<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Are Turnstiles Worth Their Cost?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/17/are-turnstiles-worth-their-cost/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/17/are-turnstiles-worth-their-cost/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:32:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Madam_S</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/17/are-turnstiles-worth-their-cost/#comment-6548</link>
		<dc:creator>Madam_S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:16:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3323#comment-6548</guid>
		<description>Great forum here, with both sides debated.  I had read Stanger&#039;s analysis long ago, and thought it was very interesting.  I recently read the Metro rebuttal, but was not impressed.  
Many points remain:
1.  Metro assumes 100% effectiveness of gates;
2.  Maintenance and staffing required for gates are ignored, though significant. 
3.  Metro ignores cost of new tickets (new &quot;fare media&quot;);
4.  Fines can be increased.  
Also, please stop claiming that LA should do this because other cities do it.  This argument is meaningless, since many cities do without it (in N. America and Europe).  
It&#039;s interesting that this page says it&#039;ll take 16 years to recoup capital investment, while Metro numbers say 9-10.  However, neither accounts for non-capital costs, and neither will be accurate, since these propositions always underestimate costs and overestimate benefits.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great forum here, with both sides debated.  I had read Stanger&#8217;s analysis long ago, and thought it was very interesting.  I recently read the Metro rebuttal, but was not impressed.<br />
Many points remain:<br />
1.  Metro assumes 100% effectiveness of gates;<br />
2.  Maintenance and staffing required for gates are ignored, though significant.<br />
3.  Metro ignores cost of new tickets (new &#8220;fare media&#8221;);<br />
4.  Fines can be increased.<br />
Also, please stop claiming that LA should do this because other cities do it.  This argument is meaningless, since many cities do without it (in N. America and Europe).<br />
It&#8217;s interesting that this page says it&#8217;ll take 16 years to recoup capital investment, while Metro numbers say 9-10.  However, neither accounts for non-capital costs, and neither will be accurate, since these propositions always underestimate costs and overestimate benefits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/17/are-turnstiles-worth-their-cost/#comment-6546</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:16:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3323#comment-6546</guid>
		<description>A big reason for pushing forward on the Metro fare gate project is to allow Metro to impose zone fares on the rail system. You won’t find this in Board report but only by talking to staff.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A big reason for pushing forward on the Metro fare gate project is to allow Metro to impose zone fares on the rail system. You won’t find this in Board report but only by talking to staff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jake</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/17/are-turnstiles-worth-their-cost/#comment-5114</link>
		<dc:creator>Jake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:16:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3323#comment-5114</guid>
		<description>Untrue, Al Roads, lots of systems use the inspection or &quot;fare-check&quot; method besides LA...Seattle&#039;s one. The barrier method might make people feel better, but it&#039;s worth discussing whether it&#039;s truly effective.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Untrue, Al Roads, lots of systems use the inspection or &#8220;fare-check&#8221; method besides LA&#8230;Seattle&#8217;s one. The barrier method might make people feel better, but it&#8217;s worth discussing whether it&#8217;s truly effective.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tyler</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/17/are-turnstiles-worth-their-cost/#comment-5050</link>
		<dc:creator>Tyler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:53:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3323#comment-5050</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m shocked that you didn&#039;t consider a more cost effective system like Toronto&#039;s.

With over 1 million daily riders and only 69 stations... It would only take 5 and a half years to pay that back.  If they last 30 years then that is nearly a 6 fold return on investment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m shocked that you didn&#8217;t consider a more cost effective system like Toronto&#8217;s.</p>
<p>With over 1 million daily riders and only 69 stations&#8230; It would only take 5 and a half years to pay that back.  If they last 30 years then that is nearly a 6 fold return on investment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Al Roads</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/17/are-turnstiles-worth-their-cost/#comment-5009</link>
		<dc:creator>Al Roads</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3323#comment-5009</guid>
		<description>The 6% evasion rate is definitely low. All you have to do is stand one of the fare barriers in Union Station and see how many people try to enter without a valid pass. Some didn&#039;t even know you had to pay to ride the system, which says something about the current fare inspection force.

TAP has been available for about a year now. Granted, most people with TAP cards do not tap on a validator, but that should change with gates. The data the agency collects with TAP enforcement has invaluable worth when it comes to route planning, train frequency, future allocation of resources, etc.

