|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Jul 3, 2012 19:52:01 GMT -8
(From here) It's not that I can't think of any potential problems with the plan; I can. For example, I think the fact that sheriff's deputies are doing ticket checks means they're also there to handle other safety and security related incidents. With fare gates in place, Metro could conceivably dispense this protection, making the system potentially a lot less safe as far as crime is concerned. But what, exactly, is the problem? It seems like a standard feature of most urban rapid transit systems around the world. It's that way in every other city I've been to that had such a transit system. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jul 3, 2012 23:22:44 GMT -8
pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/good-industry-practices-thread/Proof of payment is cheaper and better for most cities. It saves times for riders (ticket checks can and should be done on the trains or buses), and cost much less than installing expensive fare gates at every bus stop or trains station. New York and some other big subway areas have fare gates, but they also have to have an agent in each station to help with problems with the gates, and turnstile jumping is a huge problem. Having gates or turnstiles doesn't prevent people from evading fares. Proof of payment is the standard method in may countries with excellent transit systems, including Germany and Switzerland, even in big cities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 4, 2012 2:26:16 GMT -8
People scoff and laugh at Los Angeles having had an honor fare system, but they don't know or understand the history of the Metro Rail system. The Red/Purple lines were originally built and planned by the old RTD, and being a heavy rail subway, inspired by SF's BART and DC's Metro, they were originally meant to have fare gates. But while that was planned, the light rail revolution began in Canada and San Diego, with all of them using an honor fare system. The LA County Transportation Commission, who originally built and planned the Blue and Green Lines, designed them with an honor fare system, having been inspired by the Calgary/Edmonton/San Diego LRT model. Having stations out in the open also meant that fare gates were not practical or feasible. The Blue Line, despite being planned later, opened before the Red Line did, and when operations were turned over to the RTD (the LACTC only planned and administered transportation, but did not operate them), they used the honor system the Blue Line was designed with. Three years later when the Red Line opened, for consistency's sake, it also used an honor fare system. The RTD and LACTC merged in 1993 to become the MTA (now Metro). There are three reasons why we have the fare gates: Political pressure, media pressure and 9/11. The fare gates were mostly funded with Department of Homeland Security funds, with the rationale being that fare gates would deter terrorism - Because you KNOW the first thing in L.A. those evil terrorists want to destroy is our rail transit system, riiight? (I'm talking about Al Qaeda, not the Bus Riders Union  Though I'm sure the BRU would definitely do that if only they were better funded...). I don't mind having turnstiles, but make it consistent. The way it's implemented is not consistent. You have many light rail stations without turnstiles, you have transfers between trains without turnstiles (i.e. Wilshire/Vermont, 7th Street/Metro Center) and if the Orange Line wants to be a legitimate part of our rapid transit network, those stations would count as well. But overall, the cost to implement and maintain them is noticeably higher than the amount of fare revenue lost by fare-evading riders. Though, that fact is lost on most critics of the Metro, who are more into having a superficial understanding of our transit system. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 4, 2012 11:09:23 GMT -8
[pedant]Technically it's a "proof of payment" system. If it were an honor system no one would ask to see your valid ticket.[/pedant]
I agree with most of the rest of the post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 4, 2012 11:28:33 GMT -8
[pedant]Technically it's a "proof of payment" system. If it were an honor system no one would ask to see your valid ticket.[/pedant] I agree with most of the rest of the post. Well, nobody asks for my valid ticket, so I'm correct!  |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jul 4, 2012 19:05:29 GMT -8
If Metro wants to encourage automobile drivers to "try transit", literally placing barriers between potential riders and trains is not a good idea. I think this whole "fare gate" business was adopted by Metro after a good sales job by the supplier. (readers are welcome to define "sales job" as they see fit) The likelihood of Metro gathering in enough previously unpaid fares to pay for all this apparatus and its ongoing maintenance is rather remote. Indeed, there is a website I look at from time to time devoted to the concept of "fare-free transit" which eliminates fare gates, ticket machines and fareboxes, and removes the temptation for sticky-fingered employees to "high-grade" fare receipts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 4, 2012 23:48:52 GMT -8
