The solution is to get MORE people onto the trains, not fewer.

Has it been shown that screaming drugged out homeless riders avoid the presence of crowds? Is there any physical mechanism where having more people on the trains leads to Daniel-Penny-like suppression of drugged out homeless riders? Or does "getting more people onto the trains" just mean removing their options until they are forced to ignore the drugged out homeless riders?

As a solution, "get MORE people onto the trains" seems less optimal than "get fewer drugged out homeless riders onto the trains".

▲

QuercusMax 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Safety in numbers. There's a reason there's not an issue during the day and during heavy commute hours.

	▲	guywithabike 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There absolutely are serious issues at all times, regardless of how busy the trains are. I'm sorry, but as someone who actually lives in Portland I'm telling you that mentally ill drug users do not give a crap about how many people there are in the train car. After the third time I had to move my kids to different cars or even exit the train entirely due to open drug use and dangerous behavior, I swore off public transit for good.
	▲	RoddaWallPro 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm saying it _is_ and _was_ an issue during the day and heavy commute hours, those were the only hours I rode it! Other places in the world with nice train systems do not burden their riders with "safety in numbers", the places are just plain safer, period. And a great place to start is Don't let people smoke fentanyl on the train :) (And make sure everyone has affordable housing and healthcare, ofc)