Fare Share
Pay for your transit ride, and act like you love the city
I wasn’t sure whether to write this one or not—I didn’t have all that much to say, I’ve expressed my opinion that transit riders should generally pay their fares before, and I just wrote a fairly strong piece about cities and public order—but I decided to go ahead because I’m still thinking about the conversation that started it and because I just read this piece by Luca Gattoni-Celli. Luca founded Northern Virginia’s YIMBY group, by the way.
He writes about those awful locked plexiglass shelves coming to his local CVS, and a chat with the checkout clerk revealing something of a relatively recent shoplifting problem. He points out that if the store should close, it’s the poorest people—overwhelmingly law-abiding, of course—who will suffer the most. There’s something perverse about affluent people defending the people who largely steal just for a cheap thrill or because they can, and pretending that they’re really defending the most desperate people. Read his piece, and remember that if median Americans perceive that urbanism comes bundled with lawlessness, they will reject urbanism.
First, the conversation. I was with a couple of guys after the Strong Towns conference in Cincinnati ended for the day, and we went to go get some dinner. We were chatting about a bunch of topics, and somehow we got onto policing and fare evasion. One of the guys, who I believe lived in New York, said that when he rides the subway, he hops the turnstile whenever possible. He described it as a sort of gesture of solidarity with the poor. Nobody should have to pay, and since I have a choice, I’ll choose to throw my lot in with the poor turnstile-jumpers. (I don’t really think I’m exaggerating, but I wish I was.)
He then went on to say that for one of his previous jobs he had a monthly pre-loaded MTA card—in other words, his employer paid for his transit commute—and he still jumped the turnstile, “as a matter of principle.”
What principle is that, exactly? I asked him.
This baffles me. Where does this bratty entitlement come from? How is stealing from the agency that makes it possible to live without a car in New York City and get anywhere you want for a couple bucks a principle? I mean, how cheap can you be?
This is a really awful mental attitude some people have. I think it goes way beyond recognizing that there are some poor people who can’t necessarily afford every ride, and that it might be easier for everyone to just let them get on the damn train. I suppose it’s true that the marginal cost of one more passenger is basically zero.
But nonetheless, good public transit is not cheap. Lots of people in America—people who like transit, people who don’t, people in transit agencies themselves—view it more as a welfare program than a civic service. Not something to be proud of.
But I remember, when I first moved to Maryland for grad school and when I first started working in D.C., I quickly realized how important transit is for cities. I didn’t grow up in a city, and at that time I had none of the knowledge of urbanism that I have now. But the geometry of cars just does not work in cities—it did not take me long to learn not to drive into D.C. if I could at all help it. You need transit to facilitate the movement of a lot of people in relatively compact spaces. Transit works in cities the way Interstates work to connect cities.
But beyond that sort of technical layman’s understanding, I quickly felt a sense of local pride in and affection for the Metro. Its branding, its iconic pylons outside the stations, even its quirks (why do we come to a full stop and then inch up to the platform just as everyone is standing up?) I felt that these trains crisscrossing the city day and night connected us—they were both a sign and a reality of the city’s motion and its community. A crowded Metro car to me feels like the city’s living room. It’s one of the few places where you really see a full cross-section of the whole place you live in.
I can’t imagine someone who understands this feeling entitled to a free ride. The affluent people who jump the turnstile are pretending that their miserliness is a sort of sacrifice made in solidarity with the poor. It’s like stealing someone’s meal because some people go hungry.
I come back to this theme sometimes, as I did in my piece on Seattle: urbanists are supposed to be people who like cities. When we refuse to pay for the things that make cities tick, when we treat toleration of low-level chaos as a mark of broadmindedness, we sure aren’t acting like people who like cities. Sometimes a little tough love is called for. And sometimes, you have to put your money where your mouth is.
Related Reading:
Thank you for reading! Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription to help support this newsletter. You’ll get a weekly subscribers-only piece, plus full access to the archive: over 1,000 pieces and growing. And you’ll help ensure more like this!
At least twice a month the card reader on my Metrobus doesn't work and we get waved through. I get annoyed when the happens because my closest Metrobus route is proposed for removal under the "Better Bus" proposal. If my ride isn't counted, it's easier to cut the route.
People who jump the turnstiles might not love the city, they might just live there because they were born there and haven't found a way out. That being said, pay the fare, it's the right thing to do.
Of course, left unsaid is that police departments choose not to enforce this law, along with speeding, right light/stop sign violations. Why not? I'm more annoyed that the police choose not to enforce the laws.
Also, I agree the Metro pylons are iconic and are the standard for subway entrances. No other system does it as well. I even blogged about it recently. WMATA is testing a new design though at L'enfant Plaza. I don't like it as much.
In Ottawa, as with many other cities, there are calls to end bus fare and make transit free. Currently, even though transit is subsidized, fare box revenue is still significant. If a route runs through a poor or working-class neighborhood, it will be filled with riders at rush hour. This means that transit planners are likely to take these riders' demand into account.
If buses and trains no longer have fare boxes ("free transit"), because the city 100% funds the service, then all decisions on bus routes and schedules will be driven by the bus organization and the city planning bodies that advise it.
This will mean that the low-income commuters who are currently metaphorically "voting" for their preferred routes and schedules via the fares they deposit in the farebox, will have little voice in how routes or schedules are set.
In a fully-subsidized transit system, only the bus organization and the various councils will weigh in on routes and schedules. A posh, well-to-do neighborhood can have a retired transportation engineer do a PowerPoint presentation on why their neighborhood needs more services. They are more likely to have friends on the planned councils that they can influence.
An impoverished neighborhood where people are struggling to make ends meet is unlikely to send a representative to these planning meetings.
"Free transit" seems likely to be a route to focusing on the needs and interests of the best-off and most articulate citizens, and to ignoring the transit needs of poor communities.