German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseIron Maiden? Bogus!
[tags]los angeles, mta, red line, purple line, green line, gold line, fare[/tags]
Let’s hope it doesn’t come to this. No, this is not a torture device, but they have been called “iron maidens”. This is a turnstile used on New York City’s subway system.
Credit: New York City mta.info
The Metro board is spending $1 million to study the installation of fare payment barriers on the rail lines, according to the Los Angeles Times Bottleneck Blog. So, while L.A. will never have New York City’s track mileage, the best we can do is install turnstiles.
Board member Richard Katz voted against the study. He pointed out that it does not make sense making a multimillion-dollar investment when the fare evasion problem, at 5 percent, costs the agency less than $2 million a year.
Some other reasons why L.A. must shun turnstiles:
- The honor system virtually is as effective as fare barrier systems at keeping fare-beating at a minimum. The difference is so small that the switching costs outweigh any potential revenue gains or deterrent effects.
- Turnstiles are a feeble rear-guard security measure made urgent because of the mercury spill last winter. Tying together system security with fare barriers achieves nothing, since fares are relatively low and are an easy obstacle to cross.
- On the Blue and Gold lines, the stations themselves would need to be completely enclosed. The turnstiles would need to be accompanied by “elevator doors” on the platforms so fare beaters don’t become nominees for the Darwin Awards by climbing up from track level. This is more out of a concern for the riders of the train who would be delayed rather than the assclowns who have determined that their lives aren’t worth more than $1.25.
- Orange Line has the honor system as well, and it is structurally impossible to implement fare barriers on the line.
- With 5 percent of riders not paying their fares, 95 percent have some form of valid payment. But what would better compliance achieve? Every ride is carried at a loss. Even if the 5 percent paid their fares, Metro’s farebox recovery would remain the same. Perversely, Metro would be better off encouraging fare evasion, since a $250 ticket can bring in more revenue than the 20% riders pay by being honest.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
One MAJOR problem with barrier fare systems is that it is extremely difficult to have them without having station attendants. There are just too many things that get screwed up that need fixing, most importantly, when the fare gates are not working and, for example, the station attendant needs to open up the box to get a mag stripe ticket back — something that is very familar to long-time riders of BART and WMATA MetroRail, among others. It is certainly possible to do away with mag stripe cards as a fare media, but the current solutions are NOT without their problems. What do you do with a contactless smart card when the gate is simply not responding to it? When ALL the gates at a station, or one entrance to a station, are not working? The standard transit industry response is to have all stations staffed, whenever the station is open — and, in many cases, having a station attendant at ALL entrances to a station, which, for example, would require three people on duty at all times at Seventh and Flower.
Fare gates need maintenance and repair, as well — many people simply do not understand the incredible daily wear and tear on everything and anything in the transit industry that serves the public.
Yes, the proof-of-payment system is not without its problems, but, you have to look at the alternatives. Spending a million dollars to get an report that could be writen by dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of MTA employees, is a total waste of money.
Yesterday at the Metro Board meeting, I gave them a laundry list of past studies that have already been done on gating:
* Sept. 1982: Booz-Allen/Hamilton report for RTD’s preliminary engineering on the Red Line project.
* Nov. 1986: RTD General Manager John Dyer’s staff report to the RTD Board recommending the barrier-free fare system that was ultimately approved.
* 1996: Cost-benefit analysis by the Maryland Mass Transit Administration on converting the barrier-free Baltimore light rail system to gates. (It turned out that the least expensive alternative would cost them over $18 for every potential fare dollar recovered.)
* 2002: Horizon Research study for Metro on the viability of the barrier-free system in place. (System-wide, including both the subway and light rail, fare evasion was about 5%; subway alone, about 3%; evasion rate lowest in AM peak at 2%, highest after 7pm at 13%.)
And my personal favorite, since Yvonne Burke claims this is more about security than fare evasion (yeah, right): A joint transportation security report by the Transit Cooperative Research Program and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, partially funded by the Federal Transit Administration, on tunnel-based transportation systems which not only fails to endorse barriers but also raises concerns that such barriers could impede the ability to evacuate a station in an emergency.
Apparently my friend Richard Katz is the only Metro Board member who doesn’t believe in throwing more $$$ at an issue that has already been researched to death.
