German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseNPR Checking In
This morning on NPR, Morning Edition, they weighed in on Turnstilemania, the hubub about the MTA installing turnstiles and fare gates on our heavy and/or light rail lines. I was going to coin the whole controversy as Turnstilegate, but then, that would be redundant. HA! Anyway, here’s a link to the story. They do cover both sides of the issue, in what seems like a pretty balanced report. They also indicate that the final decision won’t be made until January.
Me personal: I don’t want ‘em. Don’t want distance-based fares either. My personal preference. I intend to go to the MTA Board meeting and gripe about it.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
The final decision has been made. All that remains is for the appearance of public input and the appearance of a contract award.
BTW, Charlie Cards (MBTA) suck the big one.
LA needs controlled access if it hopes to grow ridership and expand demographics. All the benefits of an open network have been exausted. I’m of the opinion that a T3 (TAP in, TAP Over, TAP out) will ultimately prove easiest and most efficient. And none of this inconvenience stuff. The Hollywood Bowl does it at every concert with $300 tickets and $6 tickets with no problems at crush loads orders of magnitude greater.
I for one look forward to turnstiles and I hope they are the ones that can’t be easily jumped. Maybe it will cut down on some of the late night hooliganism on the red line.
Late Night Holliganism will happen because kids are kids, it has zero to do with faregates.
If you’ve been to other cities at night with faregated systems there’s a good chance that urban kids will act this way there too
If the turnstiles can be jumped then we will have to make sure they are ADA jumpable otherwise…
What turnstiles do is they add a sense of security to the station platform in that only paid patrons, not just anyone, is granted access. It may seem illogical to some, but living in the DC/Baltimore area, I know I feel safer late at night waiting at a DC Metro station, than a Baltimore light rail station. A lot of it has to do with the fact that in DC, there are faregates installed, which kind of serve as a buffer between the street activity and the station.
I’m talking about something I’ve only seen twice. Both times were in the last year. It’s where a +-20yo gangsta jumps on at Hollywood + Highland and tries to snatch a bag or demand jewelry from a person who looks like they can’t defend them self and jump off at the next stop (Hollywood + Vine).
So this is a mental buffer of security?
With DC’s Metro security roves through each of the major stations even late into the night so that is probably a main factor as to why the gates work.
Try riding the ‘L’ in Chicago at night and you’ll see these same images riding through. That is why some of the arguments of percieved safety and security are bunk.
Shawn, turnstiles add a false sense of security.
A $1.25 charge is a small price to pay for someone determined enough to commit a crime. There’s also a high probability Metro will couple the turnstiles with a corresponding reduction in policing.
We’ve hashed this out before here in MRLA earlier this year. Most people who have a knowledge of transit are against the fare gate proposals, for very good reasons.
The trouble is that the Metro board is letting bad press dictate decisions. And the decisions they make are primarily rear-guard actions based on the most obvious remedy they are able to think of.
The Metro board only governs because of a state-outlined law, not because of what expertise they bring to the table. They bring very little, but they can easily grasp bad press and want the simplest solution their minds are able to comprehend.
Board members believe fare barriers are both fail-safe and accurate. They are not. APTA even found that the honor system had only a 1 percentage point higher incidence of fare delinquency than barrier systems. But the more complex the barrier becomes, the more expensive it is to maintain.
Most board members probably do not understand an academic field that can greatly enhance compliance with a barrier-free system: game theory. It’s a high-level branch of mathematics that has been applied in economics and other social sciences.
Some basic facts:
1. It is in Metro’s best economic interests to tolerate a certain amount of fare delinquency. Honest fare-paying passengers pay at best 20 percent of their own way. Metro still has to enforce payment for this 20 percent so that the 80 percent supplied from local, state and federal subsidies still comes in.
2. Fare-paying passengers cost $5 for every $1.25 paid. (This is meant to give the most basic picture of revenue. Throwing wild cards such as senior fares, transfers and passes makes the explanation harder).
