4 ms·

NYC ended up spending $1,440 per dollar in fares recovered on stopping fare jumpers, which is probably why the decree came about in the first place. Is there a

NYC ended up spending $1,440 per dollar in fares recovered on stopping fare jumpers, which is probably why the decree came about in the first place. Is there a particular reason why you think setting gargantuan amounts of money on fire over trivial offenses makes sense?

hansvm 1mo ago
Per dollar recovered or per future fare-jumped dollar prevented? Edit: This plays into something I observe in most "data-driven" organizations. Having a statistic available about recovery costs makes it easy to shift the conversation toward that statistic, when you actually ought to be asking questions about (in this case) the causal impact of that intervention on the subway's overall profitability, the need for easily available public transit and whether there ought to be a fare in the first place, the public good (or maybe harm -- the point is that we ought to be discussing it one way or the other) done by using fare-jumping collections as a mechanism for training people to be less antisocial in other aspects of their lives, or whether that obscene cost of fare collection is actually a reasonable baseline and should be improved. Your statistic, while interesting, is almost useless when trying to figure out what we should do next, at least by itself, and when paired with human psychology it can be actively harmful.
- lux-lux-lux 1mo ago
  Per dollar recovered. Paying law enforcement officers overtime and directing police attention away from more significant criminal behavior (as opposed to redesigning turnstiles or pursuing alternative strategies like no-fare systems) is extremely expensive and time-limited in terms of impact. It does shovel a lot of dollars at law enforcement and let the Adams administration pretend to be tough on crime despite engaging in a lot of it, which was the actual intent.
  - JuniperMesos 1mo ago
    The sorts of people who turnstile jump are likely to commit further crimes on the public transit system that more directly affect the ordinary people trying to use it legitimately. For this reason I specifically want the police to prioritize arresting and prosecuting turnstile jumpers - it concretely improves the experience of public transit for everyone. This is the same reason that getting rid of fare-checking is bad - the sorts of people who are kept off the transit system by enforcing a fare, are not people you want to be in an enclosed space with.
    - dcrazy 1mo ago
      Corroboration: crime on BART dropped when the new harder-to-jump fare gates went in.
meric_ 1mo ago
Because those trivial offences are a nuisance. BART spent millions implementing fare gates which so far, is at a huge loss, but it's dramatically lowered maintenance cost and crime on the transit. Similarly stores with loss prevention guards are probably losing money, but I'd much rather that than having to click a button to unlock items, etc.
- ethbr1 1mo ago
  Loss prevention in retail is absolutely tailored to the store, in the US. Essentially, the corporate dept has a bucket of funding and chooses where / how to deploy it. So when you see {insert LP device}, there's metrics to back it up. And specifically, worse metrics than the same chain stores that don't have that device.
- lux-lux-lux 1mo ago
  The fare gate redesign was cost-neutral; that’s the kind of solutions that should have been on the table, not setting money on fire with cop salaries.
xp84 1mo ago
Capitulating to the antisocial persons by just giving up just sends a message to others that this behavior is acceptable. It moves the Overton window. Someone who used to think turnstile hopping was the kind of thing only crooks and low-lifes do sees people doing it more and more, witnesses and hears about how there are no consequences, and can't help but reframe it as more like driving 70 in a 65mph zone -- a harmless thing that "everybody does" and is totally fine. The city has enough money, and after all, Mamdani said he'll make those rich guys pay more! That'll cover my share! Meanwhile transit deteriorates severely.
- lux-lux-lux 1mo ago
  I much prefer targeting more pressing antisocial behaviors while not excessively wasting public funds, something the Mamdani administration has been doing quite efficiently e.g. with the pied-à-terre tax. You seem angry about that, for some reason.
  - nonford150 1mo ago
    Not sure how you can justify the pied-a-terre tax by claiming it fights against antisocial behaviors. It just is another funding stream.
  - xp84 1mo ago
    Nah, I'm not really angry because I don't live in New York so it's not my problem. But no, I don't respect a politician who is demonstrably economically illiterate.
mancerayder 1mo ago
Great. So MTA raises fares and complains about not being able to meet revenue, causing the state to have to funnel more to it. Nevermind that the economics of your argument are completely blind to the fact that the funding sources of the MTA and the NYPD are completely different. More crazy is the downstream effects of putting up your hands and letting crimes go. All this for what ? Social justice? Here's my counter to that - the subway is a public good, For the People a socialist would say. So you encourage stealing from The People.

