BART's Fare Evasion Crackdown Exposes the 'Deadly Elegance' of Hostile Design(kqed.org)
kqed.org
BART's Fare Evasion Crackdown Exposes the 'Deadly Elegance' of Hostile Design
https://www.kqed.org/arts/13861966/barts-fare-evasion-crackdown-exposes-the-deadly-elegance-of-hostile-design
52 comments
> Arguably a design that permits a chunk of downtown to turn into a homeless encampment is "hostile" to the original purpose of a bench downtown, which is to be sat on by a range of different people in the course of the day.
If you are a city official, and you know that you have a significant homeless population that would like a place to sleep that's safer and more comfortable than the ground, which is the more hostile course of action?
a) Propose changes that would result in there being fewer homeless on the streets, or even fewer homeless overall (eg, more & better shelters, providing them with free housing as has been proven to work in multiple places, etc)
b) Propose changes that make your area unfriendly to the homeless so they go elsewhere and lower someone else's property values
c) Do nothing whatsoever
Blithely talking about the "original purpose of a bench downtown" ignores the fact that there are real people suffering, not just because of the policies that replace more standard benches with anti-homeless benches, but because of the mindset that underlies them: homeless are a plague to be driven out, rather than human beings who deserve our compassion and help.
It is a position of privilege to be able to sit and talk about "the original purpose of a bench downtown" as if that's much more important than people's suffering.
If you are a city official, and you know that you have a significant homeless population that would like a place to sleep that's safer and more comfortable than the ground, which is the more hostile course of action?
a) Propose changes that would result in there being fewer homeless on the streets, or even fewer homeless overall (eg, more & better shelters, providing them with free housing as has been proven to work in multiple places, etc)
b) Propose changes that make your area unfriendly to the homeless so they go elsewhere and lower someone else's property values
c) Do nothing whatsoever
Blithely talking about the "original purpose of a bench downtown" ignores the fact that there are real people suffering, not just because of the policies that replace more standard benches with anti-homeless benches, but because of the mindset that underlies them: homeless are a plague to be driven out, rather than human beings who deserve our compassion and help.
It is a position of privilege to be able to sit and talk about "the original purpose of a bench downtown" as if that's much more important than people's suffering.
I like choice (a) best of all. I don't think taking serious steps to help the homeless in incompatible with wanting to have a downtown that isn't full of poo and untreated mentally ill people.
I don't think SF is going to be in a great position to implement any of the steps in (a) if they lose a giant whopping chunk of jobs, revenue and tax base when those 'rusted-on conferences' finally get scared off and move to other cities, or when tourists decide SF is Just Too Damn Sketchy.
I don't think SF is going to be in a great position to implement any of the steps in (a) if they lose a giant whopping chunk of jobs, revenue and tax base when those 'rusted-on conferences' finally get scared off and move to other cities, or when tourists decide SF is Just Too Damn Sketchy.
Discussion around hostile design always seems to miss the forest for the trees to me. To point out a concrete example, is it better to address homeless populations with some combination of state housing and UBI programs or, accept homelessness as an axiom and design public spaces to that end? The latter seems considerably more elitist and fatalist.
I read an economist's back of the envelop calculation on what the appropriate BART fare should be. When automobile subsidies and externalizes[1] were included the appropriate fare was negative. Ditto for Muni.
And example, I took HWY80 to work and paid nothing for the pleasure. Why should the AC Transit or BART riders have to pay a fare when the freeway commuters don't?
And example, I took HWY80 to work and paid nothing for the pleasure. Why should the AC Transit or BART riders have to pay a fare when the freeway commuters don't?
I think that's a great analysis; but then the discussion should be around that issue "why is the public paying for this service" rather than whether it's ethical to make it harder to jump the turnstile.
> And example, I took HWY80 to work and paid nothing for the pleasure.
Except gas tax.
And registration fees.
And toll if you were crossing any of the Bay area bridges.
And additional fees to use any of the Bay Area express lanes.
Car travel is not free of government charges, even if the externalities aren't fully internalized.
Except gas tax.
And registration fees.
And toll if you were crossing any of the Bay area bridges.
And additional fees to use any of the Bay Area express lanes.
