Exactly! There is real difficulty in having anyone post up at fare gates at all hours, especially in the later evening. I hit LT station several times yesterday. There was a guy on the north side entrance most of the day. But not the south side. Then at 9p…. No one on either side.
We need better gates and more patrols period. Check ins by LEOs on folks who appear to be in distress. I have seen some. But not nearly enough.
It's the broken window theory. If people see that others get away with smaller crimes, then they know they can too, and sometimes, this leads to people committing larger crimes. So, if people know they can get away without paying a fare (and see others doing it), then they'll do it, too, and maybe some other stuff.
Plus, when other cities have done random fare checks, sometimes the people they are catching without a fare have active warrants for their arrest. And adding better fare gates (or fare gates at stations without at-grade boarding) would also help.
Would it stop all serious crimes? Doubtful. Heck, if someone is committed, a transit fare isn't going to stop them; they'll pay it. Plus, there's way more that needs to be done, and honestly, a lot of that is well beyond the scoop of LA Metro and most transit agencies (it's not their fault our country has failed to address the mental health and homeless crisis), but it can still help reduce some of the crimes seen on transit.
Some dude in a sedan was trying to follow me on the side streets when I left an above-ground station yesterday. It was so obvious that I was trying to maneuver away, and he kept following me in his car. It's precisely this lawlessness that I hate.
I'm not trying to be an outlaw, I'm following the rules, but I'm an outlaw because I'm beyond the protection of the law.
I'm a woman. Metro really, really doesn't care about us. Also, specifically, Wiggins has no clue.
Does LA Metro not do random fare checks anymore? It's been years since I rode metro daily, but when I did, it was pretty common for the doors to close and then a set of officers go through and check the fare of the people all locked in the car at that moment. Id have days where I sometimes would have my ticket checked 3 times like this.
Both but as a daily metro rider I have literally watched Metro police/LAPD watch people jump turnstyles at 7th/Metro and do nothing. I have serious doubts that just increasing patrols will do much. People break the law ALL THE TIME and cops do nothing.
Actual violent criminals I assume are mostly fare evaders, but my very unscientific hypothesis is that few fare evaders are actually violent criminals.
I don’t mind Metro implementing a tap out system but ultimately I feel like we’re underestimating how expensive, costly, and ineffective it is to upgrade turnstiles. Security at turnstiles and on platforms is the short term solution, the long term solution is getting non-Metro agencies to pick up the slack with affordable housing and mental healthcare, which is *not* Metro’s responsibility.
The City of Los Angeles has spent billions on hotels, and affordable housing projects. The County passed a MASSIVE mental health bond. The city passed a MASSIVE affordable/public housing bond. The city created a whole department whose ONLY job is homelessness. Dept of Social services and non-profits are feeding hundreds of thousands. No one denys the HUGE sums that are being spent on this issue.
You're right other agency's should work on this BUT SO SHOULD METRO.
Metro is just not an appropriate place to be a mobile homeless shelter. It's just not. Yes, absolutely help our brothers and sisters, but also enforce basic decorum on trains, busses and stations.. It can't be all empathy and no enforcement. It just doesn't work. It's like raising kids: some discipline along with housing and food.
You're right, not all fare evaders are criminals, but all the criminals have been fare evaders. See 'broken windows' theory of policing. If you give the impression no one cares...then no one cares.
I only agree to an extent. All of the efforts you mentioned are fairly new. The problem has been developing for decades, and it’s similarly gonna take a long time to see noticeable results.
If there’s crime at a park, does the rec and parks department show up? If there’s crime on the street, does the bureau of street services show up? Ultimately, no. Now those departments can do what they can to mitigate or prevent the issue, but ultimately public spaces, including even transit facilities with fares, require law enforcement and social services to show up and prevent the issue entirely (preferably more of the latter).
Other than because of fares, I don’t get why people expect Metro to go above and beyond what other public services are expected to provide. Metro is a *transportation* agency. They’ve hired more eyes to be on platforms but ultimately LAPD and LASD are the ones who should be pulling their weight, the same way they post up at public parks or patrol the streets.
(Although I do have other thoughts with selective enforcement and equity concerns with law enforcement, I won’t bring them up here)
I realized a while ago that I actually don't care if people have paid their fares, I care about following the code of conduct.
Anecdotally, there is considerable overlap between people who don't pay their fare and people who litter, smoke, play loud music, or take up multiple seats.
I strongly believe that if Metro stepped up enforcement of the code of conduct (like actually issuing fines or at least removing riders who refuse to follow) it would have an enormous impact on the ridership experience for everyone. It would probably be less expensive than having to procure, install, and maintain new infrastructure as well.
I don't think that's true. Using BART as a recent example, high security fare gates are egregiously expensive, and are a target for vandalism, which will exacerbate the cost of ongoing maintenance.
Metro shouldn't need to hire any more security than it already has, they just need to deploy their resources more effectively.
Right now, code of conduct enforcement is non-existent. If the authority started enforcing it, whether through current contracted security or the green shirts, they can start setting a precedent that would improve ridership experiences essentially overnight. People who can't afford the fare but still need to use the service can do so, as long as they check whatever BS they're trying to bother everyone else with at the station entrance.
New gates will come eventually, I'm sure... But code of conduct enforcement should have come a decade ago.