RE: the Stanger report, every point was refuted by MTA. Will there be issues/problems with gates as they are introduced to an open system for the first time? Of course. But Los Angeles is the only subway system in the country without a barrier system. I&#039;m glad we&#039;re taking steps to catch up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 6% evasion rate is definitely low. All you have to do is stand one of the fare barriers in Union Station and see how many people try to enter without a valid pass. Some didn&#8217;t even know you had to pay to ride the system, which says something about the current fare inspection force.</p>
<p>TAP has been available for about a year now. Granted, most people with TAP cards do not tap on a validator, but that should change with gates. The data the agency collects with TAP enforcement has invaluable worth when it comes to route planning, train frequency, future allocation of resources, etc.</p>
<p>RE: the Stanger report, every point was refuted by MTA. Will there be issues/problems with gates as they are introduced to an open system for the first time? Of course. But Los Angeles is the only subway system in the country without a barrier system. I&#8217;m glad we&#8217;re taking steps to catch up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lisa Schweitzer</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/17/are-turnstiles-worth-their-cost/#comment-4707</link>
		<dc:creator>Lisa Schweitzer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:31:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3323#comment-4707</guid>
		<description>I think one of MTA&#039;s hopes here is that they will get a better count of ridership in general, not just deal with fare evaders and they may be right. There&#039;s no way to track pass usage, for example. The transit police check, but there&#039;s no count for riders if somebody has a regional pass or an interagency pass. You get data on who purchased the pass, and you can catch these trips on the buses, but you don&#039;t get this data on the trains. So it should help the MTA link up some trips. 

Even with TAP cards-- I&quot;ve been guilty of this--I hold a monthly pass, but if I am running for the train or being absent-minded that day, I sometimes, don&#039;t bother passing my card over the reader. I will do so on my way out so that the trip is counted somewhere, but it&#039;ll be counted at North Hollywood instead of 7th street. Bad. So the turnstiles will stop me that from happening. Given how many of us wind up running for the train, I have trouble believing I am the only one who does that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think one of MTA&#8217;s hopes here is that they will get a better count of ridership in general, not just deal with fare evaders and they may be right. There&#8217;s no way to track pass usage, for example. The transit police check, but there&#8217;s no count for riders if somebody has a regional pass or an interagency pass. You get data on who purchased the pass, and you can catch these trips on the buses, but you don&#8217;t get this data on the trains. So it should help the MTA link up some trips. </p>
<p>Even with TAP cards&#8211; I&#8221;ve been guilty of this&#8211;I hold a monthly pass, but if I am running for the train or being absent-minded that day, I sometimes, don&#8217;t bother passing my card over the reader. I will do so on my way out so that the trip is counted somewhere, but it&#8217;ll be counted at North Hollywood instead of 7th street. Bad. So the turnstiles will stop me that from happening. Given how many of us wind up running for the train, I have trouble believing I am the only one who does that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wad</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/17/are-turnstiles-worth-their-cost/#comment-4371</link>
		<dc:creator>Wad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 06:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3323#comment-4371</guid>
		<description>From a MetroRiderLA post contributed by Spokker, who also posts here:

&lt;i&gt;A 2007 article puts fare evasion higher, though I wonder if the study was somehow skewed to make fare gates look better.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/26/local/me-evade26

Blue Line weekdays and Saturday: 5%
Blue Line Sunday: 8.2%

Red Line weekday: 4.4%
Red line weekends 6-7%

Green Line weekday: 6%
Green Line weekend: 8%

Gold Line weekday: 3%
Gold Line weekend: 4%

Orange Line weekdays and Sunday: 5%
Orange Line saturday: 6%&lt;/i&gt;

At these levels on POP lines right now, the worst fare evasion rate is 8%. For one thing, this is not a critical level. Second, the fare gates are being installed on the Red Line (subway), which has a lower than average fare evasion rate on weekdays and average on weekends.

Also, I&#039;ve been having a hard time finding a study online about which method was better: fare barriers or proof-of-payment? It had surveyed about two dozen North American agencies, including Los Angeles, with a sample of both fare-enforcement methods.

All the agencies reported had more than 90% rates of compliance. No agency reported 100% compliance.

When fare gates and POP were averaged together, the fare gate systems had an advantage of only 1-2 percentage points over POP. The fare gate systems were not uniformly better, as a few POP systems had better compliance rates than some of the worse gated systems.

The report said the 1-2 percent difference was not statistically significant enough to determine conclusively that one system was better than another. Also, the report implied that switching costs are too high, and advised transit agencies to stick with the systems they have.

No system has ever reported 100% compliance, so Metro is basing calculations on assumptions no agency has ever reached. At best, Metro can only hope to reduce subway fare delinquency to 2.4% -- which would likely be one of the best rates in North America. It&#039;s an admirable goal, but ludicrous at the same time.

The Green Line can also be sealed off, since it is entirely elevated. It has worse than average delinquency, yet 2% only pushes it to average or above average. The Gold Line has the lowest fare delinquency rates, and only about half of the stations can be gated.

The Blue Line has higher than average rates, yet there are only 6 or so stations that can be plausibly sealed off with gates. Fare barriers can be easily avoided here, so they&#039;d be useless.