Car travel is not free of government charges, even if the externalities aren't fully internalized.
Looks like you forgot your citation, I'd like to read it if you can update.
I'm pretty sure you paid a tax on that gasoline or electricity used to charge a car battery.
am pretty sure Bart is operating on a deficit. Highway maintenance comes out of tax payer's pocket, so that's part of the money you spend riding on a freeway
This is the complete idiocy of it. There are absolutely wonderful public transit systems that operate at a profit and are far cheaper than anything in the states. (E.g. MRT)
drivers pay a fairly sizeable gas tax and also the cost of construction and maintenance per mile of freeway is inordinately less than BART
Seems like a false dichotomy?
Allowing people to use public spaces in safety and comfort doesn’t preclude addressing homelessness by other means.
Hostile architectural features actually cost more to install.
Allowing people to use public spaces in safety and comfort doesn’t preclude addressing homelessness by other means.
Hostile architectural features actually cost more to install.
The cost to the commons is pretty substantial though. One person sleeping on a bench vs 5 people sitting, a subway car with 50 people vs a subway car with one and the smell of death. These kind of features address practical concerns, concerns that won't go away unless you spend the capital (political and fiscal) to address the core issues.
The difference is that the building owner can install the hostile architectural feature immediately in order to "solve" the building owner's homeless problem--ie. make them go somewhere else.
Solving homelessness through the political system is DRASTICALLY slower.
Solving homelessness through the political system is DRASTICALLY slower.
You don't think there would be homeless people with UBI? UBI might help the homeless-and-trying-not-to-be crowd, but I don't see how it would affect the homeless-because-it-a-choice-or-they're-mentally-disturbed crowd, the latter of which are generally the problem causers in SF.
This is a politicized article and doesn't belong on hacker news. As someone who used to live in the bay area but no longer does, I can't help but think a lot of the people there have some major issues where they take every normal thing that other cities do to keep quality of life high and berate any attempts to do the same in the bay area as if every decision made for public health, safety and overall cleanliness of an urban area has to be optimized for the homeless and drug addicts. It's honestly pretty strange and seems sick to me.
I'm trying to use transit in SoCal right now and its dogshit. These stations have multiple floors of parking for cars but no bathroom!!!
Positive Train Control doesn't work right and is causing delays, the readerboards are accurate to within 10 minutes (but don't display info about trains when they are over 10min away).
Walking across the street to a store that had a bathroom almost got me killed by an SUV. In Seattle I can count on Sound Transit having restrooms at any station they've invested millions of dollars in.
We all have the urge to go, why should I be forced to cross a hostile road and pay multiple dollars just to not piss in public?
Whoever is running the transit agency down here is trying to drive away anyone who can choose not to ride.
Positive Train Control doesn't work right and is causing delays, the readerboards are accurate to within 10 minutes (but don't display info about trains when they are over 10min away).
Walking across the street to a store that had a bathroom almost got me killed by an SUV. In Seattle I can count on Sound Transit having restrooms at any station they've invested millions of dollars in.
We all have the urge to go, why should I be forced to cross a hostile road and pay multiple dollars just to not piss in public?
Whoever is running the transit agency down here is trying to drive away anyone who can choose not to ride.
Where do politics belong?
Hackernews explicitly lists politics as off topic. While deciding what is and what isn't politics is often politicized in its own right, the moderators do a great job enforcing this rule.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Hacker News explicitly lists " most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." as off-topic - not any story with any political dimension at all, which would likely make most stories posted off topic, were that the case.
On your facebook feed, so you aren't offended by people with differing opinions than you.
Reddit.
> Yet an underlying concern is that pilot programs like these could alienate riders from taking public transportation entirely.
I thought this was the best line of the whole thing. If you can't pay for it then how can you be alienated? If you are paying for it then isn't the so called "hostile" design no longer hostile?
I thought this was the best line of the whole thing. If you can't pay for it then how can you be alienated? If you are paying for it then isn't the so called "hostile" design no longer hostile?
Maybe I'm showing my age, but I honestly don't understand what's "anti-poor" or "anti-homeless" or "ableist" about this design? To me, it can only seem this way if you see fare evasion as a natural right of the citizens.
