A Breakdown of How and Why Farebeating Is So Prevalent

[B35 via Church]

35 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Despite the rising rents, I don't believe that's why more people aren't paying. They're just taking advantage of a lack of enforcement.

Of course it isn't....

People are more apt to (wanting to) spend money on things they value..... You have people that believe public transit should be free anyway.... I mean, farebeating was not as rampant say, 20-30 years ago, as it is today.... The more the fare goes up, the more farebeating that's going to take place....

FWIW, I'm of the belief that the MTA's fostering this culture of farebeating (feigning as if they're so concerned)... The more people stealing service, the more justification it gives them to start cutting service system-wide....

[RailRunRob]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Once my housing expenses are over $2000 a month, I’ll be buying.

The only way to do it! Smart man. Younger people don't seem to be into or maybe don't have means for ownership. Something my Grandfather used to rail about own your own.

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

San Francisco doesn’t have much to upzone.

Correct not within the City Proper which is fairly small. But your seeing a lot of spillover in the East Bay  Oakland, Ashby Berkeley, and even Richmond  I lived in the Eastbay for 3 years and SF for 2 you can hardly recognize it nowadays. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

24 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

The only way to do it! Smart man. Younger people don't seem to be into or maybe don't have means for ownership. Something my Grandfather used to rail about own your own.

Correct not within the City Proper which is fairly small. But your seeing a lot of spillover in the East Bay  Oakland, Ashby Berkeley, and even Richmond  I lived in the Eastbay for 3 years and SF for 2 you can hardly recognize it nowadays. 

People my age cannot afford to live on their own, let alone buy. Sad but true.  I think most of my friends rent but they split their expenses which helps otherwise they couldn't do it. Part of the problem is student loan debt is so high. Add that to rent and forget it.

[RR503]

I think a lot of the affordability crisis has to do with the MTA. The agency only serves areas reactively, meaning the only parts of the city that get good transit are those already built up/in the process of being thus. More frequent subway/bus service in the northern Bx, southern/eastern Queens, etc (provided zoning variances) would do a lot to spread the economic load. Because we haven't built new subway lines since really the '40s, we're working w the same developable area as we had back then. May as well maximize opportunities therein. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

19 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I think a lot of the affordability crisis has to do with the MTA. The agency only serves areas reactively, meaning the only parts of the city that get good transit are those already built up/in the process of being thus. More frequent subway/bus service in the northern Bx, southern/eastern Queens, etc (provided zoning variances) would do a lot to spread the economic load. Because we haven't built new subway lines since really the '40s, we're working w the same developable area as we had back then. May as well maximize opportunities therein. 

It is weird in a way... My neighborhood is considered a "transportation desert", but it's still expensive all things considered and transportation is expensive too unless you want to make a gazillion transfers. I tutor a kid in Hudson Heights and I'm very cool with the mother, stepfather and the kid's father.  We were talking about how price wise, rents are about the same there and in Riverdale which is true, as they considered moving to Riverdale but settled on Hudson Heights.  One bedrooms start around $1800 - 1900 in both areas and go up over $2000, and studios are around $1600 - 1700.  Only difference is that we don't have direct subway access like they do.  Despite that and all of the issues with the  there in Hudson Heights, the prices keep going up.  

I actually considered Inwood west of Broadway years ago and didn't move there because I didn't like the lack of transportation.  Being tied to the  didn't sit well with me, so that was one reason I went with Riverdale. Transportation desert, but far more options (Metro-North, three express buses or local bus to the subway). If there was direct subway access here, I think the prices would be even higher, but the realtors still sell transportation here. 

I'm not too sure it matters now though. I mean the newcomers want subway access, and our subways stink now, and it doesn't seem to matter. Look at Williamsburg. Prices are still high even with the  train shutting down. People will just use Uber, the ferry or go to another subway.

