NYC M.T.A. Station Agent Cuts Leave Some Riders Lost
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
machines are that is needed to sell and collect fares.
NYC has been removing token booth clerks to save money. An article in
the New York Times details the problems that has caused:
Excerpt:
Subway station agents, once mandatory for selling tokens, have
suffered a slow road toward obsolescence. Booth closings began earlier
this decade, after transit officials decided they were an antiquated
antecedent to MetroCards and their colorful kiosks.
But riders said they liked having the agents around, particularly at
night as a deterrent against crime. A compromise plan in 2005
reoriented the job toward customer service, placing some clerks
outside the booths to better assist riders. Now that program is being
wiped out.
In all, nearly 800 more agents will be reassigned in the next several
years; those who retire will not be replaced.
For full article please see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/nyregion/09subway.html?hp
IMHO, the token clerk serves as valuable function and some presence is
needed to handle the following _common_ situations:
1) Assist passengers with strollers or wheelchairs access through the
locked special gates.
2) Assist passengers when all vending machines are down.
3) Assist passengers when a turnstile does not accept a Metrocard.
4) Provide directions
5) Provide a presence and set of eyes for security purposes. A token
clerk is cheaper than a cop and does more functions specifically
related to transit. A cop's training is for law enforcement, weapons,
etc., generally unrelated to serving passengers.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
>
> > In all, nearly 800 more agents will be reassigned in the next several
> > years; those who retire will not be replaced.
>
> student back then.
>
> > IMHO, the token clerk serves as valuable function and some presence is
> > needed to handle the following _common_ situations:
>
> > 1) Assist passengers with strollers or wheelchairs access through the
> > locked special gates.
>
Sorry, but people with small children and with handicaps are not
prohibited from using the subway.
> > 2) Assist passengers when all vending machines are down.
>
> Great. Free ride.
But you just eliminated the gates. How will you let them in?
> > 3) Assist passengers when a turnstile does not accept a Metrocard.
>
> Get rid of the turnstile.
You want everyone to ride for free? How will you pay for the system?
> > 4) Provide directions
>
> Dozens of people around to ask.
Dozens of people in a hurry. The ones strolling around aimlessly are
tourists, as unfamiliar with the system as you are.
And sometimes no people at all.
> > 5) Provide a presence and set of eyes for security purposes. A token
> > clerk is cheaper than a cop and does more functions specifically
> > related to transit. A cop's training is for law enforcement, weapons,
> > etc., generally unrelated to serving passengers.
>
> A clerk is absolutely worthless for any serious security threat. All he
> can do is phone for the cops. In 1960, this was a valuable function,
> because nobody else could do that. Today, almost everybody carries
> a phone.
And is not going to stick around to point to the skulking bad guy.
Stephen Sprunk
> Several posters have argued that humans are unnecessary in transit and
> machines are that is needed to sell and collect fares.
If you're referring to me there, that is a misstatement of my position.
> IMHO, the token clerk serves as valuable function and some presence is
> needed to handle the following _common_ situations:
>
> 1) Assist passengers with strollers or wheelchairs access through the
> locked special gates.
Why have locked special gates -- or any gates at all?
> 2) Assist passengers when all vending machines are down.
Fix the machines. If they can't be fixed, replace them with ones that work.
> 3) Assist passengers when a turnstile does not accept a Metrocard.
Why have turnstiles?
> 4) Provide directions
Proper maps (both above and below ground) are more effective, especially
in a city where more than one language is spoken.
> 5) Provide a presence and set of eyes for security purposes.
If you need security, hire professionals trained for that duty. A token
clerk is just another defenseless victim waiting to be attacked.
> A token clerk is cheaper than a cop and does more functions specifically
> related to transit.
You mean that, since you've decided you must have token clerks, you have
invented various things for them to do rather than make it obvious
they're unnecessary.
> A cop's training is for law enforcement, weapons, etc., generally
> unrelated to serving passengers.
Police can be trained for multiple duties.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels schrieb:
>
> >> Get rid of the gates.
>
> > Sorry, but people with small children and with handicaps are not
> > prohibited from using the subway.
>
>
> >> Great. Free ride.
>
> > But you just eliminated the gates. How will you let them in?
>
Uh, no. You postulated strollers and wheelchairs.
> > You want everyone to ride for free?
>
> No.
>
> > Dozens of people in a hurry. The ones strolling around aimlessly are
> > tourists, as unfamiliar with the system as you are.
>
> West-Berlin got rid of the clerks in the 1980s. The city of Berlin is
> visited by 8 million tourists per year, 231000 of whom come from the
> USA. Fascinatingly, they are usually able to understand public
> transport without help.
I suspect that New York is just a _little_ bit bigger than Berlin, and
its subway system is just a _little_ bit more complicated.
And if you're advocating some sort of POP plan, how, exactly, will you
manage the enforcement?
> In most cases, they will simply buy a WelcomeCardhttp://www.s-bahn-berlin.de/englisch/tarife/index.htm
> at their hotel, and stamping it will be their only interaction with
> the system, ever.
> Other than hopping in.
Have you ever actually _been_ to New York?
> It's different fares and transfers and separate tickets and rules and
> all the ingenuity in making public transport as complicated as possible,
> which generates the questions.
I have no idea what you're referring to. None of those four complaints
apply to the NY subway system.
Miles Bader
>> A token clerk is cheaper than a cop and does more functions specifically
>> related to transit.
>
> You mean that, since you've decided you must have token clerks, you have
> invented various things for them to do rather than make it obvious
> they're unnecessary.
That's not clear; the primary duty may have once been selling tokens,
but it may be that the term "token clerk" is outdated, and should be
replaced by something like "customer assistance representative" or just
"clerk" or something.
Pretty much every station around here is manned, and although they _can_
sell or accept tickets, they rarely do so -- really their job is to
assist customers. E.g., someone lost their ticket, or needs
directions/advice, or is infirm and needs help boarding, or ...
It _is_ nice to have a human around to ask questions of or deal with
some unforeseen problem, even if one does so rarely (the last time I did
was to ask about a faraway station I couldn't find on the map, and the
best route to reach it [via multiple lines]).
Whether it's "cost-effective" or not is very hard to judge, as such
tasks fall under the rubric of customer satisfaction. I suppose many
U.S. transit agencies are so hard up for cash, though, that pretty much
anything which isn't critical is up for cutting...
-Miles
--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without
individual responsibility.
Clark F Morris
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Oct 8, 5:41�pm, Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenetspam...@Zierke.com>
>wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels schrieb:
>>
>> >> Get rid of the gates.
>>
>> > Sorry, but people with small children and with handicaps are not
>> > prohibited from using the subway.
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> >> Great. Free ride.
>>
>> > But you just eliminated the gates. How will you let them in?
>>
>> Why "let"? They can walk, right?
>
>Uh, no. You postulated strollers and wheelchairs.
>
>> > You want everyone to ride for free?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> > Dozens of people in a hurry. The ones strolling around aimlessly are
>> > tourists, as unfamiliar with the system as you are.
>>
>> West-Berlin got rid of the clerks in the 1980s. The city of Berlin is
>> visited by 8 million tourists per year, 231000 of whom come from the
>> USA. Fascinatingly, they are usually able to understand public
>> transport without help.
>
>I suspect that New York is just a _little_ bit bigger than Berlin, and
>its subway system is just a _little_ bit more complicated.
While Berlin does have fewer people and I don't think there are
multiple routes sharing a given stretch of U-Bahn track, the Berlin
system has at least 8 U-Bahn lines plus a large number of S-Bahn lines
where lines share track plus rail commuter, all on a single ticketing
system. Then there are the tram and bus lines.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > You mean that, since you've decided you must have token clerks, you have
> > invented various things for them to do rather than make it obvious
> > they're unnecessary.
>
> That's not clear; the primary duty may have once been selling tokens,
> but it may be that the term "token clerk" is outdated, and should be
> replaced by something like "customer assistance representative" or just
> "clerk" or something.
Which is exactly what they do now.
--assist passengers with ticket machines or with problems with
farecards.
--assist wheelchair passengers (as required by law)
--provide directions, which in NYC is important due to the complexity
of lines, different routing patterns by time of day, and large number
of visitors or psgrs unfamliar with a given route.
--supervise station conditions and report physical problems and
security problems.
