Press Release
Fair and Just: CSS Statement on MTA’s Blue Ribbon Panel Report on Fare Evasion
Fare evasion in the New York City public transit system has been a long-standing issue. In the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s (MTA) latest report on fare evasion, titled “Playing Fare” and authored by a blue-ribbon panel of experts from diverse backgrounds, fare evasion on subways and buses is estimated to cost the agency around $535 million in revenue in fiscal year 2022.[1] The agency also estimates that around 400,000 fare evaders enter the subway system each day, many of whom are then summoned to courts and even arrested.
Perhaps the most significant recommendation included in the report relates to Fair Fares—a program that provides New Yorkers in poverty with a discounted Metrocard. The report echoes CSS’s long-standing contention that fare evasion is largely a socioeconomic challenge and not one of criminal compulsion. Specifically, the report recommends- (i) expanding eligibility for Fair Fares from 100 to 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level,[2] (ii) aggressive outreach and education, especially in neighborhoods with high need, to increase awareness and enrollment, and (iii) streamlining the administrative processes involved in obtaining and renewing a Fair Fares card. CSS has written extensively on the urgent need for implementing these changes to the Fair Fares program and in recent months, our advocacy on the issue (conducted in collaboration with our coalition partners) has received support from several elected officials, including the City Council Speaker. Expanding the program will benefit an estimated one million New Yorkers, almost a third of whom reported struggling to pay for public transit in the latest round of our Unheard Third survey.[3]
Poverty reduction efforts that directly address the economic wellbeing of New Yorkers will make more of an impact on reducing fare evasion than police enforcement or heavy fines.
We are also heartened to see that the report recommends two distinct pivots in the enforcement strategy.
The first involves shifting the enforcement strategy to make it more equitable and efficient. By recognizing the disproportionate impacts of existing fare evasion enforcement on New Yorkers of color, the report takes the first important step in the right direction. Prior CSS research has shown that fare evasion arrests are more common at subway stations nearest to poor neighborhoods; that arrests for fare evasion occur more at subway stations near high-poverty black neighborhoods and that poverty alone doesn’t explain racial disparities in fare evasion arrests. By committing to a strategy of equitable distribution of enforcement personnel, such that “The risk of a summons or arrest should be just as great for evasion on the Upper East Side as in East New York”, the report gives us reason to expect less inequities in fare evasion enforcement in near future.
Second, the report also calls for focusing the enforcement strategy away from aggressive punishments of fare evaders and towards a less punitive approach, implemented more by civilian personnel and less by police. The report recommends that first time fare evaders be served with an official warning, instead of summons or arrests. Our Unheard Third Survey of low-income New Yorkers shows that 1-in-3 households have less $100 in rainy day savings. And that was before inflation started eroding their purchasing power. To expect that someone who is trying to evade $2.75 would somehow be able to pay the $100 fine is highly unrealistic.
In our survey we had also asked New Yorkers about alternatives to paying a $100 fine for fare evasion. Figure 1 shows that over half—56 percent—of New Yorkers favor punishments that do not involve paying the fine. Among those who favored alternatives to paying the fine, the most popular option was ‘do community service’, followed by ‘meet with a caseworker to determine eligibility for Fair Fares’. There was also considerable support for paying fines on a ‘sliding scale’ adjusted for an individual’s ability to pay. A version of this idea is already being considered for parking tickets. Implementing such measures would also be in line with most cities across the nation (San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Washington D.C., to name a few) that are also decriminalizing fare evasion.
Figure 1: The majority of respondents want some action to be taken to penalize fare evasion, but don’t want it to be a steep fine.
While we applaud the report for its positive strides, we must also bring attention to certain areas where improvements can be made. Primary among them is the report’s failure to address the lack of data surrounding fare evasion. Currently, data on summonses and arrests are available by the NYPD’s Transit Districts on a quarterly basis. However, data on individual race/socioeconomic status of fare evaders is not available. This data would then need to be combined with data on deployment of enforcement personnel, and the volume of riders entering/exiting a particular station, to accurately inform the discussion on fare evasion. Additionally, to understand the efficacy of adopted enforcement strategies, we would also need greater transparency and credible data on program budget and actual spending of tax dollars on police personnel, surveillance technology, and upgrading of infrastructure.
Fare evasion is a net loss for everyone involved—for the transit system and for its users. But we can solve it by a combination of enforcement measures, fare adjustments, and public outreach.
Notes
1. In the interest of full disclosure, we note that CSS President and CEO, David R. Jones, is a member of the panel.
2. The Federal Poverty Level for a family of 4 is set at $30,000 for 2023. http[s://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-fpl/
3. The 2022 Unheard Third is a scientific telephone survey of 1,968 New York City adult residents reached by cell phones and landlines from July 12th through August 18th, 2022. It was designed by Community Service Society in collaboration with Lake Research Partners, who administered it using Random Digit Dialing and professional interviewers. The sample included 1,234 low-income residents (up to 200% of federal poverty standards, or FPL), and 734 moderate and higher-income residents (above 200% FPL). Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, and Chinese. The margin of error for the entire survey is +/- 2.2 percent, for the low-income component is +/- 2.8 percent, and for the higher income component is +/- 3.6 percent, all at the 95% confidence interval. For more information, please reach out to Emerita Torres, Vice President of Policy Research and Advocacy, etorres@cssny.org.