 

[RR503]

5 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It is weird in a way... My neighborhood is considered a "transportation desert", but it's still expensive all things considered and transportation is expensive too unless you want to make a gazillion transfers. I tutor a kid in Hudson Heights and I'm very cool with the mother, stepfather and the kid's father.  We were talking about how price wise, rents are about the same there and in Riverdale which is true, as they considered moving to Riverdale but settled on Hudson Heights.  One bedrooms start around $1800 - 1900 in both areas and go up over $2000, and studios are around $1600 - 1700.  Only difference is that we don't have direct subway access like they do.  Despite that and all of the issues with the  there in Hudson Heights, the prices keep going up.  

I actually considered Inwood west of Broadway years ago and didn't move there because I didn't like the lack of transportation.  Being tied to the  didn't sit well with me, so that was one reason I went with Riverdale. Transportation desert, but far more options (Metro-North, three express buses or local bus to the subway). If there was direct subway access here, I think the prices would be even higher, but the realtors still sell transportation here. 

 

That's a historic thing. Riverdale was one of the first suburban developments built in the NY area (centered around the RR at that time). It has kept the cachet over the years. 

I'm talking more for less wealthy folks--making more off-the-beaten track areas of the city (many of which are still run-down detached single family homes) into accessible parts of the metropolis would provide some relief for them. Rich people are never gonna move to Howard Beach or Cypress Hills or Ozone Park or Eastchester, but I'm sure you could make a good profit building some three or four story apartment buildings there targeted towards the young and the middle class. Existing properties there are cheap. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just now, RR503 said:

That's a historic thing. Riverdale was one of the first suburban developments built in the NY area (centered around the RR at that time). It has kept the cachet over the years. 

I'm talking more for less wealthy folks--making more off-the-beaten track areas of the city (many of which are still run-down detached single family homes) into accessible parts of the metropolis would provide some relief for them. Rich people are never gonna move to Howard Beach or Cypress Hills or Ozone Park or Eastchester, but I'm sure you could make a good profit building some three or four story apartment buildings there targeted towards the young and the middle class. Existing properties there are cheap. 

Are you kidding? Howard Beach is extremely expensive. Think Mill Basin in Queens... It's a little cheaper than Neponsit but not by much, and the folks out there use the QM15 express bus or drive.  The other neighborhoods like Cypress Hills has subway access, and little by little rents are creeping up there too despite it being pretty hood.  You have to go really far out to the edge of the boroughs. In the Northeast Bronx, even there despite the long commutes, prices are creeping up.   The subways are horrible too, but in comparison to other areas it's a "bargain".  Even the Rockaways are getting there in price with the commutes (I'm excluding the Breezy Point, Neponsit, Belle Harbor, etc.) I'm talking about the hood areas of the Rockaways... $1400 - 1500 I saw for rents. Crazy.... Long commute too... Just imagine if those areas had decent subway access... People have already escaped. I know people that commute daily from the Poconos. They made the move years ago and never looked back. lol

[RailRunRob]

8 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Howard Beach is extremely expensive

What's the median?  

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, RailRunRob said:

What's the median?  

Right up there with Riverdale... In the $90,000s for sure... Supposedly higher now... $100,000.

http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Howard-Beach-Howard-Beach-NY.html

Makes sense because it's mainly houses with dual incomes, so $100,000 is certainly doable.

[RailRunRob]

Just now, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Right up there with Riverdale... In the $90,000s for sure... Supposedly higher now... $100,000.

http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Howard-Beach-Howard-Beach-NY.html

Makes sense because it's mainly houses with dual incomes, so $100,000 is certainly doable.

1

Umm. But even an area like Howard Beach isn't able to keep up with the wealth in Manhattan and moving into Brooklyn and the Queens waterfront. Howard Beach from my view I've gone to a few events out that way seems middle class. Pushing overtime with the NYPD or FDNY will get you to 100k still nowhere near LIC, Williamsburg money.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

9 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Umm. But even an area like Howard Beach isn't able to keep up with the wealth in Manhattan and moving into Brooklyn and the Queens waterfront. Howard Beach from my view I've gone to a few events out that way seems middle class. Pushing overtime with the NYPD or FDNY will get you to 100k still nowhere near LIC, Williamsburg money.

