> Sure, minority groups and riders of limited financial means might see some initial benefits from free travel and reduced fare enforcement—but aren’t they also

> Sure, minority groups and riders of limited financial means might see some initial benefits from free travel and reduced fare enforcement—but aren’t they also entitled to protection from criminals and the chronically homeless or mentally ill increasingly terrorizing urban transit systems? And even if fare recovery is unimportant to the advocates, where is their concern for the safety and security of their constituents? The answer of the article which you can guess by following Betteridge's law of headlines is “No” and the argument is along the lines “but won’t someone think of the children” I find this line of thinking either incredibly shortsighted or presented in bad faith. If the only thing protecting law abiding citizens from criminals and the mentally ill is a fare then we’re in a bad shape. And If you take a ride on the public transit in LA you’ll notice that a fare doesn’t offer the promised protection. I’d like to rename the title of the article to “Should we continue paying fares for public transit?” and rewrite the article to answer that question accordingly.