We are struggling with this in Toronto as well. Surface streetcars are basically an honour fare system, where you tap when you board at any door and then inspectors might (but probably won't) board the car and check that you did so. During the pandemic all fare enforcement was essentially abandoned, and then was very slow to return afterwards. I makes me angry when I pay to use our transit (which is very underfunded) and then see many others not bothering to do so. The argument against enforcement is that some demographics were being too heavily policed, and this is understandable, but surely there is a vast middle ground between unfairly hassling some people and having a free-for-all where nobody pays anything while the system crumbles around us.
Controlling individual behaviour on transit is trickier, because any wider societal issue -- from mental illness, to drug addiction, to homelessness, to legitimate differences in norms between cultures, to generic selfish assholery -- is also going to manifest on transit. For example, the idea that anyone thinks it's ok to listen to loud music without headphones on a transit vehicle totally blows my mind, but many others seem to think it's no big deal, so who is right? And personally I have no issue with someone sipping a coffee or having a quick bite to eat as they transit between jobs, but I do have an issue if they leave garbage behind. But the latter is harder to police because the culprit is gone by the time the litter is noticed. And everyone probably has their own personal lines in the sand on these things.
It's also worth noting that any perceived/actual decline in human decency impacts drivers, too. It's much more scary on the roads now than it was 25 years ago, because you never know what driver around you is on the verge of snapping into a homicidal rage at some minor slight. But a car offers at least an illusion of protection from The Other that a transit rider does not enjoy.
It's sort of a shame that the DC metro opted for "no commerce" in the stations. London does it much better.
I rode home from church last night on the DC Red line and sat next to an empty whisky bottle. It does not deter me from using Metro, but it is an indication of non-normie behavior that needs to be minimized cost effectively.
This type of thing doesn’t just apply to transit. Where I live in DC (Columbia Heights) there are a lot of blue and red flashing lights outside the 7/11 and CVS. I think the idea is to make people feel like they’re being watched to prevent them from committing crime. However, the effect is to make the majority of people who had no intention of committing crime in the first place feel on edge, like they live in a place that is dangerous and in a state of perpetual emergency.
It’s the same with grocery stores restricting backpacks and roller bags from being brought in. If I walk to the grocery store, sometimes I get a lot of groceries, which are not as comfortable or convenient to carry in bags by your side than backpacks or roller bags. One time I stopped into Giant after work just to get one thing, and I had to leave my backpack with my work computer at the front with their security guard.
If I had to put it succinctly, it’s punishing everyone for the bad behavior of a few people.
Transportation for pets is a real problem generally, and no one seems to talk about it. I have a 50 pound dog, which is too large to practically be carried in a carrier while still smaller than many of the most popular breeds. We're stuck driving him even for trips we'd normally do on transit because while it's likely that a bus driver wouldn't care it isn't certain. That's a small but manageable hardship.
The worst is traveling long distances. I'd really like to bring my dog with me when visiting my family in Denver, but even if I did it without stopping, it's a 30-hour drive. A 50-pound dog can't fit in an under the seat carrier, which is the requirement for in-cabin transportation on airlines that allow it, and checking a pet is a dangerous move that should only be considered as a desperate measure. Short of chartering a jet, there's no way to take my dog to Denver without tacking on a two-day car journey to each end of the trip, and I wish there were.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that while I don't abuse ESA/service animal loopholes, it's really not hard to see why otherwise law-abiding people do. There just aren't good legal options.
I sympathize on the pet thing - I had to move internationally (to countries that don't allow pets in the cabin) and had to check my cat. It was very stressful.
But it's not like this is a new problem. Large dogs haven't suddenly been banned: airlines never allowed people to bring labradors on board. What's new is the practice of people scamming "service animal" status - which as you say is pretty obnoxious, and pisses off people who follow the rules.
The social contract is broken for many demographics, and these are manifestations. I may be wrong, but the norms of society reestablish themselves if people believe in the system again.
Basically, we don't have a shared set of norms anymore in the USA at least, although we never did completely. Or rather, there are many things that used to be largely agreed upon that no longer are, -including even among those making the rules and other leaders.