If Metro wants to encourage automobile drivers to "try transit", literally placing barriers between potential riders and trains is not a good idea. I think this whole "fare gate" business was adopted by Metro after a good sales job by the supplier. (readers are welcome to define "sales job" as they see fit) The likelihood of Metro gathering in enough previously unpaid fares to pay for all this apparatus and its ongoing maintenance is rather remote. Indeed, there is a website I look at from time to time devoted to the concept of "fare-free transit" which eliminates fare gates, ticket machines and fareboxes, and removes the temptation for sticky-fingered employees to "high-grade" fare receipts. Your theory is incorrect though. They managed to run the system for nearly 20 years before adding the fare gates. They did not add them because there was no dire need for them and mostly, because there was no funding for them. But every 3-4 years, the local media writes up a piece why Metro doesn't use fare gates, why the "honor system" is a joke in (what is implied as) a "dishonest" place like Los Angeles, and readers/viewers cause a minor ruckus in terms of letters to the editor...then the topic dies down and people forget it, until the same subject is brought up 3-4 years later. I remembered people talking about it in the '90s, in the early 2000s, and the gates weren't installed then. They only added them in when someone at Metro recommended, "Hey, you can apply for Homeland Security funds to buy the fare gates if you tell them that fare evasion is related to terrorism somehow" and some members of the Metro Board, trying to score points with the electorate, started pushing for them. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 5, 2012 5:48:10 GMT -8
Also, gating will enable distance based fares, which no doubt will come in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 5, 2012 5:52:45 GMT -8
Also, gating will enable distance based fares, which no doubt will come in the future. Theoretically yes, but what about all the light rail stations that will never have gates? |
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jul 5, 2012 9:37:15 GMT -8
I think the Coalition opposes fare gates as a waste of money, both in terms of the money they cost to install, as well as the cost of station agents, and considers the official justification of Homeland Security to be flimsy at best. As far as whether faregates are justified, there are lots of arguments for and against both faregates and POP, and it's also certainly possible to have a hybrid system with both, as in London, the Paris RER, or to some extent SF Muni.
One problem with POP is that it can be hard to do adequate checks during rush hour on busy lines with crowded trains and stations, a point which I'd say LA is just about reaching with the Red Line. The Berlin U-Bahn is the busiest POP-only system I know of, and the average ridership per line there is somewhat lower than that on the Red Line, and each line has more trains and more stations, so things are a bit less crowded overall. Another downside of POP is that it's a potentially user-unfriendly system, especially for people new to the transit system. If you make an honest mistake with a faregate system, the gates won't let you in, and you'd know before you do anything wrong. In a POP system, you find out only after you've already committed some infraction, when the fare inspectors give you a ticket for $130. In many places, this is offset by the POP system being made as blindingly simple as possible, so that a single ride ticket has an expiration time printed on it, and is good on all services until that time. Here in LA, you have to worry about transfers as well, which is going to be rather unexpected to someone coming from, well, any city in the world, because transfers between rapid transit lines are almost always free.
The downsides of turnstiles are mainly the expense of providing them, and of designing the stations around them, especially on lines at grade, where this forces passengers to go through a bottleneck rather than having a more open design. And while turnstiles are arguably more user-friendly for new riders, POP is much more convenient for the regulars who just have a monthly pass in their wallet that they only need to take out very occasionally to show the fare inspector, rather than dealing with a turnstile every time.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jul 5, 2012 9:39:30 GMT -8
Also, gating will enable distance based fares, which no doubt will come in the future. What about Metrolink? It has distance based fares, but no gates anywhere to be seen. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 5, 2012 10:05:39 GMT -8
Distance based fare do not require gates of course. Most countries that have robust commuter rail, intercity rail, or HSR that are distanced based do not have gates. But typically people don't transfer within those rail systems (as is the case with our Metrolink... you ride it in one direction to the "downtown" station).
There is only one thing that MUST require gates: to establish a "sterile" zone for transfers. As is typical in an urban rail system... you may travel in 2 different directions on 2 or more lines to get to where you want to go.