Am I a curmudgeon, or is the level of concern shown in the article a legitimate thing?
Am I a curmudgeon, or is the level of concern shown in the article a legitimate thing?
In some places, homeless and poor people get issued tickets for free rides because of their condition. In others, they put inverted guillotines because it would be unsightly to post armed guards preventing the undesirables from illegally using the service.
It isn't about fare evasion, it's about how a given society perceives its more disadvantaged members: some want to help them, others want them to just die off.
It isn't about fare evasion, it's about how a given society perceives its more disadvantaged members: some want to help them, others want them to just die off.
> some want to help them, others want them to just die off.
Oh please, as if it that dichotomy were only true.
BART runs a massive deficit each year, and yet you think there should be no deterrents to evading fare? The BART barely collects on the tickets it issues as is[1]. Plenty of people who are able to pay and are of sound mind hop the turnstiles. If you want to subsidize the travel expenses for a certain group, fine, but why promote even more lawlessness in an already terrible system?
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/Almos...
Oh please, as if it that dichotomy were only true.
BART runs a massive deficit each year, and yet you think there should be no deterrents to evading fare? The BART barely collects on the tickets it issues as is[1]. Plenty of people who are able to pay and are of sound mind hop the turnstiles. If you want to subsidize the travel expenses for a certain group, fine, but why promote even more lawlessness in an already terrible system?
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/Almos...
In some places, homeless and poor people get issued tickets for free rides because of their condition.
Every dude I see jumping the gates arriving in the city has $200+ sneakers and/or huge screen smartphones.
Every dude I see jumping the gates arriving in the city has $200+ sneakers and/or huge screen smartphones.
[deleted]
I don't get this either. If the author designing to prevent people from not paying for something with a price , it implies that the author either a) doesn't believe said thing should have a price or b) thinks certain groups shouldn't have to pay said price and that it should be subsidized by those the author thinks should pay said price.
So, the thing is:
Would you endorse a law that would break bones or crack skulls for fare evasion? Would you consider that just? I’m not asking whether you endorse fare evasion, just whether that punishment is proportional.
In this case, the state is effectively promulgating such a policy - without bothering to even get it through the legislature.
And that sort of thing - disproportionately punitive policies without even the superficial glance of legislation - tend to only fly when aimed at disenfranchised groups. Eg, poor.
That’s the anti-poor part of these designs. If you’re wealthy enough for a car and speed fast enough to risk killing a human being, you owe the state 200$ and all is well. If you’re poor and try to stiff the state for $2 at the BART, we’ll take a shot at cracking your skull.
Would you endorse a law that would break bones or crack skulls for fare evasion? Would you consider that just? I’m not asking whether you endorse fare evasion, just whether that punishment is proportional.
In this case, the state is effectively promulgating such a policy - without bothering to even get it through the legislature.
And that sort of thing - disproportionately punitive policies without even the superficial glance of legislation - tend to only fly when aimed at disenfranchised groups. Eg, poor.
That’s the anti-poor part of these designs. If you’re wealthy enough for a car and speed fast enough to risk killing a human being, you owe the state 200$ and all is well. If you’re poor and try to stiff the state for $2 at the BART, we’ll take a shot at cracking your skull.
But nothing about these designs breaks bones or cracks skulls for fare evasion. They just make it harder to kick your feet over.
Is your argument that making a barricade harder to bypass is responsible for causing injuries to fare evaders? Would the same hold true for any more effective barricade? I can punch right through a hollow core door, but I'll break my hand if I try it on a solid core door. How much blame should the design of the door get(or the people that chose to put the specific type of door there) when I break my hand?
Is your argument that making a barricade harder to bypass is responsible for causing injuries to fare evaders? Would the same hold true for any more effective barricade? I can punch right through a hollow core door, but I'll break my hand if I try it on a solid core door. How much blame should the design of the door get(or the people that chose to put the specific type of door there) when I break my hand?
Well, the thing is, an effective turnstyle that makes it difficult to get through but makes failure to get through harmless is distinct from a barricade that makes it somewhat harder to get through, and makes attempts more likely to cause injury.
These don’t just make it harder to kick your feet over. I strongly recommend to google a video of these in action.
These don’t just make it harder to kick your feet over. I strongly recommend to google a video of these in action.
