Yeah, not saying things were handled properly, but she definitely didn't show him her pass as she claimed. Unless waving something in front of someone's face for a split second counts but it appears at no point did she actually SHOW him her pass. Without knowing what happened after the video it's impossible to comment on how the officers handled her arrest, but the beginning of her story leading to the confrontation itself is basically one giant discrepancy. She never stopped, never showed him her pass, never did any of the things she claimed she did. Instead she walked past people who were all actually getting out their passes to show to the officer (without incident) and she passed by while he was checking someone else. He followed her to apparently ask to see it again (you can see him ask but he waits until he verifies someone else's ticket) when she aggressively waved it in the air but still never actually showed it to him.

 

I'm always skeptical of these types of stories, especially when posted to places like Facebook, because there are almost always details left out or completely made up (like this story appears to have) that are designed to make the person posting come out as being completely innocent. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be repercussions for how the arrest was handled, but she wasn't just antagonized out of the blue like she claimed.

I ride RTA often so I feel like I know this situation well.  When asked, I and all others I have seen go through the same process make sure to: 1. Stop walking, 2. Pull out your pass and give it to the officer, 3. Wait for the officer to read it and give you the ok.  This is an annoying, inefficient, and confrontational but completely legitimate function of the RTA police.  Furthermore, if you have ever held an RTA pass in your hand you know the type is small and waving it in front of the officer while continuing to walk would defy common sense.  From her own account and now with the video support, after repeated requests from the officer to show her pass, she seemed completely unwilling to take the basic steps to adequately do so.

 

All that said, the officer could have been unnecessarily harsh, combative, and carried out the arrest in a rougher than required manner - but we can't tell from the video.  And while the officer could have been a dick, his effort to physically stop her was warranted - or else anyone without an RTA pass could could ride for free and keep walking when asked to show a pass.

 

Officers should be scrutinized heavily because they possess authority made available to only them.  Expecting a very high standard of conduct is warranted.  But talking about the police is an emotional issue for most people and too often "cops are bastards" supplants a reasonable analysis of each individual issue.  Whether police as a whole are uneducated, hotheaded, lazy, and aggressive doesn't tell us if the officer's conduct here was justified.  Which, in very broad strokes, it appears to be.

^ Isn't trying to bust people the whole point of proof-of-payment? The method tries to get people to buy a pass because they could be checked and cited at anytime.

 

No.  It's trying to make sure people pay.  In my view, this should be done before they board.

I never got the "proof of payment" systems like this. On trains, have gates that only open when you present a valid pass (like in most major cities) and on buses have a system where you can scan it and if there's an issue only then would the bus driver need to be involved as to not slow down the boarding process. I know these systems aren't perfect either, but they remove this type of confrontation from the realm of possibility.

^^TPH2's statement isn't really up for debate, though.*  You can prefer other systems for various reasons, but there's nothing incoherent about proof of payment.  It's a random auditing system, which RTA chose because the alternatives are pretty bad. Paying to install, maintain, and enforce turnstiles at every station would cost a bundle. Having train operators enforce payment delays trains and was extremely unpopular.  Saying you don't like POP because you think enforcement should occur before boarding just begs the question.

 

Also, worth pointing out again, POP is used by many medium and large systems around the world; it's not some nutty RTA invention.

 

*EDIT: actually, I agree with you that the audits are meant to get people to pay, but I think TPH2 is just explaining the mechanism- I don't think you two really disagree.

I think the POP system is first and foremost a function of cost.  Turnstiles at stations would have to be manned, possibly even by more than one person while POP is a fraction of that cost.

 

*Post above mine addressed this first.

^ I'm not claiming that Ms. Ferrato lied or that the RTA police officer was warranted in what he did, but some of her Facebook posts have been very critical of police (posts before the RTA incident happened). I wouldn't be surprised if she was quite inebriated and thus was acting quite combative to the police officer, especially considering her evident feelings towards law enforcement. Perhaps she even instigated this to happen.

 

Again, I'm not necessarily saying that's what I think happened, but it's important to note that there are two sides to every story, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to jump to that conclusion.

 

Edit: Actually, after watching the video, I'm very much prepared to claim that she lied, at least about the beginning part of the incident.

 

I could see how she would have misunderstood the initial contact--she appeared to be on her phone and may have thought the officer was dealing with the other person in the doorway (which he was). 

 

I'm guessing there was guilt by both parties--she took offense and so did he.  The difference:  the transit cop should have kept his cool and remained professional.    Once he saw the pass, incident over.  Maybe give her a verbal warning to be more cooperative. 

