Yes, I propose that operators of buses (just like subways and streetcars) should not be involved in fare collection.
This not only removes a potential point of friction over whether one tapped or not, but whether one put the correct amount of money in the fare box, or has a valid transfer.
This change allows for all-door loading, eliminates transfers entirely both the type used on buses and in stations at considerable savings.
The object, as always is:
1) Make it as easy as possible to do the 'right thing'
2) Make every transaction and its obligation intuitive.
3) Make enforcement non-ambiguous (ie. age is irrelevant, we're not counting coins, there's no argument about valid transfers, etc etc.)
* I would also slash the max fine for non-payment to match the exact same fine we issue for a parking ticket so as to appeal to a general sense of fairness; and would universally move to provide each person, I written warning for a violation (for a lifetime) to again make sure that enforcement 'appears' fair, and penalties proportionate. This should allow for greater enforcement, reduced conflict and greater public sympathy with enforcement.
You have covered a whole waterfront of fare payment and structure issues, and I won't digress into which I like and which I would question. We could (and do) debate these regularly.
But to stay on the security theme - it seems to me there are two main things to chew over
1) Do we fundamentally want to exclude people who are unwilling or unable to pay a fare to enter the transit system
2) Do we fundamentally want security people to watch for, and intervene, people who "look like" trouble - or should the system aim simply to respond reactively
Re The first - while we could debate the fare structure details, the issue comes down to whether we want to address the homeless/ mental illness threat by simply not letting people wander into the system unless they can cough up some non-trivial amount of money. On the one hand, that impacts those who have least means and who are most in need of shelter. On the other hand, while it doesn't reduce or solve these problems, it probably will deter some from using the transit as a shelter (or doing so as often).... and it creates a reason for a challenge by someone (be it fare inspector or driver), which may in some small way create a behaving in a way that doesn't attract attention. Even the homeless and the less affluent fare evaders (and some of the mentally ill) do pay attention if they believe someone has the authority to kick them out, wasting the fare they have paid.
I do believe drivers should enforce fare payment, if only by refusing to move the vehicle until the non-payer gets off, perhaps with a call to the police or security to back that up. Transit people who work outside Toronto tell me that they do this regularly, and it usually gets compliance. Maybe in smaller towns that is still the norm.
Re the second - it comes down to how much trust we have in security and police to intervene in a way that is non-discriminatory and doesn't raise more concerns/issues than it solves. My personal belief is that both police and security culture is so bad and in need of change that I have no confidence any good is coming from having them around. Perhaps I should give some credit in that they will attempt to help people who approach them and ask for help - and when the matter becomes a 911 level incident we need them very badly and very quickly. But even there I see them as so bound by old culture and old arcane procedures that asking for help doesn't necessarily get much. ( I had an interesting experience one time in Times Square where I had to approach a NYPD police officer - and the response was so much better than what I see in Toronto - so don't write me off as anti-cop. I think our specific agencies are the problem, not the institution).
But on the other hand - if we increase the number of security people, but instruct them to not engage unless they have actually witnessed certain specific and more serious issues, we will have a huge number of bored and inert eyes and a really performance-deincentivised culture.
So in both cases, while one might accuse me of old school, I think that transit has to follow not lead whatever progress we make in sorting out the social issues and inequities in our society. I'm not condoning the bad practices I see today, but fundamentally I would retain a requirement to pay a fare, and I would structure security to have people who are most empowered to engage and keep people in check - even if that isn't a perfect system for justice or equality. The end justifies some means here. Transit needs to be a civil and restrained environment, not society at its most chaotic.
- Paul