I couldn’t agree more. When I first started out in LA I was really confused by the non exitence of turnstiles, making fun of it and shit, but I’m all about them now. Its def an improvment on the iron maiden theory for fare monitoring that nyc and chitown (among others) share. Whoever decided that, tho I’m sure it was financially forced rather than forward thought by any politician, kudos. Not to mention people in LA have a hard enough time figureing out all things public transit, lets not make it any more difficult. The lines… my god I can’t even imagine the lines and the amount of trains I’d miss because of those turnstiles.
I think turnstiles are great. B/c station agents would then be required at every station (in case of problems, errors, etc…). It increases safety in the Metro station. Also, it reduces Metro’s need to hire police forces to watch out for fare evaders, as the gates themselves would be the protection. Remember, it’s not just the 5% who fare evade, it’s the cost of having Metro officers patrolling the stations that is significant. Plus, the Metro rail system appears much safer, thereby probably increasing ridership. It’s definitly worth a study.
If we DO have barriers, let’s be high-tech. Iron maidens are sooooooo 19th century technology. Let’s use lasers or something like that.
My God, we are losing funding for more projects like Expo yet the Metro board decide to waste funds to study fare barriers.
With the beginning of the lack of Fare barriers, that was a method in Europe on some of their new subways and our statistics are close to and better than what they have.
First off to comments that this would make the stations safer. This would not make any station safer! I lived in Chicago for 6 years and see how and why they do not work. For one, the “Security” that is involved is nothing more than a rent-a-cop which most fare evaders and the general public would ignore anyway. For the same cost they could do the random checks and even do passenger counts like they are doing in San Diego.
With this you’re adding another unneccessary cost to this whole program, what happens in case of an emergency what will these Security people do, Call 911!
Hell instead of “studying” this but instead spend $$$ to actually install fiber optics to allow cell-phone use, that would allow more users to help out in an emergency situation aiding the emergency response team.
Second, in case there is an emergency a Sheriff’s deputy would be more equipped to dispatch to others to quickly reach the situation again allowing cell phones in the subway will help with that.
Moronic. A million dollars to send board members on a multi-month vacation, er, “research trip” to NYC.
Hey Metro, give MetroRiderLA reader’s a quarter of that money and we’ll have all the research you need done by Wednesday of next week. Uh oh, looks like Kimberleigh’s already done it - for free.
Tom, Kym, Dawg, et al agreeing. Enough to break a promised silence.
Fare barriers make transit more expensive. Anything that makes transit more expensive is a bad thing.
Okay, nasty bit time. What other transit practices make transit more expensive? Ooops.
Welcome back Rob
see escalators. now just imagine the amount of times the iron maidens would have to be shut down and fixed.
lolz. cote iz bak baby buuuuaaabbbaaayyyyyyy.
Why not take that million bucks and just pay for MORE FARE INPSECTORS.
I ride Metrorail almost every day and I get checked for my pass AT MOST once every two weeks. It’s ridiculous. That would be a much better use of money than paying an attendant to sit in a booth passing out day passes and babysitting the iron maidens (that make the subway look like a PRISON, BTW.)
There would be money coming back IMMEDIATELY into the system since it wouldn’t take long for any new fare inspectors to find members of those 5% who cheat the system. Plus more uniformed personnel roaming the trains would make most people feel safer.
Next MTA board meeting, let’s all stand up for our barrier-free system and let the board know what’s what.
Is there any real way to prove/disprove this 5% fare evasion statistic? (A statistic which, of course, is provided by Metro!) I would guess that the statistic is arrived at using the number of riders who pay and the number of riders who get caught — but what about those who never get caught? There’s no way I can think of to figure that out, and it leaves me wondering how much money is really lost.
As for your fare inspectors, those are county sheriffs, right? Since Metro’s own cops shut down, I imagine it’s like pulling teeth just to round up enough sheriffs to police Metro in the first place.
More inspectors, new turnstiles — either way it’s money and a political cluster-you-know-what. I lived in NYC for many years. The iron maidens are a new(ish) thing, and for riders they really don’t make a lick of difference. If you pay.
Tony, the 5 percent figure may seem ridiculously low, but fare-beating from systems around the country show figures not too far off from this number. See Tom’s and Kym’s posts in this subject.