^I guess I look at this whole situation as a question of how the resource (RTA Police) is used.  The bigger PR problem for RTA is safety (real or perceived) not people that are taking free rides, especially at Midnight.  The train is going to make the journey whether it has one or fifty riders at that time of night.  Look at what this is costing RTA in terms of public relations over a $2.25 fare.  Sure you will find a number of people that will think twice before either trying to get a free ride or breezing past an RTA officer that is checking fare cards.  You are also going to get folks that will become the opposite where they refuse to show the card citing their rights or they will try to take free rides to see if they will get caught.

 

In my perfect world, RTA is publishing statistics about how much crime (assaults, disorderly conduct, etc.) has been reduced by more frequent patrols and walk-throughs of trains and busses.  While enforcement of fares is part of their responsibility, what are the associated costs?  Perhaps taking the same tact as seatbelt laws where it is a secondary offense would be more customer-friendly.  Get pulled over for speeding and get an extra ticket for not wearing your seatbelt.

^ But he never was given the chance to read the type on the pass - which is the required action.  She merely flashed a piece of paper in the doorway before continuing to walk and ignored what appears to be verbal commands to stop.  Outside of the station, she waves the pass in front of his face for about 1 second before snatching it away when he extends his hand to receive it.  After this she continues on her way to her car.  Maybe the officer didn't communicate well, but from her own account, his desire to read her pass seems pretty obvious.  Clearly, from the video, no reasonable person could have read the text on the pass.

 

^So it's worth it to RTA to have an officer "chase" down a person to verify that their fare card was valid?  I wonder how much revenue RTA generates from the tickets they write from catching people without validated fare cards?  Of that, how many actually get paid?  Bottom line, the vast majority of people that ride RTA are paying their fare and for the few that don't pay, we are all being inconvenienced.  These are not $100.00 fares, we are talking about $2.25.

 

While it is a bit of an extreme analogy, imagine having to go through a traffic stop where all the police are checking is whether you are wearing your seatbelt.  You and everyone else in that stop are probably in compliance with the law, but now you are late to where you needed to be.  If I'm sitting on a Healthline bus and an officer walks by and asks to see my fare card, sure, no problem.  If I was leaving a Red line station after being at work and I was hurrying home so the babysitter could leave or (insert urgent situation here) and I had to stop and dig out my validated fare card that I had put back in my wallet and inside a zippered pocket so no one can pick my pocket, I have a problem with that.  While those that are not in the situation can easily say that she should have complied, I say that RTA never should have put her and the officer in that situation.  It's simple guest service, nothing more, nothing less.

 

I'm done with my rant for the day.  Go back to work everyone...

I have used the Red Line when transit cops checked passes upon exit from the Putitas station and at Tower City once when the gates were out of service. In all cases, they just asked to see the pass out for you to walk by them without needing to stop. I've never seen it occur where the cops actually inspect the pass.

^So it's worth it to RTA to have an officer "chase" down a person to verify that their fare card was valid?  I wonder how much revenue RTA generates from the tickets they write from catching people without validated fare cards?  Of that, how many actually get paid?  Bottom line, the vast majority of people that ride RTA are paying their fare and for the few that don't pay, we are all being inconvenienced.  These are not $100.00 fares, we are talking about $2.25.

 

While it is a bit of an extreme analogy, imagine having to go through a traffic stop where all the police are checking is whether you are wearing your seatbelt.  You and everyone else in that stop are probably in compliance with the law, but now you are late to where you needed to be.  If I'm sitting on a Healthline bus and an officer walks by and asks to see my fare card, sure, no problem.  If I was leaving a Red line station after being at work and I was hurrying home so the babysitter could leave or (insert urgent situation here) and I had to stop and dig out my validated fare card that I had put back in my wallet and inside a zippered pocket so no one can pick my pocket, I have a problem with that.  While those that are not in the situation can easily say that she should have complied, I say that RTA never should have put her and the officer in that situation.  It's simple guest service, nothing more, nothing less.

 

I'm done with my rant for the day.  Go back to work everyone...

 

Again, as StrapHanger[/member] just said above, this is a pretty common thing in transit systems across the country. Sure, that officer evidently handled things incorrectly. I don't think it's unreasonable to have to produce your fare card at any time while within the confines of the transit system. It's not that big of an inconvenience. And if you have no mechanism of enforcement, then what incentive is there for people to buy a fare card?

^So it's worth it to RTA to have an officer "chase" down a person to verify that their fare card was valid?  I wonder how much revenue RTA generates from the tickets they write from catching people without validated fare cards?  Of that, how many actually get paid?  Bottom line, the vast majority of people that ride RTA are paying their fare and for the few that don't pay, we are all being inconvenienced.  These are not $100.00 fares, we are talking about $2.25.

