|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 4:50:15 GMT -8
Post by wad on Nov 21, 2008 4:50:15 GMT -8
Metro brought these monstrosities in on Thursday to the Wilshire/Western station. These are only demo units, though.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 6:38:04 GMT -8
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 21, 2008 6:38:04 GMT -8
Are you sure those are only demo's? I thought that I read that they would be installed by the middle of 2009 at some of the subway stations and by the end of 2009 at all of them. Considering that it took several months (6??) to get the next train monitors installed and operational they probably need to begin fairly soon. For sure the underground East LA stations are to have them when those stations open.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 8:23:40 GMT -8
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 21, 2008 8:23:40 GMT -8
All the Metro TAP/Gating reports have shown renderings of much smaller and more subtle paddle gates, not massive blocks like we see here.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 8:43:46 GMT -8
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 21, 2008 8:43:46 GMT -8
Is a person going to occupy that booth or is that just a big case for a machine? If it's for a person it is unfortunate there are not more windows.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 9:04:24 GMT -8
Post by metrocenter on Nov 21, 2008 9:04:24 GMT -8
They look like normal fare gates to me.
What's the objection? They don't match the lively tile floor?
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 9:21:52 GMT -8
Post by JerardWright on Nov 21, 2008 9:21:52 GMT -8
Are you sure this isn't a set up for a film shoot?
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 10:05:26 GMT -8
Post by James Fujita on Nov 21, 2008 10:05:26 GMT -8
it's hard to tell from just one photo, but these don't look so bad, as far as fare gates go. actually, they look kinda on the smallish side. I'm also wondering why it looks like the green arrow lights are on when they're not actually in use?
of course, if they are going to install barriers, they really need to build up the TAP program more first. I can't believe that the MTA would have a TAP card that you can't feed a $20 onto it.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 11:18:25 GMT -8
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 21, 2008 11:18:25 GMT -8
I wonder about the movie shoot as well. I don't see why we'd need the ticketing booth. If it is a movie they look a lot like the WMATA fare control gates, but maybe other systems use something similar.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 12:30:30 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 21, 2008 12:30:30 GMT -8
I don't know if it's the real thing or not, but a ticketing machine would be needed for those of us who transfer from Metrolink. We would need to show our ticket to someone to get through the gates unless they get rid of the feature altogether or quickly develop new fare media.
Still opposed to fare gates though. Why they are still wasting their money on fare gates when it has been proven they are ineffective is beyond my comprehension.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 12:38:50 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 21, 2008 12:38:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 12:55:26 GMT -8
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 21, 2008 12:55:26 GMT -8
Metro isn't going to have station agents at most stations. IINM they will be installing cameras to assist people having trouble getting through the gates. I imagine Union Station and maybe some others will have station agents, but not all. Also my impression is that Metrolink and Metro are working to get a common fare media. I don't think that you will be showing your ticket. You're going to have a TAP pass or something similar.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 12:55:35 GMT -8
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 21, 2008 12:55:35 GMT -8
I've kept quiet on this forum about fare gates, b/c apparently I'm in the minority (even though almost 100% of our MTA board supports them!). I think there's a great "safety" element to the fare gates. When I go to other transit systems around the world, I do not get nearly the amount of "beggars" or homeless asking for change on the subway stations. And, I'm talking about London, Boston, New York, etc... Those type of caliber cities. I also don't feel as dangered. I've nearly been beaten up b/c of ignorance; somebody had a beef with muslims, and i calmly kept telling him I'm not (we were talking about the muslim faith). That guy was hopping amongst LA's rail lines. I don't have this fear and danger traveling other cities.
And, another key point. Check out our Metro bus system. Do you have people who scare you or ask for change on the buses? I've NEVER ran into that situation? Why? Maybe it's b/c you have a "fair gate" with the driver collecting change. Those homeless and the baggers; and some quite scary people as well, are usually left out of riding on buses/trains they have to pay for.
