2 ms·
Agreed. I think if fare evaders were kept off it would reduce the need for monitoring significantly, and rather than continuous monitoring, some other less inv
by epicureanideal 1y ago
Agreed. I think if fare evaders were kept off it would reduce the need for monitoring significantly, and rather than continuous monitoring, some other less invasive means of detecting destruction in progress could be found.
- t-writescode 1y agoDo you think it’s worth spending 50k+ per year per enforcer on the hundreds per week lost to fare evasion in their enforceable area?
- epicureanideal 1y agoYes, because it’s the fare evaders who also disproportionately damage the facilities, commit crimes, and make public transit unpleasant for everyone else. Also we should compare like with like, a yearly salary vs losses per week isn’t the same time period. I do agree that enforcement is more expensive than the fare-only losses though.
- t-writescode 1y ago> Yes, because it’s the fare evaders who also disproportionately damage the facilities, commit crimes, and make public transit unpleasant for everyone else. This comes from a "Broken Windows" philosophy; and I would argue it's far more important to go after the damage and crime than it is wasting money gating at the door. > a yearly salary vs losses per week isn’t the same time period. Correct, but it can be extrapolated. It would take a single employee catching $1000/week worth (at what, $2.50 to $5 per ticket?) to meet that single employee's salary, minus benefits, on average. That doesn't seem like a good investment, to me.