hansvm 1mo ago

Per dollar recovered or per future fare-jumped dollar prevented? Edit: This plays into something I observe in most "data-driven" organizations. Having a statistic available about recovery costs makes it easy to shift the conversation toward that statistic, when you actually ought to be asking questions about (in this case) the causal impact of that intervention on the subway's overall profitability, the need for easily available public transit and whether there ought to be a fare in the first place, the public good (or maybe harm -- the point is that we ought to be discussing it one way or the other) done by using fare-jumping collections as a mechanism for training people to be less antisocial in other aspects of their lives, or whether that obscene cost of fare collection is actually a reasonable baseline and should be improved. Your statistic, while interesting, is almost useless when trying to figure out what we should do next, at least by itself, and when paired with human psychology it can be actively harmful.

lux-lux-lux 1mo ago
Per dollar recovered. Paying law enforcement officers overtime and directing police attention away from more significant criminal behavior (as opposed to redesigning turnstiles or pursuing alternative strategies like no-fare systems) is extremely expensive and time-limited in terms of impact. It does shovel a lot of dollars at law enforcement and let the Adams administration pretend to be tough on crime despite engaging in a lot of it, which was the actual intent.
- JuniperMesos 1mo ago
  The sorts of people who turnstile jump are likely to commit further crimes on the public transit system that more directly affect the ordinary people trying to use it legitimately. For this reason I specifically want the police to prioritize arresting and prosecuting turnstile jumpers - it concretely improves the experience of public transit for everyone. This is the same reason that getting rid of fare-checking is bad - the sorts of people who are kept off the transit system by enforcing a fare, are not people you want to be in an enclosed space with.
  - dcrazy 1mo ago
    Corroboration: crime on BART dropped when the new harder-to-jump fare gates went in.

meric_ 1mo ago

Because those trivial offences are a nuisance. BART spent millions implementing fare gates which so far, is at a huge loss, but it's dramatically lowered maintenance cost and crime on the transit. Similarly stores with loss prevention guards are probably losing money, but I'd much rather that than having to click a button to unlock items, etc.

ethbr1 1mo ago
Loss prevention in retail is absolutely tailored to the store, in the US. Essentially, the corporate dept has a bucket of funding and chooses where / how to deploy it. So when you see {insert LP device}, there's metrics to back it up. And specifically, worse metrics than the same chain stores that don't have that device.
lux-lux-lux 1mo ago
The fare gate redesign was cost-neutral; that’s the kind of solutions that should have been on the table, not setting money on fire with cop salaries.

xp84 1mo ago

Capitulating to the antisocial persons by just giving up just sends a message to others that this behavior is acceptable. It moves the Overton window. Someone who used to think turnstile hopping was the kind of thing only crooks and low-lifes do sees people doing it more and more, witnesses and hears about how there are no consequences, and can't help but reframe it as more like driving 70 in a 65mph zone -- a harmless thing that "everybody does" and is totally fine. The city has enough money, and after all, Mamdani said he'll make those rich guys pay more! That'll cover my share! Meanwhile transit deteriorates severely.

lux-lux-lux 1mo ago
I much prefer targeting more pressing antisocial behaviors while not excessively wasting public funds, something the Mamdani administration has been doing quite efficiently e.g. with the pied-à-terre tax. You seem angry about that, for some reason.
- nonford150 1mo ago
  Not sure how you can justify the pied-a-terre tax by claiming it fights against antisocial behaviors. It just is another funding stream.
- xp84 1mo ago
  Nah, I'm not really angry because I don't live in New York so it's not my problem. But no, I don't respect a politician who is demonstrably economically illiterate.

mancerayder 1mo ago

Great. So MTA raises fares and complains about not being able to meet revenue, causing the state to have to funnel more to it. Nevermind that the economics of your argument are completely blind to the fact that the funding sources of the MTA and the NYPD are completely different. More crazy is the downstream effects of putting up your hands and letting crimes go. All this for what ? Social justice? Here's my counter to that - the subway is a public good, For the People a socialist would say. So you encourage stealing from The People.