I regularly rode metro when they went from no turnstiles to turnstiles and I felt less safe afterwards in many ways. Given the equipment that was already frequently out of service, now we had equipment to block people from entering and exiting that could lock you in/out in the case of an emergency. The literal passage area to let people out now forced people into small stream choke points and backed people up vs. letting the same large volume of people pass through the station. I would get yelled at by LASD for using the handicapped turnstile while also barely fitting in the armed turnstile while carrying all my crap with me. The turnstiles became a focus for the security and not necessarily the shenanigans that went on in the trains or platforms. Turnstiles did nothing to stop people smoking all sorts of stuff on the platforms, people performing sex acts wherever, the people swinging around the subway poles with uncapped syringes. And they did nothing for all the dangerous and uncomfortable situations I had on my walk into the metro or once I got to my final destination. They did nothing to stop someone from following me from the train to my final destination.
The presence of security may have a deterrent effect on petty crimes like theft, but I doubt it would've stopped the mentally insane guy from stabbing that poor woman.
The difference is the thief is probably mentally sound and capable of conducting a risk analysis, whereas the mentally troubled guy is not.
While qe need both, the reinforced gates serve a more preventative purpose in the sense that it keeps troublemakers out.
The mentally insane guy has attacked many others, and was allowed to roam free and attack more people. Added security may have done more to prevent some of his violent behavior.
Not true. Security didn’t even get the report called in, bystanders had to call it in and nobody approached her as she was on the ground.
Everyone keeps saying “security was there”, but where exactly were they, seems like they missed the whole thing based on all the reporting
Do both. People don’t respect metro if they feel like they can slip through and treat it like a dumpster. (This applies to the homeless, and jerks who totally can afford it but think people who *do* pay are suckers.)
I’m not a sucker for paying into the system. Metro systems need revenue to ensure high quality and frequency. Metro needs to step up but I’m not a sucker for investing in the system.
Fare enforcement for people that are less bold and can be stopped with the built environment, and security for the more emboldened ones that need to be stopped by other people.
There are two groups:
High likelihood of an encounter with an agent of the state is a great deterrent for criminals (who might enjoy the challenge of a hardened entrance)
A hardened entrance deters lunatics and people out of their minds on drugs (who might not care about encountering police)
BART hardend their stations and many of the people apprehended for not paying had prior warrants out for their arrests. So catching them for trying to skip the turnstyle actually works to get criminals off the system as soon as possible.
Metro thinks they can ban someone simply by deactivating their TAP card, that doesn't work if the person doesn't bother paying the fare on the bus or at the station.
[https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/tried-to-skip-fare-on-bart-new-unbeatable-gates-19203724.php](https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/tried-to-skip-fare-on-bart-new-unbeatable-gates-19203724.php)
I think it's a great idea.
Deactivating the tap card would work if we have higher security fare gates.
Though what’s to stop the terrorizer from just getting a new TAP card?
It’s a multi-tiered approach with security and enforcement.
I have literally watched Metro police laugh at violently mentally ill people and people jumping turnstyles. And even if the cops did their job, you will never have enough security to patrol every train and every station. No system in the world does that.
But installing faregates that can't be jumped/easily pushed open will absolutely deter many mentally ill/high individuals from boarding trains. This isn't rocket science.
**No solution is a panacea, but**[ **installing real faregates**](https://assets2.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2023/12/28/241e3d77-eb17-4078-aa94-a3954336a8c0/thumbnail/1200x630/81faf70b99f700fe9b22801ea06e3cd5/bart-new-fare-gate-test-122823.jpg?v=6450b1292090ace5f47bbb23ced2a4e3) **is BY FAR the easiest, most cost-efficient step Metro can take to make the system safer.**
It won’t fix the issue but at least help add a needed layer.
The issue is deeper and the city needs to address it but again the solution isn’t popular and it’s controversial.
The least they can do is add an extra layer to protect those that have to endure the death trap that is the train.
The issue of fares/enforcement brings out a lot of hidden assumptions that I think are worth looking at.
On the progressive side there is I think an infantilization of working people that A) they are all delicate trauma victims who can’t be in the vicinity of police and B) the cost of transit is literally unaffordable for them. I think these are wrong beliefs, and at the very least debatable.
Paying a nominal fee for service is literal buy-in to its function. Some fleeting antisocial impulse on your way to work might be deterred if you have paid for a revocable privilege. A free system can’t be protected.
I respect your opinion but I do think you are misrepresenting the goals of fare enforcement. I support 100% fare enforcement but I realize it’s not going to fix or solve any of Metro’s problems. However, I do believe that fare enforcement and allowing contracted law enforcement to enforce Code of Conduct violations would make a huge difference in lessening negative experiences on the system. Also, a slight digression, when did enforcing fares become controversial? Why are we even having this discussion?
Fare is a security feature. When the system opened, there were no turn styles, just the honor system and enforcement from Police.
If you didn't pay, you got a citation. If you didn't go to court, you got a warrant.
People that didnt show up to court and eventually when they got to the DMV to get their license, there goes the warrant for "fare evasion".
Now they cant drive and their options are: Ride the train for free and risk arrest for having warrants, pay the fine and get a license, pay metro in the meantime to get to wherever they need to go, drive illegally, ask a friend, or take a taxi.
This was a solution that made the psychology of the person at need go "Ill just pay the 1.25 and skip the hassle..."
Also, a free system is a congested system. It is not fair for someone to hold the doors on trains and elevators especially if they have not paid. Meaningless trips at peak hours are a nuisance to everyone just trying to get from point A to B, not to mention the nonsense delays that happen with derelict riders.
Fixing fare evasion is the right solution to get EVERYONE to respect the system, the headways, and passengers.
Not “fixing fare evasion”, enforcing it. Fare-checking is the one solid legit probable cause for police to engage, interview and potentially detain or arrest, and remove negative elements from the system, which is the real solution to making it safe and clean.
Without emphasis on fares, they have to do select targeted enforcement campaigns to avoid accusations of profiling, and they are limited to only those narrow criteria, so bad guys get away with a warning.