> It _is_ nice to have a human around to ask questions of or deal with
> some unforeseen problem, even if one does so rarely (the last time I did
> was to ask about a faraway station I couldn't find on the map, and the
> best route to reach it [via multiple lines]).
Very true and important.
> Whether it's "cost-effective" or not is very hard to judge, as such
> tasks fall under the rubric of customer satisfaction. I suppose many
> U.S. transit agencies are so hard up for cash, though, that pretty much
> anything which isn't critical is up for cutting...
Today 'cost saving' is the name of the game in the private sector.
But too often companies cut muscle, not just the fat, and suffer (see
separate TD bank troubles).
For _decades_ I have heard from satisfied passengers "the conductor/
ticket agent was very nice and helpful".
Many passengers were glad to pay a higher fare to ride commuter rail
instead of the subway because of the crew presence.
Jimmy
> Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenetspam...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> > >> Get rid of the gates.
>
> > > Sorry, but people with small children and with handicaps are not
> > > prohibited from using the subway.
>
>
> > Why "let"? They can walk, right?
>
> Uh, no. You postulated strollers and wheelchairs.
He was advocating getting rid of the fare collection barrier. If
there's no barrier, you don't need a gate to let people through the
barrier, and you don't need a token clerk to open the gate.
Jimmy
Bolwerk
[token booth clerks can:]
>
> 4) Provide directions
People already answered most of the other points, so I'll just stick to
this one.
Do drivers get token booth clerks to provide directions? Why should
transit users? Transit routes are usually more easily explained than
driving routes anyway.
Miles Bader
> Do drivers get token booth clerks to provide directions? Why should
> transit users? Transit routes are usually more easily explained than
> driving routes anyway.
So... because drivers suffer, transit users must suffer too? Drivers
invest tons of money on route-finding devices. The relative simplicity
of transit routes means that in most cases, the big maps in stations are
enough, but there are inevitably exceptions, and it's nice to have some
way of dealing with them that doesn't require the user to phone a friend
at home or go back to his house to use google maps.
There are many cases where a knowledgeable human is a really nice
resource, and a pretty good way to deal with "exceptional"
circumstances. The question is whether they're affordable. When they
were actually needed for token selling, that meant there was a critical
task that kept them around, but now that that task is better handled by
machinery, are other tasks enough to make financial sense? How does one
measure customer happiness and compare it to salary cost?
Maybe the occasional pissed-off and confused customer is less costly
than paying salaries. I dunno. Still, when they _are_ available, I do
have occasion to make use of them sometimes, even though TVMs etc handle
all routine tasks quite well (for all the stations I use regularly [not
NYC], the passenger numbers are so high that it's obviously worthwhile,
but I imagine the question in this thread is mainly about lesser
stations [in NYC]).
-Miles
--
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it
has to be us. -- Jerry Garcia
Peter T. Daniels
There's no way to use POP in a system as heavily used as NYC's.
I checked Berlin in the *Transit Maps of the World* book -- Berlin's
subway is tiny in comparison.
Valentin Brückel
>
> There's no way to use POP in a system as heavily used as NYC's.
>
> I checked Berlin in the *Transit Maps of the World* book -- Berlin's
> subway is tiny in comparison.
I don't see how network size is relevant to the feasibility of a POP system.
There's only a limited number of people each line can handle, regardless of
network size . For a larger network, you just need more people to do the
checking.
If the trains ever get too overcrowded for effective onboard ticket
inspection, there's always the option to randomly close of all exits of a busy
station with a whole platoon of inspectors, ideally with a police squad
already on standby to efficiently deal with people who can produce neither a
ticket nor ID.
Val
a_a_a
> If the trains ever get too overcrowded for effective onboard ticket
> inspection, there's always the option to randomly close of all exits of a busy
> station with a whole platoon of inspectors,
for some systems, an onboard ticket inspector would never progress past
part of one doorway. You must live in a dreamworld to imply that trains
rarely get so overcrowded.
Valentin Brückel
For how many hours per day?
As I said, for peak times, there's always the "raid" option: Check people
leaving a random station using several dozen inspectors plus police.
You just need to give people the impression that there are no times when there
is no chance of inspection - doing such a raid on one or two stations per day
should suffice to ensure a decent inspection rate.
Val
a_a_a
>> for some systems, an onboard ticket inspector would never progress past
>> part of one doorway. You must live in a dreamworld to imply that trains
>> rarely get so overcrowded.
>
> For how many hours per day?
In many cases, about six; for some, eg India or Japan, maybe 12.
Your suggestion re flooding the place with inspectors is numerically
unachievable as well in such cases. How many people do you need to cover
say 25000 people per hour without causing huge delays?
Miles Bader
>> for some systems, an onboard ticket inspector would never progress
>> past part of one doorway. You must live in a dreamworld to imply that
>> trains rarely get so overcrowded.
>
> For how many hours per day?
> As I said, for peak times, there's always the "raid" option: Check people
> leaving a random station using several dozen inspectors plus police.
>
> You just need to give people the impression that there are no times
> when there is no chance of inspection - doing such a raid on one or
> two stations per day should suffice to ensure a decent inspection
> rate.
If there were no inspections of crush loads, potential cheaters would
quickly ken that, and they'd just avoid paying then -- and of course
such times represent a non-trivial proportion of all travel. Randomly
closing all exits, could work I suppose.
Still, my objection to POP is not enforcement (there are ways, and it's
not really my problem anyway), but the additional inconvenience (as I've
gone into in great detail in other posts). Yes, Hans and Stephen
disagree, but I dunno, they haven't really been convincing that the
current methods really work all that well for non-commuters.
I've thought of one possible solution to the "need a ticket for
non-regular journeys" problem of POP: have a number of "faregates" at
each station, but make them _optional_! If you have a pass or paper
ticket, you can ignore the gates or pass through one without touching
it. However, if you have no ticket or pass, you can pass through a gate
and touch your smartcard. It will record the point of entry, and deduct
some amount of money from the card equal to an upper limit. Then, when
you exit, you go through a gate and touch your smartcard again, and it
will refund all money not used by your journey. POP enforcers could
check a smartcard just like a ticket, and make sure the entrance time on
the card made sense and was close enough.
I suppose this could be cheated any number of ways (having multiple
tickets, using a different ticket for exit than entrance, etc), but I
think perhaps cheating could be made inconvenient enough that most
people wouldn't do it... for instance, a time-limit after entrance,
after which it wouldn't refund any money.
[I suspect smartcards for conventional faregate-based systems actually
already use such methods, so you might even be able to use existing
off-the-shelf equipment, and just leave off the "barrier" functionality
of the gates.]
-Miles
--
Politeness, n. The most acceptable hypocrisy.
Miles Bader
> Your suggestion re flooding the place with inspectors is numerically
> unachievable as well in such cases. How many people do you need to cover
> say 25000 people per hour without causing huge delays?
I kinda agree, but note that in Japan, many stations with extremely
heavy traffic were at one time _completely manual_, and did all ticket
checking by hand. Clearly lots of people are needed and it probably
would have some slowing effect, but I suspect it would be manageable,
and if it were done rarely enough it wouldn't really make much
difference overall.
-Miles
--
Conservative, n. A statesman enamored of existing evils, as opposed to a
Liberal, who wants to replace them with new ones.
Peter T. Daniels
So the Nazi mindset remains alive and well among some people with
German names (even if they do not post from Germany or Austria).
Philip Nasadowski
Valentin Br�ckel <vb.usen...@gmx.com> wrote:
> For how many hours per day?
In NYC? The subway might run, and especially near the holiday season
likely will, with crush or near crush loads in Manhattan for most of the
day, even weekends. The east side IRT lines, in particular, tend to be
very crowded.
> As I said, for peak times, there's always the "raid" option: Check people
> leaving a random station using several dozen inspectors plus police.
I can think of a few major stations at rush hour in Manhattan alone.
And since most are transfer points, one can just see the cops (and the
lines to get out), and go waltz over to another platform and head a stop
away.
> You just need to give people the impression that there are no times when there
> is no chance of inspection - doing such a raid on one or two stations per day
> should suffice to ensure a decent inspection rate.
On a system that's 24/7 like the NYC subway, raiding 1 or 2 stations
once a day out of 400 or so stations, won't even be noticed by the bulk
of the populace.