Well, that's my support as to why I am 100% in favor of fare gates. But, I know people here will dissect and provide dissenting arguements, which I'll respect. But, wait and see. I think y'all will be pleasantly surprised.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 12:57:03 GMT -8
Post by erict on Nov 21, 2008 12:57:03 GMT -8
I personally know many people that would rather risk being caught without a ticket than pay the fare- since they say they are almost never asked to show a ticket. Gates solve a fundamental problem, which is that the people in this city will rob you blind if you let them. Try and open a store in the area and you will see what I mean.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 13:05:20 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 21, 2008 13:05:20 GMT -8
If we're going to use personal anecdotes to justify the installation of fare gates, then I've never been asked for money or felt in danger on the LA subway. Again, if we're going to use things we've seen once or twice to justify the installation of a costly fare gate project that will never, ever pay for itself or make you safer, there's this famous incident that happened on MARTA, which has fare gates (the video incorrectly specifies a bus). Fare gates keep out crazy people? Now that's a crazy statement. I'll tell you what I see though, people who buy their tickets before boarding the subway or light rail. When I see officers asking for tickets, the vast majority of passengers have them. I've seen more people busted for evading the fare on Metrolink and they are supposed to cater to well-to-do commuters, most of whom own cars! I've seen more people thrown off Metrolink trains for being difficult than I've seen crazy people on the subway. Sorry, but these unfounded fears just don't add up. You guys should really read the Stanger analysis here. It's the first comment.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 13:17:35 GMT -8
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 21, 2008 13:17:35 GMT -8
I don’t have an issue with homeless or beggars except for the ones with offensive smells. I can see fare gates cutting down on some of the rowdy kids that often haven’t paid a fare. I generally think that things are fine the way that they are and I’m not really against the gates per se. But if it makes people safer or even just feel safer that will lead to more ridership and I wouldn’t have a problem with that result. However I seriously doubt that they will pay for themselves as many board members have argued. Especially dubious are the arguments for the gates because the board found out that TAP won’t work without gates and that gates should be installed so that TAP won’t go to waste.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 13:21:32 GMT -8
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 21, 2008 13:21:32 GMT -8
Regarding the fees from the people getting ticketed, it'd be interesting to find out what percentage of that money is ever collected. Many of the people that I see getting tickets have no ID and I've overheard a few people saying that they gave fake names and addresses.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 14:00:05 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 21, 2008 14:00:05 GMT -8
Does it matter? Those people will just jump over the fare gates anyway. If they get caught jumping over the gates, they'll give a fake name and address.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 14:04:06 GMT -8
Post by metrocenter on Nov 21, 2008 14:04:06 GMT -8
I don't get this "honor system" argument. I don't ride the train to get a "warm and fuzzy" feeling inside - I ride it to get where I'm going in a safe and clean train.
I would think that fare gates will reduce the ability of thieves/pickpockets to operate freely in stations, but that's not why I think they should be introduced.
I think we should have fare gates because they demarcate public space (outside the fare gates) from pseudo-private space (inside the fare gates), where people are on some level held to account for their behavior.
IOW, the only way you will enter a station without a fare is if you do so willfully. There won't be any accidental "I left my pass at home" thing...you will have jumped the turnstiles.
Do I believe fare gates will solve all our problems? Well, no. Nor do I think that lines in the street and traffic lights necessarily prevent accidents. But I would argue that most people who drive in the street are willing to obey at least a few rules. It would be nice to see the rail system run with the same expectations of their riders.
Does that make me a "wet blanket"? Does this system's functioning as a clean and funded system not rely on people paying their fares and abiding a set of minimal norms on people's behavior?