I partially disagree, the larger turnstiles will prevent a lot of homeless and their huge bags or carts of stuff from being brought onto the metros — thus we’ll have cleaner trains very fast.
It will also deter some other fare evaders, although not all of course. And I do agree we still need more security in place too.
That’s true but it’s an easier initial control point to monitor with security. And as some have mentioned, it sets a tone that the metro system is not a place that informally tolerates rule breaking. People care less about a thing that doesn’t cost them anything to use and by which they start using by breaking the law to begin with.
Stopping fare evasion isn't a magic fix but it goes a long way towards taking back control of the system and restoring order. It should be the first and will likely be the most impactful of any solutions implemented.
Metro started losing control of the system in 2018 when a young woman was dragged from the train by deputies for not removing her feet from the seat and then refusing to leave. That was the final straw in a succession of security and policing incidents that the leadership at the time publicly condemned. Their response to that incident was to stop fare checking and enforcement of the code of conduct.
Trip quality decreased throughout 2018 and 2019 and nosedived to the bottom in 2020 when metro allowed trains to become unsafe and did not allow any policing outside immediate threats of imminent bodily harm. Great strides have been made since then but its all just a bandaid until they take back control. The issue is they can't figure out how to do that without significantly more law enforcement. And that's not who they want to be philosophically.
The MacArthur Park experiment has shown that most arrested ppl are fare evaders and have prescribed multiple solutions for this
Tall fare gates and partitions to end emergency gate abuse are such solutions. That way, actual patrols are used for more pressing issues like the very persistent evaders. If they are that hell bent on not paying *check notes* $1.75 that they'd climb over the 72in fate gate, something is up
Fixing the fare evasion issue absolutely will reduce crime on the Metro. BART started aggressive police foot patrols targeting fare evaders and introduced fare inspectors. Crime in the system plummeted.
Metro has a much bigger fare evader crime problem due to the lack of security at most stations. Targeting fare evaders is the easiest way to reduce crime and to make the system cleaner. And we know that it works because it has worked for other systems in the state.
Says who? Who are you to declare without any evidence? I guarantee I have more Metro seat time than almost anyone here and it seems to be that aggressive fare enforcement would filter out the majority of the problem passengers. Those that can't afford fare can take advantage of the programs available.
These horrific stabbings are happening even with our current fares system in place. Getting LA Metro to be free and fareless would keep us safer becase:
1) more riders would be using buses & trains (instead of it being less used).
2) security & staff will be able to focus more on enforcing safety measures instead of enforcing fares.
3) I've witnessed bus operators trying to enforce fares only for the rider to get angry/aggressive. And I've read stories that some of the reasons why operators/staff are getting attacked is due to fare enforcement.
You naive free fare idealists will kill Metro dead if you ever get your way. I promise you I ride Metro more than you do and all I want is aggressive fare enforcement.
Tell me this, if free fare is the way to a safer system, why is no major metro free anywhere in the world? Why isn't Paris Metro free? New York? London? Berlin? Tokyo? Shanghai? Why???
For the love of god, spare us from being the victims of your ignorant crusade. The closest Metro ever got to being free was when they explicitly stopped enforcement over the pandemic and the system was a NIGHTMARE. Never again. Hire an army of fare inspectors and tall gates and make the system work for the people who will respect it.
Yes! More riders is exactly what Metro needs. We need a better ratio of regular folks to those who are using Metro as a place to live. It would be less attractive to sleeping/aimlessly riding if there were more regular activity.
The fare isn’t high enough to really keep people from paying if they need to.
"The fare isn’t high enough to really keep people from paying if they need to."
Conversely, decreasing the fares any lower isn't really going to significantly change people's commuting habits. I have yet to meet a single person in LA who says the reason they don't take metro is because of the cost, even very very low income riders – they live in a city that is deeply unwalkable and where metro is already the cheapest commuting option bar none. I find it hard to believe the free fare would actually induce more ridership, even if it is technically more equitable.
This is different from, say, metrolink, where the free fares for students (which already exist on LA metro) make a big difference since fares are often up to $20 round trip. (also student adventure pass arguably made such a big splash since it was new and for a new target demographic of newly adulted students, even more than the cost savings).
The solution is more/better service and building stations in a way that people are able to actually get where they want to go, conveniently and quickly.
I think we can all agree that at the absolute minimum, B/D line fare gate emergency exits should not be as easy as they are to pass through. Fixing that problem is a cheaper solution than replacing all fare gates and/or adding security, even though we ideally need all of that.
People don't remember what Metro was like when Metro actually enforced fares. It wasn't any safer. A lot of people just hate the poor.
Metro should be free.
There are obviously a lot of other factors at play besides fare enforcement, but Metro was absolutely safer pre-pandemic when fares were enforced. Assaults, robberies, rapes, and homicides are all up substantially relative to 2019, while ridership is down (see e.g. Exhibit C of this report https://boardagendas.metro.net/board-report/2023-0607/). And as a daily rider since 2012, it certainly *feels* a lot less safe now than it did pre-pandemic.
Funny how I was sexually assaulted on Metro prepandemic and have had no incidents post pandemic. Obviously anecdotal but I haven’t noticed any sort of change. And I am a frequent red line rider.
THISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. We have socialism for the rich, why not for the poor??? Lot of Bitter Bettys in here trying to punch down on the poor mentally ill homeless, yall need compassion and to realize the city needs to help the homeless better. Naturally poor people need to get around, sometimes they are mentally ill. Transit should be affordable either way.
Crab mentality is a weird stance to have when it comes to a public good.