Larry Sheldon
Ever ride the California Street Cable car?
And they used to (I think maybe they no longer) make change.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Analysis&Solutions
>If the trains ever get too overcrowded for effective onboard ticket
>inspection, there's always the option to randomly close of all exits of
>a busy station with a whole platoon of inspectors
Wow, that's all overkill. There's no need to get so intense about it.
Random inspections on the platforms is sufficient.
--Dan
--
T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y
data intensive web and database programming
http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/
4015 7th Ave #4, Brooklyn NY 11232 v: 718-854-0335 f: 718-854-0409
Peter T. Daniels
(Analysis&Solutions) wrote:
> In <has35g$on...@newsreader2.netcologne.de> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Valentin_Br=FCckel?= <vb.usenet.0...@gmx.com> writes:
>
> >If the trains ever get too overcrowded for effective onboard ticket
> >inspection, there's always the option to randomly close of all exits of
> >a busy station with a whole platoon of inspectors
>
> Wow, that's all overkill. There's no need to get so intense about it.
> Random inspections on the platforms is sufficient.
>
> --Dan
> --
> T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y
> data intensive web and database programming
> http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/
> 4015 7th Ave #4, Brooklyn NY 11232 v: 718-854-0335 f: 718-854-0409
You use a Brooklyn address, yet you too feel that random platform
inspections could accomplish _anything_? Or do you just want all rush
hour travel to be free?
Miles Bader
>>If the trains ever get too overcrowded for effective onboard ticket
>>inspection, there's always the option to randomly close of all exits of
>>a busy station with a whole platoon of inspectors
>
> Wow, that's all overkill. There's no need to get so intense about it.
> Random inspections on the platforms is sufficient.
I don't think that would work well: because people on platforms are
constantly moving (there's usually a _heavy_ stream all moving in the
same direction), it would be _very_ easy for people to detect and avoid
inspectors (they could of course grab the _first_ person, but doing so
would warn all others within sight).
Onboard a train this is less of a problem since people have limited
opportunity to move, and doing so around an inspector immediately marks
them as being suspicious.
-Miles
--
Bacchus, n. A convenient deity invented by the ancients as an excuse for
getting drunk.
Stephen Sprunk
If you make the platforms part of the paid-only zone, you can simply put
fare inspectors at each exits or even on the platform and have them do
the checks there; no need to close all the exits and force a huge crowd
through a bottleneck.
Yes, you need several inspectors to do this -- but you'd need at least
10, maybe 20, of them to check an entire train between stops even if
they _could_ move from one end of a car to another. The stops are
simply too close to do it with fewer.
Clark F Morris
>a_a_a <a...@a.a.net> writes:
>> Your suggestion re flooding the place with inspectors is numerically
>> unachievable as well in such cases. How many people do you need to cover
>> say 25000 people per hour without causing huge delays?
>
>I kinda agree, but note that in Japan, many stations with extremely
>heavy traffic were at one time _completely manual_, and did all ticket
>checking by hand. Clearly lots of people are needed and it probably
>would have some slowing effect, but I suspect it would be manageable,
>and if it were done rarely enough it wouldn't really make much
>difference overall.
Given the volume of service (25 - 30 thousand people per hour each way
in the peak) on the Munich 2 track S-Bahn line through the center of
Munich and the fact that it is POP, my guess is that they have figured
out how to handle these things.
>
>-Miles
Clark F Morris
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
Also Switzerland and closer to home San Diego, California; Jersey
City, New Jersey and Portland, Oregon among other places. They all
enforce POP the same way.
Miles Bader
>>I kinda agree, but note that in Japan, many stations with extremely
>>heavy traffic were at one time _completely manual_, and did all ticket
>>checking by hand. Clearly lots of people are needed and it probably
>>would have some slowing effect, but I suspect it would be manageable,
>>and if it were done rarely enough it wouldn't really make much
>>difference overall.
>
> Given the volume of service (25 - 30 thousand people per hour each way
> in the peak) on the Munich 2 track S-Bahn line through the center of
> Munich and the fact that it is POP, my guess is that they have figured
> out how to handle these things.
So, how do they do it (during crush loads)? Checking on trains?
Platforms? Closing off whole stations/platforms for checking?
-Miles
--
Immortality, n. A toy which people cry for, And on their knees apply for,
Dispute, contend and lie for, And if allowed Would be right proud
Eternally to die for.
Bolwerk
> Bolwerk <bol...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Do drivers get token booth clerks to provide directions? Why should
>> transit users? Transit routes are usually more easily explained than
>> driving routes anyway.
>
> So... because drivers suffer, transit users must suffer too?
No, but I want transit to work. One way to make it work is to cut
unnecessary costs. If token booth clerks were free or even a negligible
cost, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Are they nice? Sure. Are they necessary to operation? Probably not.
> Drivers
> invest tons of money on route-finding devices.
Devices transit users don't need.
> The relative simplicity
> of transit routes means that in most cases, the big maps in stations are
> enough, but there are inevitably exceptions, and it's nice to have some
> way of dealing with them that doesn't require the user to phone a friend
> at home or go back to his house to use google maps.
>
> There are many cases where a knowledgeable human is a really nice
> resource, and a pretty good way to deal with "exceptional"
> circumstances. The question is whether they're affordable. When they
> were actually needed for token selling, that meant there was a critical
> task that kept them around, but now that that task is better handled by
> machinery, are other tasks enough to make financial sense? How does one
> measure customer happiness and compare it to salary cost?
Like someone (HaJo?) pointed out, it seems perfectly reasonable to
expect people to help each other out. I regularly give directions to
people who are lost, and I ask people when I'm somewhere else.
(Ironically, I don't usually ask NYC token booth clerks anything, in the
rare cases it might even benefit me, because they're usually so
God-awful unpleasant.)
Bolwerk
You don't even need to cover everyone. If 25,000 people leave and you
check 10% of them, that's 2,500 people, and a high enough probability of
being caught that people would want to make sure they have fare media.
I imagine it wouldn't take dozens of inspectors to check 2500 people in
an hour. One inspector could probably check 10-20 or so fare media per
minute with ease.
Miles Bader
>>> Do drivers get token booth clerks to provide directions? Why should
>>> transit users? Transit routes are usually more easily explained than
>>> driving routes anyway.
>>
>> So... because drivers suffer, transit users must suffer too?
>
> No, but I want transit to work. One way to make it work is to cut
> unnecessary costs. If token booth clerks were free or even a negligible
> cost, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>
> Are they nice? Sure. Are they necessary to operation? Probably not.
You asked if humans are useful for asking directions, and I gave my
thoughts -- but that doesn't mean that's their only task, or that it's
even an important part of their duties. If it were, then yeah, they'd
almost certainly disappear quickly.
But while they _are_ there, I've found them to be very knowledgeable
about the transit system (other passengers... not so much). [Note I'm
not talking about NYC though; from what I recall of NYC token-booth
clerks on trips there, I can imagine they're not up to the level I'm
used to.]
Whether the various tasks they are assigned are "enough" to justify
staffing of course is probably very dependent on the specifics of the
station, system, traffic volume, passengers, etc -- and of course a more
profitable system may choose to keep them to improve the passenger
experience, even if they're not strictly necessary for operation.
-Miles
--
Un-American, adj. Wicked, intolerable, heathenish.
Miles Bader
> You don't even need to cover everyone. If 25,000 people leave and you
> check 10% of them, that's 2,500 people, and a high enough probability of
> being caught that people would want to make sure they have fare media.
The problem is that in some situations it's very easy to avoid
inspectors -- in particular, if there's a lot of passenger movement
(such as on a platform or at entrances) -- unless measures are taken to
stop/detect such avoidance. [When checking on a train is possible, the
fact that passengers are usually static means that its easier to ensure
people can't notice and avoid checking (if they suddenly get up and
move, they're noticed).]
Instead of checking 100% of a station, you could, for instance, suddenly
isolate a section of a platform, and check everybody as they leave that
section or something.
