mta turnstiles may have a hidden agenda
This blog has moved to Twitter! Check out my twitter feed for the latest restaurant, retail, and cultural news in the neighborhood.
Two weeks ago I wrote an opinion piece about the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s plans to install 275 gates throughout our subway and light rail stations over the next 18 months. A study commissioned by the MTA justifies these new “gates” by quoting recouped evaded fares and “other savings.”
The issue elicited some intense discussions from our commenters about the practicality of the turnstiles and how effective they would be.
I made it very clear in my argument that I support MTA’s effort, mostly from a safety perspective. To quote myself, “Has anyone considered the new passenger gates could bring more to our transit system than financial gain? How about improved safety, order and cleanliness?”
Well, it seems safety is exactly what the MTA has in mind, but not in the way you think.
A writer for the LA Weekly contacted me to discuss the turnstile issue for his scrutinizing look at the MTA’s new plan, which was published today - MTA’s Plan to Gate L.A. I get a couple quotes on the second page.
As many of us already surmised, our metro stations’ new gated entries are most likely the first phase to implement an electronic “Total Access Pass” card system. In fact, the Weekly’s article describes just that:
Without turnstiles, “we are likely to throw $80 million away,” on the Total Access Pass boondoggle, says Mike Bohlke, assistant deputy to board member and Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke, who voted for the gates. Matsumoto adds, “Automated fare collection is the vision of our board.”
But that vision goes beyond automated fare collection. Apparently, by requiring riders to use electronic ID “TAP” cards for metro access, the MTA will be able to track and monitor who is traveling on the trains. In today’s terrorist-paranoid world, electronic trip data is seen as a valuable tool to help capture suspects — not to mention position the MTA to capture a nice chunk of Homeland Security funding.
The author of the article suggests this new “security scheme” may be a ruse to justify a gated system that is essential to execute MTA’s grand vision of distance-based fares, which would surely boost the authority’s revenue stream.
All this dubious talk leads me to believe it’s a combination of the two funding schemes. We all know the transit agency is strapped for cash, but why not just state that distance-based fares are in the works?
Furthermore, if the MTA is planning to trim its operating costs by reducing the security presence on trains, one has to ask: Are they interested in attracting more riders to a safer system, or are they just after a bigger slice of the federal dollar pie?
-los angeles subway turnstiles? yes, please!
-new metro station monitors to show train schedules
21 comments
I don’t really see this “hidden agenda” as a bad thing. When it comes to federal money supporting public transportation, LA is already getting screwed. So if these gates help provide some leverage for the MTA to get more money, then more power to them. I am not a criminal, or plan on being one so i could care less if they can track my ridings, homeland security already has so many other ways of tracking me.
Its a possibility that the MTA is getting gates started now, so that when the whole system expands and the amount of riders multiplies, it wont be as large of a task later.
The writer of the LA weekly article is trying to make the MTA look like some evil bureaucracy, which by removing the honor system is going to destroy our civic pride. First of all, in LA there is no civic pride derived from public transportation, in fact the majority of Angelenos I know that live on the west side, were not even aware that LA had a subway. Our system at this point is so small and unusable, that anything the MTA does at this point goes unnoticed by the unconcerned majority.
Now if they tried to make a drastic change in the future, when hopefully a larger percentage of people living in LA will be utilizing the expanding system, then it might hurt or collective “civic pride”, maybe. Seriously though, I don’t know why the writer is trying to make this look like a move fueled by corporate greed. If the purple line ever makes it “to the sea” the amount of riders will increase so drastically, that it would be impossible (or very expensive) to have enough fare inspectors. At that amount of ridership, it only makes sense to have turnstiles.
Having a turnstile system in place, can provide an environment of order which leads to civic responsibility and safety. I just finished reading a book, “The Tipping Point” by Malcolm Gladwell, in which he talks about something called the Broken Windows theory. “Broken Windows was the brainchild of the criminologist J. Q Wilson and G. Kelling. . . [they} argued that crime is the inevitable result of disorder. If a window is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that no one cares and no one is in charge. Soon more windows will be broken, and the sense of anarchy will spread for the building to the streets…” Gladwell then talks about how the New York subways were cleaned up in the early 90’s, when William Bratton was brought in to head the transit police. Bratton was a disciple of the “Broken Window” theory, and instead of focusing on serious crimes – felonies – he instead cracked down on fair beating. Why? Because he believed fare beating was a small expression of disorder that invited much more serious crimes. By the mid 90’s muggings, shootings, rapes, and other felonies taking place on the subway severely dropped by Bratton focusing on the small infractions that invited more serious crime.