This isn't just less belief in the system and it's rules, but that the system itself increasingly doesn't have consistent rules (because it increasingly no longer functions as a unified system) and even when it does, they are not consistently interpreted or enforced.
And finnaly, some of this was always so, but is just now a lot more visable in the age of social media and the internet. More people are also now aware of corruption or injustice or elite hypocracy, or what they at least perceive as such. This too, undermines unity or respect for order among many.
SEPTA is currently trying to thread that needle. They've started to issue tickets for smoking on subway platforms again, which they'd backed off doing for a while. They're upgrading the ticket gates at major stations to make jumping harder, though this has led to an uncomfortable moment for me when a guy pressed himself right up to my back to tailgate me through the turnstile. As a woman traveling alone that day I was very unhappy with that encounter. They have an app for reporting quality as well as safety issues (station/train needs cleaning, smoking or drug use, etc). The lack of toilets on suburban trains and missing benches at some of the suburban outbound platforms is definitely a comfort and accessibility problem. Lots of little steps.
I live in Ottawa and one aspect of our transit is that it becomes an extension of the shelter system in the winter. I don’t begrudge people needing to find a place of warmth and safety on days that can kill you. I do begrudge our culture in general for thinking that giving people housing makes them weak. Believe me, not having housing makes you very weak.
All this is to say, is that the problems of the social conditions of transit are often external to transit itself. You won’t solve them until you hit that root cause.
Increasing ridership can dilute the amount of marginalized people on any given vehicle and make social enforcement more likely. But this isn’t going to happen until you make transit easier and more pleasant than driving. Most people don’t have the time or money to make ethical about how they get from point A to point B in their day. They’re just struggling to get to the end of it. They’re just going to do the easiest thing possible.
Tear down your highways, don’t build a house if you walk less that 10 mins to light rail. We built these cities once, we can do it again.
Good post and many good points in the comments as well! Very much agree that balance is key. I am often dismayed at the amount of either-or thinking I see on this and so many other important issues.
I will add that for many who want to go all out on enforcement on public transit (as in other situations) yet wouldn't feel comfortable facing the consequences themselves, it is because they often assume such enforcement will be for "those other people" however they might defiine "them", which will vary but be at least generally consistent in not including many people who look and (broadly speaking) act like themselves, -even if they, too, are technically breaking the law. Too often, they are right.
But it's not necessarily so easy to address this given the entitlement attitude so many display. Police understand that attempting to enforce the rules against more privileged offenders can put their own careers at risk (or worse) with very little potential reward. At the same time the resulting double standards, as well as the inevitable exceptions (when the very privileged do end up getting hassled or worse by officers) have undermined support for effective enforcement to the point where we are at today. Hopefully we can find a better balance this time.
But finding a better balance on this issue is simply difficult in an environment (like the far above average class inequality/racial desparity environments of most big dense urban areas with quality public transit) where people say they are against doubles standards, and yet many with clout and influence are in practice simultaneously demanding them. And yet it is these sort of places where still many others who are (absurdly) demanding no significant disparities regardless of any actual differences in average behaviors, are also consentrated.
It's no wonder that enforcement attempts have faltered in large cosmopolitan urban areas in recent times (and not just on transit), except of course when they go hard core as in NYC. The latter is also true in other contexts however, such as parts of the Deep South, known for its often agreessive policing and harsh penalties for rule breaking.
It's just a lot easier not to worry too much about either equity concerns OR worry about pissing off some entitled adult rich kids (or their lawyered up parents!) in a zero tolerance environment, but especially in one that has fewer rich kids and where those it does have, know that any serious rule breaking is to be done in private. They typically have plenty of opportunities for the latter after all! Then again, that has other negative consequences which we see manifesting all around.
We are struggling with this in Toronto as well. Surface streetcars are basically an honour fare system, where you tap when you board at any door and then inspectors might (but probably won't) board the car and check that you did so. During the pandemic all fare enforcement was essentially abandoned, and then was very slow to return afterwards. I makes me angry when I pay to use our transit (which is very underfunded) and then see many others not bothering to do so. The argument against enforcement is that some demographics were being too heavily policed, and this is understandable, but surely there is a vast middle ground between unfairly hassling some people and having a free-for-all where nobody pays anything while the system crumbles around us.
