3 ms·

> There is an irony embedded in the enforcement push. Cyclists who blow through red lights without endangering anyone else can now be forced to appear in court.

by bko 1y ago

> There is an irony embedded in the enforcement push. Cyclists who blow through red lights without endangering anyone else can now be forced to appear in court. Drivers who commit the same violation cannot. Instead, drivers face the same traffic ticket they always have, a moving violation with a fine payable by mail. The difference with drivers is that moving violations often result in higher insurance rates. If you don't pay, you eventually can't register their car, can't get insurance and lose their license. Similar enforcement doesn't exist on e-bikes. I'm not sure how many people would pay e-bike tickets, but I imagine the penalty and repercussions of not paying would be a big enough deterrence. They should consider doing something similar for toll evaders on subways and buses. Increased enforcement doesn't really scale but you can make the cost much greater to deter criminal activity. Make that person go to court. About 45% of bus fares are evaded in NYC, and it make sense. If a ticket is $3 and a fine is up to $100 after the first offense, then enforcement has to be really high. https://www.mta.info/press-release/icymi-governor-hochul-announces-subway-fare-evasion-down-26-percent-new-york-city https://www.mta.info/press-release/icymi-governor-hochul-ann...

hbsbsbsndk 1y ago
Subway fares disproportionately penalize the poor and force them into encounters with police. Transit should be free.
- staringback 1y ago
  [flagged]
- micromacrofoot 1y ago
  I'll get on my soapbox every time to also point out that a fareless system is also cheaper for everyone to operate. Operating and maintaining fare systems costs millions of dollars (hundreds of millions when they upgrade the system), enforcing and gating fares reduces system efficiency. Rolling those costs into taxes instead will always cost less than collecting at point of operation. Fares are already too low to cover operational costs, so at this point it's practically theater.
  - parpfish 1y ago
    If you removed fares, you’d turn the subway into a mobile homeless shelter and everyone would stop using it
    - micromacrofoot 1y ago
      True, this is why central park doesn't exist anymore. Maybe if they charged admission they could bring it back.
- lurk2 1y ago
  > Transit should be free. Users should pay for the services they use.
  - giraffe_lady 1y ago
    They do, in taxes. Or do you expect the police, highway system, fire dept etc to turn a profit as well?
    - bko 1y ago
      People should pay for services they use. Highway system is mostly funded through gasoline tax, which although not perfect, is pretty good proxy for how much you use public roads. Regarding police, private security does exist and works pretty well. Whether you're installing an alarm on your home or paying off-duty police to escort you around, it's an option and often provides better service and more options due to the profit incentive. I wish more public services had a profit incentive as long as there was a choice. Like with fire insurance, I can choose my coverage and its priced competitively. The insurance company also has an incentive to not have your house burn down, so they mandate you have fire detectors and other such preventative measures. Seems like a pretty good system.
      - giraffe_lady 1y ago
        > People should pay for services they use. You say this like it's a fact I have to accept but it simply isn't. It's an ideological position I wasn't convinced of at the beginning of this conversation and still am not.
        bko 1y ago
        I think "pay for something you use" is not an ideological position. This is a lesson we teach 3 year olds. "That's not yours" is in fact one of the very first lessons we teach children. And it's not specific to any one culture or country. Pretty basic stuff.
- bko 1y ago
  Enforcement of many laws disproportionately penalize the poor. Should we live in a lawless society? On the "free transit" point, unless you convince bus drivers and train operators and the tens of thousands of people that operate MTA to work for nothing, then it cannot be free. It can be paid for by someone else (e.g. taxpayers), but in general if you have a third party paying for something, you run into big problems related to expense growth, under investment, and inefficient use of resources in general. Seeing your fare go up due to bloated expenses and mismanagement is an important signal. Hiding it and hoping everyone is honest and diligent with resources is naive.

by bko 1y ago

hbsbsbsndk 1y ago

Subway fares disproportionately penalize the poor and force them into encounters with police. Transit should be free.

staringback 1y ago
[flagged]
micromacrofoot 1y ago
I'll get on my soapbox every time to also point out that a fareless system is also cheaper for everyone to operate. Operating and maintaining fare systems costs millions of dollars (hundreds of millions when they upgrade the system), enforcing and gating fares reduces system efficiency. Rolling those costs into taxes instead will always cost less than collecting at point of operation. Fares are already too low to cover operational costs, so at this point it's practically theater.
- parpfish 1y ago
  If you removed fares, you’d turn the subway into a mobile homeless shelter and everyone would stop using it
  - micromacrofoot 1y ago
    True, this is why central park doesn't exist anymore. Maybe if they charged admission they could bring it back.
lurk2 1y ago
> Transit should be free. Users should pay for the services they use.
- giraffe_lady 1y ago
  They do, in taxes. Or do you expect the police, highway system, fire dept etc to turn a profit as well?
  - bko 1y ago
    People should pay for services they use. Highway system is mostly funded through gasoline tax, which although not perfect, is pretty good proxy for how much you use public roads. Regarding police, private security does exist and works pretty well. Whether you're installing an alarm on your home or paying off-duty police to escort you around, it's an option and often provides better service and more options due to the profit incentive. I wish more public services had a profit incentive as long as there was a choice. Like with fire insurance, I can choose my coverage and its priced competitively. The insurance company also has an incentive to not have your house burn down, so they mandate you have fire detectors and other such preventative measures. Seems like a pretty good system.
    - giraffe_lady 1y ago
      > People should pay for services they use. You say this like it's a fact I have to accept but it simply isn't. It's an ideological position I wasn't convinced of at the beginning of this conversation and still am not.
      - bko 1y ago
        I think "pay for something you use" is not an ideological position. This is a lesson we teach 3 year olds. "That's not yours" is in fact one of the very first lessons we teach children. And it's not specific to any one culture or country. Pretty basic stuff.
bko 1y ago
Enforcement of many laws disproportionately penalize the poor. Should we live in a lawless society? On the "free transit" point, unless you convince bus drivers and train operators and the tens of thousands of people that operate MTA to work for nothing, then it cannot be free. It can be paid for by someone else (e.g. taxpayers), but in general if you have a third party paying for something, you run into big problems related to expense growth, under investment, and inefficient use of resources in general. Seeing your fare go up due to bloated expenses and mismanagement is an important signal. Hiding it and hoping everyone is honest and diligent with resources is naive.