselves, e.g.: https://twitter.com/AmesCG/status/1140737315452706817 https://twitter.com/AmesCG/status/1140737315452706817
kelnos 7y ago
We have that on buses in SF. During the 4-5 years when I heavily rode the bus, fare inspectors came aboard exactly three times. When it does happen, it's no big deal, takes very little time, and there's no "humiliation" aspect (well, except for fare evaders, but they deserve what they get). (Given the lack of frequency, I expect that there's a decent amount of uncaught fare evasion.)
- natalyarostova 7y ago
  My favorite part of seeing that in SF was the gaggle of homeless and fare evaders who would immediately just walk away, while the inspectors weren't paid enough to physically accost them and force them to suffer for their theft. As a result the thieves walk away while muttering to themselves, and the law-abiding citizens line up. The system works!
- clairity 7y ago
  it's way more aggressive in LA (i used to take public transit in SF as well). here, i've been stopped 3 times in one day before, twice at stations and once aboard the train. if you do anything other than meekly presenting your card to the electronic reader, the transit police will accost you and even chase you down. all for a measly buck seventy-five.

c3534l 7y ago

We have that in Portland and they're reall not a hastle if you're just sitting there anyway. It's no different than showing the bus driver your ticket before you get on the bus, except you do it less and don't create lines that slow down the bus/train.

whycombagator 7y ago
This is how it is in the UK. You will occasionally have a ticket inspection, and it's just a person wandering through the train asking to glance at peoples tickets. Sure, I wish I didn't have to reach into my pocket and pull out my ticket for 5 seconds - but never heard anyone complain about it, nor thought about it much myself.

monknomo 7y ago

What if we just make transit free at point of service? It isn't like those fares are really paying the costs

clairity 7y ago
that would be ok with me and would really simplify the solution, but economically speaking, riders generally should pay more than non-riders, since they get more direct benefit. also, by paying, riders feel a little more invested and less likely to take transit for granted. fares are $1.75 per ride in LA, and from what i remember, that pays about half of the metro's costs. without thinking too deeply about it, that seems a reasonable split.
- jimktrains2 7y ago
  > but economically speaking, riders generally should pay more than non-riders, since they get more direct benefit. Like fewer cars on the road, less pollution, and less space wasted to store cars?
  - clairity 7y ago
    yup, those benefits accrue to everyone, so it makes sense that everyone pays for (part of) public transit, even if they don't directly use it. it's the same for roads, everyone benefits, but the people who use it more should pay more (gas tax, registration fees, etc.).
    - jimktrains2 7y ago
      Fewer cars on the road is a direct benefit to those who drive.
kiliantics 7y ago
Exactly. And measures to get fare-payment or prevent evasion are very costly in themselves, e.g.: https://twitter.com/AmesCG/status/1140737315452706817 https://twitter.com/AmesCG/status/1140737315452706817

kelnos 7y ago

We have that on buses in SF. During the 4-5 years when I heavily rode the bus, fare inspectors came aboard exactly three times. When it does happen, it's no big deal, takes very little time, and there's no "humiliation" aspect (well, except for fare evaders, but they deserve what they get). (Given the lack of frequency, I expect that there's a decent amount of uncaught fare evasion.)

natalyarostova 7y ago
My favorite part of seeing that in SF was the gaggle of homeless and fare evaders who would immediately just walk away, while the inspectors weren't paid enough to physically accost them and force them to suffer for their theft. As a result the thieves walk away while muttering to themselves, and the law-abiding citizens line up. The system works!
clairity 7y ago
it's way more aggressive in LA (i used to take public transit in SF as well). here, i've been stopped 3 times in one day before, twice at stations and once aboard the train. if you do anything other than meekly presenting your card to the electronic reader, the transit police will accost you and even chase you down. all for a measly buck seventy-five.