Post on 03-Apr-2018
7/28/2019 Ethics Paper 3
1/5
Luis MontesPaper #3 Topic #1Due: May 26, 2013
As inhabitants of Earth, we have access to seemingly infinite resources that through the years of
human existence have been cultivated, manipulated, and sometimes even destroyed. Though ample,
these resources are certainly limited, and are to be shared amongst us and other organisms on the
planet. When pondering the division of resources, one should consider the distribution and
maximization of utility for all members of a given society, for it is efficient to do so. The problem is
there are often too many participants in a society to satisfy everyone's interests, as they are bound to
conflict. This dilemma was introduced by a hardly-known aspiring mathematician named William
Foster Lloyd as the tragedy of the commons in 1833. He presented an example involving herders that
shared a parcel of land on which their cows were kept to graze. In this time period, wool produced by
grazing sheep was in high demand. As a result, shepherds grazed their own sheep in the same parcels of
land since an increase in the number of sheep met the demand for wool. Herders benefited
economically, but at the same time each additional sheep produced further damage to the commons. As
each individual pursued their individual and rational interest, they ultimately harmed everyone else.
The tragedy of the commons can be applied to many subjects including economics,
environmental biology, and even modes of media consumption. In this paper, I intend to shed light on a
particular tragedy in San Francisco: free-riding the municipal transportation system. By free-
riding I am referring specifically to passengers that board buses and/or trains of the San Francisco
Municipal Transportation Agency without having paid (deliberately or not) for their respective fares.
The act is not only unethical; it is also economically and ultimately socially concerning, as I will show
through statistics given by the agency's website. Lastly, I will provide a solution I have structured
myself that, if implemented, may supplement the economic differential created by free-riding
individuals.
In a city as densely populated and nationally significant as San Francisco, people flooding buses
and trains is expected. In fact, as per the SFMTA fact sheet, the resident population in San Francisco
was estimated by the American Community Survey to be 806,696 in 2011. In addition, the average
weekday boardings for rail trains and/or buses is reported to be 694,294 in 2011-2012. When boarding
a public transportation vehicle, however, one would not have to wait long to see someone board
without paying the standard $2.00 fare.
I have heard plenty of justifications for bypassing the ticket cost, many of which are very
7/28/2019 Ethics Paper 3
2/5
Luis MontesPaper #3 Topic #1Due: May 26, 2013
reasonable on the surface. A few examples: (i) the cost does not justify such short transfer1 times, (ii)
a bus tends to carry enough people to pay for a full tank of fuel, and (iii) I am only being financially
responsible by doing so.
Taking justification (i) into consideration, it's easy to sympathize with the reasoning. According
to the SFMTA website, the standard transfer time is 90 minutes. Being a student myself, I can see why
another student finds it overwhelmingly expensive (when taking other expenses into account) to have
to pay up to $4 a day on weekdays with more than one class. If a student has 5 such days in a week,
that works out to $20 a week, and upwards of $80 a month. There are, in fact, other modes of
transportation however. For example, I started biking to school (about 4 mostly uphill miles) and back,
and it's benefited me in ways other than saving money. Obviously, this is not an option for everyone, as
some cannot reasonably bike or walk to school, be it for distance or level of fitness; so they are forced
to use public transportation. If so, one can consider pooling classes into shorter weeks of class (e.g.
take classes only on Monday, Wednesday and Friday), or one can simply manage their finances more
efficiently, specifically by making some sacrifices.
The next justification (ii) can be shown to be misguided simply by taking a look at some
SFMTA statistics. According to the most recent (created May 24, 2012) budget update on the SFMTA
website, the transit system was projected to finish the year with $193.4 million in transit fares. This
revenue is supplanted by revenue generated through grants, parking and traffic fines, advertising, etc.
The report at the time of creation predicted the funds to total $786 million. Unfortunately, the reported
expenditures (going to employee salaries, materials, maintenance, etc.) were projected to be about
$820.4 million. This deficit is one that will carry over to the following year and will force the SFMTA
to make increases in pricing, traffic fines, etc. to eliminate it and meet future expenditures. This
problem can easily be supplanted if those who are bypassing paying fares now start doing so. The
deficit in the projections for 2012 is about $34.4 million. Recall that 694,294 people board the
transportation system on average daily. Dividing the revenue we would expect from all of them paying
(~$506.84 million) by the projected revenue in the report, we find that about 3 in every 5 passengers do
not pay for their trip. This ratio is staggering. If it became only 2 in every 5 passengers do not pay for
their trip, we would expect the SFMTA to generate about $96.7 million more in transit fares revenue.