Controlling individual behaviour on transit is trickier, because any wider societal issue -- from mental illness, to drug addiction, to homelessness, to legitimate differences in norms between cultures, to generic selfish assholery -- is also going to manifest on transit. For example, the idea that anyone thinks it's ok to listen to loud music without headphones on a transit vehicle totally blows my mind, but many others seem to think it's no big deal, so who is right? And personally I have no issue with someone sipping a coffee or having a quick bite to eat as they transit between jobs, but I do have an issue if they leave garbage behind. But the latter is harder to police because the culprit is gone by the time the litter is noticed. And everyone probably has their own personal lines in the sand on these things.
It's also worth noting that any perceived/actual decline in human decency impacts drivers, too. It's much more scary on the roads now than it was 25 years ago, because you never know what driver around you is on the verge of snapping into a homicidal rage at some minor slight. But a car offers at least an illusion of protection from The Other that a transit rider does not enjoy.
It's sort of a shame that the DC metro opted for "no commerce" in the stations. London does it much better.
I rode home from church last night on the DC Red line and sat next to an empty whisky bottle. It does not deter me from using Metro, but it is an indication of non-normie behavior that needs to be minimized cost effectively.
Pets in carriers are allowed on metro.
This type of thing doesn’t just apply to transit. Where I live in DC (Columbia Heights) there are a lot of blue and red flashing lights outside the 7/11 and CVS. I think the idea is to make people feel like they’re being watched to prevent them from committing crime. However, the effect is to make the majority of people who had no intention of committing crime in the first place feel on edge, like they live in a place that is dangerous and in a state of perpetual emergency.
It’s the same with grocery stores restricting backpacks and roller bags from being brought in. If I walk to the grocery store, sometimes I get a lot of groceries, which are not as comfortable or convenient to carry in bags by your side than backpacks or roller bags. One time I stopped into Giant after work just to get one thing, and I had to leave my backpack with my work computer at the front with their security guard.
If I had to put it succinctly, it’s punishing everyone for the bad behavior of a few people.
Transportation for pets is a real problem generally, and no one seems to talk about it. I have a 50 pound dog, which is too large to practically be carried in a carrier while still smaller than many of the most popular breeds. We're stuck driving him even for trips we'd normally do on transit because while it's likely that a bus driver wouldn't care it isn't certain. That's a small but manageable hardship.
The worst is traveling long distances. I'd really like to bring my dog with me when visiting my family in Denver, but even if I did it without stopping, it's a 30-hour drive. A 50-pound dog can't fit in an under the seat carrier, which is the requirement for in-cabin transportation on airlines that allow it, and checking a pet is a dangerous move that should only be considered as a desperate measure. Short of chartering a jet, there's no way to take my dog to Denver without tacking on a two-day car journey to each end of the trip, and I wish there were.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that while I don't abuse ESA/service animal loopholes, it's really not hard to see why otherwise law-abiding people do. There just aren't good legal options.
I sympathize on the pet thing - I had to move internationally (to countries that don't allow pets in the cabin) and had to check my cat. It was very stressful.
But it's not like this is a new problem. Large dogs haven't suddenly been banned: airlines never allowed people to bring labradors on board. What's new is the practice of people scamming "service animal" status - which as you say is pretty obnoxious, and pisses off people who follow the rules.
The social contract is broken for many demographics, and these are manifestations. I may be wrong, but the norms of society reestablish themselves if people believe in the system again.
Basically, we don't have a shared set of norms anymore in the USA at least, although we never did completely. Or rather, there are many things that used to be largely agreed upon that no longer are, -including even among those making the rules and other leaders.
This isn't just less belief in the system and it's rules, but that the system itself increasingly doesn't have consistent rules (because it increasingly no longer functions as a unified system) and even when it does, they are not consistently interpreted or enforced.
And finnaly, some of this was always so, but is just now a lot more visable in the age of social media and the internet. More people are also now aware of corruption or injustice or elite hypocracy, or what they at least perceive as such. This too, undermines unity or respect for order among many.
>>This is something that doesn’t have an obvious answer, but it’s something transit agencies need to figure out.