If I headbutt a brick wall because it's in my way, was it the wall that gave me a concussion? Or was it me that gave me a concussion?
[deleted]
So called hostile design in fact reduces the incidence of confrontations between police officers and trespassers. Since it reduces the incidence of confrontations, and therefore violence, I think comparing it to "cracking skulls" is unwarranted.
While I disagree with the article, most of the hostile design elements in the article are in spaces that are essentially public space. You can't be busted for trespassing for sleeping on a bench downtown.
From what I've personally seen, the vast majority of "hostile design" is employed on private property. Particularly on property owned by corporations or universities, moreso than private residences. It's pretty easy, and common, to sleep in a city park around here.
If a private property owner has trouble with people loitering or sleeping on their property, what options do they have? Call the police or hire a security guard, who will use [threats of] violence to solve your problem. Or using "hostile design" that non-violently but clearly communicates the desires of the property owner, thus avoiding any potentially lethal confrontation.
It seems obvious to me that "hostile" design is in fact the humanitarian approach.
If a private property owner has trouble with people loitering or sleeping on their property, what options do they have? Call the police or hire a security guard, who will use [threats of] violence to solve your problem. Or using "hostile design" that non-violently but clearly communicates the desires of the property owner, thus avoiding any potentially lethal confrontation.
It seems obvious to me that "hostile" design is in fact the humanitarian approach.
If the goal is to stop fare evasion, BART can put agents at every gate to control passengers.
It is a much more human situation than designing urban architecture that can physically hurt people (particularly if they’re old/in a wheelchair/etc).
My favorite solution I’ve seen in Tokyo: gates that are open by default to optimize passenger throughput, but close down if you don’t present proper fare (and adequately staffed to boot).
It is a much more human situation than designing urban architecture that can physically hurt people (particularly if they’re old/in a wheelchair/etc).
My favorite solution I’ve seen in Tokyo: gates that are open by default to optimize passenger throughput, but close down if you don’t present proper fare (and adequately staffed to boot).
> If the goal is to stop fare evasion, BART can put agents at every gate to control passengers.
The goal seems to be stop fare evasion, but merely as a cost saving measure, not as a moral imperative to be achieved at any monetary cost.
The goal seems to be stop fare evasion, but merely as a cost saving measure, not as a moral imperative to be achieved at any monetary cost.
That would be bad for poor riders because fares would have to be increased.
[deleted]
Anti-poor because poor people can't afford BART, and thus need to jump the turnstiles if they're going to ride BART.
Anti-homeless because they're poor.
Abelist? I don't know, either.
Anti-homeless because they're poor.
Abelist? I don't know, either.
I find it ironic that this post is being marked down so much. This is literally the argument.
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/fare-evasion-crime-pover...
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/fare-evasion-crime-pover...
> "Yet an underlying concern is that pilot programs like these could alienate riders from taking public transportation entirely."
Junkies defecating in the train station discourages me a hell of a lot more than "hostile design", which for the most part is purely decorative from my perspective because my perspective is not that of somebody wishing to do precisely that which the "hostile design" is meant to encourage.
"Hostile design" is in fact defensive design, designed to protect the common people from the anti-social and frequently hostile behaviors you frequently see on public display in Californian cities. We need more of it.
(Note also that "hostile design" does not focus just on the homeless, but in fact encompasses a wide range of techniques aimed at addressing a wide range of anti-social behaviors. For instance, skate boarders can be discouraged from playing in crowded areas where they present a risk to bystanders with use of furniture and structures specifically designed to discourage skateboarders. This addresses the problem of skateboarders causing property damage or frightening bystanders without threats of force (e.g. property owners calling the police or hiring a security guard) or any other form of confrontation. Isn't that better, or at least safer, for everybody involved? Similarly, "hostile" design allows property owners to discourage the homeless without instigating a confrontation between the homeless and police officers.)
Junkies defecating in the train station discourages me a hell of a lot more than "hostile design", which for the most part is purely decorative from my perspective because my perspective is not that of somebody wishing to do precisely that which the "hostile design" is meant to encourage.
"Hostile design" is in fact defensive design, designed to protect the common people from the anti-social and frequently hostile behaviors you frequently see on public display in Californian cities. We need more of it.
