MARTA suspensions by incident type
Fare evasions 325
Public Indecency 16
Vending without a permit/panhandling 28
Alcohol/ drug violation 11
Disorderly conduct/obstruction 47
Smoking/eating violation 33
Public intoxication 13
Criminal trespass 18
Other 34
* According to MARTA crime analysis data from Nov. 9, 2013 to Jan. 1, 2014.
Lisa Wyatt got more than she bargained for when she began asking MARTA patrons for 50 cents on Christmas Eve — and not in the way of spare change.
A MARTA police officer suspended her from the transit system for 14 days.
“I didn’t know asking for 50 cents would get me written up and almost locked up,” Wyatt told a MARTA appeals panel on Tuesday. “I didn’t know it was so strict here in Atlanta.”
It is. Now.
MARTA records requested by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution show that Wyatt was one of more than 500 passengers who have been issued suspensions since its new customer code of conduct, heavily promoted as “Ride With Respect,” went into effect Nov. 9.
MARTA officers are working overtime to enforce the new rules, primarily during the morning and evening rush hours. The authority is hiring 25 new officers and two supervisors to increase police presence, according to MARTA Police Chief Wanda Dunham. (There are currently 328 sworn MARTA police officers.)
The aim is to curb misbehavior that makes other passengers uncomfortable, like blasting music at high volumes, eating or drinking, smoking, harassing and panhandling. The average suspension is 14 days, although it can go up to a year.
Community response to the new code of conduct has been largely positive, according to state Rep. Mike Jacobs, R-Brookhaven, the MARTA Oversight Committee Chairman who has at times been critical of the authority.
“I have yet to go to a Town Hall meeting or forum where Ride with Respect does not come up from the public,” Jacobs said. “That tells me the campaign is working and breaking through to people.”
The majority of the suspensions issued within the first few months, or 62 percent, were doled out to fare evaders.
Other common reasons for suspensions included causing a disturbance (47), smoking or eating (33), panhandling or vending without a permit (28), public indecency (16), public intoxication (13) or alcohol or drugs (11).
It’s also on MARTA’s legislative agenda this year to ask state lawmakers for authorization to take enforcement efforts a step farther by allowing them to levy a fine. The details of how large a fine would be imposed, and when, have yet to be ironed out. The proposed legislation is still being drawn up, and no legislator has yet agreed to sponsor it, according to MARTA spokesman Lyle Harris.
But transit authority officials say the fine would only be employed as an alternative to the temporary suspensions when banishment from the system proves to be too great a hardship. For example, when riding MARTA is a customer’s only way to get to work or school, said MARTA General Manager Keith Parker.
Parker believes the new code of conduct is changing behavior.
“People have said for the most part, ‘you caught me,’ and they’ve abided by the suspension,” Parker said.
There is no mechanism to catch people who violate a suspension by getting back on MARTA, unless they come to the attention of police again. So there’s no doubt some suspended passengers are still riding. But if so, they’re behaving themselves, “and that was the intention all along,” Parker said.
At least 14 people didn’t get the message. As of Jan. 1, 14 people have been cited for being repeat offenders and charged with misdemeanor criminal trespass. Those individuals were suspended for another 30 days and were taken to jail, said Dunham.
People can appeal their suspension before a five-member panel, as Wyatt did on Tuesday. The panel is made up of a rotating cast of three MARTA employees and two community members.
Wyatt explained that she didn’t know she wasn’t allowed to ask other riders for money, which she claimed she needed for bus fare. She asked the board to lighten her suspension so she could travel to standing appointments three times a week.
The board upheld her suspension, noting it was only for two weeks, but went easier on a 17-year-old who came before them next. They repealed the teenager’s 60-day suspension after he argued that the unauthorized use of his mother’s discounted Breeze card was accidental — he’d grabbed the wrong one by mistake in his rush to leave for work.
Dunham opined to the board that this appeared to be a “teachable moment” for the teen.
“If he comes back, you know this wasn’t a mistake, and we’ll deal with it accordingly,” she said.
About the Author