 

It's "worth" it to enforce the broader POP system, which is annoying and confrontational but perfectly legitimate.  The "chase" and arrest was the worst outcome for everyone involved.  The woman didn't want to be arrested, the officer didn't want to do the arrest, and RTA certainly doesn't want the bad publicity.  But if said legitimate system is to be enforced, this means that simply walking away from an officer asking to see your pass is not acceptable.  What do you propose should happen after someone repeatedly ignores orders to show their pass and keeps walking?  Let it go?  That would effectively make payment voluntary at any station other than TC.

 

Like I've said, I ride RTA often.  I've been through plenty of pass checks.  Honestly, your characterization is hilarious.  Presenting your fare card (yes, even if kept in a zippered pocket!) is not going to make you late to whatever you are doing.  Did you see the video?  The people that complied had to stop walking for no more than 3 seconds.  The "inconvenience," if such a thing can even be characterized as such, is outweighed by the benefits of the checks.  Don't forget that this is the Red Line, which has multiple cars in which the driver is only in 1.  The red line is by far the easiest line to skip fairs because you can simply get in any car that the driver is not on and avoid paying - making the POP system even more worthwhile here.  No one is asking anything unreasonable.  Pay your fare and hand over your pass (from your zippered pocket) when asked - which is very rare anyways.

 

 

 

Again, as StrapHanger[/member] just said above, this is a pretty common thing in transit systems across the country. Sure, that officer evidently handled things incorrectly. I don't think it's unreasonable to have to produce your fare card at any time while within the confines of the transit system. It's not that big of an inconvenience. And if you have no mechanism of enforcement, then what incentive is there for people to buy a fare card?

I didn't say that there shouldn't be enforcement, I simply indicated that there are less intrusive ways of enforcement.

 

As for needing an incentive to buy a fare card, I feel you might be underestimating the normal human condition to do the right thing.  Most people when presented with the opportunity for an inappropriate or illegal benefit, unbeknownst to someone else, will turn down that benefit.  In other words, regardless of the enforcement, most people are going to pay the fare.

 

Again, I'd like to state my case that I think the fare card enforcement should be like other secondary offenses.  Get caught being disorderly or violating other obvious rules of riding (playing music without headphones) and expect to have your fare card checked.  Otherwise, don't slow down everyone for the few that might have skipped paying.

 

 

As for needing an incentive to buy a fare card, I feel you might be underestimating the normal human condition to do the right thing.  Most people when presented with the opportunity for an inappropriate or illegal benefit, unbeknownst to someone else, will turn down that benefit.  In other words, regardless of the enforcement, most people are going to pay the fare.

 

 

I strongly disagree with that. Not that people aren't predisposed to do the right thing, but I think most people probably don't view skipping out on a transit fare as high on the list in terms of sins.

I didn't say that there shouldn't be enforcement, I simply indicated that there are less intrusive ways of enforcement.

 

 

Can you suggest some?

 

Checking fares randomly as a secondary police activity is the same manner of fare enforcement, just done less often. That increases the likelihood of fare evasion. You have to fear getting caught and having to pay the $200 fine, just as you fear getting caught speeding, even though your car can go faster. So you voluntarily stay close to the speed limit.

 

I strongly disagree with that. Not that people aren't predisposed to do the right thing, but I think most people probably don't view skipping out on a transit fare as high on the list in terms of sins.

 

So do I. I think GCRTA's estimate of a 5% percent fare evasion rate (which is right about at the industry standard for proof-of-payment systems) is too low. The reason is that one of the popular fare evasion techniques can't be easily stopped. That is, a person stands outside a station and asks people who are leaving it if they have a day pass they won't use anymore. Invariably, someone gives that person their pass and RTA ends up losing fare revenue.

 

As for needing an incentive to buy a fare card, I feel you might be underestimating the normal human condition to do the right thing.  Most people when presented with the opportunity for an inappropriate or illegal benefit, unbeknownst to someone else, will turn down that benefit.  In other words, regardless of the enforcement, most people are going to pay the fare.

 

 

I strongly disagree with that. Not that people aren't predisposed to do the right thing, but I think most people probably don't view skipping out on a transit fare as high on the list in terms of sins.

 

What would you do if you saw a way to ride without paying, even though you have the ability to pay and the mechanism for you to pay is easy?

Wouldn't it make sense for the said officer to be working up at the top of the stairs, at the end of the platform?

 

What if an innocent person tossed their fare card out in a trash can on the way down?

 

 

What would you do if you saw a way to ride without paying, even though you have the ability to pay and the mechanism for you to pay is easy?

