los angeles subway turnstiles? yes, please!
This blog has moved to Twitter! Check out my twitter feed for the latest restaurant, retail, and cultural news in the neighborhood.
This week two of the nation’s largest newspapers, the LA Times and NY Times, are weighing in on the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s decision to install turnstiles in our city’s subway and light rail stations.
After 15 years of operating on the honor system, the MTA commissioned a study that finds it misses out on $5.5 million annually from fare evaders who abuse the “open entry” policy. In order to recoup some of that missing revenue, 275 gates will be added over the next 18 months to select Red and Green Line stations, where evasions rates are the highest.
The MTA’s study estimates that about $6.77 million annually in lost fares (and other savings) could be recovered, after a $30 million implementation expense and $1 million in continued yearly maintenance of the proposed turnstile mechanisms. The final plan to phase in the changes should be completed in January.
The question on everyone’s mind, is it worth it? Financially speaking, some people say no. Jacob Holloway, a daily transit rider who was interviewed for the NY Times piece (and coincidentally is Rico’s boyfriend) thinks the costs won’t outweigh the gains. Furthermore, MTA board member Richard Katz states the transit agency simply can’t afford it, and points to a projected deficit in the their budget next year. Depending on how accurate all these “official figures” are, Mr. Katz may or may not have a case.
Aside from all that, has anyone considered the new passenger gates could bring more to our transit system than financial gain? How about improved safety, order and cleanliness?
An obvious benefit is keeping out the riffraff who sleep on the trains, vandalize the interiors and don’t pay for the ride! As a daily metro customer, I’ve witnessed this first-hand repeatedly over the years. If you doubt me, try taking the Metro Red Line to North Hollywood after 9pm on a weekend. Obviously, turnstiles wouldn’t be a cure-all for these problems, but they will help thwart them.
Some people will argue this is why we have L.A. County Sheriff’s Deputies patrolling our trains. Yes, but I question their effectiveness on the fare control front. Not only is their presence scarce, but when inspecting proofs of payment they often glance over any piece of paper you present to them.
I once watched with amusement as a homeless woman sleeping on the Purple Line was approached by a fare inspector. After digging in her pocket for nearly a full minute, she pulled out empty lipstick tubes, gum wrappers, other trash and finally what appeared to be a years-old crinkled metro ticket. Shockingly, the inspector simply nodded his head and let her fall back into her drunken stupor.
Regardless of their inspection abilities, I believe the Sheriff’s Deputies bring a large sense of perceived safety to the transit system. I hope their presence is only increased once the new turnstiles are fully functional. After all, as the New York Times article mentions, “slipping past, under and over transit turnstiles and gates is an art form.”
Therefore, the MTA should also consider employing on-site station attendants to assist with entry monitoring, fare purchasing, directions and other ridership issues. Not only would this further enhance perceived safety (especially late at night), it would make the experience more friendly for new riders and tourists. It’s an effective way to broaden the appeal of our mass transit system as the agency struggles to lure people out of their vehicles.
It’s time to look at what we’ve been doing wrong and learn from our East Coast counterparts. The new turnstiles will only have positive effects on our city’s rail transit system.
-Seeing the Light on the Subway (L.A. Times, Dec. 10, 2007)
-Metro to Improve Gold Line Service and Add Two New Rapid Lines Effective Dec. 16th
25 comments
It’s not just NY / the East Coast. I was in San Francisco for Thanksgiving, and had the opportunity to ride both BART and Muni Metro.
In S.F., the major downtown stations each have multiple attendants *and* police officers. And all of the subway stations have turnstiles. The comfort level is much higher in S.F.’s stations, compared to L.A.’s stations.
People were doing shopping at Macy’s and other big stores in Union Square. They were boarding trains with bags of gifts. Are people going to take the train to do shopping if they feel like there’s nobody watching for muggers and thieves? Probably not.
Does crime and homelessness still penetrate S.F.’s stations? Of course. But probably not as much as if the stations were unattended. And anyway, as I said, the sense of security is much higher.
A large part of the saving cited by Metro is in a DEcreased sheriff’s presence, and part of their ongoing cost is to have a station attendant in SOME of the stations.
In many ways, I see fare evasion being just as bad if not worse, just more of an art form instead with the way Metro seems to be planning it now. Instead of a lot of people buying a ticket just in case they get checked, some will probably just jump the gate at non attended stations (and probably even some with an attendant), since they probably won’t have to worry once they are in the system.
This is also probably going to create a large hassle for people with wheelchairs, and other people with larger loads like a bicycle, especially since Metro is not planning on staffing all stations (and probably not at all hours of operation even in the staffed stations).