-Miles
--
=====
(^o^;
(()))
*This is the cute octopus virus, please copy it into your sig so it can spread.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 06:18:28 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
>
>
>
>
The only POP system I've ever been on was the San Diego streetcar, I
think on a Sunday afternoon. I went from my hotel (up near the
Mission) to an excellent usedbook store downtown somewhere, and then
back up to the Mission (glad I didn't make a special trip -- turns out
it's not the 1769 original, but an imaginative reconstruction built in
1939 that obviously has a steel skeleton and not an adobe structure)
and back to the hotel. None of the boarding-points (you can hardly
call them stations!) are susceptible to being "closed off." Nor have I
ever noticed anything in JC, Hoboken, or Weehawken about the HBLR that
would permit any such thing.
Nor do any of those polities -- let alone the City of New York -- have
the resources or personnel to engage in such totalitarian tactics.
Nor, probably, does any of them at _any_ time of day have the sort of
passenger congestion seen most of the time at Times Square, Grand
Central, Columbus Circle, Atlantic-Pacific, etc.etc.etc.
Peter T. Daniels
> i...@analysisandsolutions.com (Analysis&Solutions) writes:
> >>If the trains ever get too overcrowded for effective onboard ticket
> >>inspection, there's always the option to randomly close of all exits of
> >>a busy station with a whole platoon of inspectors
>
> > Wow, that's all overkill. There's no need to get so intense about it.
> > Random inspections on the platforms is sufficient.
>
> I don't think that would work well: because people on platforms are
> constantly moving (there's usually a _heavy_ stream all moving in the
> same direction), it would be _very_ easy for people to detect and avoid
> inspectors (they could of course grab the _first_ person, but doing so
> would warn all others within sight).
>
> Onboard a train this is less of a problem since people have limited
> opportunity to move, and doing so around an inspector immediately marks
> them as being suspicious.
Especially since you can't pass between cars any more.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels schrieb:
>
> > I suspect that New York is just a _little_ bit bigger than Berlin, and
> > its subway system is just a _little_ bit more complicated.
>
> > And if you're advocating some sort of POP plan, how, exactly, will you
> > manage the enforcement?
>
> In the same way as at other places.
>
> Located in a really big city, the NY subway features more lines and more
> passengers than usual, but
> - it does not achieve an unusually high modal share.
I don't know what that means
> - it does not achieve an unusually high number of passengers per train
You have _got_ to be kidding. Maybe Tokyo's is higher.
> - it does not achieve an unusually high number of trains per track
It runs _at capacity_ for at least five hours a day (7-9 am, 4-7 pm?).
It used to have even more TPH but some authorities got spooked by some
freak accidents and put in automatic safety systems that reduce that
number.
> - it does not achieve an unusually high number of passengers per station.
You have _got_ to be kidding. Or else you're averaging in the figures
for a few little-used stations at the extremities of some lines.
> So the system is bigger, but the operation is standard.
How many of the world's subways operate 24/7?
> >> It's different fares and transfers and separate tickets and rules and
> >> all the ingenuity in making public transport as complicated as possible,
> >> which generates the questions.
>
> > I have no idea what you're referring to. None of those four complaints
> > apply to the NY subway system.
>
> <big grin>
>
> "The NY subway system". Calling one operator of transit "a system" tells
> it all. ;-)
I have no idea what that means. It seems to be intended as an insult,
but it's just incomprehensible.
Are Berlin's subways operated by more than one "operator," whatever
that is?
NYC had three separate "operators" until Unification in 1949 or so.
Stephen Sprunk
> Valentin Brückel <vb.usen...@gmx.com> writes:
>>> for some systems, an onboard ticket inspector would never progress
>>> past part of one doorway. You must live in a dreamworld to imply that
>>> trains rarely get so overcrowded.
>>
>> For how many hours per day?
>> As I said, for peak times, there's always the "raid" option: Check people
>> leaving a random station using several dozen inspectors plus police.
>>
>> You just need to give people the impression that there are no times
>> when there is no chance of inspection - doing such a raid on one or
>> two stations per day should suffice to ensure a decent inspection
>> rate.
>
> If there were no inspections of crush loads, potential cheaters would
> quickly ken that, and they'd just avoid paying then -- and of course
> such times represent a non-trivial proportion of all travel. Randomly
> closing all exits, could work I suppose.
DART/TRE trains run at crush loads during rush hour; the FIs simply do
inspection on the platforms rather than on the trains. They catch fewer
people, but the goal is _not_ to catch everyone; the goal is to catch a
high enough percentage of evaders that most people do not evade--and so
the fine revenue offsets the lost fare revenue.
With a fare of $2.50 and a fine of up to $500, they only need to catch
one out of every 200 evaders to break even -- and to be visible enough
that most people won't attempt it. Doing significantly more enforcement
than that will provide diminishing returns.
> Still, my objection to POP is not enforcement (there are ways, and it's
> not really my problem anyway), but the additional inconvenience (as I've
> gone into in great detail in other posts). Yes, Hans and Stephen
> disagree, but I dunno, they haven't really been convincing that the
> current methods really work all that well for non-commuters.
A properly functioning transit system is useful for a lot more than just
commuting.
> I've thought of one possible solution to the "need a ticket for
> non-regular journeys" problem of POP: have a number of "faregates" at
> each station, but make them _optional_! If you have a pass or paper
> ticket, you can ignore the gates or pass through one without touching
> it. However, if you have no ticket or pass, you can pass through a gate
> and touch your smartcard. It will record the point of entry, and deduct
> some amount of money from the card equal to an upper limit. Then, when
> you exit, you go through a gate and touch your smartcard again, and it
> will refund all money not used by your journey. POP enforcers could
> check a smartcard just like a ticket, and make sure the entrance time on
> the card made sense and was close enough.
That's an interesting idea. Houston's POP system is halfway there:
smartcard users have to "tap in" every time they board, though they
never have to "tap out" because there's only one zone.
I find the "tap in/out only if you plan on leaving the zone you have a
pass for" idea to be too confusing for the average passenger, though.
It'd be simpler to provide a TVM which allowed them to use their
smartcard to purchase an upgrade for a specific trip. The upgrade might
result in the printing of a paper ticket or might be stored on the
smartcard itself. Granted, it means they have to interact with a TVM
and preplan their trip, but I think it'd be more usable in practice.
(For instance, a smartcard with such an upgrade might contain two
separate fare items: a "zone M monthly pass for Oct 2009" and a "zone JX
day pass for 11 Oct 2009". An FI in zone M would see the former as
valid, while an FI in zone J or X would see the latter as valid.)
Miles Bader
>> - it does not achieve an unusually high modal share.
>
> I don't know what that means
Percentage of trips taken by a certain transport mode (e.g. subway/rail).
-Miles
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >> - it does not achieve an unusually high modal share.
>
> > I don't know what that means
>
> Percentage of trips taken by a certain transport mode (e.g. subway/rail).
Versus what? Trips taken by bus? What's the relevance?
If it's versus automobile, it certainly does.
Miles Bader
>> >> - it does not achieve an unusually high modal share.
>>
>> > I don't know what that means
>>
>> Percentage of trips taken by a certain transport mode (e.g. subway/rail).
>
> Versus what? Trips taken by bus? What's the relevance?
>
> If it's versus automobile, it certainly does.
I don't know what Hans was talking about (but yeah, it's usually
automobile that's the interesting comparison).
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Do drivers get token booth clerks to provide directions? Why should
> transit users? Transit routes are usually more easily explained than
> driving routes anyway.
Actually, they do. They're called toll collectors, and motorists
frequently ask the toll collector for directions.
Miles Bader
>> There's no way to use POP in a system as heavily used as NYC's.
>
> about 25 passengers per car on average, Berlin about 18 per car
> with considerably smaller cars. ("Big profile" cars in Berlin are
> the size of "A division" cars in New York.)
Average numbers are not interesting though. What's interesting is the
_peak_ numbers.
-Miles
--
97% of everything is grunge
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> So... because drivers suffer, transit users must suffer too? Drivers
> invest tons of money on route-finding devices. The relative simplicity
> of transit routes means that in most cases, the big maps in stations are
> enough, but there are inevitably exceptions, and it's nice to have some
> way of dealing with them that doesn't require the user to phone a friend
> at home or go back to his house to use google maps.
The NYC subway system was not logically designed. It was built as
three independent and competing systems, over a period of 100 years.
Different routes run and make different stops at different times.
Lines come together from different places then split apart, again
depending on time period. The stations are big and complex and not
uniform. Learning how it works takes time.
Further, NYC being the capital city of the world, has a great deal of
visitors who are unfamiliar with the system.