3. A fare violator, when caught, must pay $250.
4. A single paid citation is the equivalent of 40 fares at the actual cost of service ($6.25/boarding).
It is in Metro’s interests to issue more citations, where one passenger pays for 40 rides rather than 20 percent of one. QED.
But, there is a feedback loop. If Metro were to increase enforcement, compliance would improve, and fare delinquency would drop.
Instead, the same or a few more deputies and fare inspectors should be reassigned to better catch fare delinquencies, such as at night or on weekends. More importantly, the beats should be reassigned before fare delinquents can detect a pattern to the enforcement.
Chris,
You are correct that there isn’t a lot of money in collecting from scofflaws.
What was it Zev quoted me as saying? The typical fare is 58¢? Alright, he stole it from me stealing it from Tom. That’s the problem. As you note it costs 4.5x as much to provide the ride. A missed fare is trivial in the revenue stream especially since they are entirely marginal users.
We need control access for user pays reasons. In fact I suspect that any shift to more direct user pays structures would result in some major changes to Southland transit.
What I find hard to understand is why so many supposed transit advocates say massive changes are necessary BUT those changes do not include fare structures.
No, Chris, the real reason for gating was Yvonne Burke. She got upset that her constituents were being lured into the subway and given tickets. She also claimed security problems, when there have been none of that. Yvonne was able to convince some other people who didn’t know much about rail transit to go along with the idea.
Of course, Yvonne is gone by the end of 2008, but this will be her lasting legacy… that unless she helps usher in Bernard Parks, who is dumber than a door nail and would be even less of a credit to the Second Supervisorial District.
Rob Dawg wrote:
We need control access for user pays reasons. In fact I suspect that any shift to more direct user pays structures would result in some major changes to Southland transit.
Or, as your bete noire Setty has pointed out, if a transit agency can collect a reasonably high average fare per mile, it can achieve a very good farebox recovery.
This is an interesting way to look at the issue. If transit had to make sure that every rider paid >=100% for every vehicle they climb aboard, the ridership would not justify continuation of the system.
There are also other constraints, such as mandated discount fares.
But, the average-fare-by-mile can allow transit agencies to charge a fee closely approximate to cost and still be a reasonable deal for riders.
The biggest obstacle to maximizing revenues is not passes, having riders who overconsume resources. The problem is transfers.
As I’ve said, the last year Metro had transfers fares were $1.35 per boarding and 25 cents each transfer. A person riding one bus $1.35, but a person riding two buses pays $0.80 to ride more vehicles for a longer distance. The transferring rider pays $1.60 on the first bus and 0 on the second vehicle, no matter how far they go.
Metro also had some peculiar policies that led to self-inflicted revenue problems. In 1994 it did exactly what you wanted — eliminated passes — but gave riders a consolation prize in 33% discounted tokens. This introduced a wholesale market where a person could buy tokens at $0.90 and sell them to tokenless riders for less than $1.35. The reseller makes a profit, the buyer can still pay less than the $1.35, and Metro compounded its losses.
Also, Metro probably lost a substantial amount of money because of the bus-rail transfer problem. On rail, the transfer was valid until the time expiration. Riders didn’t have to surrender their transfers, and the TVMs did not have a 25-cent transfer payment on fare paid option. On a bus, the transfer would have to be surrendered to the driver. Riders could take more and longer trips by incorporating rail into their journey.
At least with a pass, be it daily, weekly or monthly, planners have an easier time meeting a target. In other words, with a pass price at $X, we can expect Y amount of sales and Z amount of usage. It’s very difficult to model with transfers, because the people who use the system the most end up paying the least.
But, what if Metro were to go to a fare system where riders paid according to how far they travel? How much would riders be willing to pay per mile?
Using Metro’s 2006 NTD statistics, at 60 cents per mile riders would be paying their own way. At 50 cents per mile, bus riders would require a subsidy but one that could be paid for by Metro Rail riders. Heck, at even 25 cents a mile, farebox recovery would at least double and we could maintain existing service supply (which is very damn good).