Lets be honest, I use the Red line and Gold line about 3 to 4 times a week, and have only been asked to show my ticket twice. The amount of human inspector presence is very small to none. It seems like more often than not I see people walking right by the pay stations. Our rail system here in LA is not nearly as dangerous as the New York subways were in the 80’s and early 90’s, but there is a lesson to be learned. Revenue lost from fair evasion seems like a small, trivial reason to install a 30 million dollar turnstile system, but the environment of order provided by turnstiles can be a “tipping point” towards increased safety and increased usage.
whats wrong with the mta tracking me? its not like there gona arrest me for using there system. if anything they will use my positional information to tweak the system to eliminate some of the time sucking elements of a metro commute for me.
i dont carry bombs with me all day. i just want them to get out of the red and start building more lines
A subway with cameras but no fare gates is like a car with an alarm but no doors.
regarding the tap issue, after reading hundreds of articles and comments all over, i have found that, and this is a generalization, the people who tend to support these sorts of intrusions into one’s privacy are the same people who bitch about the government being too big and powerful. so folks willingly give away their rights to people they know they cannot trust. our government is composed of politicians, do you trust politicians?
it’s alot easier to give away rights than to get them back.
with the end of the soviet union came the death of the model of what not to be. since that reference point is lost, we can now become that which was once so vile.
that said, turnstiles are essential for a functional transit system and i like your comment, affrojuice. good call.
Do the LACMTA board members actually ride the trains that they want to gate? It seams again that the people making the decisions haven’t a clue of what is actually happening. I ride the Blue Red and Gold lines regularly and I am lucky if I see a Sheriff 5% of the time and at that they are on the platforms talking with each other and not on trains checking tickets. I am much more likely to see rowdy young adults and venders selling things in the isles than I am to see a Sheriff.
If there was enforcement with more frequently fair checking, the fair evaders would be reduced, there would be more income from citations and everyone would feel safer with a greater presence of the fair inspectors weather they are Sheriff’s, MTA Police or what ever would be the most efficient.
The cost of installing inconvenient barriers would pay for a lot of fair inspectors. Will the barriers and gates be any more reliable than the escalators, elevators and fair machines in operations now? Will the cost of maintaining them be any less then the cost of the fair inspectors which will also provide a scene of security with their presence?
Do they think that barriers will actually reduce panhandling, or the presence of “undesirables”? They will increase with the reduced presence of fair inspectors; they can afford to pay the fair and will be less likely to be caught also.
Come on now, let’s bring in more fair inspectors and give this a test before creating this ongoing barrier boondoggle. Please.
This is a quote from one who knows from the inside what is happening.
“Maybe it is all about getting money into the hands of consultants and contractors. The lost revenue is trivial. They simply want a fancy fare system, Cubic wants to sell it to them. The two of them will use fear of terrorists to sell it to us. It is a solution in search of a problem.
I kind of like the live fare checkers, and the fact that if they find someone without fare they get to ask them for ID, and often that leads to parole violations and other real criminals being caught.”
Alan Fishel
Long Beach
Do the people at the L.A. Weekly actually ride the trains that they’re commenting on? I ride it 3 or more days per week — Blue Line to Green Line — and would wholeheartedly welcome fare gates.
On the Broken Windows explaination, that’s Balderdash. Increased safety and ‘broken windows’ was done in NYC by increasing the maintenance and cleaning budget on the trains and stations and replacing broken down rolling stock with newer trains with brighter seats. THAT is what made the system appear safe, clean and efficent. It had jack to do with fare gates, the entire NYC subway was in disrepair.
With LA our Broken window has nothing to do with safety as they are trying to sell the faregates as but every thing to do with maintenance, clean trains and stations and better service thus luring more of the car riding public to use the system. You know what will happen when they purchase these fare gates more cuts in bus service because they can’t afford to maintain them.
I have nothing against the TAP card system, I’ve been wanting this for over 5 years but do we really need fare gates to implement this system? I believe that we don’t because, within the card there’s an imbedded program that automatically starts out with a maximum fare if someone doesn’t tap out, that will program riders pretty damn quick as to how to properly use the system. In addition, how they are setting up these faregates via remote control areas will go against every argument everyone has posted thus far, why does anyone need to use the TAP cards at all, all they need to do is hop over the gates or crawl under them, that would make this money down the drain only to make a bad “problem” worse.