Note that computerized fare collection systems need human backup.
For example, today I _had_ to see a token clerk (or whatevery they're
called today) because my Metrocard was about to expire and a machine
could _not_ accomodate me.
> There are many cases where a knowledgeable human is a really nice
> resource, and a pretty good way to deal with "exceptional"
> circumstances. The question is whether they're affordable. When they
> were actually needed for token selling, that meant there was a critical
> task that kept them around, but now that that task is better handled by
> machinery, are other tasks enough to make financial sense? How does one
> measure customer happiness and compare it to salary cost?
It seems that outsiders are more likely to be saying NY doesn't need
token clerks while regular riders do. With automation not all booths
have to be manned at all times and they could close a booth
temporarily for breaks and lunch without the bother of sending a
relief agent to keep the booth continuously open.
I believe Washington DC and BART have manned stations even though they
were 100% AFC from the beginning and their agents do not handle fares
at all. Thank goodness NY agents can still do fares as they often
help passengers. (I see this all the time.)
> Maybe the occasional pissed-off and confused customer is less costly
> than paying salaries. I dunno. Still, when they _are_ available, I do
> have occasion to make use of them sometimes, even though TVMs etc handle
> all routine tasks quite well (for all the stations I use regularly [not
> NYC], the passenger numbers are so high that it's obviously worthwhile,
> but I imagine the question in this thread is mainly about lesser
> stations [in NYC]).
I see token clerks assisting passengers all the time in NYC.
Sometimes TVMs are down. Sometimes they are visitors.
POP would not work in NYC.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I checked Berlin in the *Transit Maps of the World* book -- Berlin's
> subway is tiny in comparison.
As an aside, nyc.subways has posted a number of new pictures of
Berlin.
see: http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/imgdate (it may be necessary to
go back a few days to see the whole collection).
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> a_a_a wrote:
> > Valentin Brückel wrote:
>
> >> If the trains ever get too overcrowded for effective onboard ticket
> >> inspection, there's always the option to randomly close of all exits
>
> > for some systems, an onboard ticket inspector would never progress past
> > part of one doorway. You must live in a dreamworld to imply that trains
> > rarely get so overcrowded.
>
> For how many hours per day?
Many segments of NYC subway lines get very crowded most of the day,
seven days a week. There is no way a fare inspector could work his
way through such trains. Suppose he finds a violator in the middle of
a jam packed subway car. Kind of hard to write up a citation.
> As I said, for peak times, there's always the "raid" option: Check people
> leaving a random station using several dozen inspectors plus police.
Stations are open to the public as concourses, you can not check
"stations".
You need to check at exits from the platforms or paid areas. However,
that would create dangerous backlogs of people. Some platforms now
barely clear out one load of people before another load is dumped on
the platform by the next train.
With all due respect, I don't think you're familiar with the operating
conditions of the NYC subway system.
> You just need to give people the impression that there are no times when there
> is no chance of inspection - doing such a raid on one or two stations per day
> should suffice to ensure a decent inspection rate.
In a system of the characteristics of the NYC subway, there is no way
that kind of impression could be given. It would be _extremely_ easy
for someone in a crowd to see ahead that there's an inspection going
on and go back to find another exist or get back on the train to ride
another stop.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> passengers than usual, but
Irrelevent for this issue (POP).
> - it does not achieve an unusually high number of passengers per train
Sure seems when a train is so packed people must squeeze their way on
that that is an "unusually number of passengers per train".
> - it does not achieve an unusually high number of trains per track
Irreleveant for POP, and possibly not true.
> - it does not achieve an unusually high number of passengers per station.
When a flood of passengers clog up the platform and the last passenger
is barely gone when another train dumps another crowd, I would say
that most certainly _is_ an unusually high number of psgrs per
station.
Compounding the situation is that many station platform and concourses
are rather small. Some stations had platform extensions which are
very narrow. By and large, the IRT is not known for spacious
accomodations and plenty BMT places are squeezed, too.
My impression, from talking to numerous people who've used non-US
systems, is that passengers in other countries treat their subways
better and are less likely to evade fares.
I dare say if an "honor system" was established, where passengers
deposited their fare in a fishbowl upon entry on their honor (no
checking), compliance in NYC would be poor compared to cities outside
the US. I would suspect Germany and Japan would have high rates of
compliance.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Onboard a train this is less of a problem since people have limited
> opportunity to move, and doing so around an inspector immediately marks
> them as being suspicious.
If I'm onboard the train I can see in the car in front of and behind
me. If an inspector gets on and the train is crowded, by the time he
would get to me the train would've made its next station stop and I'd
be gone.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> No, but I want transit to work. One way to make it work is to cut
> unnecessary costs. If token booth clerks were free or even a negligible
> cost, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>
> Are they nice? Sure. Are they necessary to operation? Probably not.
On at least two occassions I required the services of a token clerk to
take care of problems with a Metro card. So were other passengers at
the time.
I consider that "necessary" to operation.
Put too much B/S in the passengers' lap and you'll tip the scale to
driving.
Oddly, Metrocard requires _more_ human support than tokens did.
> Like someone (HaJo?) pointed out, it seems perfectly reasonable to
> expect people to help each other out. I regularly give directions to
> people who are lost, and I ask people when I'm somewhere else.
So do I. But there are plenty of times where I am unable to answer
their question or passers by cannot answer my question, and a
professional is needed.
Just tonight a lady (apparently a new rider) wouldn't get on a train
because she was confused by the destination sign. (The train would
pass by her destination en route to the signed one.) She wouldn't
listen to me, but at least the conductor was able to help her.
> (Ironically, I don't usually ask NYC token booth clerks anything, in the
> rare cases it might even benefit me, because they're usually so
> God-awful unpleasant.)
I have not had that problem. Indeed, the clerk today was very helpful
in fixing my card.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> You don't even need to cover everyone. If 25,000 people leave and you
> check 10% of them, that's 2,500 people, and a high enough probability of
> being caught that people would want to make sure they have fare media.
I dare say many New Yorkers would attempt to buck the system as much
as possible. College kids would make a game out of it. As mentioned
in other posts, people would quickly find ways to beat the system.
Geez, I forget cell phones. One person could alert others where
inspections are taking place.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Nor do any of those polities -- let alone the City of New York -- have
> the resources or personnel to engage in such totalitarian tactics.
Which is an important consideration. The tactics used on the NJT
River Line would not be tolerated in New York City.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> DART/TRE trains run at crush loads during rush hour; the FIs simply do
> inspection on the platforms rather than on the trains. They catch fewer
> people, but the goal is _not_ to catch everyone; the goal is to catch a
> high enough percentage of evaders that most people do not evade--and so
> the fine revenue offsets the lost fare revenue.
Human psychology does not work on the laws of averages. The
probabilities of behavior are different for each social group. I dare
say what happens in NYC will be different than what happens on DART.
Are DART station platforms 660+ feet long with numerous exits and
stairwells?
If you try to check _exiting_ passengers in a NYC subway, you will
have a riot on your hands.
> K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> There is nothing especially heavily used about it. New York moves
> about 25 passengers per car on average,
"Average" is a meaningless number, particularly in this context.
Each and every subway car I rode on today (a Sunday) had far more than
"18" people aboard it.
Checking "18" people means you'll have to go to an outlying station on
a lightly used line. You still must cover 660' long platforms with
numerous stairs and exits. Checking "18" people will have ZERO
deterrent effect upon the crowds of people.
Slim
> On Oct 10, 7:17�pm, Jimmy <JimmyGeldb...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenetspam...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Get rid of the gates.
>>
>>>>> Sorry, but people with small children and with handicaps are not
>>>>> prohibited from using the subway.
>>
>>>>> But you just eliminated the gates. How will you let them in?
>>
>>>> Why "let"? They can walk, right?
>>
>>> Uh, no. You postulated strollers and wheelchairs.
>>
>> He was advocating getting rid of the fare collection barrier. �If
>> there's no barrier, you don't need a gate to let people through the
>> barrier, and you don't need a token clerk to open the gate.
>
> There's no way to use POP in a system as heavily used as NYC's.
>
> I checked Berlin in the *Transit Maps of the World* book -- Berlin's
> subway is tiny in comparison.
Check the system in Hong Kong.
No HighWheels and massive gates and bars.