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 14:47:48 GMT -8
Post by James Fujita on Nov 21, 2008 14:47:48 GMT -8
I don't know if gates will work or not, it sounds like they aren't needed,
but I do know that smart cards DO work (in Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, etc.), and I think TAP will work, IF the MTA would fix some things first:
- at the very least, they need to get Metrolink on board. they should really get Santa Monica, Foothill Transit and Torrance to use TAP. I think Culver City and the LADOT are on there already, but one area where smart cards excel is in agency-to-agency transfers. - they need to make the thing accessible to frequent riders, infrequent riders, weekend riders, occassional riders. that means monthly passes, weekly passes; the ability to add a cash value to the thing so that even if you don't ride the MTA every day, you'd still get your money's worth. - train riders should have to TAP when you enter and when you exit the system, that's it. not when making transfers. the system should be able to figure out that if I got on at Universal City and got off in Long Beach, I rode two trains to get there and made one transfer and deduct the fare accordingly.
TAP probably makes more sense with gates, but I don't see a reason why gates would be necessary as long as you have enough TAP pylons.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 15:13:30 GMT -8
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 21, 2008 15:13:30 GMT -8
Does it matter? Those people will just jump over the fare gates anyway. If they get caught jumping over the gates, they'll give a fake name and address. Jumping over the fare gates will be a more serious crime. I would bet that people will be arrested and not just ticketed. It's trickier to arrest people now because it's relatively easy to lose a ticket or even forget your monthly pass at home without realizing it. However catching people jumping over a fare gate is a no-brainer.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 15:49:00 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 21, 2008 15:49:00 GMT -8
Does that make me a "wet blanket"? Does this system's functioning as a clean and funded system not rely on people paying their fares and abiding a set of minimal norms on people's behavior? I'm sure the subsidies and tax dollars have more to do with Metro operating a clean, efficient, and safe system than fares ever will. In any case, installing and operating the fare gates will cost more money than it ever recovers. We already have rules that riders are expected to abide by. Fare gates don't enforce rules like no eating or drinking, or no loud music or no soliciting. And having this fake feeling of safety doesn't make me warm and fuzzy. Pick pockets and thieves operate at Disneyland of all places, and it costs over $50 to enter. If you're a thief and you pluck one nice camera off a careless tourist, you've made back your money. As long as the "earnings" from stealing outweigh the cost of the fare, there will be a small amount of trouble makers, and you'll still have to be vigilant. Metro has overstated the nature of their losses to fare evaders. The Stanger analysis has it all.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 16:00:59 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 21, 2008 16:00:59 GMT -8
Here are some crime statistics for Metrolink rail lines through August, 2008. latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/09/post.htmlThere were 85 reported incidents on the subway through the end of August. That's about 1 incident every 2 and a half days. Looking at the chart there's a very small chance that someone might take your ipod on the subway. Is that enough to install fare gates that will hardly keep these people out anyway? Safety is such a BS justification for fare gates. A better use of funds would be to hire more officers to patrol the subway. The fare gate isn't going to deter a guy from mugging you, but seeing the uniformed officer just might.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 21, 2008 21:47:29 GMT -8
Post by jejozwik on Nov 21, 2008 21:47:29 GMT -8
still i think its better then these
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 23, 2008 21:26:45 GMT -8
Post by JerardWright on Nov 23, 2008 21:26:45 GMT -8
. We already have rules that riders are expected to abide by. Fare gates don't enforce rules like no eating or drinking, or no loud music or no soliciting. And having this fake feeling of safety doesn't make me warm and fuzzy. Pick pockets and thieves operate at Disneyland of all places, and it costs over $50 to enter. If you're a thief and you pluck one nice camera off a careless tourist, you've made back your money. Exactly, I've been to other transit systems in other cities with fare gates and guess what you still have beggars, rowdy teenagers, homeless sleeping on trains, obnoxious people eating smelly food and leaving a mess on the train and in witnessed cases in Chicago and Atlanta people pissing and deficating on the platforms. These are things that happen in big cities. So gates aren't going to make them feel any safer or secure, in fact after seeing that happen it will make people have the exact opposite reaction. I think this will require an additional cost because now you have the fare checkers in the booth (I admit at busier and landmark stations like Hollywood/Highland or 7th Street Metro Center they should be there) and still have cops/sheriffs on patrol as the case in San Francisco on the Muni Metro Subway.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 24, 2008 6:44:49 GMT -8
Post by metrocenter on Nov 24, 2008 6:44:49 GMT -8
LA's metro system is definitely cleaner than many other systems I've used. And I'll take others word for it that crime on LA's trains and platforms is low. I wouldn't be surprised if the main impetus for the fare gates is counter-terrorism.