 

When I had no money and was going to school downtown, I couldn't afford paying cash to RTA for fares. So I racked up credit card bills paying for gas and parking in lots with honor boxes and not paying. Sometimes they would catch me. Most times they wouldn't. Even so, I still racked up over $150 in unpaid fees and fines. I never paid.

 

Wouldn't it make sense for the said officer to be working up at the top of the stairs, at the end of the platform?

 

 

If something goes wrong, it will take longer for backup to get out of their car, run down the tunnel and up the stairs to the platform. The platform is otherwise fairly isolated.

 

What if an innocent person tossed their fare card out in a trash can on the way down?

 

 

Good point and that does happen sometimes. The passenger would have to go back with the officer to the location where they discarded it. My sister learned the hard way in Paris when she had an RER fare card and threw it out upon arriving Charles de Gaulle airport. I didn't know any better either, but I suggested she retrieve it and hang on to it until we were out of the system. Sure enough, there was a turnstile at the station's exit where you had to run your farecard through it in order to exit.

^ RTA does make it pretty clear with signage at the stations indicating that you are in a "fare paid zone" and thus your fare card is subject to random inspection. The line crossing into the outside world is typically located near the station exit doors.

^I was going to ask how well signed the policy is.  Really, the policy isn't very complicated. 

 

I think GCRTA's estimate of a 5% percent fare evasion rate (which is right about at the industry standard for proof-of-payment systems) is too low. The reason is that one of the popular fare evasion techniques can't be easily stopped. That is, a person stands outside a station and asks people who are leaving it if they have a day pass they won't use anymore. Invariably, someone gives that person their pass and RTA ends up losing fare revenue.

 

Just another reason why it may be time to kill the day pass and instead sell a two-trip card in the TVMs.

Wouldn't it make sense for the said officer to be working up at the top of the stairs, at the end of the platform?

 

What if an innocent person tossed their fare card out in a trash can on the way down?

 

 

1) Fare jumpers would likely just stay on the train and get off at another station

2) I think RTA officers are quite lenient with people who are getting stopped for the first time and who don't know how POP works.  If you're already in their system (they take your name when you're stopped,) you'll definitely get a ticket, though.

 

I've ridden RTA daily for years, and I actually wish the police were more visible for safety reasons.  I got assaulted at the UC rapid station (in the middle of rush hour, no less,) and there was not a cop to be found.  Although fare enforcement is certainly one of their duties (and it definitely should be), I feel like it's their primary duty far too often.  We've complained on here about how the RTA cops seem to congregate at Tower City, which is the only station in the system with turnstiles. 

 

My take on the W. 117th situation is this: Ms. Ferrato was wrong to have breezed past the officers, wrong to have flippantly flashed her farecard at them, and wrong to have continued walking away when asked to stop.  The cop had every right to ask to check her farecard, and every right to follow her and ask her to comply.  However, I don't think it's acceptable that the cop tackled and arrested her over a $2.25 fare.  It's just not worth it to us as a community for people who are suspected of non-violent code infractions to be treated like that. 

 

I don't want to put words in Bookman's mouth, but I think that's what they were driving at.  Stand in her way at the door.  If she walks to a car, write down her license plate number and mail her a ticket.  There's no justification for roughing someone up over $2.25, even if they were in the wrong.

Just another reason why it may be time to kill the day pass and instead sell a two-trip card in the TVMs.

 

Except that many one-way transit trips require one or more transfers. A day pass works well, but a smart card would work even better.

As I stated earlier, ask to see my fare card while I'm on the bus or train, no problem.  Ask to see it as I'm exiting the station, we have a problem.  I'll add that asking me before I get on the bus or train is also not a problem.  Don't stand in the way of me getting where I need to be over $2.25 when I have already consumed the product.

 

Imagine that you are at McDonalds and you buy a meal with a small beverage where the dispensers are self serve.  You finish your drink and decide to get a bit more to help wash down the fries.  You finish your meal and the extra beverage.  As you get ready to leave the building a McDonalds associate stops you and asks to see your receipt.  You no longer have it because you threw it away with the rest of the wrappers and cup.  The associate says that you need to pay for the extra beverage you took.  What do you do and how do you feel?

 

My point to all this writing is that while there is a concern over not getting all of the fare revenue, there is a cost to inconveniencing the paying customer.

 

In my opinion, the lasting impression from the "incident" is that you need to make sure you obey the RTA police.  It's not that you need to make sure you pay your fare.  That is just wrong.

^^The multiple "trip" cards allow unlimited transfers within a 2.5 hour window of swiping.  But yeah, bring on the smart cards.