An effcient system called "Octopus" is used to collect fares.
You pay for the distance you ride.
--
"A nickel isn't worth a dime today." - Y. Berra
Slim
> On Oct 11, 3:57�am, Valentin Br�ckel <vb.usenet.0...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> There's no way to use POP in a system as heavily used as NYC's.
>>
>>> I checked Berlin in the *Transit Maps of the World* book -- Berlin's
>>> subway is tiny in comparison.
>>
>> I don't see how network size is relevant to the feasibility of a POP syst
> em.
>> There's only a limited number of people each line can handle, regardless
> of
>> network size . For a larger network, you just need more people to do the
>> checking.
>>
>> If the trains ever get too overcrowded for effective onboard ticket
>> inspection, there's always the option to randomly close of all exits of a
> busy
>> station with a whole platoon of inspectors, ideally with a police squad
>> already on standby to efficiently deal with people who can produce neithe
> r a
>> ticket nor ID.
>>
>> Val
>
> So the Nazi mindset remains alive and well among some people with
> German names (even if they do not post from Germany or Austria).
Godwins Law!
Miles Bader
> Big profile U-Bahn (about as big as NYC A division):
> http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?104353
Love the decorative tilework (and general design) in that station!
-Miles
--
Innards, n. pl. The stomach, heart, soul, and other bowels.
Clark F Morris
>On Oct 11, 4:16�am, Valentin Br�ckel <vb.usenet.0...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> a_a_a wrote:
>> > Valentin Br�ckel wrote:
>>
>> >> If the trains ever get too overcrowded for effective onboard ticket
>> >> inspection, there's always the option to randomly close of all exits
>> >> of a busy station with a whole platoon of inspectors,
>>
>> > for some systems, an onboard ticket inspector would never progress past
>> > part of one doorway. You must live in a dreamworld to imply that trains
>> > rarely get so overcrowded.
>>
>> For how many hours per day?
>
>Many segments of NYC subway lines get very crowded most of the day,
>seven days a week. There is no way a fare inspector could work his
>way through such trains. Suppose he finds a violator in the middle of
>a jam packed subway car. Kind of hard to write up a citation.
From what I have read of the Munich S-Bahn, the trains in downtown
Munich are at least as crowded and the Munich U-Bahn gets good crowds
also. On the S-Bahn, the trains are 202.2 meters long with 210 meter
long platforms (over 680 feet). Somehow I suspect that the challenge
of 30 trains an hour would be equivalent to the E and F lines east of
6th Avenue if not more so.
danny burstein
>Further, NYC being the capital city of the world, has a great deal of
>visitors who are unfamiliar with the system.
For some definition of "the world" that's about as inclusive
as the similarly phrased "world series".
There's a pretty hefty portion of the planet that's
outside the borders of the East and hHudson Rivers.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Peter T. Daniels
Have you ever actually been on a NY subway train? A train where you
can _see into_ the adjacent cars???
Maybe if you're leaning against the end door you can see the person
leaning against the adjacent door, but no more than that. Maybe your
beloved SEPTA trains have picture windows front and back. Ours don't.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
>
> > If I'm onboard the train I can see in the car in front of and behind
> > me. If an inspector gets on and the train is crowded, by the time he
> > would get to me the train would've made its next station stop and I'd
> > be gone.
>
> to anticipate this. People jumping off the train at the next station,
> greeted by ticket inspectors at the stairs with a big grin.
Hunh? Now you're not going to let people get off the train while an
inspection is in progress?
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels schrieb:
>
> > There's no way to use POP in a system as heavily used as NYC's.
>
> with considerably smaller cars. ("Big profile" cars in Berlin are
> the size of "A division" cars in New York.)
You are incredibly ignorant.
I try to avoid being in the city during rush hours, and there are
almost always no seats available during the day. It's worse at night
when there are fewer trains.
> While the New York Subway moves an impressive number of people in total,
> this traffic is well distributed: The subway does not have a single
> high-usage station.
You are totally insane.
> The busiest station is Times Sq / 42 St with about 165 000 per day.
What is the source of that bizarre figure? You claim that the nine
lines passing through that complex handle only 165,000 users a day??
> It's just the other way round: A high-usage underground station like
> Munich Marienplatz (about 100000 more than Times Sq / 42nd) is
> impossible to set up with faregates, unless you are able to create
> gigantic ticket halls in the underground, which usually collides
> with the foundation of structures around.
Sorry, you're making no sense. I continue to maintain that you have
never seen a New York subway.
Miles Bader
>> Even in the 1980s, BVG ticket inspectors were seen to be clever enough
>> to anticipate this. People jumping off the train at the next station,
>> greeted by ticket inspectors at the stairs with a big grin.
>
> Hunh? Now you're not going to let people get off the train while an
> inspection is in progress?
I can kind of imagine how they might finesse this: schedule the onboard
checking to begin just before a run of minor stations, then have
inspectors pre-positioned at those stations to check everybody who gets
off the train being checked. It obviously limits your flexibility a
bit, but...
-Miles
--
Acquaintance, n. A person whom we know well enough to borrow from, but not
well enough to lend to.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels schrieb:
>
>
>
> The percentage of passenger miles provided by it.
>
> While the total figure is gigantic and impressive, it is created by
> so many New Yorkers and an especially big city, not by an especially
> high modal share.
> (Okay, for the USA, the modal share /is/ especially high.)
You're still not saying the percentage of _what_.
> >> - it does not achieve an unusually high number of trains per track
>
> > It runs _at capacity_ for at least five hours a day (7-9 am, 4-7 pm?).
> > It used to have even more TPH but some authorities got spooked by some
> > freak accidents and put in automatic safety systems that reduce that
> > number.
>
> All such operations (in the 1st world) run with automatic safety
> systems, and many operations around the world are able to do 90s or less
> within such automatic safety system.
Fine. Why don't _you_ come up with the capital to replace the entire
system, most of which was built nearly a century ago?
> >> - it does not achieve an unusually high number of passengers per station.
>
> > You have _got_ to be kidding. Or else you're averaging in the figures
> > for a few little-used stations at the extremities of some lines.
>
> Times Sq / 42nd is the busiest with just 165 000 per day, average.
>
> > How many of the world's subways operate 24/7?
>
> That's a great feature indeed, but I don't see, why this makes POP more
> difficult.
It enables you to get that asinine "165,000" average for Times Square
(which must be from decades ago).
> >> "The NY subway system". Calling one operator of transit "a system" tells
> >> it all. ;-)
>
> > I have no idea what that means. It seems to be intended as an insult,
> > but it's just incomprehensible.
>
> User-friendly systems make no difference between subway, buses, light rail,
> ferries, commuter rail. You buy a transit ticket, point.
Once again, the totalitarian solution. All those modes started out as
private enterprises, and some (ferries, some commuter buses) still
are.
> As soon as one city sets up a multitude of different transit system
> within one city, it is no wonder, if passengers need a lot of guidance
> to understand the mess. Less of a mess, less guidance required.
We didn't start out to "set up a multitude of different transit
system." The transit network has been growing for something like 150
years, beginning when there was not just one city here.
And it was entirely done by private enterprise until the "Independent"
system, the government-built one which was to a considerable extent a
public works project during the Depression, got started ca. 1930.
> > Are Berlin's subways operated by more than one "operator," whatever
> > that is?
>
> The subway isn't a separated system, but integrated into the common
> transit compound of two states. List of operators is found here:http://www.vbbonline.de/index.php?cat=4&sCat=171&id_language=2
>
> So your subway ticket is also valid forhttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/2964093754_f8437b644a_o.jpg
Ah. Socialized transportation.
gl4...@yahoo.com
> Still, my objection to POP is not enforcement (there are ways, and it's
> not really my problem anyway), but the additional inconvenience (as I've
> gone into in great detail in other posts). Yes, Hans and Stephen
> disagree, but I dunno, they haven't really been convincing that the
> current methods really work all that well for non-commuters.
I guess I find the gated entry method less convenient than POP if I am a
non-commuter. If I am a non-regular user of transit, then with POP I just
buy a ticket at the machine and get on the train.
The exception to that around here would be the Portland streetcar, in
which case you get on the train, then buy a ticket because in that case
the machine for ticket buying is on the train and not on the platform.