You won't, but the houses sell for a million and above.  It is not Williamsburg or LIC money, but my point is it is far out and certainly not cheap.  There is no point in comparing it to Manhattan or Brooklyn or Queens waterfront. Different type of money. Same thing with the Little Neck and Douglaston areas.  Certainly not Manhattan, but still quite expensive.  Solidly upper middle class, which is what most of Howard Beach and Neponsit is. As I said most are dual income households.  Had a friend I grew up with. A good example... He's a NYPD cop and the wife has an office job... Easily bring in over $100,000. Not too hard to do with two incomes. They lived in Howard Beach for a while before moving to Long Island and this was when he started out as a cop. I'm sure they bring in more now and they had no kids until recently.

[RR503]

31 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Are you kidding? Howard Beach is extremely expensive. Think Mill Basin in Queens... It's a little cheaper than Neponsit but not by much, and the folks out there use the QM15 express bus or drive.  The other neighborhoods like Cypress Hills has subway access, and little by little rents are creeping up there too despite it being pretty hood.  You have to go really far out to the edge of the boroughs. In the Northeast Bronx, even there despite the long commutes, prices are creeping up.   The subways are horrible too, but in comparison to other areas it's a "bargain".  Even the Rockaways are getting there in price with the commutes (I'm excluding the Breezy Point, Neponsit, Belle Harbor, etc.) I'm talking about the hood areas of the Rockaways... $1400 - 1500 I saw for rents. Crazy.... Long commute too... Just imagine if those areas had decent subway access... People have already escaped. I know people that commute daily from the Poconos. They made the move years ago and never looked back. lol

Sorry, I mean the area of Howard Beach north of the Belt -- my b for not being clear. Really that whole swath from the Belt to Forest Park has good subway access (if only they ran decent service), and could be built up more. The key here is finding areas that folks with pricing power won't choose to live in, providing good and cheap subway/bus access to them (ie you have to have good NYCT along w exp buses + comm rail) and then building them out. All of this is naught if you don't expand the supply of housing -- they should be upzoning along the  and  to 4-5 stories, with heights regressing down to 2-3 stories as you move further from the lines. Those areas and those subway lines (esp. the ) can handle it. 

Other areas where such a policy could work are the eastern Bronx and south and southwest Brooklyn. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just now, RR503 said:

Sorry, I mean the area of Howard Beach north of the Belt -- my b for not being clear. Really that whole swath from the Belt to Forest Park has good subway access (if only they ran decent service), and could be built up more. The key here is finding areas that folks with pricing power won't choose to live in, providing good and cheap subway/bus access to them (ie you have to have good NYCT along w exp buses + comm rail) and then building them out. All of this is naught if you don't expand the supply of housing -- they should be upzoning along the  and  to 4-5 stories, with heights regressing down to 2-3 stories as you move further from the lines. Those areas and those subway lines (esp. the ) can handle it. 

Other areas where such a policy could work are the eastern Bronx and south and southwest Brooklyn. 

I see yeah... There is definitely a difference...  The more upper middle class part is the newer part of Howard Beach.  Old Howard Beach is older and cheaper, and then there is Lindenwood as well.

The only thing with upzoning is you'd change those areas completely.

[RailRunRob]

11 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

but my point is it is far out and certainly not cheap.

I see your point. Gotcha.

[bobtehpanda]

On 12/31/2018 at 4:08 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I see yeah... There is definitely a difference...  The more upper middle class part is the newer part of Howard Beach.  Old Howard Beach is older and cheaper, and then there is Lindenwood as well.

The only thing with upzoning is you'd change those areas completely.

