[Sustain] New Transit Fare Evasion Study Shows Inspectors Worthless
Hi all, I just got through watching today's Municipal Transportation Agency commission hearing in which the MTA staff announced the release of its fare evasion study. The study shows the following key results: 1) The fare evasion rate is only 9.5% (costing the system about $22 million at most). 2) Even when MTA fare inspectors and SF Police engaged in highly focused and expensive 'saturation' enforcement actions at specific transit access points, the evasion rate was only lowered to about 4% (a 60% reduction) 3) Fines for fare evasion are now $75 - The previous, much higher fines for second and third offenses have been abandoned due to the difficulty of establishing prior evasions when writing a ticket. 4) People cited with fines only pay them 60% of the time. (A police chief describing the saturation actions, and MTA chief Nathaniel Ford, both admitted openly that these saturation actions do not pay for themselves in fine and fare revenues.) 5) The transit lines that experience the highest rates of fare evasion, also have some of the highest rates of low income and people of color ridership. MTA staff recommended enforcement at targeted locations to make enforcement more efficient. (This would absolutely result in biased racist and classist enforcement.) 6) 50% of riders boarding at back do not have proof of purchase. (Anyone who has ridden the bus frequently, knows that many of the people who board at the back without paying are doing so because they are too poor to pay the fare.) What all of these revelations show is that the revenue from punitively deploying fare inspectors and police enforcement will never exceed the actual cost of deploying the inspectors and police in the first place. The only way to achieve better results with this punitive model would be to -reduce- the number of inspectors and then more selectively target lines and transit stops on which the poorest riders and people of color access the system. On the other hand, simply enabling most riders who -can- pay, to much more easily buy fast passes and multi-month passes would likely bring in just as much revenue if not more, without paying any fare inspectors at all. And of course, -free- Muni, paid for with business and car taxes would solve the problem entirely. Finally, on an ominous note. MTA staff indicated that they will soon move to the Translink system for Muni passes. Translink is the system in which you carry an electronic card charged with funds for Muni riding (much like a phone card). Once this Translink system is put in place, poor people are going to have a much harder time circumventing the system so that they can ride free... It's been a while since we had a Transpo working group meeting. Let's do one soon to develop a response strategy based on this report. peace Eric B
What's striking to me is the total failure on the part of the City's movers and shakers to connect Muni with larger societal interests. Transportation accounts for roughly 50% of the Bay Area's greenhouse gas emissions. Expanding the number of people taking public transit is an essential piece of the solution. Yet every action by SF's powers that be is aimed at discouraging ridership: higher fares, reduced service, and now punitive inspections and enforcement. Whoever rides the bus is, at least, not committing the crime of driving a personal auto: not using up irreplacable resources, not emitting GHGs, and not congesting the streets making sane transit impossible. Even before the awareness of global warming, San Francisco had a "transit first" policy. It's still SF policy as far as I'm aware, but in hypocrisy so typical of the City, it is honored in the breach. It would be great if the Green Party could expose the City's rulers for the small-minded hypocrites they are. David On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:05:04 -0800, Eric Brooks <brookse32@aim.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I just got through watching today's Municipal Transportation Agency commission hearing in which the MTA staff announced the release of its fare evasion study.
The study shows the following key results:
1) The fare evasion rate is only 9.5% (costing the system about $22 million at most).
2) Even when MTA fare inspectors and SF Police engaged in highly focused and expensive 'saturation' enforcement actions at specific transit access points, the evasion rate was only lowered to about 4% (a 60% reduction)
3) Fines for fare evasion are now $75 - The previous, much higher fines for second and third offenses have been abandoned due to the difficulty of establishing prior evasions when writing a ticket.
4) People cited with fines only pay them 60% of the time. (A police chief describing the saturation actions, and MTA chief Nathaniel Ford, both admitted openly that these saturation actions do not pay for themselves in fine and fare revenues.)
5) The transit lines that experience the highest rates of fare evasion, also have some of the highest rates of low income and people of color ridership. MTA staff recommended enforcement at targeted locations to make enforcement more efficient. (This would absolutely result in biased racist and classist enforcement.)
