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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.