urbanSTL

Let me break this down in case some people are unaware of how it works. I've jumped on the train without a ticket a handful of times for various reasons, maybe like 5 times out of thousands of rides. Maybe I didn't have time to get a ticket, my monthly pass expired, I had a $20 and didn't want all the coins, various sh*t like that. Well, once I got caught. Just my luck. Here's how it works. You have to show up at the courthouse (or supposed to show up anyway) for few minutes where you will receive a warning. Everyone gets one warning. That's the deal.

I personally believe riding without a ticket is well north of single digits. Just my opinion.

There's a lot of culturally bankrupt sh*t that happens on Metrolink pretty regularly. It doesn't take a full on assault or murder to make it unpleasant for most people.

This isn't the one I recall, but there does appear to be some rigor applied. Note they assume a 6% fare evasion rate:



http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009 ... heir-cost/

L.A. was a test subject of sorts and is discussed fairly extensively.

MUCH more difficult to ride free on the LA system. I'd say on the underground stops it's nearly impossible, you would basically have to jump the turnstiles. I don't know much about the above ground stops in LA but if it's like St. Louis then obviously it's incredibly easy.

I get it though. If someone has $15 to their name who wants blow $2.75 of it on the Metrolink when there is a low probability of getting caught?

bprop wrote:

billikens&bricks wrote:Someone enlighten me...what is the argument against turnstiles? Too expensive? Not cost effective?

correct

According to a U of Maryland study (I think?) the simple payback period from gaining otherwise lost fare revenue would be something like 20 years. It doesn't take into account the peace of mind factor but it also doesn't take into account things like actually enforcing the turnstiles against doubling up and hopping the fence. Metro claims fare evasion is in the low, low single digits.

We could say that if they had installed turnstyles when the system was created, then they would have already paid for themselves.

And I don't believe for one second that fare violations are in the single digits.

downtown2007 wrote:

bprop wrote:

billikens&bricks wrote:Someone enlighten me...what is the argument against turnstiles? Too expensive? Not cost effective?

correct

According to a U of Maryland study (I think?) the simple payback period from gaining otherwise lost fare revenue would be something like 20 years. It doesn't take into account the peace of mind factor but it also doesn't take into account things like actually enforcing the turnstiles against doubling up and hopping the fence. Metro claims fare evasion is in the low, low single digits.

We could say that if they had installed turnstyles when the system was created, then they would have already paid for themselves.

And I don't believe for one second that fare violations are in the single digits.

Yes, but as the assumptions are based on a simple payback period - not taking into account a time value of money - 20 years is generally considered completely untenable. Also, as some people point out - the estimate depends on 100% fare recovery and no enforcement costs. It really is a non-starter economically.

Edit to add: me neither on the single digits.

Think metro gets a cut? Money for advertising?

moorlander wrote:
Think metro gets a cut? Money for advertising?

At least it's more of a private enterprise than most of the ads on Metro. I see a lot of ads for things like:

STD clinics
medical testing
"pay attention to your baby"
seemingly barely-legal social security frauds ("Get paid by the government to take care of family members!")

as well as a ton of ads for, you know, Metro itself.


And don't get me started on the "Don't be that guy" campaign...

To me, the main problem is there isn't any actual, significant fare enforcement going on. The claimed 22 STL County cops that are assigned to the system are rarely to never there, and the rented Securitas employees rebranded as Metro fare inspectors can't and don't really do anything.

Metro needs to look closely at its contract and try to see if the police presence it is paying for is actual patrolling the system before wasting any more money on non-existent police patrols.

Let's make Guliani the head of Metro. It's the basics and then a full on police presence. There are too many idiots that ride the trains and they seem to know that they won't be ticketed without paying fare.
Oh and also, concealed carry should be legal. No question. I'm sure some people are carrying right now...and I'm not talking about people with Concealed carry licenses...

moorlander wrote:

Think metro gets a cut? Money for advertising?

This is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time, coming from someone who lives right off Chippewa.

I've ridden metrolink a few times recently. What's with the younger guys trying to get passengers to BUY black lives matter material? I told him I'd take the information but he said it was only available if I paid $5.00. Is this legal on Metro? It's essentially aggressive panhandling and I'm sure people who are scared feel forced into buying them. Overall the trains seem safe and packed aside from this.
Also security seems somewhat "selective" in who they ticket/fine when they can't show proof of a valid ticket. I'm not the only one that has noticed this... The metrolink needs actual police and not "security" guards that have zero authority.

bprop wrote:This isn't the one I recall, but there does appear to be some rigor applied. Note they assume a 6% fare evasion rate:



http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009 ... heir-cost/

L.A. was a test subject of sorts and is discussed fairly extensively.

Just for clarity, what is the cost for installing turnstiles at the worst offending stations? Can't we select which stations having turnstiles would have the largest affect? Seems like Metro should have data on which stations have the largest problems.

ttricamo wrote:

bprop wrote:This isn't the one I recall, but there does appear to be some rigor applied. Note they assume a 6% fare evasion rate:



http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009 ... heir-cost/

L.A. was a test subject of sorts and is discussed fairly extensively.

Just for clarity, what is the cost for installing turnstiles at the worst offending stations? Can't we select which stations having turnstiles would have the largest affect? Seems like Metro should have data on which stations have the largest problems.

The linked report makes an interesting observation about that very idea.

Los Angeles is saving costs by not installing turnstiles at every station, and it could be argued that by installing them only at high-ridership locales, the agency will be eliminating most of the fare evasion. But doing so may in fact produce a negative effect: it may well increase the rate of passengers choosing not to buy tickets at the stations without fare gates, since they would be more assured of their not being fined by a roving fare checker.

^ I think it makes more sense to have fare gates at every station. Then you can have distance or zone based fares that tracks the entry and exit station. It's not just about handling fare evasion, it's also about implementing fares that make sense.

^ That makes sense. As long as there is a card tap at the point of entry and point of exit, I guess it could theoretically work. But if for some reason a card tap isn't done or isn't registered, the system would have to default to the standard fare that doesn't necessarily make sense. Fare gates ensure that the system knows the point of entry and exit for 100% of trips without fail.

To me it is outrageous that it costs the same to go a couple hundred yards from Union Station to Civic Center as it does to go from Shrewsbury to Fairview Heights.

It is also outrageous that Metro isn't charging for parking at its Park & Ride lots, thus offsetting these costs onto non-driving customers. But that is another issue altogether. I would think that the smart card system could result in automated parking fee collection at the Park & Rides, although I would rather see some of these Park & Rides developed (e.g. Forest Park station).

KSDK - Person of interest ID'd in MetroLink attack

It's an attack on the MetroLink that's gone viral online, and the victim, police say, was a security guard.

Police said a 22-year-old woman was beating up a security guard who asked to see her ticket to ride the train at the North Hanley MetroLink stop Monday morning at around 7 a.m.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/crime/person-o ... /258645848

What a b****......

If she didn't like the tone or temperament of the guard.......file a complaint with Metro.

She needs to be banned from riding MetroLink for 5 years.

Walk, b****!

Audio surveillance on mass transit systems is all about passenger safety, according to officials. But civil liberties advocates call it a ‘gross violation of privacy.’ And they recently won the debate in New Jersey, where the program on some light-rail lines was shut down
http://www.csoonline.com/article/309050 ... ching.html