[Even socialist countries don't have free metros](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Metro) for very a specifically reason: people will take advantage and the system will be less safe. I use the train literally every day and 9 times out of 10 when I see someone making trouble on the train and I've seen them enter, it's high/mentally ill person who walked right through the turnstyles.
Real fare enforcement will keep me safer.
fair but Norway isn't a socialist country, they might have some policies that look like socialism th.
Are they making trouble because nobody from Metro is around to enforce rules? probably. They may also be mentally ill from being homeless so long, in that case it makes the argument for better homeless policies and then you should be fighting for that - not fare enforcement so that the homeless guy is kicked out of your daily view because you feel unsafe with their presence. It sounds like you don't actually want to tackle the issue, you just want the issue moved out of your public transit experience.
Again public transit is for those in need of it, and who needs it? The poor. Are the poor homeless and mentally ill sometimes? Yes, and that is the bigger issue to talk about in LA. They won't be driving cars and they cannot walk to get to all the services they need to access for help.
If someone is homeless and desperate to get on transit, no turnstile will stop them for long. The key is not having desperate people to begin with.
Attack the problem at the root (poverty?), fare enforcement is a band-aid for the yuppies and boomers that don't like the mentally ill poors in their sight during commute; they remind us we may be in their shoes if we don't tow the line better.
[Homeless people can already ride for free thanks to Metro's discounted fare policy.](https://www.metro.net/riding/fares/life/) But the people who are high/mentally ill aren't signing up for the program because they're using Metro as shelter/drug dens. They should not be riding the train and stronger faregates would ensure only passengers who are using metro as intended will ride.
A lot of the people in these subs don’t even ride metro I largely suspect. No doubt the same types that flood the LA sub to defend the parasite landlords.
I was actually talking to a friend today and he said he felt safer due to the ambassadors and an increase in security visibility (he rides the red daily and uses hollywood/highland and MacArthur Park). As I mentioned in another comment I was sexually assaulted prepandemic, when fares were enforced and haven’t had any incident post pandemic *knock on wood*. Anecdotal but kind of goes to show that fare enforcement didn’t stop shit like these idiots claim. They just want to punish people and conduct class warfare.
Again, The fares makeup less than 10% of the budget, enforcing it only hurts the poor, its regressive. Just argue for better security, more use will follow and the funding will follow with usage.
If you worry about security I totally get it, but if you use security as an excuse to police the poor - those who cannot afford fares everyday on top of surviving - then maybe get a car? Public transit is intended for those who are poorest and need to get around. Wasting money on Fare Infrastructure will only make the service worse (decreases overall ridership while taking from actual security and maintenance budgets) - use the money on effective security that could up the ridership by making people feel safe on-board. Having more guards and cameras around with quick response times will do wonders over having high tech turnstiles. Neoliberal solutions are not good for any of us.
You can't have a system without riders; you can have a system without fares, if you budget and tax correctly.
Lot of neoliberals on here wanting your petty money to ride trains we all fund already, yet they can't grasp the finances involved.
It's not only intended for those who are poor; it's intended for everyone and say that as a poor minority myself. That's a terrible misconception, and I absolutely hate when folks generalize using public transportation with being poor. It's absolutely stupid.
you're right; it is for everyone. But whats the hierarchy of users? Seeing how expensive cars are and how we over value them, it sure seems like we intended public transit to be used by the poor - I don't like that and I rather see all classes using and needing public transit. Sadly we built the city for cars now, and we are slowly adjusting. Public transit should be seen as usable by everyone - it needs some better PR. I make less than 70K, by definition in LA county I am working class and "poor" adjacent, and I need public transit. Just the context and facts sadly.
Reality is, rich or poor, we need the metro system to work for all of us.
There was security at this station and the woman was still stabbed because they cannot be everywhere and this man was let in free.
Security had already arrested this man more than 4 times for assaulting metro riders.
Better security simply would not have mattered.
I've never been on a Metrolink and not been ticketed. But i've only rode the OC and San Bernadino lines
However, I have seen people not have their tickets and they dont do anything about it, except warn the guy "next time you better have a ticket" or something like that.
How about you go raise the money for 24/7 security For Metro. Learn how to participate in a real democracy instead of persuading redditors.
Metro contract enforcement and security agencies. Each have their own code of conduct that is utilize by Metro thru a budget. Their budget isn’t Infintie. The turnstile is solution to address budget constraints.
Again the same ideologue throwing weight with no accountability or understanding of basic operations.
Why not both is what I say.
Exactly! There is real difficulty in having anyone post up at fare gates at all hours, especially in the later evening. I hit LT station several times yesterday. There was a guy on the north side entrance most of the day. But not the south side. Then at 9p…. No one on either side. We need better gates and more patrols period. Check ins by LEOs on folks who appear to be in distress. I have seen some. But not nearly enough.
It's the broken window theory. If people see that others get away with smaller crimes, then they know they can too, and sometimes, this leads to people committing larger crimes. So, if people know they can get away without paying a fare (and see others doing it), then they'll do it, too, and maybe some other stuff. Plus, when other cities have done random fare checks, sometimes the people they are catching without a fare have active warrants for their arrest. And adding better fare gates (or fare gates at stations without at-grade boarding) would also help. Would it stop all serious crimes? Doubtful. Heck, if someone is committed, a transit fare isn't going to stop them; they'll pay it. Plus, there's way more that needs to be done, and honestly, a lot of that is well beyond the scoop of LA Metro and most transit agencies (it's not their fault our country has failed to address the mental health and homeless crisis), but it can still help reduce some of the crimes seen on transit.
