Former New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas warned Albuquerque city councilors last summer that shoplifters were using the city’s free buses as getaway vehicles. Balderas said he believed the free fares pilot program was attracting brazen shoplifters who were walking out of stores with power tools, electronics and expensive kitchen appliances and just hopping on free buses to escape.
Operation Sticky Fingers proved it true — if you weren’t already skeptical of someone jumping on a city bus with a cordless drill, 60-inch TV and espresso mocha coffee maker and no store bags for any of it.
The retail crime operation recently conducted by the Albuquerque Police Department targeted crooks at the Coronado and Cottonwood shopping malls and resulted in the recovery of nearly $7,000 of stolen merchandise and 31 arrests.
Detectives shrewdly kept an eye on how the alleged shoplifters got to and from the stores. Ten of the 31 people arrested used a city bus. Others walked, some used their own cars.
The abuse of the city’s free bus fare program is now indisputable, with that sting operation showing a third of shoplifters arrested used city buses as their getaway vehicle.
“Organized retail crime is now spilling into our public bus systems,” Balderas said in an interview with KRQE-TV in August. “I think that the no fee for riders seemed like a well-intentioned policy, but there has to be safety requirements. In other words, you can’t just let everyone on the bus with stolen equipment.”
He’s right. And just as Balderas warned, the city’s free bus fare policy is contributing to crime.
Police say most of those arrested in the Sticky Fingers operation are battling addiction. Twelve of the 31 people arrested were reportedly found with drugs or paraphernalia on them, mostly related to fentanyl. One man told police he “trades merchandise for drugs normally.”
The free fares program implemented on Jan. 1, 2022, has had some serious unintended consequences. City Councilor Dan Lewis said in October there had been a 25% increase in police calls at buses and bus stops since the pilot program went into effect.
A Transit Department spokeswoman said nine bus drivers who quit in 2022 cited the free fares program and concerns over safety. There were 86 vacant bus driver positions in December. The city has boosted starting pay for drivers to $17.65 per hour, but it’s a stressful job to begin with contending with traffic and pedestrians. Being the getaway driver for a shoplifting ring makes it even more hazardous.
The city has had to dramatically reduce routes because of driver shortages, halting six commuter routes in November. Ridership in December was 80% of what it was before the pandemic.
The City Council in February considered replacing the zero-fares-for-all pilot program with a pass-or-pay system that would still allow free trips to those with a city-issued pass or certain forms of ID. That meant the city would at least know who was riding the bus. Instead, the final compromise kept zero fares and zero accountability but appropriated an additional $1 million for security for the city’s public transit system and gave guards who patrol it more authority.
This final version prohibits the City Council from making a decision on zero fares until the Transit Department provides a full analysis of the pilot program and recommendations about how to proceed. That analysis must include APD’s report on how shoplifters are abusing free fares and how free fares are causing drivers to quit.
And we already have pretty good information on both.
Advocates for zero fares insist no-barrier access to public transportation is a linchpin to equity — but not if the buses are too dangerous to ride. It’s a shame criminals have made free fares dangerous for both riders and drivers, but the latest sting operation supports what the attorney general said last year — it has.
It’s time for the City Council to adjust the free fares program so law-abiding riders and drivers are safe and criminals aren’t using a city bus as their getaway vehicle.
This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.