The problem is outlined in one of the bullet points in this post. If you emphasize more intensive inspections, people are just going to be more honest. People would pay their fares, but the farebox recovery will remain the same. (And a lot of people thought that we could have avoided a fare increase by improving inspections!) Metro would earn more revenue if it caught more people, but if it actively pursued this, more people would pay their fares knowing they have a better chance of being cited.
gates/turnstitles are a dumb idea
how would a person with a bicycle
get though? or a person in a wheechair
some of them dont have engough stregth
even to push or pull open the gates
at some of the Blue stations
how would those people access the gates
Wad– I agree with the idea of policing more for those who skip paying fare, but I don’t think anyone will see more inspections as long as the LA County Sheriffs are in charge. That’s not a knock against the sheriffs — I just can’t imagine Metro is a high priority for them, and it shouldn’t be.
I’ve noticed considerably less policing of fares since the sheriffs took over (when was that, anyway? before the Hollywood & Highland station opened, for sure). Then again, there’s no budgetary room in sight for Metro cops to be a reality again.
Mark– In New York, each station has gates that open like doors meant to be special entry for bikes, the disabled, etc. Also, to be fair, most stations still have the old school turnstiles, which you can carry a bike over. Same could work for Metro (including the old school turnstiles).
Thing is that every station there also has booths manned by MTA employees who buzz people through those gates (as well as sell fare cards, answer questions, give directions, etc.) Extra cost, yeah, but it makes for more jobs.
The turnstiles should DEFINITELY be installed!
A typical rider has at least a 90% chance of getting a free ride (because ticket-checking inspectors or officers are almost never present!) There are countless number of fare evaders those days, I’m sure you’ve. Turnstiles would definitely prevent it.
Now, as far as safety. I disagree with those who say “turnstiles would not make it safer”. Just think about it: currently, while literally NEVER being checked, our subway is open to ANYONE - drunk people, gangs, illegals, prostitutes, terrorists, etc… I’ve seen all kinds of weird individuals at our subway, and lately the number of those has grown substantially. Why have we seen so many of those troublemakers? Because NO TURNSTILES OR BARRIERS WHATSOEVER! Folks, it’s time to make our subway more civilized and to level up with other world cities! It’s time to stop this mess in our subway and install some soft of gates! While I agree that those ugly New York style “Iron maiden” gates would not look good, some sort of gates or turnstiles need to be present. Our “honor system” has miserably failed, it’s obvious! It’s time to provide more safety and security to our subway.
Scott said:
People HATE the idea of government waste, and people (by which I use the term to mean Republicans) think that government payrolls are the biggest waste of all.
It’s like the suicide barrier on the golden gate bridge. There is no way a barrier could possibly be as effective or as inexpensive as hiring patrols. Similarly, fare inspectors would be more cost-effective. But some people (see above) don’t like the idea of the government giving people a job.
Mark Panitz wrote:
This really isn’t a problem. Most major transit systems are fully handicapped accessible, and can acommodate bikes without difficulty. See SF’s BART or Muni for an example. The BART gateways at SFO are extra wide for people to wheel luggage through.
Alek F:
Vancouver (which I hold to be one the most civilized cities in the world) has an honor-system subway.
And I heard on NPR today that fewer than 10% of passengers fail to pay fares. In contrast, San Francisco collects fare from about 50% of passengers. (Can’t cite that, but it was all over the SF Chronicle and Examiner a year ago, I think.)
I am not altogether certain that fare-jumping is a major problem in LA.
I think that MTA-freeloaders are more of an offense to our sensibilities than a threat to operating the rail lines.
Most Metro rail riders do not buy their tickets…but that doesn’t mean they are fare evaders. Most transit-dependent as well as regular transit-by-choice riders already have passes.
As for the barriers, whether we have them or not, you also must take into consideration the new TAP system that will be rolling out in the next couple of years. If the barriers are not integrated with the TAP system, then it’s going to be an even bigger waste.
The Militant would prefer more fare inspectors checking more often. And as for those East Coast sentimentalites who laugh and criticize our system, yet never ride it: SUCK IT
anyone who regularly takes the subway without ever buying a ticket will definitely get popped.
i saw fare inspectors 4/5 days this week, and 5/5 last week, and once every week or so before that recently.
it goes in waves. and those who are just stealing a ride or two might slip through the cracks
but ANYONE regularly taking the subway for free WILL get caught
First of all, there are Sheriffs providing security and checking fares secondarily. These are LA County Sheriffs.
There are also Fare Inspectors which are not Sheriffs. I believe they are MTA employees, and I have seen people with white uniform shirts and patches with “Fare Inspector” printed on them.