If you used Richard Stanger&#039;s calculations of fare recovery and estimated loss of revenue, and figured a $100 million capital investment for the gates, maintenance and fare-card system integration, Metro would need the gates in place for 37 years to recover the costs of the system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From a MetroRiderLA post contributed by Spokker, who also posts here:</p>
<p><i>A 2007 article puts fare evasion higher, though I wonder if the study was somehow skewed to make fare gates look better.</p>
<p><a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/26/local/me-evade26" rel="nofollow">http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/26/local/me-evade26</a></p>
<p>Blue Line weekdays and Saturday: 5%<br />
Blue Line Sunday: 8.2%</p>
<p>Red Line weekday: 4.4%<br />
Red line weekends 6-7%</p>
<p>Green Line weekday: 6%<br />
Green Line weekend: 8%</p>
<p>Gold Line weekday: 3%<br />
Gold Line weekend: 4%</p>
<p>Orange Line weekdays and Sunday: 5%<br />
Orange Line saturday: 6%</i></p>
<p>At these levels on POP lines right now, the worst fare evasion rate is 8%. For one thing, this is not a critical level. Second, the fare gates are being installed on the Red Line (subway), which has a lower than average fare evasion rate on weekdays and average on weekends.</p>
<p>Also, I&#8217;ve been having a hard time finding a study online about which method was better: fare barriers or proof-of-payment? It had surveyed about two dozen North American agencies, including Los Angeles, with a sample of both fare-enforcement methods.</p>
<p>All the agencies reported had more than 90% rates of compliance. No agency reported 100% compliance.</p>
<p>When fare gates and POP were averaged together, the fare gate systems had an advantage of only 1-2 percentage points over POP. The fare gate systems were not uniformly better, as a few POP systems had better compliance rates than some of the worse gated systems.</p>
<p>The report said the 1-2 percent difference was not statistically significant enough to determine conclusively that one system was better than another. Also, the report implied that switching costs are too high, and advised transit agencies to stick with the systems they have.</p>
<p>No system has ever reported 100% compliance, so Metro is basing calculations on assumptions no agency has ever reached. At best, Metro can only hope to reduce subway fare delinquency to 2.4% &#8212; which would likely be one of the best rates in North America. It&#8217;s an admirable goal, but ludicrous at the same time.</p>
<p>The Green Line can also be sealed off, since it is entirely elevated. It has worse than average delinquency, yet 2% only pushes it to average or above average. The Gold Line has the lowest fare delinquency rates, and only about half of the stations can be gated.</p>
<p>The Blue Line has higher than average rates, yet there are only 6 or so stations that can be plausibly sealed off with gates. Fare barriers can be easily avoided here, so they&#8217;d be useless.</p>
<p>If you used Richard Stanger&#8217;s calculations of fare recovery and estimated loss of revenue, and figured a $100 million capital investment for the gates, maintenance and fare-card system integration, Metro would need the gates in place for 37 years to recover the costs of the system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Parker</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/17/are-turnstiles-worth-their-cost/#comment-4360</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Parker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:21:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3323#comment-4360</guid>
		<description>You note that there is currently a 6% fare evasion rate right now based on spot check systems.   But systems that have turnstiles have a similar fare evasion rate, sometimes worse.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You note that there is currently a 6% fare evasion rate right now based on spot check systems.   But systems that have turnstiles have a similar fare evasion rate, sometimes worse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spokker</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/17/are-turnstiles-worth-their-cost/#comment-4181</link>
		<dc:creator>Spokker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:09:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3323#comment-4181</guid>
		<description>Hahaha, wow, I was under the assumption that TAP wasn&#039;t going to be a Big Brother thing. I actually had faith that Metro wasn&#039;t lying to me when they said that information on where and when you TAP was not going to be accessed by anybody. 

http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2008/02_February/20080228RBMItem36.pdf

&quot;Electronic trip data can be retrieved and provides
evidence of where and when the offender entered the system.&quot;

And drivers throw a fit when anyone suggests installing a GPS tracker on their car to figure out how much they drive for the purpose of a VMT tax. Transit riders take this stuff lying down. 

But it&#039;s not like proof of payment systems can ever catch criminals...

http://laist.com/2009/08/17/year-long_murder_suspect_caught_dur.php

Yeah, let&#039;s move from police officers checking fares to blind turnstiles. *rolls eyes*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hahaha, wow, I was under the assumption that TAP wasn&#8217;t going to be a Big Brother thing. I actually had faith that Metro wasn&#8217;t lying to me when they said that information on where and when you TAP was not going to be accessed by anybody. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2008/02_February/20080228RBMItem36.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2008/02_February/20080228RBMItem36.pdf</a></p>
<p>&#8220;Electronic trip data can be retrieved and provides<br />
evidence of where and when the offender entered the system.&#8221;</p>
<p>And drivers throw a fit when anyone suggests installing a GPS tracker on their car to figure out how much they drive for the purpose of a VMT tax. Transit riders take this stuff lying down. </p>
<p>But it&#8217;s not like proof of payment systems can ever catch criminals&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://laist.com/2009/08/17/year-long_murder_suspect_caught_dur.php" rel="nofollow">http://laist.com/2009/08/17/year-long_murder_suspect_caught_dur.php</a></p>
<p>Yeah, let&#8217;s move from police officers checking fares to blind turnstiles. *rolls eyes*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spokker</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/17/are-turnstiles-worth-their-cost/#comment-4180</link>
		<dc:creator>Spokker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:56:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3323#comment-4180</guid>
		<description>I can already see a couple things that are wrong with MTA&#039;s rebuttal.

