alex davis
@alexdavistransit.bsky.social
Transit service planner 🚏
Fare enforcement enjoyer 🎫✅
Proudly car free in LA 🚌🌴
My statements =/= my employer's
-Being wrong lets you discover new things.
-Being naive lets you dare to try.
-Being cringe lets you change the world.
Fare enforcement enjoyer 🎫✅
Proudly car free in LA 🚌🌴
My statements =/= my employer's
-Being wrong lets you discover new things.
-Being naive lets you dare to try.
-Being cringe lets you change the world.
We don't enforce traffic laws by asking drivers to go drive to a different street after catching them. So when Metro enforces fares by telling an already tiny percentage of fare evaders to please step off the vehicle, we shouldn't be surprised that nearly half of riders respond by not paying.
November 22, 2025 at 6:22 AM
We don't enforce traffic laws by asking drivers to go drive to a different street after catching them. So when Metro enforces fares by telling an already tiny percentage of fare evaders to please step off the vehicle, we shouldn't be surprised that nearly half of riders respond by not paying.
Chief Scott:
"Metro TSOs, in the month of August, basically kicked 2,600 people off of the system for fare evasion."
According to the August update (boardagendas.metro.net/board-report... Atch D), there were supposedly 3.3k fare removals. But let's be clear that this is not fare enforcement.
"Metro TSOs, in the month of August, basically kicked 2,600 people off of the system for fare evasion."
According to the August update (boardagendas.metro.net/board-report... Atch D), there were supposedly 3.3k fare removals. But let's be clear that this is not fare enforcement.
November 22, 2025 at 6:22 AM
Chief Scott:
"Metro TSOs, in the month of August, basically kicked 2,600 people off of the system for fare evasion."
According to the August update (boardagendas.metro.net/board-report... Atch D), there were supposedly 3.3k fare removals. But let's be clear that this is not fare enforcement.
"Metro TSOs, in the month of August, basically kicked 2,600 people off of the system for fare evasion."
According to the August update (boardagendas.metro.net/board-report... Atch D), there were supposedly 3.3k fare removals. But let's be clear that this is not fare enforcement.
This morning, I noticed they did the same thing at 7th/Metro Center. It's really fun.
November 22, 2025 at 2:05 AM
This morning, I noticed they did the same thing at 7th/Metro Center. It's really fun.
Removals actually are measured, but they are also very few. You can see them on the second page here:
metro.legistar1.com/metro/attach...
Besides, getting told to please step off the vehicle once a year is not an effective incentive to pay, and respectfully, Wiggins and Scott already know this.
metro.legistar1.com/metro/attach...
Besides, getting told to please step off the vehicle once a year is not an effective incentive to pay, and respectfully, Wiggins and Scott already know this.
metro.legistar1.com
November 21, 2025 at 2:41 AM
Removals actually are measured, but they are also very few. You can see them on the second page here:
metro.legistar1.com/metro/attach...
Besides, getting told to please step off the vehicle once a year is not an effective incentive to pay, and respectfully, Wiggins and Scott already know this.
metro.legistar1.com/metro/attach...
Besides, getting told to please step off the vehicle once a year is not an effective incentive to pay, and respectfully, Wiggins and Scott already know this.
Yeah, I'll admit I have some of the same concerns. But I'm happy to make the case for unbiased, non-criminal fare enforcement in any other publication that wants to publish it. I hope this is something that people across the political spectrum can get behind.
November 21, 2025 at 1:57 AM
Yeah, I'll admit I have some of the same concerns. But I'm happy to make the case for unbiased, non-criminal fare enforcement in any other publication that wants to publish it. I hope this is something that people across the political spectrum can get behind.
Today, at the @metrolosangeles.bsky.social Ops meeting, CEO Stephanie Wiggins mentioned the recent op-ed I co-authored documenting Metro's 5-year suspension of regular fare enforcement. While she dismissed the piece as "erroneous", she could not point to one factually incorrect thing in the op-ed.
CEO speaks about "erroneous" recent Daily News editorial that noted lack of fare enforcement (written by @alexdavistransit.bsky.social & others). CEO & Metro Police Chief speak about "many ways to engage" riders, kicking non-paying riders off the system without citations.
November 21, 2025 at 12:06 AM
While we won't mince words about LA Metro's failed experiment in non-enforcement fare enforcement, we have only the highest respect for Metro's leadership. We will keep advocating for a fare-required transit system, and want to work collaboratively with Metro staff at all levels to reach that goal.
November 21, 2025 at 12:03 AM
While we won't mince words about LA Metro's failed experiment in non-enforcement fare enforcement, we have only the highest respect for Metro's leadership. We will keep advocating for a fare-required transit system, and want to work collaboratively with Metro staff at all levels to reach that goal.
What we're proposing, where TSOs check fares and issue non-criminal citations, isn't radical or heavy-handed. It's a global standard among transit systems, helping cities across the world deliver safer and better-funded service to the public, with targeted discounts for those who truly need it.
November 21, 2025 at 12:03 AM
What we're proposing, where TSOs check fares and issue non-criminal citations, isn't radical or heavy-handed. It's a global standard among transit systems, helping cities across the world deliver safer and better-funded service to the public, with targeted discounts for those who truly need it.
Lastly, while we applaud the tall gate installations, we also recognize they will never be enough. They can't be installed on buses or street-level stations, and are easy to piggyback through.
We already know the result of these citation-free methods of fare enforcement: a 46% fare evasion rate.
We already know the result of these citation-free methods of fare enforcement: a 46% fare evasion rate.
November 21, 2025 at 12:03 AM
Lastly, while we applaud the tall gate installations, we also recognize they will never be enough. They can't be installed on buses or street-level stations, and are easy to piggyback through.
