Subway Fare Evaders: Why Does MTA Trust Barriers More Than Border Walls?

Are barriers a more effective solution to fare evasion on the MTA's subway system compared to border walls? This question brings up an interesting debate between the practicality and effectiveness of different types of security measures in urban transit systems versus vast national borders.

Context and Comparison

New York City, like many sprawling urban areas, struggles with fare evasion on its vast public transit network. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is constantly looking for ways to combat this issue, with one proposed solution being the installation of stronger gate barriers. However, this proposal raises eyebrows when one compares it to the real-world effectiveness of border walls, especially considering NYC's stance on such measures.

According to recent data and cultural attitudes in New York, there is a prevailing belief that border walls and barriers have not proven effective. So, when faced with the MTA's proposal, questions arise: Why does the MTA think that stronger gate barriers will deter fare evaders?

Toll Gates vs. Border Walls

The logistics of these two scenarios are vastly different. For one, toll entries typically span a width of 30-70 feet, whereas the length of the US-Mexico border is approximately 3,000 miles. This stark difference in scale makes it clear why border walls are a much more challenging task.

Toll evaders usually cannot dig tunnels under the toll gates or smuggle individuals across borders in suitcases. Thus, the challenges and solutions for each scenario are fundamentally different.

Many MTA stations already have measures in place, such as floor-to-ceiling gates that prevent fare evaders from jumping over or ducking under. However, these barriers present a new challenge: how to manage free-riding children. This issue could be exacerbated if people require physical assistance to pass through the gates, such as using strollers, shopping carts, or bicycles.

Alternative Solutions and Community Watch

A past observation from a station in the Bronx (138th St. 4 and 5 stop) offers an alternative approach. At that particular station, the presence of police officers, visible to all, served as a strong deterrent. However, utilizing plainclothes officers for this purpose, as one officer explained, actually worked better. These officers were not immediately recognizable but were clearly doing their job, as evidenced by the citation they issued.

The effectiveness of plainclothes officers in this context teaches us that the mere presence of security personnel can be a deterrent. Another key point is the social aspect: the presence of other people in the station can create a natural deterrent against fare evasion. If the act of fare evasion risks exposure, it becomes less appealing.

Conclusion

While it's true that toll gate barriers and border walls are vastly different in their design and scale, the underlying principle is similar: visible and dedicated law enforcement personnel can act as a significant deterrent. The MTA's proposed barriers, however, might not address the human element and the potential for evasion through other means. Thus, the MTA’s reliance on stronger barrier gates as opposed to comprehensive security personnel stationed at stations may not be as effective as initially thought.