I saw this tweet recently from an urbanist I follow, about enforcement of minor offenses on public transit:

And I replied with something I’ve thought about a bit, but haven’t specifically written about:

“The funny thing is that *both* of these approaches (treating transit users like presumed criminals, and letting open lawbreaking go unpunished) make transit less attractive to people who have a choice whether or not to use it.”

Here’s the list of rules in the D.C. Metro, displayed in all train cars:

Apparently, in the old days Metro officers would even hassle pregnant women for trying to get in a sip of water. Nowadays, drinking and playing loud music are pretty much unenforced. The others are probably enforced to some degree. Loud music is not that common but I’ve definitely had trains that sound like dance clubs every so often. I’m not sure about the “no animals”—does it mean pet owners aren’t allowed to take Metro to the vet? Car ownership or taxi use is mandated for all vet visits in D.C.? I’ve seen cats and small dogs in carriers before; I don’t know if that’s technically allowed. I also don’t know, come to think of it, if the explosion of non-leaking reusable water bottles has changed the understanding of the no-water rule.) Why should someone have to worry about this stuff?

But back to my reply. What I mean by that is that a broad middle of the population, the people who drive a lot of places and choose transit deliberately or have to be convinced or enticed to use it, may talk about disorder and petty crime. They might default to a high enforcement or “tough on crime” view when it comes to bad behavior on transit.

However, they also might not like a high-enforcement environment. Where your card doesn’t work and you get stopped and frisked, or where drinking water is a ticketing offense. Or like in New York City, where in a bid to make the subway system feel safe, the governor quasi-militarized the stations. Does the average, normal person who just wants to get on the train and not worry about scary or weird or dangerous behavior want drinking water to be illegal? Do they want to see National Guard troops? Do they want to get stopped and interrogated when there’s an issue and it looks like maybe they’re at fault? It sure makes the personalized privacy of a nice car feel great.

Another thing with a lot of rail transit systems is they often lack bathrooms, or easily accessible ones. One reason for that—I assume—is the maintenance costs, especially when people trash them, or homeless people loiter in them, or people use drugs in them. But it sure doesn’t make transit more competitive than driving if you can’t run into a bathroom within the system, like taking an exit and hitting the first gas station when you’re in the car. Especially when you have kids.

So removing or not having or closing bathrooms is sort of a “tamping down disorder” thing, but it’s also a hassling regular transit users thing. Same with “anti-homeless architecture,” where there are spikes or metal dividers in the benches, or the benches are designed to be uncomfortable.

Same, by the way, with the self-checkouts in supermarkets that have a camera hanging above you and lock up when they think you’ve bagged an item, or haven’t bagged an item, or haven’t weighed an item, or looked at the terminal the wrong way. It’s meant to foil shoplifting, but it ends up making every customer feel like a presumptive criminal.

It’s hard to exclude “bad” behavior without hassling “good” behavior. It’s hard to signal to people “this place is safe/comfortable/for you” without also making them feel unwelcome. Maybe there’s a pithier way to put this insight.

This is something that doesn’t have an obvious answer, but it’s something transit agencies need to figure out. You shouldn’t have to “support” transit. It shouldn’t be some noble sacrifice or some unpleasant sort of self-improvement. If Americans are going to ride transit, except in the small handful of places where it’s the obvious choice, it’s going to have to compete on the merits with driving.

Letting stations and trains become unregulated, anything-goes spaces is not good. But “imposing order” or “cracking down,” at least done a certain way, is the opposite error.

Related Reading:

Seattle Addled

Kids And The City

If You Hate The City, Hope It Thrives

Thank you for reading! Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription to help support this newsletter. You’ll get a weekly subscribers-only piece, plus full access to the archive: over 1,000 pieces and growing. And you’ll help ensure more like this!

Share