With the gated method, I have to go to a machine, figure out how to buy a
ticket from it, buy a ticket from it, figure out how to get it accepted by
the gate machine, and get through the gate.
Don't minimize the problems with trying to get through the gates.
Sometimes you have to leave the fare payment in the gate until you walk
through it or the gate slams shut on your legs, on barcode read gates (you
have a ticket with a barcode as opposed to magnetic card) you have to hold
the barcode just right to get it to read, and on at least one system (I
don't remember which one) you have to press a button on the gate as well
as having your card read.
The exception to the two step process that I've run into was the London
Underground in 2002 or 2003, where the ticket machine at the Heathrow
Airport only accepted coins. Thus, I had to go to the station's ATM,
withdraw a 20 pound note, have it changed to coins by the station agent
(which did not sell tickets, only the ticket machine would sell tickets)
and have the note changed to give me some coins, and then buy the ticket
from the machine using the coins I had gotten from the station agent which
couldn't be trusted to issue tickets, but was trusted to handle thousands
of pounds worth of cash. All of these, station agent and the various
machines, had fairly long lines (excuse me, queues) to get to them.
Certainly, I understand why high speed boarding stations would want to go
with gates, but POP deffinitely seems to be less of a hassle to me if you
are a non-regular user of the system. The gated systems definitely seem
to be much better for those who are regular users than those who are
tourists or otherwise occasional users.
--
-Glennl
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
Stephen Sprunk
What part of "at the stairs" did you not understand?
Say you have stations A, B, C, and D. Fare inspectors get on at station
A, but it takes them until station D to get through the entire train.
At stations B and C, other fare inspectors are waiting at the exits (or
on the platforms) for people who try to dodge the onboard inspectors.
DART uses a simpler system: a team of FIs board the train, one at each
end of each car, at station A; they work their way towards the middle
and get off at station B together, then work the next train back to
station A. Longer trains mean you need a larger team, though, so BVG's
method may be cheaper at some point, depending on how many intermediate
stations you'll pass and how many exits each has.
Miles Bader
>> Still, my objection to POP is not enforcement (there are ways, and it's
>> not really my problem anyway), but the additional inconvenience (as I've
>> gone into in great detail in other posts). Yes, Hans and Stephen
>> disagree, but I dunno, they haven't really been convincing that the
>> current methods really work all that well for non-commuters.
>
> I guess I find the gated entry method less convenient than POP if I am a
> non-commuter. If I am a non-regular user of transit, then with POP I just
> buy a ticket at the machine and get on the train.
>
> ticket from it, buy a ticket from it, figure out how to get it accepted by
> the gate machine, and get through the gate.
But the gated systems _I'm_ talking about don't require you to buy a
ticket at all, because they use a smart-cart that just lets you touch
the gate as you pass through. [The smart-card can be refilled
occasionally at a TVM, or set up to auto-recharge via a credit card
account when necessary.]
The great convenience of this is why I'm so enthusiastic about; it's as
close to effortless as any system I've ever used.
-Miles
--
A zen-buddhist walked into a pizza shop and
said, "Make me one with everything."
Miles Bader
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRqH4PtEPxY
-miles
--
Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as
they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a
cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Miles Bader
> Have seen that myself, they usually didn't look amused. But hey, if you
> play cops and robbers, there is that risk to loose the game!
It's gotta be on youtube somewhere...
-miles
--
Year, n. A period of three hundred and sixty-five disappointments.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Miles Bader schrieb:
>
> > But the gated systems _I'm_ talking about don't require you to buy a
> > ticket at all, because they use a smart-cart that just lets you touch
> > the gate as you pass through. [The smart-card can be refilled
> > occasionally at a TVM, or set up to auto-recharge via a credit card
> > account when necessary.]
>
> > The great convenience of this is why I'm so enthusiastic about; it's as
> > close to effortless as any system I've ever used.
>
> that for using transit in the Netherlands, you'll first need to buy their
> smartcard. If Belgium introduces such a system, you'll have to ...
>
> And on and on.
>
> I still remember those times 25 years ago, when I had to do a lot of
> travel for my job: Back then, it was the phone cards: In my wallet, I
> needed to have one for France, one for Belgium, one for Germany...
Now you're moving the goalposts, but there's nothing stopping all the
systems from having compatible hardware and software (like the E-Z-
Pass toll collectiong system used on highways and bridges throughout
the Northeast US and I-don't-know-how-far to the West).
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Miles Bader schrieb:
>
> > I can kind of imagine how they might finesse this: schedule the onboard
> > checking to begin just before a run of minor stations, then have
> > inspectors pre-positioned at those stations to check everybody who gets
> > off the train being checked. It obviously limits your flexibility a
> > bit, but...
>
>
> Mass of ticket inspectors entering some cars of a crowded peak train,
> working across the packed train with great difficulty. Next stop: Some
Once again, you clearly have never been to New York. No one can "work
across the packed train with difficulty." They cannot "work across the
packed train" AT ALL.
> youth leaving the train running, and when the train passed the end of
> the platform, you could see them being questioned at the stairs.
Very, very, very few stations have just one stairway.
> Obviously worked like a witch hunt: Stir them up, catch them running.
You call it witch hunt, I call it totalitarianism. BTW maybe "witch
hunt" means something different to you -- in the US, it refers to the
methods of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy, who terrorized America in
the 1950s by accusing government workers and celebrities of being
"Communists" etc. etc.
> The mass of ticket inspectors left at the next station. Don't know how
> they did their coordination, but I remember saying: "Okay, so those
> inspectors aren't all dumb."
>
> As a K-12 student, I was quite surprised when we visited Munich on
> school travel, and in a crowded tram, a housewife beside me dropped her
> shopping bags, and pulled a ticket inspectors badge. For a rube from
> a small village, this was quite a surprise to see. This was just a
> 2-person team, they made no attempt to check the whole tram, but
> instead just the people between 2 entrance doors.
> Works with any crowding condition.
You are so naive.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 8:48 pm, Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenetspam...@Zierke.com>
> > wrote:
> >> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
> >>> If I'm onboard the train I can see in the car in front of and behind
> >>> me. If an inspector gets on and the train is crowded, by the time he
> >>> would get to me the train would've made its next station stop and I'd
> >>> be gone.
>
> >> Even in the 1980s, BVG ticket inspectors were seen to be clever enough
> >> to anticipate this. People jumping off the train at the next station,
> >> greeted by ticket inspectors at the stairs with a big grin.
>
> > Hunh? Now you're not going to let people get off the train while an
> > inspection is in progress?
>
> What part of "at the stairs" did you not understand?
How is being stopped by inspectors "at the stairs" (whatever that
means) not tantamout to being denied egress?
> Say you have stations A, B, C, and D. Fare inspectors get on at station
> A, but it takes them until station D to get through the entire train.
> At stations B and C, other fare inspectors are waiting at the exits (or
> on the platforms) for people who try to dodge the onboard inspectors.
I didn't _think_ you'd ever been in New York, either.
> DART uses a simpler system: a team of FIs board the train, one at each
> end of each car, at station A; they work their way towards the middle
> and get off at station B together, then work the next train back to
> station A. Longer trains mean you need a larger team, though, so BVG's
> method may be cheaper at some point, depending on how many intermediate
> stations you'll pass and how many exits each has.
Once again, you have no idea what a crowded subway car is like. What
is "BVG"?
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels schrieb:
>
> >> Even in the 1980s, BVG ticket inspectors were seen to be clever enough
> >> to anticipate this. People jumping off the train at the next station,
> >> greeted by ticket inspectors at the stairs with a big grin.
>
> > Hunh? Now you're not going to let people get off the train while an
> > inspection is in progress?
>
> overcrowded peak train. It won't work from station to station.
>
> And I pointed out, that already in the 1980s, the BVG inspectors were
> sometimes clever enough, to send a group to the next station, one train
> in advance, expecting that those fare dodgers, who they hadn't checked
> until the next station, would jump there and run.
Over here, they would be clever enough not to run; they would jest get
off the train and leave like everyone else.
> And met their reception committee at the stairs.
>
> Have seen that myself, they usually didn't look amused. But hey, if you
> play cops and robbers, there is that risk to loose the game!
Nice that you think it's a game.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
>
> >> - it does not achieve an unusually high modal share.
>
>
> Correct.