As I stated earlier, ask to see my fare card while I'm on the bus or train, no problem.  Ask to see it as I'm exiting the station, we have a problem.  I'll add that asking me before I get on the bus or train is also not a problem.  Don't stand in the way of me getting where I need to be over $2.25 when I have already consumed the product.

 

Imagine that you are at McDonalds and you buy a meal with a small beverage where the dispensers are self serve.  You finish your drink and decide to get a bit more to help wash down the fries.  You finish your meal and the extra beverage.  As you get ready to leave the building a McDonalds associate stops you and asks to see your receipt.  You no longer have it because you threw it away with the rest of the wrappers and cup.  The associate says that you need to pay for the extra beverage you took.  What do you do and how do you feel?

 

My point to all this writing is that while there is a concern over not getting all of the fare revenue, there is a cost to inconveniencing the paying customer.

 

In my opinion, the lasting impression from the "incident" is that you need to make sure you obey the RTA police.  It's not that you need to make sure you pay your fare.  That is just wrong.

 

This is what I was getting at as well above--after a long day of work, or film festival, maybe a few drinks, the last thing I want is to be stopped on my way out the door.    What would he have done if she had tossed the fare card out on the platform?

Regardless, the cop didn't handle it like a professional. When she stuck it front of his face, he should have just grabbed it and looked at it. Instead he got hotheaded over a mouthy lady and ended up roughing her up. So stupid. There is an expectation from a policeman/woman that the use their power in a professional manner and be above some sass or attitude to handle a situation. I mean my God, I probably would've been short as well if I were her just trying to get home. I ride the rapid all the time and not once have I ever been asked for proof of ride. But under no circumstance should it have ever gotten to that, and that's on the cop

This was a completely avoidable scenario and the outcome was unfortunate for all parties involved.

 

What I find odd about this, is that the fare check occurred in the exit/vestibule of the station. Every time I've experienced a random fare check it has been either on the train or just after exiting the platform in the area clearly marked "FARE PAID ZONE". These signs state, "In this area, fare must already be purchased, and passes and farecards activated and retained for inspection. Failure to present valid proof of payment upon request will result in a violation fare or possible criminal prosecution."

 

I have never been to 117th street station, so hopefully someone can clarify where these signs are posted there, but at all the other stations, these signs are (obviously) posted just past the point where the machines are to purchase fares. All the random fare checks that I've experienced have always been in these FARE PAID ZONES. Does anyone know where these signs are at 117th? Are they posted in the vestibule where the random fare check incident occurred? If you've already left the system (and the zone marked FARE PAID ZONE) why should you still need to retain a fare card?

I don't want to put words in Bookman's mouth, but I think that's what they were driving at.  Stand in her way at the door.  If she walks to a car, write down her license plate number and mail her a ticket.  There's no justification for roughing someone up over $2.25, even if they were in the wrong.

 

That assumes a car is involved.  What happens if she didn't have a car and was going home on foot?

 

Regardless, the cop didn't handle it like a professional. When she stuck it front of his face, he should have just grabbed it and looked at it. Instead he got hotheaded over a mouthy lady and ended up roughing her up. So stupid. There is an expectation from a policeman/woman that the use their power in a professional manner and be above some sass or attitude to handle a situation. I mean my God, I probably would've been short as well if I were her just trying to get home. I ride the rapid all the time and not once have I ever been asked for proof of ride. But under no circumstance should it have ever gotten to that, and that's on the cop

 

He reached for the card and she snatched it away.

 

From the people that this really bothers.  I'll just ask one simple question.  If a person is walking away from being asked to present their fare card after being told clearly to do so, what should happen next?  (this assumes there is no car involved)

^I'd let the person keep walking. It's a fare of $2.25, it's midnight and it appears that there are very few people around.  If there are any others around I just stop checking fare cards until a fresh set of people arrive.  It's just not worth the effort from my perspective.

Yep. What book man said. Certainly not what the cop did

I wonder if RTA has set a quota for their officers for how many free riders they catch?  Not that it excuses the manner in which the officer handled that incident, but it might explain the insistence of the officer to see the card.

I wonder if RTA has set a quota for their officers for how many free riders they catch?  Not that it excuses the manner in which the officer handled that incident, but it might explain the insistence of the officer to see the card.

 

Or he simply felt disrespected. Having worked around police for 20 years, I learned that police forces don't operate under quotas regarding the issuance of citations. Officers are ordered to enforce laws and regulations. In fact, we at All Aboard Ohio have urged GCRTA to get their officers out of Tower City Center and into the trains and outer stations to provide more visible security. And we are always open to ideas on how this can be accomplished better.