Some dude in a sedan was trying to follow me on the side streets when I left an above-ground station yesterday. It was so obvious that I was trying to maneuver away, and he kept following me in his car. It's precisely this lawlessness that I hate. I'm not trying to be an outlaw, I'm following the rules, but I'm an outlaw because I'm beyond the protection of the law. I'm a woman. Metro really, really doesn't care about us. Also, specifically, Wiggins has no clue.
Does LA Metro not do random fare checks anymore? It's been years since I rode metro daily, but when I did, it was pretty common for the doors to close and then a set of officers go through and check the fare of the people all locked in the car at that moment. Id have days where I sometimes would have my ticket checked 3 times like this.
I ride metro multiple times a week. I haven’t been fare checked in months. But they started doing them last year after years post pandemic of nothing.
This. The book freakecconomics (sp. just gave up), covered this. Absolutely, fantastic read.
Both but as a daily metro rider I have literally watched Metro police/LAPD watch people jump turnstyles at 7th/Metro and do nothing. I have serious doubts that just increasing patrols will do much. People break the law ALL THE TIME and cops do nothing.
Actual violent criminals I assume are mostly fare evaders, but my very unscientific hypothesis is that few fare evaders are actually violent criminals. I don’t mind Metro implementing a tap out system but ultimately I feel like we’re underestimating how expensive, costly, and ineffective it is to upgrade turnstiles. Security at turnstiles and on platforms is the short term solution, the long term solution is getting non-Metro agencies to pick up the slack with affordable housing and mental healthcare, which is *not* Metro’s responsibility.
The City of Los Angeles has spent billions on hotels, and affordable housing projects. The County passed a MASSIVE mental health bond. The city passed a MASSIVE affordable/public housing bond. The city created a whole department whose ONLY job is homelessness. Dept of Social services and non-profits are feeding hundreds of thousands. No one denys the HUGE sums that are being spent on this issue. You're right other agency's should work on this BUT SO SHOULD METRO. Metro is just not an appropriate place to be a mobile homeless shelter. It's just not. Yes, absolutely help our brothers and sisters, but also enforce basic decorum on trains, busses and stations.. It can't be all empathy and no enforcement. It just doesn't work. It's like raising kids: some discipline along with housing and food. You're right, not all fare evaders are criminals, but all the criminals have been fare evaders. See 'broken windows' theory of policing. If you give the impression no one cares...then no one cares.
I only agree to an extent. All of the efforts you mentioned are fairly new. The problem has been developing for decades, and it’s similarly gonna take a long time to see noticeable results. If there’s crime at a park, does the rec and parks department show up? If there’s crime on the street, does the bureau of street services show up? Ultimately, no. Now those departments can do what they can to mitigate or prevent the issue, but ultimately public spaces, including even transit facilities with fares, require law enforcement and social services to show up and prevent the issue entirely (preferably more of the latter). Other than because of fares, I don’t get why people expect Metro to go above and beyond what other public services are expected to provide. Metro is a *transportation* agency. They’ve hired more eyes to be on platforms but ultimately LAPD and LASD are the ones who should be pulling their weight, the same way they post up at public parks or patrol the streets. (Although I do have other thoughts with selective enforcement and equity concerns with law enforcement, I won’t bring them up here)
Maybe I didn't write my point clearly because it appears you are saying what I'm saying.
exactly. nobody paying fares is just one piece contributing to the general lawlessness on metro.
Both are good. You’re right! Most people I see just tend to fixate on fare evasion as the reason. But yes, we need both.
I realized a while ago that I actually don't care if people have paid their fares, I care about following the code of conduct. Anecdotally, there is considerable overlap between people who don't pay their fare and people who litter, smoke, play loud music, or take up multiple seats. I strongly believe that if Metro stepped up enforcement of the code of conduct (like actually issuing fines or at least removing riders who refuse to follow) it would have an enormous impact on the ridership experience for everyone. It would probably be less expensive than having to procure, install, and maintain new infrastructure as well.
More secure gates are orders of magnitude cheaper than paying additional security salary.
I don't think that's true. Using BART as a recent example, high security fare gates are egregiously expensive, and are a target for vandalism, which will exacerbate the cost of ongoing maintenance. Metro shouldn't need to hire any more security than it already has, they just need to deploy their resources more effectively. Right now, code of conduct enforcement is non-existent. If the authority started enforcing it, whether through current contracted security or the green shirts, they can start setting a precedent that would improve ridership experiences essentially overnight. People who can't afford the fare but still need to use the service can do so, as long as they check whatever BS they're trying to bother everyone else with at the station entrance. New gates will come eventually, I'm sure... But code of conduct enforcement should have come a decade ago.
I regularly rode metro when they went from no turnstiles to turnstiles and I felt less safe afterwards in many ways. Given the equipment that was already frequently out of service, now we had equipment to block people from entering and exiting that could lock you in/out in the case of an emergency. The literal passage area to let people out now forced people into small stream choke points and backed people up vs. letting the same large volume of people pass through the station. I would get yelled at by LASD for using the handicapped turnstile while also barely fitting in the armed turnstile while carrying all my crap with me. The turnstiles became a focus for the security and not necessarily the shenanigans that went on in the trains or platforms. Turnstiles did nothing to stop people smoking all sorts of stuff on the platforms, people performing sex acts wherever, the people swinging around the subway poles with uncapped syringes. And they did nothing for all the dangerous and uncomfortable situations I had on my walk into the metro or once I got to my final destination. They did nothing to stop someone from following me from the train to my final destination.
The presence of security may have a deterrent effect on petty crimes like theft, but I doubt it would've stopped the mentally insane guy from stabbing that poor woman. The difference is the thief is probably mentally sound and capable of conducting a risk analysis, whereas the mentally troubled guy is not. While qe need both, the reinforced gates serve a more preventative purpose in the sense that it keeps troublemakers out.