Most of the problem is not that people aren’t paying the fare, it’s that riders aren’t paying the CORRECT fare. Some will make a mistake when they purchas a one way Metro rail ticket that is good throughout the rail system just as long as they a continuous one way trip even with a transfer. Will faregates solve this problem? No it doesn’t. Will the TAP card help this problem, Yes it will.
What happens when a family who is riding for first time have to pay their fare? Would there be temporary TAP cards or fare media in place or does the family have to enroll into the program before they can take their first discretionary ride? Where as without the fare gates they can simply pay the cash fare and ride while other TAP riders breeze on through. The fact of the matter is that these gates aren’t solving the problem in the guise of “improved safety”. In Chicago, Atlanta and other gated cities people pay their fares through turnstiles and you still have miscreants urinating in the subway stations, homeless riding the train as their mobile hotel and actual physcial altercations on the trains but hey weren’t the faregates there to stop them?
Then I was thinking about the future positioning of the TAP cards with distance based fares but when many of our future rail being Light Rail and it’s open design may make this idea a moot point.
Are we gating our Rapid buses with this set-up? No we’re not it’s simply tap on and tap out. Why are we only doing it on our subway when the bulk of our future track miles are on our Honor system platform designed Light Rail lines? Where is the room to install these gates on our Light Rail lines in such stations like Florence where the platform widths is only 10’6 and the platform barely holds a 3 car LRV where’s the space for these faregates to make this work fully? These are questions I’m only highlighting because the way this idea is being presented doesn’t make sense. It may suggest that LA should go with a zoned based fare system like many commuter rail systems and even San Diego and Denver’s Light Rail with peak/off peak fares. This would enforce a usable equity, a simple adjustable zoned fare structure and more riders and farebox recovery to the system and weed out the miscreants to the system since they would be paying the higher far the farther they go.
I do agree that the current farecheckers are not cost effective lets go with a cheaper more efficient model of hiring 3 part time transit operators for the price of 1 sheriffs deputy as the fare checkers this would have more bodies on the system and leave the LAPD and Sheriffs to their duties of combing out and patrolling the station areas.
If this started with just the busier Metro stations like Union or 7th/Metro, Imperial/Wilmington or Hollywood/Highland where there’s a lot of people yet not enough guards to enforce them, there it makes sense because it would re-allocate the supply to the demand instead of 4 sheriffs cracking jokes at one spot they’re mobile and observing and combing for intruders.
Quote by Alan Fischel:
“let’s bring in more fair inspectors and give this a test before creating this ongoing barrier boondoggle”
They’ve been doing the barrier free thing for 17 years…I don’t think its working.
car lovers have a hard time giving up their cars because their cars offer a barrier between them and the “undesirable” elements of the outside world. nothing unexpected happens in the car. they are not forced to sit next to or talk to people they do not want to associate with and don’t have to in their cars. it offers them the illusion of safety, sure they could be slaughtered in an accident at any minute, but the illusion is what’s important. installing fare gates creates another illusion. only good, law-abiding folk are allowed past these gates and onto public transportation. no more lawless roughnecks. this makes the possibility of riding public trans, for these people obsessed with the idea of their safety, more of a possibility and gets more of these people out of their cars. well, in theory at least.
affrojuice - look for a book called “the power broker, robert moses and the fall of new york” by robert caro. it’s amazing in sort of a broken window kind of way.
I wrote this a while back, critical of installation of fare gates
Iron Maiden? Bogus!
http://metrorider.elhay.net/2007/07/27/iron-maiden-bogus/
Fare gates are a simple-minded answer to the complex question of how to prevent fare evasion. The board that voted on this matter does not have much knowledge of public transportation, and their minds are only able to think up to some sort of barrier system as preventing fares.
APTA studied fare gates versus proof-of-payment boarding systems and found that the latter had a higher fare evasion rate of a whopping one percentage point. The other problem is that converting from one to another, in either case, has very high switching costs. Both systems have their advantages, but it is cost-prohibitive to go to the other once one is already in place.
But think about this. Is it worth $80 million to implement a system that will see a whopping one percentage point reduction in fare fraud?
Ever hear of game theory? It’s a silly name for a field of study applied to economic and social science decision-making, assuming the probabilities and outcomes of the actors.
