[nfitz]

I did this one and just got threatened by the guy, this was on a packed go train after a jays game last year as well!

LOL.

Normally I pretty much ignore people on the transit, and GO. But sometimes someone says something to someone beside them, near you, and you end up saying something yourself and it's an all friendly chat. It happened on Saturday after the train I was on picked up the post-baseball crowd at Union - and the 14-1 (or something) score was worth saying somethin about. I've never had a threat or even an ugly look under that kind of circumstance. So what's the difference?

Is there an expectation of privacy - but some of them are shouting so loudly at the phone, and the phone is loud too, that it's far more public than a quiet conversation of a pair of people nearby.

 

[turbanplanner]

LOL.

Normally I pretty much ignore people on the transit, and GO. But sometimes someone says something to someone beside them, near you, and you end up saying something yourself and it's an all friendly chat. It happened on Saturday after the train I was on picked up the post-baseball crowd at Union - and the 14-1 (or something) score was worth saying somethin about. I've never had a threat or even an ugly look under that kind of circumstance. So what's the difference?

Is there an expectation of privacy - but some of them are shouting so loudly at the phone, and the phone is loud too, that it's far more public than a quiet conversation of a pair of people nearby.

Oh I meant when you talk to someone to let them know what they're doing is unwanted.

When I went to NYC I was surprised at how many strangers would chat each other up because they were bored, unless it's a game or something people here seem to keep to themselves.

 

[urbanclient]

My intention for "fine" was not a financial fine, apologies for the miscommunication. It was meant as a community service.

In regards to your comment about community service. Many places use this. That's why the penalty is a fine OR community service.

Your comment seems to be suggesting no fine should be levied because some people can't afford it, and community service shouldn't be used because some people can't afford it. This is a pretty weak argument for skipping penalties altogether.

$75 fine, (even offer to allow it to be paid in instalments) or community service I think is an acceptable fine for not paying for transit. It's a pretty minor penalty. Or I suppose we could continue to simply not enforce rules, and allow 5% of the population ruin everything for the other 95%? Unless I'm misunderstanding your point.

I am unaware of how community service would be implemented for homeless fare evaders. When John Smith doesn't pay their fine, does it default to compulsory community service? Do we then dispatch provincial offence officers or Toronto police to track down Mr. Smith on the streets?

My point is that there is no point in fining a homeless person, it's a waste of paper and the officer's time. And the POOs understand this.

If you were homeless, would you voluntarily pay a $235-425 ticket to the city that failed you? Would you voluntarily travel to a designated spot to pick garbage off the streets? I think you'd be thinking about finding your next meal. Or better yet, how to find or keep a job to save enough money to get a roof over your head.

I also do not want someone falling on hard times to have their money or time wasted by a fare evasion ticket. Especially on the odd chance they were using transit to legitimately travel and not sleeping on multiple seats while soiling themselves.

in my mind it's a good way to provide some sense of responsibility into someone

I don't think forcing community service on mentally-ill and/or severely addicted homeless people will bring about an attitude change in the way you are suggesting.

AFAIK the community service option in LA must be expressly chosen, it's not mandatory after defaulting on the fine. I doubt homeless people are making that choice. They're just ignoring the ticket, if any, entirely.

I am all for deterrence of the severely mentally ill, drug-addled homeless from loitering on transit. But I fail to see how fines or service can deter them due to the infeasibility of enforcement. If a homeless person is innocuously existing or normally using transit without paying, I don't mind. Frankly, fining the good-er actors here would be inappropriate if bad actors can almost always escape accountability.

The most feasible thing to do is for police to remove poorly behaving people from the premises, homeless or not. I've previously advocated for dedicated transit police as is the case in Vancouver and Washington DC. For the general population, I am all for enforcement with fare checks and fines, given that they can be lowered in cases of financial hardship.

The Chinese model is security at every metro station. Given how legally feckless security guards and non-police are in Canada, I doubt that would be effective or affordable here.

 

[nfitz]

My point is that there is no point in fining a homeless person, it's a waste of paper and the officer's time. And the POOs understand this.

They could at least throw them off the streetcar every time they see them, rather than trying not to wake them.

Invariably they are so drugged out, they commit criminal offences quickly before they leave ... so invariably there's solutions like incarceration and jail time.

If they are sitting quietly on one seat, and not breaking Bylaw 1 ... then probably it's a pass. Or if there's life-threatening weather.

 

[urbanclient]

They could at least throw them off the streetcar every time they see them, rather than trying not to wake them.

The POOs lack powers that police officers have, they're just a rebranding of fare inspectors.

To your point:

The most feasible thing to do is for police to remove poorly behaving people from the premises, homeless or not. I've previously advocated for dedicated transit police as is the case in Vancouver and Washington DC.

Setting aside how to deal with homelessness from its root causes, just focusing on the TTC, I still think a dedicated transit police force would be beneficial in Toronto's case.