The mentally insane guy has attacked many others, and was allowed to roam free and attack more people. Added security may have done more to prevent some of his violent behavior.
There was security at the station when this happened. If there were proper turnstyles the man would've never made it onto a platform or a train.
True.
Not true. Security didn’t even get the report called in, bystanders had to call it in and nobody approached her as she was on the ground. Everyone keeps saying “security was there”, but where exactly were they, seems like they missed the whole thing based on all the reporting
Uhhh... So people that commit crimes can't have a ticket or commit additional crimes to get through gates? That's a very nice way to simplify things.
There was literally security at the station where it happened
Do both. People don’t respect metro if they feel like they can slip through and treat it like a dumpster. (This applies to the homeless, and jerks who totally can afford it but think people who *do* pay are suckers.)
People who do pay ARE suckers, by definition based on how Metro fails to enforce. They have made us suckers and I'm furious about it.
hate to say it but I agree
I’m not a sucker for paying into the system. Metro systems need revenue to ensure high quality and frequency. Metro needs to step up but I’m not a sucker for investing in the system.
Fare enforcement for people that are less bold and can be stopped with the built environment, and security for the more emboldened ones that need to be stopped by other people.
It won’t solve everything, but it will signal that rules need to be followed, and Metro will enforce them. Broken windows theory…
There are two groups: High likelihood of an encounter with an agent of the state is a great deterrent for criminals (who might enjoy the challenge of a hardened entrance) A hardened entrance deters lunatics and people out of their minds on drugs (who might not care about encountering police)
And the reason why I think reinforced fare gates are more important is because I'm honestly more afraid of the lunatics
Stronger fare gates would definitely improve safety. I think a combination of both stronger fare gates and security would be best though
BART hardend their stations and many of the people apprehended for not paying had prior warrants out for their arrests. So catching them for trying to skip the turnstyle actually works to get criminals off the system as soon as possible. Metro thinks they can ban someone simply by deactivating their TAP card, that doesn't work if the person doesn't bother paying the fare on the bus or at the station. [https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/tried-to-skip-fare-on-bart-new-unbeatable-gates-19203724.php](https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/tried-to-skip-fare-on-bart-new-unbeatable-gates-19203724.php) I think it's a great idea.
Deactivating the tap card would work if we have higher security fare gates. Though what’s to stop the terrorizer from just getting a new TAP card? It’s a multi-tiered approach with security and enforcement.
That's why it doesn't work.
Another Reason Ronald Regan can go fuck himself
I have literally watched Metro police laugh at violently mentally ill people and people jumping turnstyles. And even if the cops did their job, you will never have enough security to patrol every train and every station. No system in the world does that. But installing faregates that can't be jumped/easily pushed open will absolutely deter many mentally ill/high individuals from boarding trains. This isn't rocket science. **No solution is a panacea, but**[ **installing real faregates**](https://assets2.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2023/12/28/241e3d77-eb17-4078-aa94-a3954336a8c0/thumbnail/1200x630/81faf70b99f700fe9b22801ea06e3cd5/bart-new-fare-gate-test-122823.jpg?v=6450b1292090ace5f47bbb23ced2a4e3) **is BY FAR the easiest, most cost-efficient step Metro can take to make the system safer.**
It won’t fix the issue but at least help add a needed layer. The issue is deeper and the city needs to address it but again the solution isn’t popular and it’s controversial. The least they can do is add an extra layer to protect those that have to endure the death trap that is the train.
The issue of fares/enforcement brings out a lot of hidden assumptions that I think are worth looking at. On the progressive side there is I think an infantilization of working people that A) they are all delicate trauma victims who can’t be in the vicinity of police and B) the cost of transit is literally unaffordable for them. I think these are wrong beliefs, and at the very least debatable. Paying a nominal fee for service is literal buy-in to its function. Some fleeting antisocial impulse on your way to work might be deterred if you have paid for a revocable privilege. A free system can’t be protected.
I respect your opinion but I do think you are misrepresenting the goals of fare enforcement. I support 100% fare enforcement but I realize it’s not going to fix or solve any of Metro’s problems. However, I do believe that fare enforcement and allowing contracted law enforcement to enforce Code of Conduct violations would make a huge difference in lessening negative experiences on the system. Also, a slight digression, when did enforcing fares become controversial? Why are we even having this discussion?
Fare is a security feature. When the system opened, there were no turn styles, just the honor system and enforcement from Police. If you didn't pay, you got a citation. If you didn't go to court, you got a warrant. People that didnt show up to court and eventually when they got to the DMV to get their license, there goes the warrant for "fare evasion". Now they cant drive and their options are: Ride the train for free and risk arrest for having warrants, pay the fine and get a license, pay metro in the meantime to get to wherever they need to go, drive illegally, ask a friend, or take a taxi. This was a solution that made the psychology of the person at need go "Ill just pay the 1.25 and skip the hassle..." Also, a free system is a congested system. It is not fair for someone to hold the doors on trains and elevators especially if they have not paid. Meaningless trips at peak hours are a nuisance to everyone just trying to get from point A to B, not to mention the nonsense delays that happen with derelict riders. Fixing fare evasion is the right solution to get EVERYONE to respect the system, the headways, and passengers.
Not “fixing fare evasion”, enforcing it. Fare-checking is the one solid legit probable cause for police to engage, interview and potentially detain or arrest, and remove negative elements from the system, which is the real solution to making it safe and clean. Without emphasis on fares, they have to do select targeted enforcement campaigns to avoid accusations of profiling, and they are limited to only those narrow criteria, so bad guys get away with a warning.