Apply game theory to proof-of-payment collection system.
Here’s a mind-blowing revelation. It is in Metro’s interest to allow a certain level of fare evasion. This is not an official policy. Let me make that clear. But, here’s why some fare evasion is beneficial to Metro.
A general cash fare is $1.25. Under the current system, we already have a very high rate of compliance. A 100% compliance rate is operationally impossible under any system. A passenger that pays the $1.25 fare, is only paying 20 percent of his or her ride.
A fare delinquent runs the risk of a $250 fine if caught. It is now up to fare inspectors to catch them. Once that fine is paid, the delinquent ends up paying the cost of 40 unsubsidized rides. (The 20% fare recovery assumes a cost of a boarding at $6.25, with $5 subsidizing every $1.25 fare).
The $250 penalty is a hefty premium, and this is why only a few have to be cited in order for the program to work, even when not every delinquent is caught.
A corollary: if you increase enforcement, you end up decreasing the delinquency revenue. As enforcement increases, more people begin to have the proper fare. That also means Metro can expect less from delinquencies and more losses because more people pay 20% of one fare rather than 40 fares at full cost.
A better strategy is to reassign fare inspectors to hours with high delinquency, and use the element of surprise to its advantage. Shift around enforcement so riders don’t detect a pattern and respond to the feedback loop.
“it offers them the illusion of safety, sure they could be slaughtered in an accident at any minute, but the illusion is what’s important. installing fare gates creates another illusion.”
Now let’s put this parameter in place of enforcing this illusion of safety These are the same folks who want a quick trip and short wait, once they’re past the gate and they’re reach the train platform and they want to get somewhere quickly but they’re waiting 10-20 minutes for the train, will these same riders consistently endure the long wait?
Mind you they’re in a mentally perceived safe environment because they have peace of mind that the faregates are there but they are taking a longer time to reach their destination because the service is slower but they are more relaxed because they’re not fighting with traffic.
Within that time frame a panhandler has paid his or her fare walks onto the platform and aggresively asks for change/money or a group of teenagers are full of testosterone and youth have paid their fares and are verbally insulting and joking about passengers on the platform. Will this perception of safety still hold true when these fare paying riders enter the platform while the said choice rider is waiting on the platform for the train?
I’ll add on more thing to this “illusion of safety” and I’ll move on. Suppose these fare gates are installed but you don’t physically see an attendant at or near the fare gates. Will this illusion of safety still exist or will it evaporate immediately because there’s no one there to guard the situation?
If you say yes, this will evaporate the safety element. Join the club because this is what Metro is proposing in the study and report.
Going by the APTA survey that tried to answer which fare collection system was better, the conclusion was that both are just about as equally effective.
In all systems, most riders are honest. Fare delinquency was slightly lower on proof-of-payment systems. However, the study also warned that the cost of converting from one system to the other was so high that no benefits are going to be realized.
That also applies to barrier systems such as New York’s, which had entertained the idea of going to the honor system after crowds stampeded out of the subways during 9-11 but the gates — many floor to ceiling “iron maidens” — created an hourglass effect.
The other thing is we only perceive fare delinquency. I see many people not dropping by a farebox. I never do. Then again, I have a pass. So does a large percentage of Metro’s daily ridership. It is then up to the deputies/inspectors to check tickets. And when they do check, they’ll find most passengers have the valid fares.
cochon, i will check out that book….thanks for the suggestion.
They’ve been doing it for 18 years and it IS working…97% of people pay the fares.
This is all just a secret agenda to help get distance-based fare implemented. BART has them in San Francisco, and they have not been able to do much capital improvement on the system. They’ve just been able to pay part of their operating costs, just like MTA. Distance-based fares are not a panacea!
Let’s just use Occam’s razor here folks: the simpler the better. Honor system with paper tickets and passes checked by fare inspectors is just simpler and easier.
Fortunately, technology allows us to have vending machines that print the tickets as they are purchased, so we don’t have to employ human clerks at ticket booths. We save money there.
Just increase the fare inspectors, you’ll increase fare compliance. You’re never going to get to 100% even if you do put up cages to hem the cattle that ride the system (that’s how the MTA views us anyway).
More roving fare inspectors would also have the benefit of deterring crime in the stations and trains.
This is a load of crap. NO TURNSTILES! NO GATES! WE ARE NOT LIVESTOCK!!