6) 50% of riders boarding at back do not have proof of purchase. (Anyone who has ridden the bus frequently, knows that many of the people who board at the back without paying are doing so because they are too poor to pay the fare.)
What all of these revelations show is that the revenue from punitively deploying fare inspectors and police enforcement will never exceed the actual cost of deploying the inspectors and police in the first place.
The only way to achieve better results with this punitive model would be to -reduce- the number of inspectors and then more selectively target lines and transit stops on which the poorest riders and people of color access the system.
On the other hand, simply enabling most riders who -can- pay, to much more easily buy fast passes and multi-month passes would likely bring in just as much revenue if not more, without paying any fare inspectors at all.
And of course, -free- Muni, paid for with business and car taxes would solve the problem entirely.
Finally, on an ominous note. MTA staff indicated that they will soon move to the Translink system for Muni passes. Translink is the system in which you carry an electronic card charged with funds for Muni riding (much like a phone card).
Once this Translink system is put in place, poor people are going to have a much harder time circumventing the system so that they can ride free...
It's been a while since we had a Transpo working group meeting. Let's do one soon to develop a response strategy based on this report.
peace
Eric B _______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
I wonder how much money Muni wasted to print and paste the "STOP" stickers on the rear doors of buses, metro cars and trolleys. In Boston, the metro cars' rear doors stay closed when the vehicles are on the street. In Seattle, rides within downtown are free. David Fairley wrote:
What's striking to me is the total failure on the part of the City's movers and shakers to connect Muni with larger societal interests. Transportation accounts for roughly 50% of the Bay Area's greenhouse gas emissions. Expanding the number of people taking public transit is an essential piece of the solution. Yet every action by SF's powers that be is aimed at discouraging ridership: higher fares, reduced service, and now punitive inspections and enforcement. Whoever rides the bus is, at least, not committing the crime of driving a personal auto: not using up irreplacable resources, not emitting GHGs, and not congesting the streets making sane transit impossible.
Even before the awareness of global warming, San Francisco had a "transit first" policy. It's still SF policy as far as I'm aware, but in hypocrisy so typical of the City, it is honored in the breach.
It would be great if the Green Party could expose the City's rulers for the small-minded hypocrites they are.
David
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:05:04 -0800, Eric Brooks <brookse32@aim.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I just got through watching today's Municipal Transportation Agency commission hearing in which the MTA staff announced the release of its fare evasion study.
The study shows the following key results:
1) The fare evasion rate is only 9.5% (costing the system about $22 million at most).
2) Even when MTA fare inspectors and SF Police engaged in highly focused and expensive 'saturation' enforcement actions at specific transit access points, the evasion rate was only lowered to about 4% (a 60% reduction)
3) Fines for fare evasion are now $75 - The previous, much higher fines for second and third offenses have been abandoned due to the difficulty of establishing prior evasions when writing a ticket.
4) People cited with fines only pay them 60% of the time. (A police chief describing the saturation actions, and MTA chief Nathaniel Ford, both admitted openly that these saturation actions do not pay for themselves in fine and fare revenues.)
5) The transit lines that experience the highest rates of fare evasion, also have some of the highest rates of low income and people of color ridership. MTA staff recommended enforcement at targeted locations to make enforcement more efficient. (This would absolutely result in biased racist and classist enforcement.)
6) 50% of riders boarding at back do not have proof of purchase. (Anyone who has ridden the bus frequently, knows that many of the people who board at the back without paying are doing so because they are too poor to pay the fare.)
What all of these revelations show is that the revenue from punitively deploying fare inspectors and police enforcement will never exceed the actual cost of deploying the inspectors and police in the first place.
The only way to achieve better results with this punitive model would be to -reduce- the number of inspectors and then more selectively target lines and transit stops on which the poorest riders and people of color access the system.
On the other hand, simply enabling most riders who -can- pay, to much more easily buy fast passes and multi-month passes would likely bring in just as much revenue if not more, without paying any fare inspectors at all.
