urbanSTL

If you think these are ugly just wait until you see the fences they’ll have to surround some entire station areas with to make them actually “controlled access”.

They’re not wrong to do so. If they just put it in front of the sidewalk someone will eventually figure out how to walk around, on to the tracks, and on to the platform.

Everyone’s transit experience will just be like sitting in a cattle barn, or the inside of an Ameren substation, or a jail yard.

Debaliviere91 wrote:

sc4mayor wrote:I started warming up to turnstiles when they announced the new fare collection system.  Granted I thought it would look more like what Vancouver and dozens of other cities have done with lower-profile fare gates and being able to easily swipe in.  I could have gotten behind that, in fact I would have really liked it.

This is just plain ugly and overkill.  Fare evasion isn't even a problem...in my experience it's is pretty far down the list of things your average suburbanite sites when they say they won't ride MetroLink.

So many better options...and we get something that resemble cages.

I totally agree that the turnstiles are ugly and a bit overkill. Curious on your point that fare evasion isn’t a problem. I ride from Forest Park a couple times a month and I have never paid a fare nor seen anyone pay a fare because their is no enforcement. Is there an estimation for what $$’s we lose from fare evasion annually?

So are you saying the turnstiles are overkill because you can't ride for free anymore? This would make you complicit in our tax dollars being spent on this. Way to go

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

Miss Shell wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote:

sc4mayor wrote:I started warming up to turnstiles when they announced the new fare collection system.  Granted I thought it would look more like what Vancouver and dozens of other cities have done with lower-profile fare gates and being able to easily swipe in.  I could have gotten behind that, in fact I would have really liked it.

This is just plain ugly and overkill.  Fare evasion isn't even a problem...in my experience it's is pretty far down the list of things your average suburbanite sites when they say they won't ride MetroLink.

So many better options...and we get something that resemble cages.

I totally agree that the turnstiles are ugly and a bit overkill. Curious on your point that fare evasion isn’t a problem. I ride from Forest Park a couple times a month and I have never paid a fare nor seen anyone pay a fare because their is no enforcement. Is there an estimation for what $$’s we lose from fare evasion annually?

So are you saying the turnstiles are overkill because you can't ride for free anymore? This would make you complicit in our tax dollars being spent on this. Way to go

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

I’m not sure how that’s your takeaway from my comment at all. It was mentioned that “fare evasion” isn’t a problem and I tend to disagree. In my experience there are many people not paying fares. I’m not saying these cages are the best solution to that problem either.

But you're a fair evader. Did I take that away correctly?

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

Miss Shell wrote:But you're a fair evader. Did I take that away correctly?

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

Yes. I stated that clearly. Very few people pay (at least at my Forest Park station). The ticket purchase terminals weren’t even operating for a long time (even before the floods). They may still be down but I’m not sure.

Miss Shell wrote: ↑

Mar 10, 2023

So are you saying the turnstiles are overkill because you can't ride for free anymore? This would make you complicit in our tax dollars being spent on this. Way to go

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

Don't be ridiculous, these turnstiles have nothing to do with fare evasion, that's just the thin justification. Expanding the carceral state is its own reward.

MarkHaversham wrote:

Miss Shell wrote: ↑

Mar 10, 2023

So are you saying the turnstiles are overkill because you can't ride for free anymore? This would make you complicit in our tax dollars being spent on this. Way to go

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

Don't be ridiculous, these turnstiles have nothing to do with fare evasion, that's just the thin justification. Expanding the carceral state is its own reward.

I think that’s a bit dramatic. To me the turnstiles are simply about addressing the PERCEPTION of crime on the trains.

You're right. I'm being ridiculous. Sorry, y'all. You know, I get just as mad at Schnucks when they close one of their entrances after dark. I shoplift a lot and see so many people do it, and I can't stand this type of carceral mentality they have when they chain off the west side. It's obviously not deterring theft, so why put us shoplifters through this huge inconvenience?

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

Miss Shell wrote:You're right. I'm being ridiculous. Sorry, y'all. You know, I get just as mad at Schnucks when they close one of their entrances after dark. I shoplift a lot and see so many people do it, and I can't stand this type of carceral mentality they have when they chain off the west side. It's obviously not deterring theft, so why put us shoplifters through this huge inconvenience?

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

I honestly have no idea what your point is at all. Let’s stick to the topic at hand. What is your POV on the turnstiles?

Miss Shell wrote: ↑

Mar 10, 2023

You're right. I'm being ridiculous. Sorry, y'all. You know, I get just as mad at Schnucks when they close one of their entrances after dark. I shoplift a lot and see so many people do it, and I can't stand this type of carceral mentality they have when they chain off the west side. It's obviously not deterring theft, so why put us shoplifters through this huge inconvenience?

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

I actually did go to Schnucks for the first time in a while recently and unironically thought the same thing (minus the self-incrimination). They have special bulky shopping carts that lock when you don't pay, but their primary purpose seems to be that I accidentally kick the wheels every couple minutes. Plus shopping inside a fence just makes me feel great as a person.