Occam’s razor and game theory. Damn, I like it. Blog on.
In my opinion, those who have issues with MTA’s turnstile proposals are dragging a lot of baggage into the station with them.
A ruse to track and monitor our movements over the rails? Turnstiles built by evil defense contractors? A covert move to go to the cruel and unusual punishment of distance-based fares? A play on our fears of traveling underground with terrorists and transients?
Please. Much ado about nothing, really. Methinks it’s much about scale and timing.
Scale: Here we are with this infant system (LA: 73 miles; NYC: 714 miles) and some of us are thinking that ridership and the “honor system” are somehow connected. They aren’t. When has anyone in LA ever overheard this downtown conversation:
“Let’s drive to Santa Monica. We can take the 10. ”
“OK. But I’d much rather take a subway-without-turnstiles - if only there was one.”
Build it and we will ride it. Ridership goes up with mileage served and nobody gives a rat’s @ss about turnstiles.
Timing? Because we don’t yet have an extensive system people question the need for turnstiles. Good point…for now. But one day there will be more miles (Gold Line extension and Expo Line are on the way) and as the system grows, our little system will have to grow up and act like a mature system.
I can understand Alan Fishel’s perception of “a solution in search of a problem.” But a decade ago I recall people wondering “Why should the Green Line go to the airport? Why should my taxes go to tourist travel? It should go to El Segundo where the jobs are!” So it now goes to El Segundo where the jobs aren’t and everybody’s on MTA’s case for not running the line to LAX.
So, we plan for the future.
The primary purposes of the MTA are to:
1. Increase the power and wealth of MTA management, and
2. to collect state and federal subsidies to enhance the power and thus the wealth of the county supervisors.
Should they install turnstiles? That depends on whether it advances their primary goals. The current system allows them to whine about freeriders, which covers up their remarkable incompetence wrt signage, etc. This is advantageous now, but eventually they will be expected to fix the problem. The first response is tougher enforcement employing sheriff’s deputies, who are undoubtedly available at a cheap rate if not free. They collect huge fines, which certainly enrich the county coffers if not the MTA itself, probably effecting a net increase in income to county agencies without reducing subsidies.
Some — probably most — of those fines are due to the MTA’s unique “one way ticket” scam, which also enhances their phony freerider statistics. Anywhere else in the world, “one way” means one direction for any distance within the sytem, but the MTA uses a unique “one ride on one link in the system” which is not explained unless you happen to hear about it or are berated, handcuffed, threatened, and fined by an armed deputy with his finger on the pepper spray. The scam works because there is no government agency with authority to protect consumers from systematic fraud by a government agency.
Turnstiles are worthwhile to the MTA if their subsidies are at risk without them, or if they will increase net revenue to all agencies within the jurisdiction of the county supervisors. If the state and federal govts start grumbling, that could force the issue. Otherwise it depends on whether they can get enough additional subsidy for the installation and operation of turnstiles to offset the loss of revenue from fines. Since there will be no one to assist in case of malfunctions, people who fall for the “one way ticket” scam will either decide to leave or buy another ticket or assume a malfunction and go around the turnstile. The latter will undoubtedly result in a far larger fine than the current $201. It might actually increase revenue.
Scott, 97% of the riders DO NOT pay their fare… riding the train 5 days out of the week, a day DOES NOT go by where I don’t here atleast someone claim that they never pay the fare. Turnstiles will force these people pay their fare so that the MTA doesn’t increase the fare price for those of us who DO pay it… with increases in gas prices you know that they’re thinking about raising the prices again but that may not be necessary if they can get all of the riders to pay.
I got “busted” for not knowing I had to pay a second fair after getting off the Red Line and transferring to the Blue Line. I thought as long as you were moving away from the point at where you bought your ticket you could just keep on riding. I bought my ticket at Civic Center (after coming from the Ronald Reagan building), I went 2 stops on the Red, got off at 7th St. Metro Center Station, and jumped on the Blue Line to go back to Long Beach. Sitting on the Blue Line at the 7th St. Metro Center Station they do a ticket check before the train takes off. I show my ticket bought just 10 minutes before at Civic Center and the officer says that it’s no good! I’m shocked! And I try to explain it to him, but he doesn’t believe me, and writes me a ticket. If there was a turnstile I would not have been able to have made such a mistake. So I think the turnstile is needed. Also, does anyone know how I should fight this ticket?
Leave a Comment