A Son's Plea: Ride a Mile in Metro's Shoes

One day in seventh grade, I was waiting for the #14 bus across from Washington Middle School when three teenage gang members approached this kid in my class. One gang member, who was wearing brass knuckles, suddenly punched the kid in the temple, knocking him cold.

A few teachers came out to check on the kid, who soon came to and staggered down the alley leading to Odessa Brown Childrens' Clinic, vowing revenge. No Metro security guards were there. No hidden cameras caught the scene. And so KING-5 didn't cover it. The Seattle Times was likewise silent.

Which is why you haven't heard about that beating until now, unlike that of a teenage girl in the bus tunnel, which occurred in the presence of Metro security people who did nothing to stop it, and a surveillance camera which caught the whole episode on tape. That sickening beating has sparked a fresh round of city-wide Metro-targeted outrage.

But consider this--if Metro hadn't deployed security to the bus tunnel, would a fight between teenagers even be a story? If Metro didn't have video surveillance, would the TV news be reporting it? The bad publicity Metro's getting stems from the agency's attempt to do the right thing.

Let me pause here for full disclosure: My mom works for Metro. (Shut up! Your mom works for Metro!) So perhaps, having heard several million dinner-table laments regarding the unrelenting stream of public complaint she and her co-workers endure, I'm inclined to give Metro the benefit of the doubt. Actually, drop the "inclined." I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Indulge me, will you? One pro-Metro voice among the hordes of accusatory local TV newspeople? Thx.

Metro has 9,549 bus stops. The Metro Transit Police force, according to their website, is just 47 strong, which apparently includes the bomb-sniffing dog. That's a "cop" for every 203 stops. 

So Metro hires these independent security guards, who are paid fifteen dollars an hour, and who are instructed to do no more than "observe and report" crimes. Yes, ideally, those guards would've pulled a Mills Lane and stopped the fight. But, strictly speaking, it wasn't their job. Put yourself in their bargain shoes. If you had been in that tunnel--untrained, unarmed, and "outnumbered by this pack of people 3-to-1," as authorities have stated, would you have tried to stop the beating? Even though it wasn't your job?

Given the massive swath of publicly-accessible real estate under Metro's control, beatings at bus stops are inevitable. So what would you have Metro do? Leave the policing to the ridership? We don't want that job. Hire a cop for every bus stop? We don't want to pay that bill. Given that deploying your entire police "force" will cover less than half of one percent of your existing stops, should you let the remaining 99.5 percent revert to a state of nature?

No, you hire a few minimally-trained, low-wage people--citizen lookouts, practically--to keep an eye on things and call the cops if shit goes down. And you back them up with video surveillance (which, incidentally, cops have since used to catch the assailants). Sounds reasonable, right? Yet you end up with a public relations disaster on your hands.

From last year's snow, to this year's beating, people expect perfection from Metro. Sure, the agency could improve. Communications during the snowstorm were a farce. And calling people "guards" who are trained in little more than walkie-talkie-use is asking for trouble. That said, perfection--which seems to be the standard Metro is held to--comes at a price. Want a fleet of 4x4-equipped tank/buses? A cop at every stop? Then you should be sliding in a Jackson every time you step up to the fare box. Until then, a little slack, maybe?

Oh: Hi, mom!