&quot;Is it clear how the two fare
systems [Metrolink and Metro] will
work together?

UFS was designed to be a regional system
and Metrolink is a TAP participant who
received regional funding to become
compatible. How the systems will work
together is based on business rules and fare
policies.&quot;

Metrolink is not implementing TAP. They have stated that it is cost prohibitive.

&quot;What will be the fare media costs
and passenger inconvenience to
Metrolink riders.

Fare media costs were not considered as part
of the Faregating Analysis since smartcard
fare media will be required regardless of fare
gates. Fare media is not a deterrent to patron
convenience. Metro pass riders transferring to
Muni operators must carry a separate
interagency transfer today, and vice versa.&quot;

Metrolink riders do not have to carry a separate interagency transfer today. All one-way, round-trip, 10-trip and monthly passes are also EZ-Transit passes which allow full use of Metro Rail on the day or month the ticket is good for. 

Since Metrolink is not moving to TAP, they have to utilize resources to get customers who transfer to Metro rail and bus lines on TAP. First, transfers for one-way and round-trip riders are being discontinued and this will go into effect once the fare gates are operational. Second, 10-trip and monthly passholders will have to get TAP cards. On their Metrolink pass there will be a coupon code that can be used to load a monthly Metro pass onto their TAP card for &quot;free&quot; (actually, Metrolink riders partially pay for the cost of transfers in the ticket or pass price whether they transfer or not).

From then on monthly and 10-trip ticket holders will have to carry two passes if they intend to transfer to Metro. One-way and round-trip riders will have to purchase separate one-way tickets or day passes to transfer, further increasing the cost and inconvenience of taking public transit. Metrolink has decided that they can only support their bread and butter passengers, which are monthly passholders. This is good for retaining ridership, but is it good for growing ridership? 

We should be working toward a system that is as easy to use as possible.  We need interagency cooperation, not a system that is even more fragmented than it is now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can already see a couple things that are wrong with MTA&#8217;s rebuttal.</p>
<p>&#8220;Is it clear how the two fare<br />
systems [Metrolink and Metro] will<br />
work together?</p>
<p>UFS was designed to be a regional system<br />
and Metrolink is a TAP participant who<br />
received regional funding to become<br />
compatible. How the systems will work<br />
together is based on business rules and fare<br />
policies.&#8221;</p>
<p>Metrolink is not implementing TAP. They have stated that it is cost prohibitive.</p>
<p>&#8220;What will be the fare media costs<br />
and passenger inconvenience to<br />
Metrolink riders.</p>
<p>Fare media costs were not considered as part<br />
of the Faregating Analysis since smartcard<br />
fare media will be required regardless of fare<br />
gates. Fare media is not a deterrent to patron<br />
convenience. Metro pass riders transferring to<br />
Muni operators must carry a separate<br />
interagency transfer today, and vice versa.&#8221;</p>
<p>Metrolink riders do not have to carry a separate interagency transfer today. All one-way, round-trip, 10-trip and monthly passes are also EZ-Transit passes which allow full use of Metro Rail on the day or month the ticket is good for. </p>
<p>Since Metrolink is not moving to TAP, they have to utilize resources to get customers who transfer to Metro rail and bus lines on TAP. First, transfers for one-way and round-trip riders are being discontinued and this will go into effect once the fare gates are operational. Second, 10-trip and monthly passholders will have to get TAP cards. On their Metrolink pass there will be a coupon code that can be used to load a monthly Metro pass onto their TAP card for &#8220;free&#8221; (actually, Metrolink riders partially pay for the cost of transfers in the ticket or pass price whether they transfer or not).</p>
<p>From then on monthly and 10-trip ticket holders will have to carry two passes if they intend to transfer to Metro. One-way and round-trip riders will have to purchase separate one-way tickets or day passes to transfer, further increasing the cost and inconvenience of taking public transit. Metrolink has decided that they can only support their bread and butter passengers, which are monthly passholders. This is good for retaining ridership, but is it good for growing ridership? </p>
<p>We should be working toward a system that is as easy to use as possible.  We need interagency cooperation, not a system that is even more fragmented than it is now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