Interesting.  I totally disagree that the non-confrontation option is a practical way to enforce a mandatory payment system.  That said, the insight into the opposing ideology is worthwhile.  Even if I disagree, thank you for the discussion.

Interesting.  I totally disagree that the non-confrontation option is a practical way to enforce a mandatory payment system.  That said, the insight into the opposing ideology is worthwhile.  Even if I disagree, thank you for the discussion.

I never said that there shouldn't be a confrontational way to enforce the payment system.  What I essentially said was that when the confrontation happens, make it before or while I'm using the bus/train, not when I'm leaving the station. 

I'm not a professional cop, in no circumstance do I have this type of confrontation over 2.25. I may yell at her and but I don't lay a finger on a person over $2.25. Especially with everything else going on in this city. Police time is important around here.  What a waste of resources that evening. 

Interesting.  I totally disagree that the non-confrontation option is a practical way to enforce a mandatory payment system.  That said, the insight into the opposing ideology is worthwhile.  Even if I disagree, thank you for the discussion.

I never said that there shouldn't be a confrontational way to enforce the payment system.  What I essentially said was that when the confrontation happens, make it before or while I'm using the bus/train, not when I'm leaving the station. 

 

That's what I don't get about this situation. Since when do patrons LEAVING a station need to show proof of fare? I can understand having to show a fare card on the platform or any area in the "fare paid zone", but is the vestibule of the station considered a "fare paid zone?" Many people use the RTA station lobbies to stay warm or stay out of the rain while they wait for a nearby bus coming to the station, upon exiting the station do they need to show proof of fare, when they didn't even use the Rapid? What about patrons who wait in the lobby to meet a friend/family member exiting the train, do they need to show proof of fare upon exiting the station lobby? I have no problem with fare card checks, but there needs to be a standard protocol of how they are conducted and conducted in the areas clearly marked "fare paid zone."

 

 

 

That's what I don't get about this situation. Since when do patrons LEAVING a station need to show proof of fare? I can understand having to show a fare card on the platform or any area in the "fare paid zone", but is the vestibule of the station considered a "fare paid zone?" Many people use the RTA station lobbies to stay warm or stay out of the rain while they wait for a nearby bus coming to the station, upon exiting the station do they need to show proof of fare, when they didn't even use the Rapid? What about patrons who wait in the lobby to meet a friend/family member exiting the train, do they need to show proof of fare upon exiting the station lobby? I have no problem with fare card checks, but there needs to be a standard protocol of how they are conducted and conducted in the areas clearly marked "fare paid zone."

You bring up more reasons why fare checking should only happen prior to or while the transit service is being consumed.  Checking after the fact just opens up a can of worms.

 

By the way, if I remember the W117 station correctly, the first sign for the fare paid zone is just past the machines for buying or validating fare cards.  The double doors are outside of the fare paid zone.  Not saying that this makes RTA wrong for having an officer checking fare cards at the door, but it just points to yet another challenge with this manner of fare checking.

It sounds like the best solution is to check farecards only while on the trains or HealthLine. In fact when I've used POP systems in other cities, I've only been asked for my farecard while on a train or BRT. The only time an officer may get off the transit vehicle to enforce fare payment is when it is the officer's judgment that someone is exiting the train or bus to intentionally avoid enforcement. Only if the passenger uses force against the officer or another person to elude the officer should the officer escalate the pursuit. The reason is that the passenger may have an active arrest warrant pending and an identification check is needed. If no force is used by the passenger to elude the officer, officer should let the passenger go.

^I've been checked while exiting a station before (in Brussels)- actually at the end of a long escalator, which was pretty clever, because there was no escape. 

 

I don't really understand the distinction people are making about checks before, during, or after the transit trip. If the cop sees you exiting the fare paid zone, it means the cop thinks you were inside the zone, which, by law, requires valid fare. Not sure why it matters where or at what point the confrontation takes place, as long as it's within the zone of RTA's authority and the rules are clear (which they are).  In all cases, there has to be a confrontation. These same confrontations can end just as ugly on the train as they can outside the station: http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/video-police-use-stun-gun-on-man-riding-rta-train

 

All that said, I completely understand why many people aren't keen on a POP system given how ugly these confrontations can be. I don't see a way around it on the Health Line, but on the Red Line, I could imagine greater reliance on controlled entry and exit. I'd guess the incremental cost of adding modern fare gates to the next few most used stations after Tower City, with part-time police staffing (really just re-assigning the current force), wouldn't be too huge, and would cover a vast majority of rides.  Maybe the small share of people who regularly ride between unstaffed stations would be able to evade fares, but I doubt that would be much higher than current evasion levels.