Toronto has less than 200 special constables that don't have full police powers, and over 100 POOs that have even less power.

I get that crime is supposed to be higher in the US, but take Atlanta.

MARTA has its own police force with 400 officers, but only 66 million riders annually, less than even the TTC streetcar system at 79 million. 11 streetcar lines in Toronto vs. 113 buses, 1 BRT, 4 subway lines, and 1 streetcar in Atlanta.
Total TTC annual ridership is 800 million by the same definition.

The same pattern can be seen in every American city except for NYC, Chicago and LA, which have transit departments under the city police. Even then, the actual police officers assigned to transit relative to ridership is orders of magnitude higher than Toronto.

Now is having a bazillion cops in the TTC going to fix everything? No. There are way more cops assigned to transit in the US, but ridership there is awful, in part due to the perception of unsafety.

But having partnered patrols could help. I've seen a solo cop do nothing as a homeless person yelled in my face on the platform near closing time. I assume they were only there to escort the person out when the subway actually closed. A solo cop may not be willing to get physical with a smelly belligerent homeless, potentially carrying syringes in their pockets.

 

[nfitz]

The POOs lack powers that police officers have, they're just a rebranding of fare inspector

By they I'm referring to TTC the province, or the city. Powers are a signature of cabinet away.

I'm tired of the filth on the streetcars. And I doubt the city's own filth would do much - the province/mayor has to give them much independence - unlike TTC employees.

 

[urbanclient]

By they I'm referring to TTC the province, or the city. Powers are a signature of cabinet away.

I wish for the same result, but I do think it's only wishful thinking. In Canada, security guards can't do anything but pull out their phones and record a robbery in progress due to liability reasons. TTC special constables are technically peace officers, but don't carry guns and are limited in their powers. I assume for similar liability reasons.

To seriously empower non-police agents of authority* to enforce public order would require fundamental changes in the legal system. (*TTC and Metrolinx employees)

Think about how many people here (including myself) would bemoan US-style qualified immunity here, but the de facto qualified immunity in Canada is not far off. And yet even the police are not empowered enough to maintain public order on transit.

 

[Jonny5]

I wish for the same result, but I do think it's only wishful thinking. In Canada, security guards can't do anything but pull out their phones and record a robbery in progress due to liability reasons. TTC special constables are technically peace officers, but don't carry guns and are limited in their powers. I assume for similar liability reasons.

It's also about pay. Security guards aren't going to have guns without huge pay increases because of that liability. The official Police get administrative leave with pay when they are suspected of abuse of force. Private security guards don't, and probably most earn wages where it makes no sense to be put in a position where they could be prosecuted for using one given the pay they make. Their employers also don't want that to happen and have to deal with it either.

 

[nfitz]

I wish for the same result, but I do think it's only wishful thinking. In Canada, security guards can't do anything but pull out their phones and record a robbery in progress due to liability reasons. TTC special constables are technically peace officers, but don't carry guns and are limited in their powers. I assume for similar liability reasons.

I don't see what guns has to do with it. There's major police forces that don't routinely carry guns. I see less homeless living on tube trains in London - and the police there only carry guns for special operations. They certainly don't do it routinely patrolling the tube.

Gosh, would you want an officer with a gun in their belt on a crush-loaded transit vehicle, when peoples arms routinely touch someone's waist? I see a bigger risk there!

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think we should change the name of this thread away from homelessness and to something about additive and mental health related disruptive behaviour.

Yesterday my wife and daughter took the 506 streetcar from Sumach and Gerrard to Yonge St. to shop. The car was diverted down Parliament to Dundas, and at Sherbourne the fun started. Multiple junkies got on without paying, shouting, flaying about and in one case spitting on the floor. The normies around them just looked away and willed their inner selves to their happy places.

 

[urbanclient]

I don't see what guns has to do with it. There's major police forces that don't routinely carry guns.

It's not the guns themselves, it's the limited legal powers that lead to TTC Special Constables not being able to carry guns (or tasers for that matter). But somehow beating someone with a baton is ok? <----(theoretically). The lack of guns is iceberg tip indication of their weak powers in practice in the North American context.

Would I want some police officers to not carry guns, of course. But the standard for NA is full police officers are entitled to, and will carry guns.

"As the only transit police force in Canada,[20] there was concern by transit employee unions and interest groups when the decision to arm members was made. The province and BC Association of Chiefs of Police agreed that their designation as police would require the issuance of firearms.[21]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Vancouver_Transit_Police

TTC Special Constables are not police, and cannot identify themselves as such.

More to the point, TTC Constables are limited in practice, when enforcing laws. Notice something odd here besides the 0? Arrests have gone down even though ridership has gone up from 586 million in 2022 to 800 million in 2024. https://www.ttc.ca/transparency-and-accountability/transit-planning

Screenshot from:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/ttc/bgrd/backgroundfile-254417.pdf

MARTA has about the same amount of police officers as the TTC constables had arrests, charged, and/or apprehended (the latter for mental health)...
In 2024, each active TTC constable (87) averaged around 5 per YEAR.