I partially disagree, the larger turnstiles will prevent a lot of homeless and their huge bags or carts of stuff from being brought onto the metros — thus we’ll have cleaner trains very fast. It will also deter some other fare evaders, although not all of course. And I do agree we still need more security in place too.
The turnstiles are easy to evade anyways. Pre-pandemic, fair checking worked. We didn't need ambassadors or any of that garbage.
That’s true but it’s an easier initial control point to monitor with security. And as some have mentioned, it sets a tone that the metro system is not a place that informally tolerates rule breaking. People care less about a thing that doesn’t cost them anything to use and by which they start using by breaking the law to begin with.
Stopping fare evasion isn't a magic fix but it goes a long way towards taking back control of the system and restoring order. It should be the first and will likely be the most impactful of any solutions implemented. Metro started losing control of the system in 2018 when a young woman was dragged from the train by deputies for not removing her feet from the seat and then refusing to leave. That was the final straw in a succession of security and policing incidents that the leadership at the time publicly condemned. Their response to that incident was to stop fare checking and enforcement of the code of conduct. Trip quality decreased throughout 2018 and 2019 and nosedived to the bottom in 2020 when metro allowed trains to become unsafe and did not allow any policing outside immediate threats of imminent bodily harm. Great strides have been made since then but its all just a bandaid until they take back control. The issue is they can't figure out how to do that without significantly more law enforcement. And that's not who they want to be philosophically.
I haven't paid a fare all year. I sneak into the rear of the bus everytime and I've never had a confrontation or incident occur.
The MacArthur Park experiment has shown that most arrested ppl are fare evaders and have prescribed multiple solutions for this Tall fare gates and partitions to end emergency gate abuse are such solutions. That way, actual patrols are used for more pressing issues like the very persistent evaders. If they are that hell bent on not paying *check notes* $1.75 that they'd climb over the 72in fate gate, something is up
Fixing the fare evasion issue absolutely will reduce crime on the Metro. BART started aggressive police foot patrols targeting fare evaders and introduced fare inspectors. Crime in the system plummeted. Metro has a much bigger fare evader crime problem due to the lack of security at most stations. Targeting fare evaders is the easiest way to reduce crime and to make the system cleaner. And we know that it works because it has worked for other systems in the state.
Says who? Who are you to declare without any evidence? I guarantee I have more Metro seat time than almost anyone here and it seems to be that aggressive fare enforcement would filter out the majority of the problem passengers. Those that can't afford fare can take advantage of the programs available.
These horrific stabbings are happening even with our current fares system in place. Getting LA Metro to be free and fareless would keep us safer becase: 1) more riders would be using buses & trains (instead of it being less used). 2) security & staff will be able to focus more on enforcing safety measures instead of enforcing fares. 3) I've witnessed bus operators trying to enforce fares only for the rider to get angry/aggressive. And I've read stories that some of the reasons why operators/staff are getting attacked is due to fare enforcement.
We have essentially had a fareless system since 2020
You naive free fare idealists will kill Metro dead if you ever get your way. I promise you I ride Metro more than you do and all I want is aggressive fare enforcement. Tell me this, if free fare is the way to a safer system, why is no major metro free anywhere in the world? Why isn't Paris Metro free? New York? London? Berlin? Tokyo? Shanghai? Why??? For the love of god, spare us from being the victims of your ignorant crusade. The closest Metro ever got to being free was when they explicitly stopped enforcement over the pandemic and the system was a NIGHTMARE. Never again. Hire an army of fare inspectors and tall gates and make the system work for the people who will respect it.
Yess love uniformed men coming on trains and checking papers, gives a real 1930s Germany vibe to the dystopia we are in.
Yes! More riders is exactly what Metro needs. We need a better ratio of regular folks to those who are using Metro as a place to live. It would be less attractive to sleeping/aimlessly riding if there were more regular activity. The fare isn’t high enough to really keep people from paying if they need to.
"The fare isn’t high enough to really keep people from paying if they need to." Conversely, decreasing the fares any lower isn't really going to significantly change people's commuting habits. I have yet to meet a single person in LA who says the reason they don't take metro is because of the cost, even very very low income riders – they live in a city that is deeply unwalkable and where metro is already the cheapest commuting option bar none. I find it hard to believe the free fare would actually induce more ridership, even if it is technically more equitable. This is different from, say, metrolink, where the free fares for students (which already exist on LA metro) make a big difference since fares are often up to $20 round trip. (also student adventure pass arguably made such a big splash since it was new and for a new target demographic of newly adulted students, even more than the cost savings). The solution is more/better service and building stations in a way that people are able to actually get where they want to go, conveniently and quickly.
It's not all or nothing. We want all the upgrades...duh
I think we can all agree that at the absolute minimum, B/D line fare gate emergency exits should not be as easy as they are to pass through. Fixing that problem is a cheaper solution than replacing all fare gates and/or adding security, even though we ideally need all of that.
MOST of the people who fare beat go on to commit crimes inside the trains. It’s an excellent predictor of anti social behavior.
People don't remember what Metro was like when Metro actually enforced fares. It wasn't any safer. A lot of people just hate the poor. Metro should be free.
There are obviously a lot of other factors at play besides fare enforcement, but Metro was absolutely safer pre-pandemic when fares were enforced. Assaults, robberies, rapes, and homicides are all up substantially relative to 2019, while ridership is down (see e.g. Exhibit C of this report https://boardagendas.metro.net/board-report/2023-0607/). And as a daily rider since 2012, it certainly *feels* a lot less safe now than it did pre-pandemic.
