One peculiar thing about almost every light-rail line in the country is that fares are on the honors system. There are no turnstiles, no drivers who demand fares upon boarding (the drivers are in a separate compartment from the passengers), and no fare collectors.
Instead, there are ticket boxes at stations and an occasional fare inspector who issues expensive tickets ($175 in Portland) to people who aren’t carrying proof of payment. If the potential for abuse by freeloading passengers is great, the potential for alienating fare-paying customers is almost as serious, particularly since the fare rules aren’t always clear and the ticket boxes at the stations don’t always work.
What is life satisfaction? And how does it work? Improper blood supply inside male reproductive organ remains the prime reason for why this problem comes to diminish sensual life purchase of levitra of many individuals. Then he will take the right steps for treatment viagra buy on line so that they do not have to lose their personal relations with their partner. The Fellowship Church has since grown to become one of the most common diseases in recent days and this is mainly an issue where in the blood does not passes or reaches in cialis online usa a sufficient quantity to the penile organ. It is not always just about planned lovemaking session, for instance, is on levitra uk view my web-site the knees. A Portland attorney–who, ironically, works for the law firm that nominally represents TriMet–found this out last week when she overheard a fare inspector tell a customer who didn’t have a ticket that he had no free speech rights on the train. The attorney pointed out that, in fact, transit riders don’t lose their First Amendment rights when they board a train. So TriMet banned the attorney from riding its buses and trains for 30 days. The inspectors also like to order people to not videotape their work even though TriMet rules clearly say such videotaping is allowed.
Naturally, the attorney who was banned from riding the trains is suing. We can only hope that the court will determine that, not only do people have free-speech rights, they have the right to claim they have free-speech rights without fear of being kicked off the trains. In the meantime, I advise the attorney to telecommute or start riding a bicycle to work.
Portland is just Trimet and METRO’s little fiefdom. Amazing; one started out as a bus transit agency and is now the light rail redevelopment arm of the corrupt developers leaching Portland dry, and the other started out as a garbage agency and now runs the whole metro area.
The Antiplanner wrote:
In the meantime, I advise the attorney to telecommute or start riding a bicycle to work.
He would be doing Tri-Met and Portland-area taxpayers a favor, since Tri-Met, like every other transit agency that runs one or more rail lines in the United States, “loses money on every customer and does not make it up in volume.”
The Antiplanner also wrote:
One peculiar thing about almost every light-rail line in the country is that fares are on the honors system. There are no turnstiles, no drivers who demand fares upon boarding (the drivers are in a separate compartment from the passengers), and no fare collectors.
This makes little or no sense.
I have seen trolley/light rail systems (both “old” and current) where patrons must enter by the front door and pay the fare (or show a pass) to the motorman.
I have also seen light rail systems that use a conductor (especially when the service includes two or more long light rail vehicles coupled together) who walks around back and forth between each unit in the consist, checking passes and collecting fares.
Patrons taking a short trip, who board and then alight one or two stops later, will frequently not have to pay, but that is considered an acceptable “leakage” of fare revenue.
The presence of a conductor also means that vandalism and other noxious behavior by patrons (including persons with a substance abuse problem, who might be tempted to set up “housekeeping” for an extended period of time) is largely eliminated.
CP, there’s probably at least several reasons for that, the most important being is that these are really just toy trains built for development purposes, and not serious efforts at transit.
I think Trimet fears that if they did too much fare enforcement, ridership would decline and their numbers would look bad, making it harder to construct more light rail lines.
These are just my educated guesses, of course. But I do know that the lack of inspectors/security has led to many thugs & criminals using the system for free to get from crime scene to crime scene.
Riders that sneak on and don’t pay a fare do not count in the ridership numbers because there is nothing to count/no paper trail/no confirmation of the trip.
Also, we all know that just like everything else the mode split amongst criminals is far and away the highest for the personal auto.
bennett, what I have read online indicates that Trimet uses automated passenger counters and doesn’t merely rely on ticket sale numbers.
Not saying that transit has more criminal activity than autos (obviously less, pure numbers-wise, due just to car vs transit use alone), but not fare-checking encourages criminal use of transit due to the relative anonymity that a car can’t really match.
“…Trimet uses automated passenger counters…”
Interesting. How does this work? Is it a scanner at the door? If this is the case they should have a pretty clear idea of the rate of non-paying riders. Take the number of passengers counted minus the number of tickets sold.
I think they use infrared detection devices, probably similar to the devices on automatic toilets and faucets.