This is my fundamental disagreement with Metro's decision to install gates. We are now getting gates but no free transfers.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 5, 2012 13:08:32 GMT -8
Also, gating will enable distance based fares, which no doubt will come in the future. What about Metrolink? It has distance based fares, but no gates anywhere to be seen. My guess is that Metrolink has a huge problem with people not paying their entire fare. Has anyone ever seen tickets being checked on the OC line? |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 5, 2012 13:28:22 GMT -8
My guess is that Metrolink has a huge problem with people not paying their entire fare. Has anyone ever seen tickets being checked on the OC line? Of all the commuter rail lines I've ever traveled in Europe (London, Madrid) or USA (New York, New Jersey, Chicago, SF)......none of them have fare gates. Commuter rails never have fare gates; they usually have conductors going around checking fares. Metro fare gating is not the same as fare gating for Metrolink. Metrolink is not expected to have fare gates. Whereas, in other Metropolitans, your local rail (Metro) will have fare gates. Yes, I've had my fare checked about 20% of the time I travel on Metrolink routes. |
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Jul 5, 2012 19:59:47 GMT -8
Metro fare gating is not the same as fare gating for Metrolink. Metrolink is not expected to have fare gates. Whereas, in other Metropolitans, your local rail (Metro) will have fare gates. Yes, I've had my fare checked about 20% of the time I travel on Metrolink routes. I've never ridden aboard a Metrolink train, but I'd always assumed that it operates like a typical intercity train with a conductor punching everyone's ticket. When I've taken Amtrak, I've always had my ticket checked with the exception of one time when I was just going from Fullerton to L.A. As for Metro systems in other countries the world having fare gates, or not, I've only seen those of Rome, Berlin, and Paris. That was such a long time ago that, in hindsight, I probably just assumed the fare gates were there, mostly because Americans generally know that NYC's system has them, and we probably expect a subway system to look like that even if we've never lived in or visited NYC. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 5, 2012 21:22:52 GMT -8
My guess is that Metrolink has a huge problem with people not paying their entire fare. Has anyone ever seen tickets being checked on the OC line? Of all the commuter rail lines I've ever traveled in Europe (London, Madrid) or USA (New York, New Jersey, Chicago, SF)......none of them have fare gates. Commuter rails never have fare gates; they usually have conductors going around checking fares. Metro fare gating is not the same as fare gating for Metrolink. Metrolink is not expected to have fare gates. Whereas, in other Metropolitans, your local rail (Metro) will have fare gates. Who suggested that commuter rail have fare gates? What in the world are you talking about? Have you ever had your ticket checked on the OC line? I've ridden it dozens of times (none recently) and have never seen anyone checking tickets on the OC line. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 5, 2012 21:25:34 GMT -8
Metro fare gating is not the same as fare gating for Metrolink. Metrolink is not expected to have fare gates. Whereas, in other Metropolitans, your local rail (Metro) will have fare gates. Yes, I've had my fare checked about 20% of the time I travel on Metrolink routes. I've never ridden aboard a Metrolink train, but I'd always assumed that it operates like a typical intercity train with a conductor punching everyone's ticket. When I've taken Amtrak, I've always had my ticket checked with the exception of one time when I was just going from Fullerton to L.A. In my limited experience I have never seen Metrolink conductors check tickets, only sheriff's deputies. I haven't ridden Metrolink in a couple of years though. |
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jul 6, 2012 19:34:29 GMT -8
I guess my point is that the issue of faregates or POP is independent of many other things, in particular distance-based versus flat fare. And as far as which systems have faregates, worldwide there are metro systems with and without faregates, and commuter and even long-distance systems with and without faregates as well. Going from Manchester to Edinburgh, for example, involves faregates on both ends, though obviously not all stations in the UK are gated. There are even bus systems with "faregates": every bus, trolleybus, and tram in Moscow has a turnstile (with a bar that you have to turn) at the front door that all boarding passengers are supposed to go through. They switched from a mixuter of a POP/validation system and conductors sometime in the early-2000s.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 10, 2012 15:11:44 GMT -8
Commuter trains certainly can have fare gates, pretty much every subway train, commuter train and long-distance train between Tokyo and Osaka and beyond has gated stations. Yes, even out in the Japanese equivalent of the boonies.
It would be harder to gate Metrolink because of the way that most stations are designed. However, TAP pylons shouldn't be a problem, and you could probably gate Union Station.
I believe in distance-based fares. Just a quick glance at the Metro Rail map screams distance-based fare.
And while gates and distance-based are not directly linked, it clearly would make it easier to recognize that you enter the system when you pass through the gates and leave it when you pass through on the way out.
For stations without gates, pylons would serve the same purpose, although it would be easier to ignore or accidentally miss a pylon than a gate.
When I pass through a gate, it is immediately obvious that I have paid; at the pylons I am constantly looking down at the little screen.
