Fresh, entertaining and colorful, the street musicians who perform in local Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) stations provide commuters with a diversion from the humdrum of public transit. Were original plans enforced, however, this would have been the first week that T commuters faced traveling without the accompaniment of live music. The MBTA had planned to put its Street Performer Regulations into effect on Monday. The regulations would, among some two dozen other provisions, prohibit amplified performances and use of several acoustic instruments—like trumpets—and impose a dress code for all performers. Fortunately popular criticism of the regulations—in the days after they were announced, some 6,000 people signed a petition protesting the new rules—motivated the MBTA to halt enforcement of its Street Performer Regulations for a week for further discussion. The MBTA should heed the sentiments of their critics and allow street musicians to continue performing with little restraint.

While the MBTA regulations would not entirely ban street performers, many of the provisions would make some performances illegal as they currently take place. As such, these rules restrict the music that, more often than not, provides an entertaining and uplifting contrast to the drab routine of riding the T.

MBTA officials argue that the provisions are necessary to improve communication; music from street performers often obscures announcements from trains, they say, to the detriment of waiting commuters. And yet the MBTA could alleviate communication issues in a more obvious way: Announcements from shoddy, scruffy broadcast system are often difficult to hear in stations without musical performers—the MBTA should first seek to improve the quality of its announcement system before blaming musicians for communication problems.

Officials also cite safety concerns as motivation behind the new regulations: worries that street performers are actually terrorists disguised as street performers have presumably prompted some security officials to call for the banning of such urban entertainment altogether. Yet regulations as a response to terrorists fears seems completely spurious. Such threats are not documented and street musicians continue to thrive in other cities that are considered high-risk for terrorism; New York City, for example, continues to allow amplified street performers in its subways. In 1985, the New York Transit Authority started the Music Under New York (MUNY) program whereby musicians who wished to perform in subway stations were screened once a year via an application and audition process. Though given less preference for performance space than MUNY licensed musicians, those not licensed under MUNY can still perform. This system benefits commuters with quality musicians and New York City transit with an organized system of performers.

As the new MBTA regulations are blasted this week, the authority might consider adopting a similar system to New York City’s MUNY program. In any event, simply enforcing the current regulations will do little, if anything, to improve safety and communication and is likely to worsen city morale.