But the key is to keep the fare close in line to the per-mile costs. Trying to raise revenue by boardings is much harder, as the cost would be too high and ultimately unattainable due to loss of ridership and/or consolations (cheap transfers).
I’ve also compared with New York City’s figures. Per mile, it costs NYC almost double to run a bus as LA, but its MTA’s farebox recovery is an impressive 55 percent. And to say that NYC does it because of volume is oversimplifying matters. It has 9 times our ridership, but its buses are even more crowded (71 vs. 52) than ours! Curiously, our rails are far more crowded than New York’s (101 vs. 156 for subway and 121 for light rail), but this is because L.A.’s system is smaller and ridership far more concentrated.
Rob Dawg wrote:
I’m of the opinion that a T3 (TAP in, TAP Over, TAP out) will ultimately prove easiest and most efficient.
And if they don’t do all three?
A system such as TAP has to have active and passive, plus both simple and complex, mechanisms to prevent all sorts of fare-beating.
Active: forcing passengers to swipe their cards lest they have a huge penalty assessed.
Passive: if passengers think they are saving the money by not swiping, allow for the computers to improvise for a missed step. Say if a rider forgets to TAP out before transferring, GPS would figure out the transfer location and deduct fares accordingly.
Simple: Make passengers pay a deposit to use an authenticated card. This one-time payment goes a long way to prevent all sorts of other fraud.
Complex: Use RFID to make sure all fares are paid for properly, whether the passenger is compliant.
Each of these steps has drawbacks. Also, Metro must anticipate that the TAP system is under constant threat of hacking, and that the virulence of the broken code will be swift.
Calwatch wrote:
Yvonne was able to convince some other people who didn’t know much about rail transit to go along with the idea.
I find it much more dismaying that there are at least 6 other people on this board to swallow Burke’s stupidity. I’m not surprised, though.
And Cal, you give the board too much credit. “Convincing” implies the ability to discriminate (mentally), and this requires a sharp intellect. Lesser minds, on the other hand, tend to go along to get along.
Of course, Yvonne is gone by the end of 2008, but this will be her lasting legacy…
As a board member, I am disgusted by her constant meddlesome behavior. But she got her chair by being a county supervisor. And her enduring legacy in that capacity is King/Drew.
Managerial incompetence is one thing, and that can always be corrected in the future. (Would you rather have today’s Metro or last decade’s?) But for King/Drew, people died. The hospital was in her district, so the four other supervisors were going to go on her lead. She chose to keep the hospital open to save jobs.
Blood is on her hands.
that unless she helps usher in Bernard Parks, who is dumber than a door nail and would be even less of a credit to the Second Supervisorial District.
The residents of the Second District have to know that a Parks election would only compound the problems of the Burke regime.
I’ll have more to say later but recall the impressive 55% farebox recovery for NYCT is due in no small part to the hundreds of millions in bridge tolls counted as fares. There is also the issue of the legal but unethical labor cost center shifting particularly benefits and retirement expenses.
how a passeger with a inter-agency transifer (or even a metrolink ticket
(which is vaild on metro) get into side the gates?
also what if the person had a disablity how are they going inside?
(like a person in a wheelchair?
According to the Board report, this would be handled PATCO style, where someone speaks into the microphone at the gate to a disembodied voice at Rail Operations Center, who then buzzes them in once their fare media is verified through the camera. Not very efficient.
First the APTA lost ALL credibility when they said MTA was Americas’ Best. The MTA is clearly a work in progress and lagging clearly behind. To address peoples’ concerns, I have spent over a month in NY and done only public transport. I have also spent over two months in Chicago and done only public transport. My sister lives in a loft off the LaSalle station.
I don’t think that “we have already decided this is bad (sic)” is necessarily valid.
I have these points as I have at least 9 boardings a week for the last 4+ years (probably 5) on the Red Line.