As Northern Light has hinted to, there is no involuntary treatment specifically for addictions in Ontario, only mental health. Even then, how often do you think it's used on homeless? Probably not enough, and perhaps this is due to lack of mental health resources.

Also, public illicit drug use in Canada is effectively decriminalized, especially if you're homeless. No prosecutor is going to clog up the criminal courts with a small time drug charge, so the police don't even bother charging you. Yes, Ontario recently passed a law to ticket (and/or arrest) public drug users, but as previously discussed, no chronically homeless person will pay that provincial offences ticket. At the constable's discretion, hopefully this will increase arrests for drug use on the TTC.

As for 6 months in jail, not drug rehab, I don't know if that will help as much.
"A person convicted of an offence is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for not more than six months, or both."
New provincial offence:https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-6

"7.0 FORCE – REVENUE PROTECTION AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES
7.1 Provincial Offences Officers and Protective Services Guards can only use force for the purposes of Self-defence, as outlined in section 8."
Talk about feckless security guards... Let's be honest, the only people that security will protect is themselves.
https://www.ttc.ca/transparency-and-accountability/policies/Use-of-Force-Policy

 

[nfitz]

I think we should change the name of this thread away from homelessness and to something about additive and mental health related disruptive behaviour.

Yesterday my wife and daughter took the 506 streetcar from Sumach and Gerrard to Yonge St. to shop. The car was diverted down Parliament to Dundas, and at Sherbourne the fun started. Multiple junkies got on without paying, shouting, flaying about and in one case spitting on the floor. The normies around them just looked away and willed their inner selves to their happy places.

At Sumach and Gerrard, why would you have walked all the way back to Parliament, rather than to Dundas and Sumach?

And this doesn't sound particularly different than walking along Dundas to Yonge.

It's not the guns themselves, it's the limited legal powers that lead to TTC Special Constables not being able to carry guns (or tasers for that matter). But somehow beating someone with a baton is ok? <----(theoretically). The lack of guns is iceberg tip indication of their weak powers in practice in the North American context.

Would I want some police officers to not carry guns, of course. But the standard for NA is full police officers are entitled to, and will carry guns. ...

You approach this from existing procedures and laws. The real question is what do we need to change to solve the problem; which includes changing existing procedures and laws. To try and work in the existing framework is to admit failure.

As for filth's overentitlement ... I have no support for that. I'm surprised even one of the corrupt TPS officers would be wanting to have a sidearm in a crush-loaded vehicle.

 

[urbanclient]

You approach this from existing procedures and laws. The real question is what do we need to change to solve the problem

I wholeheartedly agree change is needed to solve the problem, I just doubt much will happen on the broader legal system side. I think a dedicated police force would be the most feasible short-term solution, with countless examples to learn from in Vancouver, the US, Europe, and Asia.

to enforce public order would require fundamental changes in the legal system

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would think the policy is that Vancouver's transit police will not board a crush loaded train. This seems common sense. And more to the point, under what circumstance would officers choose to do this? This is an exceptional case that does not disprove the rule. And I'm not even advocating for all transit police to carry guns, but I don't see a big problem with them doing so in North America already.

Police in Europe and Asia often do not carry firearms. In North America, they do; that includes transit police.

 

[nfitz]

I would think the policy is that Vancouver's transit police will not board a crush loaded train. This seems common sense. And more to the point, under what circumstance would officers choose to do this?

Perhaps if they were already at Broadview station, and there was a need to get to Pape station. If the train is running and they don't get on it, then either they need to pass it off to a car somewhere instead (if it was very urgent), or jump on a Bike Share.

This is an exceptional case that does not disprove the rule. And I'm not even advocating for all transit police to carry guns, but I don't see a big problem with them doing so in North America already.

I wish crush loading was exceptional. And I've seen armed police on 504 when I've been heading to work (I'd guess going from 51 Division to HQ - it didn't look like they were on patrol) - I wonder what the current parameters are.

Police in Europe and Asia often do not carry firearms. In North America, they do; that includes transit police.

Some provincial forces don't often carry firearms. Newfoundland comes to mind.

But let's turn the question around. When was the last time the police needed a gun on TTC? Offhand I can think of at least one police execution of someone on a TTC vehicle - but nothing that was necessary (or even expedient had it been necessary, given there was plenty of time to bring in gun officers).

 

[81-717]

Offhand I can think of at least one police execution of someone on a TTC vehicle - but nothing that was necessary (or even expedient had it been necessary, given there was plenty of time to bring in gun officers).

If you're referring to 2013... hard to believe that kind of behavior (exhibited by the executed party) has essentially become the daily norm now.