As a last thought, I don’t believe Metro’s numbers in this case at all, the installation and maintenance are probably ridiculously low balled, and the saving probably based on if everyone who didn’t buy a ticket now did buy one, as well as the removal of most of the sheriff’s presence…
Just to add, a more useful way of cost saving would probably be to decrease the reliance on sheriff/other police for fare checking, and use many more staff instead (perhaps with a limited sheriff’s department to handle troublemakers/issuing tickets). Having 3-5 sheriff’s to check tickets in one place is a waste of money and police officers.
Bravo to Richard Katz for voting against MTA’s misguided plan to install turnstiles at train stations. I am an anomaly, a 54-year-old, white middle-class Los Angeles public transit user. Currently, I am part of a local effort to bring much-needed north/south public transit to Silver Lake. As a transit user by choice, I am shocked by this misguided turnstile plan. Katz—whose legislation merged the former RTD and LA County Transportation Commission—knows more about public transit than any other member of the MTA board and should be listened to.
So what if people “sneak” on the trains? Los Angeles is almost at stand-still from street and freeway grid-lock and yet our collective political leadership continues to accommodate single-passenger cars—at a time when you can’t join a local conversation without a screed on how L.A. driving sucks.
So we penalize public transit users? Bus pass fares just increased and now the MTA Board, save the wise Mr. Katz, voted to install cumbersome, expensive, easily damaged turnstiles. I imagine a well-heeled manufacturer is having one happy Christmas given the cost of installation and maintenance that, given MTA projects, will ultimately swell.
Southern Californians will eventually look back amazed at the lunacy of our city/county leadership. Both the Board of Supervisors and the City Council have shown contempt for transit users and undying accommodation to cars. Hindsight won’t work on this one. The turnstiles will be a disaster and an impediment to smooth ridership.
Wheelchair patrons will have handicap entrances/exits, that will also be available for people with bicycles. These special entrances are usually located near attendant booths who monitor them. At least this is how it’s done in most other cities.
Hey Ann Bradley. I am also interested in transit politics. Do you have any contact info. You can email me at jlrobe21 at gmail.com. I would very much like to here your plan for silverlake
Everybody..it’s not just about recouping the lost fare revenue, but the subway turnstiles will give much needed PERCEIVED SAFETY. That’s the “hidden” benefit of turnstiles. Right now, stations are unmanned and ungated. I would feel safer (as I do in NY, SF, London) with a gated system. Even for LA tourists, it would be helpful to have a station attendant (this should be required in due to gating issues/ticket problems, etc…) to answer questions. I remember walking around a subway station in Rome and completely lost. It was not comfortable being in the station after 9 pm w/o a station attendant, and you do not know the language.
By the way, who’s to say only some of the stations will be manned? Actually, who’s to say all stations will be manned? This is all heresay and “scare tactics” by the naysayers. Let’s see the official announcements by the MTA. Also, I hope all stations are gated to keep it consistent. They gate light rail stations in Istanbul (it still has an open platform from the street).
What’s wrong with emulating policies that work in other major cities? Why are people in LA tough to change? By the way, Katz statment about “emergency evacuations” <— what a f’n scare tactic.
LAofAnaheim, those are good points. However, I think Stephen and I have a little bit of a difference of opinion here in that I personally would rather have deputies on the trains than in the stations.
I’ve found that the problems with safety on Metro don’t have to do with the station mezzanine levels but rather just outside the stations in the evenings and on trains themselves (not necessarily “safety” issues but issues of vandalism).
As long as they don’t decrease the security presence on Metro trains, this could work out fine. But I have a feeling that’s the plan…
LAofAnaheim, I just want to clarify that the station attendants mention is purely a suggestion on my part. I’m not quoting or following any rumor of that. Also, I agree with you 100% on the issue. Yeah, the that emergency evacuation statement from Katz is ridiculous.
In the Los Angeles Times article of November 30 it said “MTA officials also want to explore charging distance-based rates, which is nearly impossible to do without a turntstile system.” If this is true I wonder why they weren’t installed from the very beginning. I remember when the Blue Line began running and everything I read at the time indicated that the system was to go to distance-based fare after an initial period. They waited much too long to do this and when they did start talking about implementing this plan people were understandably upset, especially since a lot of people had no idea that this had been the plan all along. I think this turnstile thing is just the beginning of what they really have in mind, and that is to institute the distance-based fare like they have in other cities.
I think they should just leave it as it is. There will always be people who can find a way to cheat the system. And they may not ever do this since the plan that was approved last month is going to be considered in January after a plan for installing gates is developed. And as far as who the people are on the train that make it unpleasant to ride — I’ve seen people who have tickets spit sunflower seeds all over the floor, play their music unbearably loud, put large pieces of luggage across two or more seats, and on and on.