1. Security cannot be more lax after 9pm as it is nonexistant.
2. I have never been on a system that has more homeless camped out on board after 9pm.
3. These homeless if they wake up ask you for 25 cents, so they obviously don’t have fare money.
4. All the cars after 10pm smell of piss and body odor from the incamped.
5. On boarding at North Hollywood at 9am (yes I work long hours) there are usually 2 to 3 people buying tickets on a normal day. On a day that they are checking fares at the TAP line (about once every 2-3 months) there are 60 to 70 people standing in line to buy tickets.
6. The two largest transit systems in the US have fare gates and atendants. But the APTA and we know better?
7. There is no place to get information as there are no atendants. If you ask a Sherrif they don’t know anything about the system and they are rude.
In short I have the personal opinion that gates are a good thing and that all stations should have an atendant watching the gates. It’s how the big boys do it. You can have your own opinion but you should keep an open mind and not dismiss some one out of hand. I have lived in 4 cities in the US and 2 different continents. I didn’t just fall of the turnip truck, that was about 45 years ago. Cheers.
If Metro was actually going to put attendants at every station as part of the setup, and their primary reason was something other than purely increasing revenues, then I would much more inclined to agree with the change. Putting attendants at every station and adding fare gates will likely have a net result in decreasing the amount of money Metro gets, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing if done properly.
From everything I’ve read about it, there will only be attendants at some stations, and the whole reason is to increase fare revenue, with a end result of decreasing the security presence in the system. To me this has disaster written all over it.
One anecdotal note on the ticket aspect, I can’t say for sure to the rail system, but when I do ride the buses, I notice that on a lot of lines a majority of people have passes (as do I, in my case mostly for the convenience).
Answers to some of the highlights Jim pointed out.
1) If that is the case, maybe it is wiser to have the security there during those times too.
2) Which lines in Chicago and NYC system in your short stays there did u ride on? Which lines makes a big difference in operations and who rides or not.
3) Follow-up to question 2, you’ve never ridden on the CTA Red or Green Lines at night.
4) With NYC, they have a rule that during a certain times of day that all trains have a mandatory sweep and clear during the operators “layover” time to wipe down and pick up trash from trains this was put into effect since the rattiness of the 80’s when let’s not forget they had faregates then too and it was a mess.
5) I have nothing against the TAP cards just the faregates.
7) Hmmm, maybe this has to do with working with people who know the system and know how to get to places via Transit. In Chicago and NYC you’ll get that rudeness as well, it happens in every big city.
Maybe the idea should be hire lesser paid attendants at each station checking fares, that alone would save a lot of money and have more physically present bodies available and keep the deputies around the stations on the street or in their patrol cars next to the station to be available if an emergency persists.
Even have one or two of them who are skilled/trained of wayfinding and knowing how to ride and major attractions at the major tourist stations (Hollywood, 7th St, Union Station, Wilshire/Vermont) with a Info kiosk present at the mezzanines.
Fare gating in the manner Metro has described will not solve that problem, in fact the way it’s presented will create an isolated situation where there’s zero presence at the stations making a ‘bad’ problem worse.
Thanks for your comments, I can’t remember the NYC lines, as it’s been a while and I was staying with friends in a punk rock band. You missed the LaSalle reference, I have been later at night on the CTA on the Blue,Red,Green, and Orange.
Maybe gates will not solve all the problems, but I don’t think they are a bad idea. I suspect the scofflaws are far greater in percentage than the MTA study suggests.
I think the more riders the better for finances and security. But I keep talking to people who say as soon as possible they are going to buy a clunker to drive as they can’t handle the MTA anymore. This is not a good situation for the environment or those of us who do advocate mass transit.
By pointing out the flaws doesn’t mean that I am entirely negative.
Thanks
I don’t think it’s a bad idea either it’s simply the execution and reasoning behind the plan is truly flawed.