^I've been checked while exiting a station before (in Brussels)- actually at the end of a long escalator, which was pretty clever, because there was no escape. 

 

I don't really understand the distinction people are making about checks before, during, or after the transit trip. If the cop sees you exiting the fare paid zone, it means the cop thinks you were inside the zone, which, by law, requires valid fare. Not sure why it matters where or at what point the confrontation takes place, as long as it's within the zone of RTA's authority and the rules are clear (which they are).  In all cases, there has to be a confrontation. These same confrontations can end just as ugly on the train as they can outside the station: http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/video-police-use-stun-gun-on-man-riding-rta-train

 

All that said, I completely understand why many people aren't keen on a POP system given how ugly these confrontations can be. I don't see a way around it on the Health Line, but on the Red Line, I could imagine greater reliance on controlled entry and exit. I'd guess the incremental cost of adding modern fare gates to the next few most used stations after Tower City, with part-time police staffing (really just re-assigning the current force), wouldn't be too huge, and would cover a vast majority of rides.  Maybe the small share of people who regularly ride between unstaffed stations would be able to evade fares, but I doubt that would be much higher than current evasion levels.

 

I feel like there is a distinction on the "customer" side of the operation. Having checks before or during the ride doesn't "inconvenience" the rider as much as if they are exiting and just trying to be on their way. Because of the way Cleveland's PoP system works, we're stuck with having these random fare checks, but they can be designed better for the customer. Remember, the vast majority of people have already paid their fare and just want to be on their way.

 

It's sort of analogous to visiting a museum. You go up to the ticket counter and buy a ticket. Whether or not you've bought a ticket, the train is going to go by/ the museum lights will be on. Most times after you've bought the museum ticket there will be a person at the entrance to the gallery that will check your ticket, which no one has a problem with. This is just like buying a ticket at Tower City and then putting it through the turnstile, or entering the platform at Cedar University and someone checking to see if you have a valid ticket before you board. You then walk around the gallery and finish consuming the product. You leave the gallery for the gift shop. Being in the gift shop doesn't require admission, but most people in the gift shop were customers of the museum. As you're leaving the gift shop to exit the building a person asks you to see your museum ticket to verify if you've paid. While they have the right to ask you that, is that the best customer service they could give? In the museum example, theoretically someone could have slipped in without paying if the attendant at the gallery entrance wasn't there at the time, just like on the Red Line. So as a museum manager or RTA administrator is the best way to combat these potential fare violations through checking people's admission tickets/fare cards as they enter, during their visit/ride, or as they are on their way out the door?

 

It's not as easy to evade a fare on the Red Line as some people assume. Can it be done? Of course, but all the scenarios below would involve someone already having a pass or needing to swipe it at some point in their journey:

 

*You board at Tower City

*You exit at Tower City

*You need to transfer from a bus to the Red Line

*You need to transfer to the Red Line from a bus

*Your employer sponsors your RTA pass

*You participate in a special subsidized pass program (CSU, elderly, etc)

*You are a frequent RTA rider and already purchase a monthly pass for all your trips on all RTA vehicles

 

The vast majority of riders are going to fall into one of those groups above and already have a fare card or need it during the journey. An example of a person that could evade the fare would be someone that arrives at Brookpark Station by car or foot and exits at Cedar University where they walk to their final destination. In addition, they make this trip very infrequently. If they arrived at Brookpark or left Cedar University by bus, they would have needed a pass regardless. It would be highly unlikely that a rider who makes this trip daily would try to evade the fare everyday, because after a month it would catch up to them with a fare violation.

 

But the scenario above is why RTA has to have the random fare checks. If RTA standardized the way they do them, then events like what happened at 117th could probably be mitigated.

 

Well there is a best (or maybe just better) practice out there that most cities use and Cleveland doesnt.

The whole notion of "police" breaks down if you're allowed to just ignore them because you feel inconvenienced.  If you try to just blow on by them, you deserve to be taken down, doesn't matter what the original issue was. 

 

Also, there's no evidence that this woman was "roughed up" or that the officer acted unprofessionally, and her story doesn't jibe with what the video shows.  I don't believe a thing on her word now.

Also, there are LOTS of situations in which you are allowed to consume a service, and then pay for it, or when you may be asked to show proof of payment as you are leaving a facility.  Ever bought something at Best Buy or Guitar Center?  They often check receipts on the way out.

Also, there are LOTS of situations in which you are allowed to consume a service, and then pay for it, or when you may be asked to show proof of payment as you are leaving a facility.  Ever bought something at Best Buy or Guitar Center?  They often check receipts on the way out.

In this case you must pay before you consume, so those cases you refer to don't apply.  That is why I would only recommend that confrontational enforcement occur either before you consume or while you consume. 