I believe these people would be affordable to increase since they are paid much lower salaries than Sheriff Deputies. They are not law enforcement officials, they are equivalent to Meter Maids, excuse me “parking enforcement” officers. It is these people who I am calling for an increase in.
Even though they are not equivalent to Sheriff deputies, I believe the mere sight of them would cut down on some petty crime in the stations, since most petty criminals would be intimidated by the sight of anyone in a uniform even if they wouldn’t appreciate the difference between the two.
And let’s work out the difference with increased enforcement. Let’s say increased enforcement would bring about SOME decrease in people attempting to cheat; i.e. increased compliance. So, let’s say cheaters that are caught only go up by 1/2 of 1%, or 0.5%. If 130,000 people ride the Red Line each weekday, and 5% are cheating, that’s 7,500 people a day cheating. Let’s say only 1% are actually caught, so 750 a day are caught. If that goes up by ONLY .5%, (1.5% of people are caught cheating, 2% go legit and pay the fares, and another 1.5% continue to cheat and don’t get caught) that’s 375 additional people caught per day. At $250 per ticket, that’s an additional $93,750 PER DAY, and that’s only on the Red Line. These extra Fare Collectors would pay for themselves and then some, in short order. (I’m not sure how much, if anything, from the fines goes to the MTA but I assume it’s at least part of it.)
Installing barriers would never result in that kind of increased income for the MTA.
The other thing is that increased enforcement leads to the fare inspectors looking at the people in the train, which helps them spot unattended packages, bombs being constructed by patrons, and other things like that. San Diego has one of the more rigorous enforcement practices. Every time I visit San Diego and ride the Trolley, I am checked pretty frequently, sometimes multiple times a ride. Metro needs to talk to SDMTS and figure out what they are doing right.
I like the idea expressed here. You charge the fee to the automobile drivers. That money is used to pay for “No Fare” public transit. It’s a win win deal. Drastically reduced traffic, radically increased transit use, does anyone know if L.A. has done studies on free transit?
Dave, we had a post on the arguments *against* fare-free transit. If you wish to read it, see this link from a post back in March.
The problem with such a system, even if all the money was available, lies within planning and operations.
The agency will place a ceiling on something it must supply. A fare of zero produces an unquantifiable demand, since it can be infinite. If the agency cannot quantify demand, it will manage the system by controlling the supply. It will either limit the service by cost, vehicles, frequency or passengers.
This means the service will be free but not everyone would be able to use it when they want.
Scott:
The fare inspectors are employees of the Sheriff’s Department, assigned to the Transit Service Bureau. They are not Metro employees.
Alek and LAofAnaheim:
The TCRP/NCHRP report I cited in my original post disproves your emotional arguments. It concludes that barriers at stations do not enhance security, and they create a whole new problem if a station needs to be evacuated.
Rob (Coté) Dawg: Since when do you and I agree on something? One of us must have mellowed.
And to all: E-mail me at So.CA.TA and I will be happy to advise when this “expert study” comes back to the Metro Board so you can join me in public comment against the idea.
Thanks Kymberleigh.
Re: Free Transit.
Anecdotally, San Francisco has run “Free Fare” Days, or maybe it was a whole week? Anyone recall?
What happened was, the trains and buses were crowded with extra numbers of homeless people and rowdy teenagers joyriding all night and using the vehicles as mobile hotels. Increased crowding, increased vandalism, increased reports of assault were the result. Extra pressure was placed on the system. Some choice riders were appalled and forced back to using their cars. (Not sure how many, but there were, again, anecdotal reports of this.)
And there’s no way you can remove these homeless if the service is free. Right now, people are free to ride the Red Line back and forth all day, as long as they have a pass.
It doesn’t work.
Raphael: I lived in Boston, and their fare gate system was a nightmare for wheelchairs. You often had to page security at night when stations were abandoned (Downtown Crossing, pre-renovation comes to mind). And then after the renovation with the new gates, all it took was the ONE wheelchair-accessible gate to fail (a not infrequent event) and the whole damned system was rendered inaccessible again. More moving parts = more things that can and will break.
hahahaha, I have been riding the MTA goldline for 3 years without paying. I saved like a 1000+ dollars. But today I got a ticket for it, but who cares I saved more than the fare envasion. I think of it as paying 1 cents per ride.
it works for some johnny but the money it would cost to put them in would be more than it would be worth to lose 1000 bux to you over 3 years. so good luck to you and your hooligan brethren.