This increase in revenue would not only surmount the projected deficit, but it would probably lead to
1 When buying a ticket, an expiration time is given such that a purchaser can board another SFMTA vehicle prior to itstermination at no extra charge.
7/28/2019 Ethics Paper 3
3/5
Luis MontesPaper #3 Topic #1Due: May 26, 2013
improvement of the entire system; as it could be distributed to technological advancement in transits
and/or trains, maintenance costs, and perhaps even the reduction of current traffic fines. In short, your
$2 to get on a train or bus extends further than the cost of its fuel tank.
At this point in the argument, it's easy to see why justification (iii) is in fact irresponsible. It's
true that when bypassing a ticket fare, one can allocate the summed savings to personal and important
expenditures like (again, taking a student as an example) study material costs, food, rent, etc.; but, by
considering the ramifications, it's easy to see why this perspective is selfish. Consider the utility
components model introduced by our textbook for the decision. By bypassing the payment of a fare, a
passenger receives all of the $2 savings, resulting in positive utility of +1. At the same time, the bus or
train being boarded burns fuel, which was expected to be paid for by the revenue expected to be
generated that day. Consequently, the SFMTA is forced to make up for the deficit through increases in
ticket prices, traffic fines, etc. which ultimately results in distributing fractions of -1 utility to everyone
that uses public transportation or drives in the city. By my previous estimates, there are roughly
416,577 people producing this negative utility and keeping the positive utility to themselves daily.
In the end, everyone is going to pursue what they individually value. Even after being informed
of the consequences, some are still going to bypass paying just because it is rarely difficult to do so,
and because their individual actions have minimal impact on SFMTA funding. Currently, the method of
enforcing ticket payment is employing municipal security guards to board some bus and/or trains and
demand passengers to show proof of payment, or doing the same at particular bus stops or train
stations. The method works at several densely populated places, at which I have frequently seen guards
writing citations (a $100 violation fee, according to the SFMTA website) to perpetrators. The problem
with the method, however, is that it's not difficult to predict which train stations or bus routes will have
municipal security guards. After being in the city for a year, I have learned it's very likely guards will
be seeking proof of payment at stations on Market street, but I have never seen a guard on the N or 29
routes. As a result, many people frequently do not pay when boarding these routes. The SFMTA may
not be surveying these routes simply because it would require hiring more security guards, which in
effect would contribute to a greater deficit as security guard wages is included in its expenditures. I
believe a solution to this dilemma is to intelligently randomize the placement of municipal security
guards in the city. That is, the SFMTA can structure a frequency of boarding table, and for individual
bus and train routes and stations assign probabilities that will dictate how likely it would be for a set of
7/28/2019 Ethics Paper 3
4/5
Luis MontesPaper #3 Topic #1Due: May 26, 2013
security guards to survey them. By doing this, frequent perpetrators would be less apt at predicting
where they will risk receiving a citation. The individual risk for financial loss would then increase, and
suddenly it is rational to pay a measly $2 fare as opposed to a $100 citation for not showing proof of
payment.
7/28/2019 Ethics Paper 3
5/5
Luis MontesPaper #3 Topic #1Due: May 26, 2013
Works Cited
"FY 2013 and FY 2014 Budget Update." Sfmta.com. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency,
24 May 2012. Web. 25 May 2013.
.
"San Francisco Transportation Fact Sheet." Sfmta.com. San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency, Nov. 2012. Web. 25 May 2013.
.
"Tragedy of the Commons."Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 21 May 2013. Web. 25 May 2013.
.
Winston, Morton Emanuel., and Ralph Edelbach. "The Tragedy of the Commons."Society, Ethics, and
Technology. 4th ed. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012. 355-56. Print.
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rfact/documents/FactSheet12-19-12.pdfhttp://www.sfmta.com/cms/rfact/documents/FactSheet12-19-12.pdf