I guess what I don't understand the vociferous opposition by some to fare gates. This opposition seems to fall into two categories: (1) it's a waste of money, and (2) we prefer the honor system.
As for the first argument, it will largely net out over time. Plus or minus a million or two, in the long run, is not really that much money.
The second argument involves the opinion by some that the honor system is preferable to a more controlled system. I would argue that the preference for an honor system is not universally shared.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 24, 2008 7:38:34 GMT -8
Post by metrocenter on Nov 24, 2008 7:38:34 GMT -8
One way they could make it far easier to ride is to not make you hit the fare machine every time you change trains. As James Fujita stated earlier, other city's fare systems allow you to move from one line to another without buying another ticket. These systems are either zone based (multiple hops cost a single fare within a zone) or calculate the fare and take it out of your debit pass (e.g. TAP, Oyster card, etc.).
In L.A., however, you have to either buy a day pass, or run to the fare machine between each train. Then you have to hold onto your ticket (which multiply, if you take more than one train) and know where it is in case a fare inspector comes. Because in L.A., the burden is on you to prove you belong in the subway. And that burden remains with you until you exit the system.
How is that hassle "more convenient" for riders than passing through fare gates?
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 24, 2008 8:59:17 GMT -8
Post by nickmatonak on Nov 24, 2008 8:59:17 GMT -8
first of all, how bad is the fare evasion problem really?
In addition I can;t tell you how many times I have walked right passed a sheriff (or worst, those idiotic fare inspectors) and they never have asked to see my pass or ticket.
It seems to be that both those groups now just seem to stand around in groups having a good time and not doing their jobs!!
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 24, 2008 20:30:39 GMT -8
Post by bobdavis on Nov 24, 2008 20:30:39 GMT -8
I think there's a strong suspicion among many LA transit observers that the main purpose of fare gates is not to improve fare collection, increase revenue, or provide a safer environment for passengers, but rather to enrich suppliers and possibly Metro officials.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 25, 2008 5:25:44 GMT -8
Post by wad on Nov 25, 2008 5:25:44 GMT -8
Bob, even the Metro board doesn't have the slightest grasp of why they signed on to fare gating.
Most of them got spooked by a Daily News article showing supposedly rampant high fare evasion and figured the only way people are going to pay is by installing gates because it looks like they are "doing something."
The fare gates became like the Iraq war: The rationale kept changing when every justification was discredited.
The best reason to not go with fare gates: A study surveyed every transit agency with a rail system and looked at how the fares were enforced, barriers or inspectors.
For one thing, the bigger problem for transit agencies is rampant honesty, not fare chiseling. Agencies reported low-to-mid-90 percent fare compliance. Then it asked which was better, gates or inspectors? Since compliance was high in either case, delinquency was looked at. Inspectors had a delinquency 1 to 2 percentage points higher than gates, but with such high compliance, it was an insignificant number.
The recommendation was for transit agencies to stick with the fare-checking systems they have, as the switching costs cancel out any benefits.
|
|
|
Oh, no!
Nov 25, 2008 11:31:22 GMT -8
Post by metrocenter on Nov 25, 2008 11:31:22 GMT -8
OK, well I guess it's just a matter of preference. For me, I would prefer a conventional fare collection system that includes gates and fully-functional TAP cards.
I don't consider it a boondoggle or a waste of money. I consider the ridiculously overbuilt portals located at every station a waste of money.
|
|