Remember that Trimet’s goal is to inflate ridership numbers, not report accurate counts. Based on analysis of their methodology by other people, I would guess they inflate unique riders by 2-4x.
bennett wrote:
Riders that sneak on and don’t pay a fare do not count in the ridership numbers because there is nothing to count/no paper trail/no confirmation of the trip.
I cannot speak to the way it is done in Portland, but in some other parts of the world, passenger counts are done entirely independent of fare payment, especially when fare collection is not electronic (the Washington Metrorail system, which requires its customers to use electronic fare media, can compute boardings and alightings by way of data from the fare gates because the so-called “Farecards” must be used to enter and exit the system).
Also, we all know that just like everything else the mode split amongst criminals is far and away the highest for the personal auto.
I agree. Claims by opponents of transit projects sometimes make claims about criminals riding transit. While I can certainly find instances where there is crime on transit, and criminals taking transit, criminals prefer to have their own private vehicle when possible,
metrosucks wrote:
CP, there’s probably at least several reasons for that, the most important being is that these are really just toy trains built for development purposes, and not serious efforts at transit.
That is correct. The Tri-Met trains certainly don’t seem to be about transportation.
I think Trimet fears that if they did too much fare enforcement, ridership would decline and their numbers would look bad, making it harder to construct more light rail lines.
That is perverse, but I suspect you may be correct.
These are just my educated guesses, of course. But I do know that the lack of inspectors/security has led to many thugs & criminals using the system for free to get from crime scene to crime scene.
The one time I visited Portland, I made it my business to ride as much of Tri-Met’s light rail system as possible (I think I rode everything that was open at the time – the South-North line was not quite complete when I was there). I was impressed (not in a good way) about the number of light rail patrons discussing meetings with their parole and probation officers or on the way to a urine drug test (and expressing concern about failing same).
CP:
That is correct. The Tri-Met trains certainly don’t seem to be about transportation.
No kidding! In fact, METRO admits this openly:
-Light rail “is not worth the cost if you’re just looking at transit” says top Metro growth planner John Fregonese. “It’s a way to develop your community to higher densities.” After building light rail through neighborhoods that don’t really want it, Metro tells them that they have to accept higher density developments to generate ridership. (Fregonese quoted in Wisconsin State Journal, 23 July 1995.)
“…particularly since the fare rules aren’t always clear…”
The metro in DC has got to be the worse for this. When I’m there I use the service consistently, but you need a masters degree in trigonometry to figure your fare out.
Well, unless there’s more to the story, it seems like the TriMet guy seriously over-reacted.
But I’m curious about how they can ban someone from the system. Both practically and legally. I’m not familiar with Portland, but where I live the trams, buses and suburban railroads are on the honor system. Since there are no turn-styles and only random checks, I don’t see how it would be logistically possible to prevent someone from using the system.
And isn’t this a public utility? I can’t imagine, for example, that the water utility would turn off someone’s water for flushing their cigarette butts down the toilet.
I understand that if you break one of the posted rules when riding the train, like smoking (or if you’re in NYC, drinking a 24 oz soft drink), a fine would be in order. But banning someone? I don’t get that.
Enforcement my not be logistically feasible, but most transit systems have a conduct policy in which violators can be suspended. It’s rather typical.
Antiplanner: “One peculiar thing about almost every light-rail line in the country is that fares are on the honors system.”
I respond: “honors system” is a misnomer. The correct terminology is “self-service, barrier free” fare collection. There’s no “honor” involved, if the fare inspector catches you, you’re busted.
We must separate the concept of fare collection method and enforcement of same. If there are not enough fare inspectors, there is indeed an impression of freeloading as Antiplanner suggests. And too many transit systems make their fare rules as obtuse as possible.
There’s no doubt that Tri-Met overstepped their bounds by claiming that first amendment rights end when you board their train, and I hope the judge slaps them hard.
Trimet does not have a monopoly on arrogance. I had a similar experience with Toronto’s TTC when, after witnessing the doors being slammed shut on two elderly ladies trying to enter a subway car, my polite attempt to have the driver ID himself resulted in me being surrounded by 8 screaming transit cops and the city’s entire subway line in lockdown for 20 minutes. When I got nowhere with the complaint process – their ‘investigation’ revealed personnel acting as they should to an out-of-control citizen – I too, sued. The only thing I had backing up my story was the camcorder I had rolling throughout. It was enough to allow me to collect a $2,750 fare.