But what other choice do we have? We already built out as far as we could go. Neighborhood character is cute, but it doesn't provide walls and a roof or food on the table for all the people looking to buy.

[kosciusko]

Nobody on this forum seems to remember that staffing stations with police officers is more expensive than letting people jump. The numbers just don't add up.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, kosciusko said:

Nobody on this forum seems to remember that staffing stations with police officers is more expensive than letting people jump. The numbers just don't add up.

That’s right. Just let everyone in for FREE. It’s cheaper that way... 

[RR503]

25 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That’s right. Just let everyone in for FREE. It’s cheaper that way... 

You ever heard of the laffer curve? There's a point of maximum civic revenue recovery, you know -- too much and you're wasting resources, too little and you're allowing unchecked behavior. 

Now, if you zoom out from the revenue/enforcement cost picture, you would probably find that free subways/buses do increase regional GDP by *much* more than they'd cost...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

8 minutes ago, RR503 said:

You ever heard of the laffer curve? There's a point of maximum civic revenue recovery, you know -- too much and you're wasting resources, too little and you're allowing unchecked behavior. 

Now, if you zoom out from the revenue/enforcement cost picture, you would probably find that free subways/buses do increase regional GDP by *much* more than they'd cost...

 My stance has been clear. Go back to the way they did it during the old days when the subways were cleaned up. This exaggeration about needing a police officer at every station is ridiculous. It’s about using your resources properly. I don’t understand why they flood some stations and leave others unmanned with nothing. They must know how much farebeating goes on at these stations from the cameras. I’m suggesting using COMMON SENSE. Other people here are brushing aside the issue when the  is crying broke. It all adds up. $215 million annually over five years is over a billion dollars of lost revenue. Now they would NEVER recoup all of it, but throwing your hands up and doing NOTHING is a total cop out. That’s the problem with this City and this liberal administration. There’s no balance here. It’s the Wild Wild West. You wanna smoke in the subways? Go right on ahead. You wanna urinate in the subway car?  Why not?  Help yourself. I see all of this crap happening more and more often. And you wonder why people are fleeing the system...

[RR503]

8 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

 My stance has been clear. Go back to the way they did it during the old days when the subways were cleaned up. This exaggeration about needing a police officer at every station is ridiculous. It’s about using your resources properly. I don’t understand why they flood some stations and leave others unmanned with nothing. They must know how much farebeating goes on at these stations from the cameras. I’m suggesting using COMMON SENSE. Other people here are brushing aside the issue when the  is crying broke. It all adds up. $215 million annually over five years is over a billion dollars of lost revenue. Now they would NEVER recoup all of it, but throwing your hands up and doing NOTHING is a total cop out. That’s the problem with this City and this liberal administration. There’s no balance here. It’s the Wild Wild West. You wanna smoke in the subways? Go right on ahead. You wanna urinate in the subway car?  Why not?  Help yourself. I see all of this crap happening more and more often. And you wonder why people are fleeing the system...

We've been through broken windows a billion times, so won't go back there. 

Look, I don't deny that farebeating is an issue. But I think @kosciusko does have a point -- looking merely at the cost to the MTA, and not the tax base in general -- is reductive. We're paying either way. I think, again, the long term fix to this isn't more enforcement; it's simply better turnstiles.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

6 minutes ago, RR503 said:

We've been through broken windows a billion times, so won't go back there. 

Look, I don't deny that farebeating is an issue. But I think @kosciusko does have a point -- looking merely at the cost to the MTA, and not the tax base in general -- is reductive. We're paying either way. I think, again, the long term fix to this isn't more enforcement; it's simply better turnstiles.

My point is there’s NO enforcement. Having officers stand around and chit chat isn’t enforcement. Put them undercover and let them work the beat the way they did back in the day. When those officers step away, it’s business as usual. I’m sorry that you’re against broken windows, but the stats don’t lie. It’s an EFFECTIVE strategy. The only problem is God forbid someone is offended by anything these days. 