We already know the result of these citation-free methods of fare enforcement: a 46% fare evasion rate.
We already know the result of these citation-free methods of fare enforcement: a 46% fare evasion rate.
She handed the mic to, I believe, Chief Bill Scott who listed a series of ad-hoc security measures that, as we have documented in our report (bit.ly/enforcethefares), don't work.
TAP-to-exit only works where and when it's implemented, and kicking people off doesn't deter people from fare evading.
TAP-to-exit only works where and when it's implemented, and kicking people off doesn't deter people from fare evading.
A Metro Worth Paying For.pdf
bit.ly
November 21, 2025 at 12:03 AM
She handed the mic to, I believe, Chief Bill Scott who listed a series of ad-hoc security measures that, as we have documented in our report (bit.ly/enforcethefares), don't work.
TAP-to-exit only works where and when it's implemented, and kicking people off doesn't deter people from fare evading.
TAP-to-exit only works where and when it's implemented, and kicking people off doesn't deter people from fare evading.
America has more land to waste so therefore now only 16% of people walk for transportation on a weekly basis?
November 20, 2025 at 7:37 AM
America has more land to waste so therefore now only 16% of people walk for transportation on a weekly basis?
The land availability difference is more compelling. Like I said, I agree with you that regional land use controls are the only way to stop sprawl.
November 20, 2025 at 7:35 AM
The land availability difference is more compelling. Like I said, I agree with you that regional land use controls are the only way to stop sprawl.
Other rich countries have majority walkable housing which they are still building on. See western Europe. Next argument, please.
November 20, 2025 at 7:33 AM
Other rich countries have majority walkable housing which they are still building on. See western Europe. Next argument, please.
That's a strawman extreme. Everyone knows there are cheap walkable neighborhoods in the US. Philly has a lot, for instance. I'm saying walkability plays a very strong, positive impact on demand.
November 20, 2025 at 7:31 AM
That's a strawman extreme. Everyone knows there are cheap walkable neighborhoods in the US. Philly has a lot, for instance. I'm saying walkability plays a very strong, positive impact on demand.
42% of Americans say they want walkability even if it means smaller houses and in most of the world, people have it. Meanwhile, walkable US neighborhoods have consistently higher rents due to unmet demand. From these clues, it appears this unmet demand is vast. Why deny that?
November 20, 2025 at 7:24 AM
42% of Americans say they want walkability even if it means smaller houses and in most of the world, people have it. Meanwhile, walkable US neighborhoods have consistently higher rents due to unmet demand. From these clues, it appears this unmet demand is vast. Why deny that?
We're using "city" versus "suburb" because those are the commonly used words. But what we're really talking about is "car-dependent" versus not. In most of the world, the vast majority of non-rural settlements are not car-dependent. Why would Americans be uniquely unwilling to live in apartments?
November 20, 2025 at 7:20 AM
We're using "city" versus "suburb" because those are the commonly used words. But what we're really talking about is "car-dependent" versus not. In most of the world, the vast majority of non-rural settlements are not car-dependent. Why would Americans be uniquely unwilling to live in apartments?
What do you make of this Pew study showing 42% of Americans want to live in a place with smaller homes and most stuff in walking distance? That's a VAST reservoir of demand.
www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...
www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...
November 20, 2025 at 7:10 AM
What do you make of this Pew study showing 42% of Americans want to live in a place with smaller homes and most stuff in walking distance? That's a VAST reservoir of demand.
www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...
www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...
I think laissez faire clearly won't halt suburban expansion. (That needs a greenbelt) But as we've seen in California and Minneapolis, removing height caps, parking minimums, etc gets the goods. And with SB79 in California, I'm very confident there will not be a demand side problem for 5over1s.
November 20, 2025 at 7:07 AM
I think laissez faire clearly won't halt suburban expansion. (That needs a greenbelt) But as we've seen in California and Minneapolis, removing height caps, parking minimums, etc gets the goods. And with SB79 in California, I'm very confident there will not be a demand side problem for 5over1s.
Okay. My impression of what you have been arguing over the last 24 hours is that there is not a massive unmet demand for urbanist housing in the US. Yes or no?
November 20, 2025 at 6:59 AM
Okay. My impression of what you have been arguing over the last 24 hours is that there is not a massive unmet demand for urbanist housing in the US. Yes or no?
Considering that urbanist neighborhoods are on average far more in demand than suburbs, I think the burden of proof is on you to explain these clear price signals.
November 19, 2025 at 5:06 AM
Considering that urbanist neighborhoods are on average far more in demand than suburbs, I think the burden of proof is on you to explain these clear price signals.
Yeah, urbanists believe that while some people will always want to trade away the ability to walk places just to have a big house and a lawn, most people in the US are only doing that because the supply of urbanist housing is so constrained and the transit to support it is so underfunded.
November 19, 2025 at 5:06 AM
Yeah, urbanists believe that while some people will always want to trade away the ability to walk places just to have a big house and a lawn, most people in the US are only doing that because the supply of urbanist housing is so constrained and the transit to support it is so underfunded.
The percentage of this country's population that lives in car-dependent areas is truly exceptional, with few international equivalents. It's weird to be getting in a joisting match with this obvious objective fact.
November 19, 2025 at 4:51 AM
The percentage of this country's population that lives in car-dependent areas is truly exceptional, with few international equivalents. It's weird to be getting in a joisting match with this obvious objective fact.
Well that was a very rapid deletion! Here's the post I was responding to. I don't mean to antagonize the guy! It's just for the record.
November 19, 2025 at 1:22 AM
Well that was a very rapid deletion! Here's the post I was responding to. I don't mean to antagonize the guy! It's just for the record.