Jim, while I appreciate you visiting MRLA and contributing your thoughts on why fare gates might be a good idea, I had to mark #18 with a - because your numbered arguments came off as a drive-by harangue against the homeless.
Since there isn’t a homeless person here to defend him or herself, I cannot allow your comments to stand unaddressed. They are a resent of the homeless because their characteristic is their identity.
Let me offer my own anecdotes as an employee of a social service agency that is one of dozens of organizations than enables the homeless to be on transit.
Our agency, along with dozens of other organizations throughout Los Angeles County, receives bus tokens from Metro to distribute to indigent and homeless riders. Homeless people can go to these organizations and ask for tokens. And Metro imposes a condition of nondiscrimination on the disbursing agencies. The agencies cannot refuse to give out tokens, only ration how many bags are given.
So if these homeless go to these agencies, there’s a high probability that they are paying their fares. So Metro has the obligation to transport them.
If they don’t, then it poses a difficult law enforcement challenge that police officers have a tough time grasping.
If a homeless person is caught not paying a fare, how are they expected to pay their fine? A deputy tagging along to make sure the person digs in the trash for $250 worth of recyclables? Tag them like shelter animals and invoice one of the social service agencies if they cause trouble? Or lock them up in jail, where they get meals, showers, and shelter in a secured facility? A night in jail costs more than $250, and the facilities are already overcrowded.
Metro did not contribute to the circumstances to these homeless, but have a mission and duty to provide a ride for anyone who seeks out its service. Homeless persons have every much a right to ride as out-of-town transplants who believe themselves to be creative and expect the adopted community to reward them, then compensate for the disconnect between lofty expectations and underwhelming realities by using their creativity to snivel about everything that is wrong with the metropolis and its residents, yet lack the intellect, courage or conviction to examine the underlying conditions and history deeply and honestly, or to create edifying solutions.
That last run-on sentence might have just negated the point I was making with this post. And it’s a big risk to even say this, because that caricature is the audience of this blog and similar sites dealing with transit and Los Angeles. These are also the people who, if they used public transit, are the only ones to validate its existence.
I took a big risk in writing that graf, because alienation has risks for me and the site. But it had to be said to make a point. This applies to public transit, L.A. and life in general. It is: Life is not full of easy questions, so we shouldn’t grasp for easy answers.
I didn’t mean to disparage the homeless, I actually talk to several as friends and give them money. I just meant to point out that late at night there is no enforcement of the MTA rules as some are encamped sleeping using three seats, the two at the end and the senior/handicapped spot for their feet. I do not blame them for this, but for the grace of God there go I, and I would do the same thing. It’s a much better place to sleep than the street. I mearly used this point to show that there is no enforcement/security at all of even the basic MTA rules at night.
You also do make a good point, I wonder just how many people who get tickets actually can afford or do pay them.
Personal harangues against anyone have no place on any blog. One should only argue the point. I wish to apologise to anyone that I may have offended by my poor writing skills.
Wad, I read your #23 again and gave you a “-”. At first reading I glossed over it. But on second reading I realized that you called me a sniveling transplant with no intellegence, courage or conviction. I have a hard time believing that someone who doesn’t know me could show that much animosity, please calm down.
Jim wrote:
Wad, I read your #23 again and gave you a “-”. At first reading I glossed over it. But on second reading I realized that you called me a sniveling transplant with no intellegence, courage or conviction. I have a hard time believing that someone who doesn’t know me could show that much animosity, please calm down.
Understood, Jim. If I don’t get the five necessary -s, I’d be very disappointed. But it’s Christmas weekend so traffic’s down.
I don’t know you, so I wouldn’t know if you would fit into any of those characteristics. I was not referring to you neither directly nor obliquely.
But that characteristic I describe is one of my biggest frustrations with L.A. I lived here all my life, so I sort of built a natural immunity to most of the frustrations other Angelenos experience. Sure, sometimes it gets to me, but this does not astound or aggravate me as much as the residents who choose to live here –or go through all the typical bobo pioneer motions.
