Mediaboss Marketing

The issue seems rather simple: If you use a service that typically comes at a price and you do not pay, that is theft.

That basic of rule of law and order is up for debate sort of in front of the Washington Supreme Court. The court will consider whether fare enforcement on public transit represents an unconstitutional violation of a passengers right to privacy.

Lower courts have rejected the case brought by a man who was asked in 2018 by Snohomish County sheriffs deputies to prove that he had paid for his ride on a bus in Everett. That seems to be a reasonable request, but Zachery Merediths lawyer is arguing that fare enforcement violated his clients civil rights under the state constitution.

According to the Associated Press, the case is similar to one last year in Maryland. There, the states highest court sided with a train passenger, concluding that Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure had been violated when the transit agency conducted a fare sweep.

Indeed, there might be a constitutional difference between the cases. A fare sweep involving a multitude of passengers could be deemed a suspicionless search, which might or might not be different from asking a single passenger for proof of payment. But when the law is so thinly sliced, it can become untenable and unenforceable.

Such enforcement is increasingly becoming an issue for transit agencies.

TriMet, the Portland areas transit agency, announced last week that it will prohibit police from checking passengers fares. According to OregonLive.com, police may still be present when transit staff check fares, and police may help TriMet employees identify someone who refuses to give their name.

Agency officials noted that if a person who has not paid their fare becomes violent with the fare inspector, police may still intervene. Well, were glad they cleared that up.

Meanwhile, it seems that fare-jumping is something transit agencies would be interested in preventing. So would the public, considering that taxpayers foot most of the bill for transit.

C-Tran policy says: All passengers must pay the appropriate full fare for the service theyre riding. Failure to pay may lead to arrest or exclusion. On TriMet, those cited for failure to pay face a fine or community service.

At the same time, it is reasonable to ask whether transit agencies should charge fares that fully pay for the service or, to the other extreme, whether fares should be free. For C-Tran, fares typically account for roughly 15 percent of the annual budget a number in line with most transit agencies. C-Trans budget for 2021 was $68.3 million, with 85 percent of that coming from sales tax revenue throughout Clark County.

In recent years, dozens of American cities have adopted free public transit or have experimented with fareless pilot programs. In 2020, a bill was introduced in Congress to create grants allowing for fare-free transit throughout the country, but it never came up for a vote.

Like many aspects of American society, public transit warrants a rethinking in the wake of COVID-19. Perhaps transit will become more essential to urban economies or perhaps a desire for social distancing and remote work will permanently reduce demand for mass transit.

But regardless of what the future holds for buses, trains, ferries, streetcars and other modes of transportation, in a nation of laws people should be expected to pay the designated fare.

The rest is here:
In Our View: Public transit warrants rethinking in wake of virus - The Columbian