For the record, @kosciusko will ONLY look at the figures and nothing else because he doesn’t think it’s a problem to have vagrants urinating all over the subways and platforms. He’d call my comments “offensive” for nearly mentioning them.

[RR503]

12 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

My point is there’s NO enforcement. Having officers stand around and chit chat isn’t enforcement. Put them undercover and let them work the beat the way they did back in the day. When those officers step away, it’s business as usual. I’m sorry that you’re against broken windows, but the stats don’t lie. It’s an EFFECTIVE strategy. The only problem is God forbid someone is offended by anything these days. 

Well then great, force the NYPD to do something. 

I really don’t want to get into some whole big dust up over broken windows, but what the stats show is that it works at the cost of mass incarceration, of reinforced inequality, and of not fixing the basic drivers of crime itself. I agree that good enforcement need not be biased, but I don’t we’re anywhere near that point, nor do I think that just enforcing everything does much to solve the underlying issues.

I also think there’s a distinction to be made between broken windows policing and “arrest everyone” policing. If you read scholarly articles about NYPD practices during the 80s and 90s, you’ll see they largely followed the latter path — broken windows was supposed to be an approach taken in consultation with communities, not adversarially to the same. 

Some articles:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-problem-with-broken-windows-policing/

https://cebcp.org/evidence-based-policing/what-works-in-policing/research-evidence-review/broken-windows-policing/

Quote

For the record, @kosciusko will ONLY look at the figures and nothing else because he doesn’t think it’s a problem to have vagrants urinating all over the subways and platforms. He’d call my comments “offensive” for nearly mentioning them

Lol I thought we’d left preschool; don’t we let people speak for themselves here? I daresay I remember more than a few times when you (rightfully) got upset when people were misrepresenting you. 

[B35 via Church]

14 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Nobody on this forum seems to remember that staffing stations with police officers is more expensive than letting people jump. The numbers just don't add up.

I agree... Lot of these police officers nowadays don't do shit anyway.

12 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

....Having officers stand around and chit chat isn’t enforcement.

JUST had a conversation with both my siblings last night about this very thing.... Standing around conversing amongst themselves, or trying to holla at women (funny how there's no outcries of street harrassment when it's a cop, but that's another topic), or more preoccupied on their cell phones... IDK how many times this past calendar year alone I've seen farebeaters walk right through the gates w/ a damn cop{s} standing right there....

I'm not going to lie to you.... There's times when I feel like a f***ing sucker paying the fare with as much farebeating that's going on.... It's ridiculous.

 

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

21 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Well then great, force the NYPD to do something. 

I really don’t want to get into some whole big dust up over broken windows, but what the stats show is that it works at the cost of mass incarceration, of reinforced inequality, and of not fixing the basic drivers of crime itself. I agree that good enforcement need not be biased, but I don’t we’re anywhere near that point, nor do I think that just enforcing everything does much to solve the underlying issues.

I also think there’s a distinction to be made between broken windows policing and “arrest everyone” policing. If you read scholarly articles about NYPD practices during the 80s and 90s, you’ll see they largely followed the latter path — broken windows was supposed to be an approach taken in consultation with communities, not adversarially to the same. 

Some articles:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-problem-with-broken-windows-policing/

https://cebcp.org/evidence-based-policing/what-works-in-policing/research-evidence-review/broken-windows-policing/

Lol I thought we’d left preschool; don’t we let people speak for themselves here? I daresay I remember more than a few times when you (rightfully) got upset when people were misrepresenting you. 

His attitude has been made clear numerous times now. Nothing being misrepresented here...

[RailRunRob]

15 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Nobody on this forum seems to remember that staffing stations with police officers is more expensive than letting people jump. The numbers just don't add up.

Right your 100% correct.  It was mentioned a few times the cure is more costly than the ailment.