Thanks fridayinla for mentioning the wheelchair issue, I was wondering if anyone would. By the way, you have great photos on flickr. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gates30nov30,1,5410718.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
The Katz statement about emergency evacuations actually refers to a page in the study Metro commissioned on gating (I have a copy and have actually read the entire document).
Page 18: “Gate-type exits need to provide at least 50% of the required emergency exit capacity unless the fare collection equipment provides unobstructed exiting under all conditions. Unobstructed exiting under all conditions implies that the fare barrier equipment is the type that does not require collection of a proof of payment to operate, and drops away to create an unimpeded egress path in a fail-safe manner when pressure is applied. Turnstile-type gates are not considered ‘unobstructed exiting’.” (Report quoting National Fire Protection Association standards.)
The report then goes on to say that “the NFPA standards are likely to affect the faregate implementation.”
Scare tactic? No. Safety concern in the modern age of terrorist attacks? Yes.
I remain highly skeptical of this being implemented in a way that doesn’t further disenfranchise current Metro Riders and makes riding more intimidating and confusing for potential new riders.
If each station is not manned, there without a doubt be constant mechanical and technical problems (just think of the weekly breakdowns of the escalators at Metro stations). If each station is manned, the operating costs will be well over the stated $1 million per yer.
The idea that fare gates will lessen the financial impact of fare evasion in any massive way is hard to believe. For example, Metro says that it currently loses $5.5 million a year due to fare evasion, but claims that after installing $30 million gates with $1 million per year operating costs it will recoup $6.77 million in lost fares. How is it recouping $1 million more than is actually lost? $30 million amortized over 10 years is $3 million per year plus $1 million for operations, that means at 100% effeciency at preventing fare evasion (unlikely) Metro will only recoup $1.5 million in lost fares.
Of course, as I said on MetroRiderLA, I don’t really think it’s about fare evasion, but as others have said, about implementing a new fare structure (distance based tap-in tap-out) that is impossible without fare gates. And of course, I support this idea because I think it’s fare more sensible way to handle fares but my skepticism comes in the implementation. Metro seems to grab onto decent ideas from other systems but then implements them so poorly they become impediments (whether physically or fiscally) rather than enhancements.
Take for example the new LCD screens being implemented in the Red and Purple Line stations. Replacing the old scrolling LED displays is something I wanted for a long time, but replacing them with shiny new HD displays that show the same useless information? What’s the point? It’s money spent on nothing. The could scrap all the electronic stuff and post a hand written note on the wall that says “NO GAS POWERED BIKES ALLOWED ON TRAINS” and it would be just as effective and a lot more economical.
If they can screw up such a simple thing, I really worry what will happen with a major change like fare gates.
Well said Fred. I also caught the discrepancy between lost fares and recouped revenue. I think the LA Times article mentions “additional savings” in addition to that $5.5 to be recouped. Maybe Ms. Richards can elaborate.
Also, I was going to mention the new LCD screens because I also think they’re pointless as they’re being used. I want to see train schedules listed, estimated arrival time for next train and “Train Now Arriving” messages. Everybody already knows there’s no eating or smoking on the trains, but no one has the entire train schedule memorized!
I’m going to give the MTA the benefit of the doubt and say they’re working up to it.
$30 million to solve a $5.5 million problem?
The Militant has never felt unsafe in the Metro, and fare gates will not and cannot stop someone from bringing a gun, knife, bomb or aerosol can into the system.
And fare gates on our light rail lines will be a laugh an a half.
I will be happy to elaborate.
The additional savings comes from eliminating the fare inspectors. (Which, in my mind, means a lower uniformed presence on the system, making it less secure because there are fewer deterrents to the kinds of things the Militant suggests …)
Improved safety, order and cleanliness? How about giant steel cages that will make the transit system feel like a prison? How about huge additional surfaces for scratchiti?
How about just add more Fare Inspectors? There aren’t enough right now. Those $250 tickets add up real quick, and would pay for the addtional inspectors. This has the additional benefit of, as you wanted, INCREASED SAFETY.
NO TO TURNSTILES! YES TO HUMAN BEINGS!
I just wanted to point out that in London they use tap passes and tickets very effectively. There are outlying stations (not on the tube, but on ancillary trains) where you need to purchase a ticket but there are no turnstiles. However you need a ticket or a tap pass to get out when you get where you’re going. Another example of this are the addfare machines on BART in SF. Let’s say you get on in Walnut Creek but only buys enough fare to get to Oakland. If you decide to keep going to SF you can’t get out of the station. But there are addfare machines that only allow you to add money to an existing ticket.
I do agree with the added security of attendant booth. My wife pointed this out last time she took the metro. She would have felt safer knowing there was a human presence somewhere in the station. It may be irrational, but if we relly are concerned with the user experience than it is important to think about. Most transit advocates are men, and we sometimes forget that a woman’s experience of public spaces can be very different due to security concerns.