I honestly think the biggest difference between gate supporters and opposition is what they're used to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 10, 2012 23:48:04 GMT -8
My dad (now retired) was a daily Metrolink commuter in the last decade of his job and would tell me about the social venue formed on the trains. Proof of payment is not as crucial since more or less the same people ride the same train every day. The conductor knows you paid for your monthly pass because he already saw it last week. Usually if you're not a familiar face on the train, you'll likely get singled out to provide proof of valid fare.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 11, 2012 10:06:21 GMT -8
I honestly think the biggest difference between gate supporters and opposition is what they're used to. Actually, most of the people opposed to gates have already laid out their arguments quite clearly. I used to live in cities with fare gates and I have visited many places with gates. I'm definitely used to them. However, fare gates in those city serve a purpose... they are used to establish free transfer zones. Here in LA, we have gates that is still searching for a reason for existence. We've moved down the list already and none of them are convincing if you think about the underlying logic: 1. Security against terrorist threats (LOL) 2. Deter fare evasion (not likely because not all stations will be gated, and you can still bypass gates if you intend to evade fare) 3. To implement TAP (another LOL) 4. It will save money because you don't need fare inspectors (turned out to be false because the implementation plan calls for more fare inspection by Sheriff) 5. Next? You can implement distance based fare without gates. It's not a per-requisite. However, free transfers is a per-requisite for distanced based fare. Free transfer itself does not require gates either but it is much easier to implement with gates and sterile zones in each station. I will not support any more money wasted to put in gates until Metro come up with a free transfer plan that will lead to full distance based fare. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 11, 2012 15:17:35 GMT -8
I think we're all missing an obvious point here. The fact of the matter is that the gates are not coming; they are already here. The debate has moved on from the existence of the gates to whether or not they should be locked.
Furthermore, if you look at the Source (and other transit blogs), the comments there are NOT universally opposed to gates.
Therefore, the real question should be whether the Coalition as an organization should oppose gates, or if we can nudge Metro toward some solutions to the issues which have cropped up with the gates.
(And Metro already is working on solutions.... there will the some sort of paper TAP cards, for example)
One interesting side-effect of locking the gates is that it seems to be forcing other transit agencies in Los Angeles County to re-consider or at least re-visit their previous opposition to TAP. For TAP to reach its full potential, it really needs Santa Monica, Torrance, Long Beach, Metrolink to join.
I do think that station attendants should be needed; not for the "checking tickets" aspect, but for extra security and for extra customer service. The existing security should be moved away from "checking tickets" duty at the gated stations and more toward stopping the occasional stabber, purse theft, etc.
I don't see why we can't have a sterile zone, transfer-free distance-based system with gates at some stations and pylons at others. If I'm traveling from Long Beach to Hollywood, I would fully expect to TAP a pylon in Long Beach, switch trains at 7th/ Metro, and TAP the exit gate at Hollywood/ Highland.
|
|
|
|
Post by calwatch on Jul 14, 2012 11:00:24 GMT -8
This is why the gating at Metro Center is so ham-handed. There is a TAP pylon adjacent to the stair case between the Blue and Red Line platforms. Stand by the pylon for a few minutes and watch as very few people use that pylon - which they are supposed to do, even pass holders, since they are getting on another line.
The "no free transfer, use day pass" thing seemed to start on the bus side in the early 90's. I know VTA in San Jose was one of the first agencies to do away with transfers. In this area Omnitrans did it in the mid 90's, and RTA came along around 1998. Metro implemented the change in 2004 as part of fare restructuring, but by that time all of the surrounding counties (with the exception of Ventura) had gone to the day pass system. The one difference with the day pass system at Metro, compared to the other rail agencies, is that they all offer free transfers within rail, that is they keep rail as one line. I can't think of a "no free transfer" system that also operates POP for rail, so Metro is unique in that regard.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Jul 16, 2012 0:34:45 GMT -8
Would you rather spend millions to have a foreign corporation build machines abroad that require a perennial investment in maintenance....and provide no additional benefit beyond " allowing" one to ride?
Or just spend the same amount of money on local jobs so people check the tickets....and also provide customer service and security?
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 28, 2014 9:33:52 GMT -8
Very interesting article in the LA Times on fare gates and their effectiveness. Also, there is a graphic where you can see station boardings across the entire system. Turns out Farmdale is not the lowest boarding station in the system. Looks more like Maravilla (King Taco Station) is. graphics.latimes.com/los-angeles-metro-riders/ |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 1, 2014 9:20:04 GMT -8
Very interesting article in the LA Times on fare gates and their effectiveness. Also, there is a graphic where you can see station boardings across the entire system. Turns out Farmdale is not the lowest boarding station in the system. Looks more like Maravilla (King Taco Station) is. graphics.latimes.com/los-angeles-metro-riders/Another interesting tidbit gathered from this graphic is the realization that the South Bay stations of the Green Line have a very low volume of riders (basically all the stations south of Aviation/LAX). This puts more pressure on Metro to just have the Green Line be an East-West line and the Crenshaw serve these stations. There doesn't appear to be enough demand to warrant having both the Green Line and Crenshaw Line service these stations and having to split the Green Line to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 5, 2014 17:12:03 GMT -8
Well we don't know what the ridership patterns will be after crenshaw opens but in my experience the Mariposa station is one of the busier stations during peak periods. Maybe it's not so busy off peak.
|
|
Though I'm sure the BRU would definitely do that if only they were better funded...).
