4 ms·
Yes, because it’s the fare evaders who also disproportionately damage the facilities, commit crimes, and make public transit unpleasant for everyone else. Also
by epicureanideal 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.
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.