Scott Mercer - do you feel like you’re in a prison in BART, NY Metro, London Underground, Chicago El, etc…? Why does LA have to be different from all other major world-class cities?
Scott, it will come as no surprise to you that I would prefer to spend the money for more fare inspectors than for gates. And Metro Board member Richard Katz feels the same way, except — as he puts it — it is just he and I against the rest of the Board.
Yes, I have been in the New York City subway system, many times, since I was raised in the area. Many of the stations have giant gates, steel bars and cages, that make it feel like a prison. Some of the stations in Boston and Chicago are like this as well.
BART much less so, as it is a more modern system.
LA should be different in this case, since we’ve had this open architecture since the Blue Line came on line 17 years ago.
Mark my words, if the MTA installs simple turnstiles, the people “beating the system” will NOT go down significantly. There’s a waste of money.
If they install full length floor to ceiling iron bars, then they get more “security,” but at what cost? The place will look like a medieval dungeon. Not very appealing for attracting discretionary riders.
fridayinla - please call me or email. I am writing a story on these turnstyles. -D
A very kind young security guard man at No Hollywood subway station
helped me find my husband eve of Dec 19.
He was very pleasant and very dedicated to people.
I saw his name on chest. It said “Starwell”
Whe it seems like there is not much to praise about human behavior
these days, I have to comment when we see one.
We still have good people in our country, you’d better believe it.
Ann, we completely agree on the inanity of installing fare gates on Metro Rail.
I noticed in your comments you addressed the lack of north/south transit access in Silver Lake, and applaud your efforts in improving connectivity to the area.
I also am a very frequent user of public transit, and I am very familiar with your neighborhood. I have also did my share of transit advocacy, and would like to give you some helpful advice in your efforts.
1. Be in it for the long haul. When you propose anything to a public transit agency, such as a route, keep in mind there’s a planning and analysis process that can take a year or more. Route planning is a time-consuming process and not simply drawing lines on a map.
2. Go LADOT, not Metro. Keep in mind that Metro runs its bus operations like a warehouse club store. It deals in volume. Silver Lake has very good transit usage … as long as the bus you’re riding is along Sunset Boulevard. Metro doesn’t focus on the neighborhood level of ridership because it has too many passengers. It also has the highest ridership standards, with every bus requiring to produce at least 30 passengers an hour to be viable. If the line can’t meet that target, the service is going to be cut.
Meanwhile, LADOT fills that niche for neighborhoods with DASH services. This does not mean LADOT is easier to work with necessarily, but one advantage is that its standards are much lower. LADOT is more willing to keep buses running if they are underproductive.
Work with Eric Garcetti on your plan, and see if he can arrange for DASH service in Silver Lake.
3. Silver Lake, as you know, poses a transit planning challenge. The topography and the street grid are unkind to your community. Silver Lake has hills, the reservoir and the 101 freeway that form barriers. There are very few through-running north-south streets that lead out of the community. The sparse bus service that Silver Lake has is on the streets that have an outlet.
You live in an area that is very difficult to serve. Silver Lake also has heavy pedestrian activity, since the Sunset buses handle most of the transit activity in your area.
What would I recommend? The one noticeable gap in Silver Lake is Hyperion Avenue, which definitely needs a bus. And Line 175 in its present form is useless. A Hyperion line should go across the bridge and connect Silver Lake with Atwater on one end and a subway station (Sunset or Santa Monica/LACC) on the other.
The writer of this article is obviously quite an ignaramus. He has broken the golden rule!!!! Assumption is the mother of all screw ups as they say in the military. The writer is automatically assuming that because a person is homeless, they do not have valid proof of fare. The writer would be quite surprised to find out, that homeless people most of the time have valid proof of fare!!! The writer states the paper is all wrinkled up, and why does that matter? If it’s valid, it’s valid right? Last but not least, what would the writer like the fare inspector to to do? Eject the homeless person just because he/she is homeless? Technically if a homeless person has valid proof of fare and is not bothering anybody, there is no reason to remove them. Otherwise the sheriff’s department would be looking at clear case of civil rights violations and the ACLU would jump on the department faster than they would know what him them!!!, just like it occured in Philadelphia. The writer is quite ignorant and needs a reality check.
As someone who lived on the East Coast for more than 10 yrs without a car, I think the benefit of “perceived” safety cited by other posters is just that — perceived.
Additionally, LA’s honor system follows in the footsteps of successful metropolitan systems in San Jose, San Diego, Portland, Austria, Germany and Australia.
The real problem with LA metro is not fare evaders, but lack of connectivity. The subway/lightrail is great, but unusable if I have to walk 1 mile to the subway stop because buses aren’t near and reliable.
Leave a Comment