I think perhaps the simplest answer is a 2-part test:
1. Does it increase order?
2. Does it make things harder for normies?
If the answers aren't "Yes" and "No", respectively, then don't do it, and go back to the drawing board.
# 1 is redundant. :)
I mean this with all love, friend: Screw you, sir!
(@addison I’m jk here, I know Thomas from Slow Boring and we’re cool)
SEPTA is currently trying to thread that needle. They've started to issue tickets for smoking on subway platforms again, which they'd backed off doing for a while. They're upgrading the ticket gates at major stations to make jumping harder, though this has led to an uncomfortable moment for me when a guy pressed himself right up to my back to tailgate me through the turnstile. As a woman traveling alone that day I was very unhappy with that encounter. They have an app for reporting quality as well as safety issues (station/train needs cleaning, smoking or drug use, etc). The lack of toilets on suburban trains and missing benches at some of the suburban outbound platforms is definitely a comfort and accessibility problem. Lots of little steps.
I live in Ottawa and one aspect of our transit is that it becomes an extension of the shelter system in the winter. I don’t begrudge people needing to find a place of warmth and safety on days that can kill you. I do begrudge our culture in general for thinking that giving people housing makes them weak. Believe me, not having housing makes you very weak.
All this is to say, is that the problems of the social conditions of transit are often external to transit itself. You won’t solve them until you hit that root cause.
Increasing ridership can dilute the amount of marginalized people on any given vehicle and make social enforcement more likely. But this isn’t going to happen until you make transit easier and more pleasant than driving. Most people don’t have the time or money to make ethical about how they get from point A to point B in their day. They’re just struggling to get to the end of it. They’re just going to do the easiest thing possible.
Tear down your highways, don’t build a house if you walk less that 10 mins to light rail. We built these cities once, we can do it again.
I think it's safe to say that product owner who decided that cell phones no longer needed headphone jacks is not a transit user.
The new Metro faregates have cut down on fair evasion. Occasionally you still see it, but it's a much more intentional, challenging effort.
I saw police for the second time ever address a fare evader this week. It was at Pentagon which is a really bad place to try and evade a fare.
I believe all the new Northern Virginia Metro stations have bathrooms in them. I'm not sure the mens rooms have changing tables though.
Good post and many good points in the comments as well! Very much agree that balance is key. I am often dismayed at the amount of either-or thinking I see on this and so many other important issues.
I will add that for many who want to go all out on enforcement on public transit (as in other situations) yet wouldn't feel comfortable facing the consequences themselves, it is because they often assume such enforcement will be for "those other people" however they might defiine "them", which will vary but be at least generally consistent in not including many people who look and (broadly speaking) act like themselves, -even if they, too, are technically breaking the law. Too often, they are right.
But it's not necessarily so easy to address this given the entitlement attitude so many display. Police understand that attempting to enforce the rules against more privileged offenders can put their own careers at risk (or worse) with very little potential reward. At the same time the resulting double standards, as well as the inevitable exceptions (when the very privileged do end up getting hassled or worse by officers) have undermined support for effective enforcement to the point where we are at today. Hopefully we can find a better balance this time.
But finding a better balance on this issue is simply difficult in an environment (like the far above average class inequality/racial desparity environments of most big dense urban areas with quality public transit) where people say they are against doubles standards, and yet many with clout and influence are in practice simultaneously demanding them. And yet it is these sort of places where still many others who are (absurdly) demanding no significant disparities regardless of any actual differences in average behaviors, are also consentrated.
It's no wonder that enforcement attempts have faltered in large cosmopolitan urban areas in recent times (and not just on transit), except of course when they go hard core as in NYC. The latter is also true in other contexts however, such as parts of the Deep South, known for its often agreessive policing and harsh penalties for rule breaking.
It's just a lot easier not to worry too much about either equity concerns OR worry about pissing off some entitled adult rich kids (or their lawyered up parents!) in a zero tolerance environment, but especially in one that has fewer rich kids and where those it does have, know that any serious rule breaking is to be done in private. They typically have plenty of opportunities for the latter after all! Then again, that has other negative consequences which we see manifesting all around.
Sounds like a doom loop for transit. Good luck.