 

Yes, I've bought items at lots of places that check receipts at the door and I can tell you they are not looking to see if I'm stealing a $2.25 candy bar.  There is a huge difference between retail shopping and using public transit.

^^you don't tackle a non-threatening woman over two bucks late at night, no matter her attitude. This guy should be in jail, and RTA should pay big time. "Escort her to the ground"? Jesus, when did common sense and proportionate response become obselete

Also, there are LOTS of situations in which you are allowed to consume a service, and then pay for it, or when you may be asked to show proof of payment as you are leaving a facility.  Ever bought something at Best Buy or Guitar Center?  They often check receipts on the way out.

 

That is true, but those are big ticket tangible goods. If they find out you didn't pay for the merchandise, then they can still retain that merchandise and sell it to another potential buyer. With RTA, we are talking about $2.25 for a non tangible good. It's equivalent of being asked to show your concert ticket as you are leaving an arena, showing your museum stub as you are leaving the building, showing your sports ticket as you walk out the stadium, or showing your ticket stub as you leave the movie theatre - the operators of all these types of venues can all choose to do this if they wish, but most if not all choose to check to see if the fare was paid prior to admission. The random fare checks are absolutely necessary with the way Cleveland's system is designed, I'm just saying that they can be conducted in a much more customer oriented manner.

 

For example, last month I was riding RTA to Cedar University during rush hour. There was a random fare check at the bottom of the stairs as a crowd of 100 passengers got off. There were two officers checking the fare cards. I was near the end of the line and it took about 8 minutes before I could leave the station. Sure, it's not that big of a deal, but from a customer service stand point this could have been achieved just as easily by checking the fare cards while everyone was on board the train or as they boarded at each station, saving everyone a lot of time and hassle. Plus, when the fare is checked before boarding, it's similar to the consumption of other services of non tangible goods (concert, museum, theatre, sports, etc) where it's the norm. When you're checked after the fact it makes it feel like everyone is a potential thief, and really that's not that great of a feeling. As with the stores that check receipts upon leaving, I always comply, but it does feel a bit insulting that guests leaving the cash registers are all considered potential thieves by the stores. And as the name implies, proof of payment, the same goes for RTA. Until you can prove that you've paid, you're considered to be a potential fare evader. However, when those checks are made makes a difference in the way it feels for a customer. Checking beforehand or during and it doesn't feel like you are considered a thief, check afterwards and it does.

 

 

The officer should do what is necessary to make her comply with a lawful order, period.  If that means repeating it louder, fine.  If she still decided she's above the law, she should be detained.  If that means the officer has to tackle her, that's her fault.  She decided she was too important an individual to take two seconds so the officer could do his job. 

 

It is not about $2.00.  Instead of following instructions, she decided to keep walking away.  You don't get to just walk away from the police when they issue a lawful order because you think you're above the law.  I don't care who you are- a poor minority, a narcissistic middle class white woman, it doesn't matter.  The police officer shouldn't be in jail for making an arrest.  That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. 

^ Well said. Complaince with lawful orders should not be left to the ordered's discretion.  The entire concept of police disintegrates if so.  The relevant inquiry is if the officer had the legitimate authority and directive to order the pass check.  He did and she didn't follow the order, repeatedly.  Whether you think the officer is better stationed at the top of the stairs or at the bottom, his orders were totally legitimate here.  The two choices at that point were arrest or back off.  I don't think backing off is a viable way to enforce rules.  Otherwise, the rules are voluntary.

The officer should do what is necessary to make her comply with a lawful order, period.  If that means repeating it louder, fine.  If she still decided she's above the law, she should be detained.  If that means the officer has to tackle her, that's her fault.  She decided she was too important an individual to take two seconds so the officer could do his job. 

 

It is not about $2.00.  Instead of following instructions, she decided to keep walking away.  You don't get to just walk away from the police when they issue a lawful order because you think you're above the law.  I don't care who you are- a poor minority, a narcissistic middle class white woman, it doesn't matter.  The police officer shouldn't be in jail for making an arrest.  That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. 

 

Christ, so why didn't the officer just taze her to keep her from walking away?  Or maybe you'd prefer if he shot her in the legs?  It would have been her own fault, right?

 

Yes, everybody should be paying their fares.  Yes, the officers have a right and a responsibility to enforce fare collection, and it's perfectly reasonable for them to confront passengers suspected of fare jumping.  But there's a HUGE range of confrontational actions an officer can take that don't resort to physical violence.  There's a lot of gray area between "backing off" and tackling this woman to the ground, and it's disturbing that you guys don't see that.