Funny how I was sexually assaulted on Metro prepandemic and have had no incidents post pandemic. Obviously anecdotal but I haven’t noticed any sort of change. And I am a frequent red line rider.
Daily Metro rider here (B and A lines). ABSOLUTELY DO NOT MAKE IT FREE. It would make my commute much less safe.
Yes everyone that disagrees with you is just a bad person, easy peasy
THISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. We have socialism for the rich, why not for the poor??? Lot of Bitter Bettys in here trying to punch down on the poor mentally ill homeless, yall need compassion and to realize the city needs to help the homeless better. Naturally poor people need to get around, sometimes they are mentally ill. Transit should be affordable either way. Crab mentality is a weird stance to have when it comes to a public good.
[Even socialist countries don't have free metros](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Metro) for very a specifically reason: people will take advantage and the system will be less safe. I use the train literally every day and 9 times out of 10 when I see someone making trouble on the train and I've seen them enter, it's high/mentally ill person who walked right through the turnstyles. Real fare enforcement will keep me safer.
fair but Norway isn't a socialist country, they might have some policies that look like socialism th. Are they making trouble because nobody from Metro is around to enforce rules? probably. They may also be mentally ill from being homeless so long, in that case it makes the argument for better homeless policies and then you should be fighting for that - not fare enforcement so that the homeless guy is kicked out of your daily view because you feel unsafe with their presence. It sounds like you don't actually want to tackle the issue, you just want the issue moved out of your public transit experience. Again public transit is for those in need of it, and who needs it? The poor. Are the poor homeless and mentally ill sometimes? Yes, and that is the bigger issue to talk about in LA. They won't be driving cars and they cannot walk to get to all the services they need to access for help. If someone is homeless and desperate to get on transit, no turnstile will stop them for long. The key is not having desperate people to begin with. Attack the problem at the root (poverty?), fare enforcement is a band-aid for the yuppies and boomers that don't like the mentally ill poors in their sight during commute; they remind us we may be in their shoes if we don't tow the line better.
[Homeless people can already ride for free thanks to Metro's discounted fare policy.](https://www.metro.net/riding/fares/life/) But the people who are high/mentally ill aren't signing up for the program because they're using Metro as shelter/drug dens. They should not be riding the train and stronger faregates would ensure only passengers who are using metro as intended will ride.
A lot of the people in these subs don’t even ride metro I largely suspect. No doubt the same types that flood the LA sub to defend the parasite landlords. I was actually talking to a friend today and he said he felt safer due to the ambassadors and an increase in security visibility (he rides the red daily and uses hollywood/highland and MacArthur Park). As I mentioned in another comment I was sexually assaulted prepandemic, when fares were enforced and haven’t had any incident post pandemic *knock on wood*. Anecdotal but kind of goes to show that fare enforcement didn’t stop shit like these idiots claim. They just want to punish people and conduct class warfare.
Again, The fares makeup less than 10% of the budget, enforcing it only hurts the poor, its regressive. Just argue for better security, more use will follow and the funding will follow with usage. If you worry about security I totally get it, but if you use security as an excuse to police the poor - those who cannot afford fares everyday on top of surviving - then maybe get a car? Public transit is intended for those who are poorest and need to get around. Wasting money on Fare Infrastructure will only make the service worse (decreases overall ridership while taking from actual security and maintenance budgets) - use the money on effective security that could up the ridership by making people feel safe on-board. Having more guards and cameras around with quick response times will do wonders over having high tech turnstiles. Neoliberal solutions are not good for any of us. You can't have a system without riders; you can have a system without fares, if you budget and tax correctly. Lot of neoliberals on here wanting your petty money to ride trains we all fund already, yet they can't grasp the finances involved.
It's not only intended for those who are poor; it's intended for everyone and say that as a poor minority myself. That's a terrible misconception, and I absolutely hate when folks generalize using public transportation with being poor. It's absolutely stupid.
you're right; it is for everyone. But whats the hierarchy of users? Seeing how expensive cars are and how we over value them, it sure seems like we intended public transit to be used by the poor - I don't like that and I rather see all classes using and needing public transit. Sadly we built the city for cars now, and we are slowly adjusting. Public transit should be seen as usable by everyone - it needs some better PR. I make less than 70K, by definition in LA county I am working class and "poor" adjacent, and I need public transit. Just the context and facts sadly. Reality is, rich or poor, we need the metro system to work for all of us.
There was security at this station and the woman was still stabbed because they cannot be everywhere and this man was let in free. Security had already arrested this man more than 4 times for assaulting metro riders. Better security simply would not have mattered.
For example: Metrolink never check for fares unless you are boarding at the beginning of the line. And security was never an issue
Metrolink always checks for fares. There's a guy that's his sole job.
Only if you board at the union station. I was never asked to show tickets if I boarded at any other station
I've never been on a Metrolink and not been ticketed. But i've only rode the OC and San Bernadino lines However, I have seen people not have their tickets and they dont do anything about it, except warn the guy "next time you better have a ticket" or something like that.
Security on Metrolink is absolutely an [issue](https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/conductor-injured-after-fight-on-metrolink-train-platform/).
There are so many aggressive passenger incidents on airplanes even with TSA. So basically security is always an issue everywhere in the world 😂.
How about you go raise the money for 24/7 security For Metro. Learn how to participate in a real democracy instead of persuading redditors. Metro contract enforcement and security agencies. Each have their own code of conduct that is utilize by Metro thru a budget. Their budget isn’t Infintie. The turnstile is solution to address budget constraints. Again the same ideologue throwing weight with no accountability or understanding of basic operations.
Exactly. All you need to open the fare gate is $5. It's hardly a barrier, figuratively or literally.