And now, a metaphor …
A farmhand works in the second largest egg farm in the United States. The job duties are quite mundane: check up on the health of the hens, make sure the eggs are in a condition ready for market, and yes, clean up the chicken shit that dribbles to the floor. The farmhand got the routine down years ago, and despite the low pay and the lack of atmosphere, does the job well. The most difficult part about work in an egg farm is not the job routine, but the key to what makes the whole operation run.
Day and night, thousands of hens are crammed together in cages that allow for some, but not much, moving around. Thousands of hens cluck, cluck, cluck unceasingly. They cluck when they lay their eggs. They cluck when they shit. And when they’re not unloading their ovoid embryos or defecating, they cluck just because there’s nothing better to do.
Hens, as far as science knows, are not articulating any particular language that only members of their own species can understand. The hens hear the same din as the farmhand. Every hen clucks, for a reason good enough for the animal, or for no reason at all. It doesn’t matter. It’s just cluck, cluck, cluck all of the day. Or, rather, cluck, lay egg, cluck, shit, cluck, shit some more, cluck.
The farmhand goes home and rests. Eardrums pulsate from the high-pitched wailing from all the birds in such small confines. Nostrils numb from the pungent mix of the animals’ musky essence, sulfur and slushy chicken shit.
The farmhand does this day after day, year after year, working hard and ably despite the hens adding a shallow, steady stream of aggravation. Yet during the course of the farmhand’s duties, the way to perform the job day after day without succumbing to the futility of it all is to understand the hens.
Hens cluck. Hens shit. But hens also lay eggs. Without hens, there would be no eggs. If there are no eggs, there is no egg farm. If there is no egg farm, there would be no job for the farmhand. Sure, there are other egg farms and even other occupations, but none of these places might need another farmhand. Or, the farmhand could find a niche elsewhere but not realize what little talents that can be acquired from hens, their eggs and their shit.
The story just ends by starting at the beginning.
Metaphors are interesting, as they have infinite interpretations, each more right or wrong than the last. Although RobDawg’s mind compiles and outputs thoughts in this manner, so if there is even a right answer, he’ll probably get it before anyone else.
Anyway, Jim, I’m actually very calm and don’t bear any animosity to you or anyone. And, reading #24, I marked that with a + because you did show concern with maturity and empathy to those less fortunate.
We may not come to an agreement over fare gates, but don’t let this disagreement turn you away from the great content provided by Fred, Tyke, Scott, myself and the rest of the crew here. Here’s hoping you stick around awhile.
Jerard Wright wrote:
Maybe the idea should be hire lesser paid attendants at each station checking fares,
Isn’t Metro doing this now, with the white-shirt fare inspectors?
Wad, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I probably won’t be back until after the New Year. I don’t know why that struck me so, as I should have thicker skin, because I frequently have opinions not shared by a majority. I was not born here but I have lived here for 28 years, except for 2 years that I lived in Libreville, Gabon (I never intended to get stuck there for that long it was supposed to be a 3 month job), so I do rather know the lay of the land and consider myself a permanent resident. Joyeux Noël et Bonne Année
Isn’t Metro doing this now, with the white-shirt fare inspectors?
Where? Finding one of them is like playing “Where’s Waldo”.
How would this sound? What if there were designated areas of Free fare zones in Downtown and Hollywood so that fare checkers create strategic locations for checking the fares.
This is how it will work in Downtown between Union Station and 7th St Metro Center and in Hollywood between Highland and Vine all fares between the two spots on the trains are free. Anyone traveling beyond in Downtown will be checked at Pico, Westlake and Chinatown Stations. Any travelling beyond in Hollywood would be checked twice at Highland and Vine.
Looking forward to the Year in Transit sans obligatory Ventura County content. Disney has new monorails BTW (hint).
Rob, I’ve worked on the Year in Transit and it’s ready for ringing in the New Year.
You’ll find some parts acceptable.