The turnstiles are fine to me. I actually posted a pic of these in this or a related thread, and people lost their minds at how ugly they look. But you see them everywhere in NYC. They do stop fare evaders. The only way you could get through without validation would be to piggy back off someone who pays, and both people would have to be slim. It's unfortunate that they have to be built due to perpetrators like some people on this forum trying to avoid paying a few bucks for services. But rules get enforced more strictly the more people abuse the system.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

Debaliviere91 wrote:

Miss Shell wrote:But you're a fair evader. Did I take that away correctly?

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

Yes. I stated that clearly. Very few people pay (at least at my Forest Park station). The ticket purchase terminals weren’t even operating for a long time (even before the floods). They may still be down but I’m not sure.

Complete opposite experience at the same station. Just because you don’t see people use the terminals doesn’t mean they or their employer haven’t paid. Students are paid by WashU (at least last time I had a discussion with one back around December) and my employer specifically loads money on a transit card and I along with many others pay using the app. It’s simpler for those of us that have the capability for it which I understand isn’t the case for all riders.

I always pay using the Transit app. 

I don't physically have a card or swipe anything; I just walk onto the train. 

To me the fare evader is getting way disproportionate attention, effort, spending. But users of transit are others so must be scrutinized for what they might be getting away with lest we look at ourselves.

I also don't like that we're making everything a fortress an opportunity cost to working to make a better society.

From 2010

RFT - What Are We Supposed to Do About All Those MetroLink Freeloaders?

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/wh ... rs-2593880

We shouldn't be charging for access to Metro in the first place. But then, if we can't check tickets we wouldn't have justification for hassling or throwing off undesirable users (homeless, black kids, etc.).

quincunx: To me the fare evader is getting way disproportionate attention, effort, spending. But users of transit are others so must be scrutinized for what they might be getting away with lest we look at ourselves.

I also don't like that we're making everything a fortress an opportunity cost to working to make a better society.

Fare evasion (and Metro crime in general) appears to us to get disproportionate attention, because we look at it from a practical financial view instead of the view of an oppressive police state. For the decision-makers, making workers march from one fortified location to the next, and financially justify their existence to enter any public space, is a better society.

Things cost money, though, so someone has to pay for it one way or the other.

But I've derailed the conversation, pun intended

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

STLEnginerd wrote:it comes down to a couple fundamental aspects
-do turnstiles prevent fare evasion

• probably and i would guess a lot while i think its fair to assume some will bypass it but i think it will have a net impact and i also think it will create logistic bottlenecks for large event like cardinals games etc.

-will the increased fare uptake pay for the cost of setting up turnstiles

•    debatable but in my view probably not

-will the turnstile have a negative impact on the riding experience

• probably though probably not in a major way for most.  there is the bottleneck issue for big events and general aesthetic negatives but those seem like quibbles.  however imagine a scenario where the kiosk is not working or the turnstile is broken. You would miss an opportunity to ride simply because you can't get to the platform and many depend on public transit for daily commute.  At the very least this increases the mandate on metro to maintain the fare collection system at a fairly high level of reliability further eating into any gross revenues collected via fares.

- will the turnstile improve metro security

• maybe... data required

I think this is a very fair summary of where we are at with the turnstiles.

sc4mayor wrote: ↑

Mar 10, 2023

^ That looks great.

Agreed, they look like they would be great, I only wonder how those hold up if they're installed outside, but they'd be great on the stations where the gates can be under cover.

Miss Shell wrote: ↑

Mar 10, 2023

Things cost money, though, so someone has to pay for it one way or the other.

But I've derailed the conversation, pun intended

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

You're fine. It's a reasonable argument. I just think the numbers don't work out. Per a 2010 RFT article the fare evasion rate is somewhere in the ballpark of 6%. At the same time Metro was estimating their own fare evasion problem at about 4%, but we'll go with the higher figure anyway. Bi-State's fy2022 budget puts passenger revenue systemwide at just under $19.8M. Only a portion of that is Metrolink, and I'd guess you're seeing a lot less fare evasion on busses, but again, to be generous, we'll use the whole system. Per the Business Journal and KSDK the 2020 estimated project cost was $52M. Using 2022 systemwide revenue and the 6% figure, we see an additional $1.2M . . . assuming everyone rides anyway and just ponies up. (Which seems a dubious probability at best.) Given all of that it would take well north of forty years for the additional revenues to pay for the gates. And that's being very generous.

Now . . . what's the lifetime on these things? Because at the end of that liftetime you have to do all of this again or it was a moot point. (Which is another way of saying these things will be an ongoing expense, whether they generate revenue or not.) We do have to pay for the system, 'tis true. But I just don't see this as a wise use of resources. It seems incredibly likely it will be cosmetically unattractive, it will make it more difficult for legitimate users to board (even if only a little), and any benefit it will provide seems likely to be vanishingly small. (And if the estimates are too generous and the lifetime of the equipment is too short it could well actually cost everyone more. When the thing costs several times the entire systemwide annual revenue you have to ask some questions.)

So I guess what I'm asking is this: What are these things for? If they're intended to protect revenue they don't look like they make sense to me. If they're intended to provide security . . . maybe? (But I've not seen enough evidence to make me believe it.) So more or less what STLEnginerd said, but with some back of the napkin math and many many more words.