And of course, -free- Muni, paid for with business and car taxes would solve the problem entirely.
Finally, on an ominous note. MTA staff indicated that they will soon move to the Translink system for Muni passes. Translink is the system in which you carry an electronic card charged with funds for Muni riding (much like a phone card).
Once this Translink system is put in place, poor people are going to have a much harder time circumventing the system so that they can ride free...
It's been a while since we had a Transpo working group meeting. Let's do one soon to develop a response strategy based on this report.
peace
Eric B _______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.424 / Virus Database: 270.14.47/2478 - Release Date: 11/03/09 07:36:00
Hi David, I totally agree. I started to try to do this this past spring in this piece: Say It Ain't So, Chiu<http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2009/05/13/say-it-ain%E2%80%99t-so-chiu/> Sue On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:24 PM, David Fairley <pamndave@speakeasy.net>wrote:
What's striking to me is the total failure on the part of the City's movers and shakers to connect Muni with larger societal interests. Transportation accounts for roughly 50% of the Bay Area's greenhouse gas emissions. Expanding the number of people taking public transit is an essential piece of the solution. Yet every action by SF's powers that be is aimed at discouraging ridership: higher fares, reduced service, and now punitive inspections and enforcement. Whoever rides the bus is, at least, not committing the crime of driving a personal auto: not using up irreplacable resources, not emitting GHGs, and not congesting the streets making sane transit impossible.
Even before the awareness of global warming, San Francisco had a "transit first" policy. It's still SF policy as far as I'm aware, but in hypocrisy so typical of the City, it is honored in the breach.
It would be great if the Green Party could expose the City's rulers for the small-minded hypocrites they are.
David
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:05:04 -0800, Eric Brooks <brookse32@aim.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I just got through watching today's Municipal Transportation Agency commission hearing in which the MTA staff announced the release of its fare evasion study.
The study shows the following key results:
1) The fare evasion rate is only 9.5% (costing the system about $22 million at most).
2) Even when MTA fare inspectors and SF Police engaged in highly focused and expensive 'saturation' enforcement actions at specific transit access points, the evasion rate was only lowered to about 4% (a 60% reduction)
3) Fines for fare evasion are now $75 - The previous, much higher fines for second and third offenses have been abandoned due to the difficulty of establishing prior evasions when writing a ticket.
4) People cited with fines only pay them 60% of the time. (A police chief describing the saturation actions, and MTA chief Nathaniel Ford, both admitted openly that these saturation actions do not pay for themselves in fine and fare revenues.)
5) The transit lines that experience the highest rates of fare evasion, also have some of the highest rates of low income and people of color ridership. MTA staff recommended enforcement at targeted locations to make enforcement more efficient. (This would absolutely result in biased racist and classist enforcement.)
6) 50% of riders boarding at back do not have proof of purchase. (Anyone who has ridden the bus frequently, knows that many of the people who board at the back without paying are doing so because they are too poor to pay the fare.)
What all of these revelations show is that the revenue from punitively deploying fare inspectors and police enforcement will never exceed the actual cost of deploying the inspectors and police in the first place.
The only way to achieve better results with this punitive model would be to -reduce- the number of inspectors and then more selectively target lines and transit stops on which the poorest riders and people of color access the system.
On the other hand, simply enabling most riders who -can- pay, to much more easily buy fast passes and multi-month passes would likely bring in just as much revenue if not more, without paying any fare inspectors at all.
And of course, -free- Muni, paid for with business and car taxes would solve the problem entirely.
Finally, on an ominous note. MTA staff indicated that they will soon move to the Translink system for Muni passes. Translink is the system in which you carry an electronic card charged with funds for Muni riding (much like a phone card).
Once this Translink system is put in place, poor people are going to have a much harder time circumventing the system so that they can ride free...
It's been a while since we had a Transpo working group meeting. Let's do one soon to develop a response strategy based on this report.
peace
Eric B _______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
-- Sue Vaughan (415) 668-3119
participants (4)
-
David Fairley -
Eric Brooks -
Richard Knee -
Sue Vaughan