(Note also that "hostile design" does not focus just on the homeless, but in fact encompasses a wide range of techniques aimed at addressing a wide range of anti-social behaviors. For instance, skate boarders can be discouraged from playing in crowded areas where they present a risk to bystanders with use of furniture and structures specifically designed to discourage skateboarders. This addresses the problem of skateboarders causing property damage or frightening bystanders without threats of force (e.g. property owners calling the police or hiring a security guard) or any other form of confrontation. Isn't that better, or at least safer, for everybody involved? Similarly, "hostile" design allows property owners to discourage the homeless without instigating a confrontation between the homeless and police officers.)
I’m having a lot of trouble with this article. It’s conflating a park bench with armrests or a ledge with spikes (both, I think, at least legitimate points of discussion when it comes to hostile design) with something designed to prevent people from stealing service.
BART service has a fare, gated by turnstiles. People try to steal that service by jumping over those turnstiles. So BART has modified them to make it harder to steal.
Of course the design is hostile - it’s trying to prevent theft!
Am I missing something?
BART service has a fare, gated by turnstiles. People try to steal that service by jumping over those turnstiles. So BART has modified them to make it harder to steal.
Of course the design is hostile - it’s trying to prevent theft!
Am I missing something?
Yes, you are. Those turnstiles have always been more or less symbolic - they are designed to make it obvious that people are fare-evading, not to stop them. If you wanted to stop people fare-evading you would have floor to ceiling turnstiles that are literally turnstiles.
The marginal improvement in the security that adding nasty new bits to the turnstiles increases the chance that less able or unlucky users will get nailed by the turnstile - the young, the old, the frail, the plain old disorganized. There are plenty of people who don't perceive themselves as so disabled as to need the special 'wide gate' but who are put at risk by a system tuned for preventing jumpers and 'drafters'. As I said elsewhere on thread, I've been nailed by a similar turnstile in Sydney (without the extra stuff on it) - while using the system correctly - and it hurt like hell, and I'm a large, able-bodied man. I think the same hit on a 105lb female friend of mine would probably stop her from walking for several days.
It's just not worth it. Want to stop jumpers? Get your security guys off their asses and patrol the goddamn trains.
The marginal improvement in the security that adding nasty new bits to the turnstiles increases the chance that less able or unlucky users will get nailed by the turnstile - the young, the old, the frail, the plain old disorganized. There are plenty of people who don't perceive themselves as so disabled as to need the special 'wide gate' but who are put at risk by a system tuned for preventing jumpers and 'drafters'. As I said elsewhere on thread, I've been nailed by a similar turnstile in Sydney (without the extra stuff on it) - while using the system correctly - and it hurt like hell, and I'm a large, able-bodied man. I think the same hit on a 105lb female friend of mine would probably stop her from walking for several days.
It's just not worth it. Want to stop jumpers? Get your security guys off their asses and patrol the goddamn trains.
> A city
> BART
> San Francisco
> Fruitvale
Ok
> BART
> San Francisco
> Fruitvale
Ok
Arguably a design that permits a chunk of downtown to turn into a homeless encampment is "hostile" to the original purpose of a bench downtown, which is to be sat on by a range of different people in the course of the day.
If those BART gates are anything like the ones in Sydney, though, they are a substantial risk. During the roll-out of our "Opal" card system I got my leg slammed - hard - by the gates doing that thing where the mechanics are a little too slow to keep up with the electronics and a bunch of people are going through one after the other and largely keeping the gate open. To be clear, I'm talking about walking through the gate only after having the comforting little noise that said "yes, I scanned your card and you're OK" - not me trying to race through the system regardless of status.
I lift weights, am a fairly healthy middle-aged man, and am large (6'2.5", 235kg) and getting hit by that normal gate hurt. I cannot imagine what the consequences of this kind of paranoid design - especially amp-ing up the gate with more nasty stuff - would do to someone who is older and frailer (but perhaps not old/frail enough to feel like they have to use the special wide gate). It is completely unreasonable to endanger more vulnerable legitimate transit users to get a little more compliance, especially where the biggest scofflaws will still just vault the gates or 'draft' through behind others.