>
> >> - it does not achieve an unusually high number of passengers per train
> > Sure seems when a train is so packed people must squeeze their way on
> > that that is an "unusually number of passengers per train".
>
> That's common for rush hour peaks in quite a number of cities all over
> the world.
>
> > When a flood of passengers clog up the platform and the last passenger
> > is barely gone when another train dumps another crowd, I would say
> > that most certainly _is_ an unusually high number of psgrs per
> > station.
>
> The biggest crowd is found at Times Sq / 42nd with 167000 per day. Next
> is Grand Central / 42nd with 122000.
STOP WITH THE FRIGGIN' "PER DAY." It says _nothing_ about the
congestion most of the time. Times Square was recently completely
redone to greatly enlarge the concourses (the mezzanine levels
connecting the five track-lines that meet there -- oops, I should have
said there are 12 lines at the station, I forgot about the Eighth
Avenue a block away), and they are _still_ crowded at midday. Nothing
can be done about the platforms, which are more than a century old;
indeed they're getting a little smaller as elevators are added to
accommodate the wheelchairs you want to exclude from the system.
> But that's not a lot. You'll find a higher station utilization in cities
> with a very pronounced, small CBD, even if the city is much smaller than
> New York. Example in Germany would be Munich.
>
> The station "Marienplatz" under the city hall of Munich has more than
> twice the passengers of Grand Central / 42nd.
At any one time?
Jishnu Mukerji
> Maybe if you're leaning against the end door you can see the person
> leaning against the adjacent door, but no more than that. Maybe your
> beloved SEPTA trains have picture windows front and back. Ours don't.
The new cars do have additional windows at the car ends so that you can
actually see into the next car.
Miles Bader
>> You claim that the nine lines passing through that complex handle
>> only 165,000 users a day??
>
>
> But for a station with faregates, that's quite a lot!
Shinjuku station: around 3.5 million passengers / day. Faregates.
-Miles
--
=====
(^o^;
(()))
*This is the cute octopus virus, please copy it into your sig so it can spread.
Nick Fotis
> On Oct 11, 8:39 pm, Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenetspam...@Zierke.com>
> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels schrieb:
>>> Are Berlin's subways operated by more than one "operator," whatever
>>> that is?
>> The subway isn't a separated system, but integrated into the common
>> transit compound of two states. List of operators is found here:http://www.vbbonline.de/index.php?cat=4&sCat=171&id_language=2
>>
>> So your subway ticket is also valid for http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/2964093754_f8437b644a_o.jpg
>
> Ah. Socialized transportation.
Why serving the passenger/customer with a simpler and easier to use
system of transportation should be called 'socialized transportation'?
Scratching my head,
N.F.
Bolwerk
> Bolwerk <bol...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Do drivers get token booth clerks to provide directions? Why should
>>>> transit users? Transit routes are usually more easily explained than
>>>> driving routes anyway.
>>> So... because drivers suffer, transit users must suffer too?
>> No, but I want transit to work. One way to make it work is to cut
>> unnecessary costs. If token booth clerks were free or even a negligible
>> cost, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>>
>> Are they nice? Sure. Are they necessary to operation? Probably not.
>
> You asked if humans are useful for asking directions, and I gave my
> thoughts -- but that doesn't mean that's their only task, or that it's
> even an important part of their duties. If it were, then yeah, they'd
> almost certainly disappear quickly.
>
> But while they _are_ there, I've found them to be very knowledgeable
> about the transit system (other passengers... not so much). [Note I'm
> not talking about NYC though; from what I recall of NYC token-booth
> clerks on trips there, I can imagine they're not up to the level I'm
> used to.]
>
> Whether the various tasks they are assigned are "enough" to justify
> staffing of course is probably very dependent on the specifics of the
> station, system, traffic volume, passengers, etc -- and of course a more
> profitable system may choose to keep them to improve the passenger
> experience, even if they're not strictly necessary for operation.
Regarding New York, AFAIK, they're only necessary insofar as they have
to be there to open gates to let people with strollers through and stuff
like that. It's probably something that can be done remotely.
A few are truly helpful, I'm sure, but most aren't. And I really don't
buy hancock's arguments about safety.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels schrieb:
>
> >> about 25 passengers per car on average, Berlin about 18 per car
> >> with considerably smaller cars. ("Big profile" cars in Berlin are
> >> the size of "A division" cars in New York.)
>
> > You are incredibly ignorant.
>
Eh? "Average" counts for nothing, unless you want to give free rides
to all during rush hour, some 25% of the weekday, during which most of
your entries occur.
> >> The busiest station is Times Sq / 42 St with about 165 000 per day.
>
> > What is the source of that bizarre figure?
>
> http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ffsubway.htm
You divided the Annual figure, the only one given, by 366.
> > You claim that the nine
> > lines passing through that complex handle only 165,000 users a day??
>
> Yes. Some less on weekends, some more Mo-Fr, average around 165000.
It is not "some less" and "some more."
It is "some less" and "much more." And don't forget overnight.
> But for a station with faregates, that's quite a lot!
You really should visit New York some time.
Clark F Morris
While I haven't seen Marienplatz, I have been through the 42nd street
complex at rush and off peak hours and from the IRT 7th Avenue, IRT
Flushing, IRT shuttle and BMT Broadway lines as well as the connected
8th Avenue line. The statistics that Hans-Joachim may have been
referring to might not include the IND 8th avenue station since the
inclusion of it in the Times Square complex is 20 30 years old and
bureaucracies are slow to change. The statistics might also not be
comparable if the Times Square complex counts token entries or token
entries plus exit counts. The Shinjuku station complex where many of
the rail lines like the Yamanote Loop function like subway lines and
with 2 or 3 private lines and at least one subway line dwarfs Times
Square or Grand Central.
Stephen Sprunk
> Now you're moving the goalposts, but there's nothing stopping all the
> systems from having compatible hardware and software (like the E-Z-
> Pass toll collectiong system used on highways and bridges throughout
> the Northeast US and I-don't-know-how-far to the West).
There are incompatible transponder systems for Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, and California. EZ Pass is
just for the Northeast -- roughly the same states the NEC passes through.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Oct 11, 6:19 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> DART/TRE trains run at crush loads during rush hour; the FIs simply do
>> inspection on the platforms rather than on the trains. They catch fewer
>> people, but the goal is _not_ to catch everyone; the goal is to catch a
>> high enough percentage of evaders that most people do not evade--and so
>> the fine revenue offsets the lost fare revenue.
>
> Human psychology does not work on the laws of averages. The
> probabilities of behavior are different for each social group. I dare
> say what happens in NYC will be different than what happens on DART.
Probably, with the difference being greatest on the first day and slowly
decreasing over time. However, the behavioral differences simply won't
matter when it comes to the matter quoted above.
> Are DART station platforms 660+ feet long with numerous exits and
> stairwells?
DART's platforms are 300-400ft. The few stations that require
stairwells usually have four per platform, plus two elevators, which
compares favorably to 1-3 stairwells per platform and no elevators at
many NYC stations. At-grade stations have no specific "exits" since
there is no need for barriers; passengers can simply walk off the
platforms in any direction.
> If you try to check _exiting_ passengers in a NYC subway, you will
> have a riot on your hands.
It's no more a hassle than waiting in line to get through exit
turnstiles, and it'll only happen a small fraction of the time--unlike
turnstiles, which you have to deal with at every entry and every exit.
Stephen Sprunk
> In article <has491$pek$1...@newsreader2.netcologne.de>,
> Valentin Br�ckel <vb.usen...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> For how many hours per day?
>
> In NYC? The subway might run, and especially near the holiday season
> likely will, with crush or near crush loads in Manhattan for most of the
> day, even weekends. The east side IRT lines, in particular, tend to be
> very crowded.
This directly contradicts others that say the peak weekday hours carry
several times as many passengers as the rest of weekdays and the weekend
hours. You folks need to get your stories straight.
On my hundreds of subway trips in NYC, all of which were off-peak, only
a handful were even SRO, and none had crush loads.
>> As I said, for peak times, there's always the "raid" option: Check people
>> leaving a random station using several dozen inspectors plus police.
>
> I can think of a few major stations at rush hour in Manhattan alone.
> And since most are transfer points, one can just see the cops (and the
> lines to get out), and go waltz over to another platform and head a stop
> away.
... where there might also by FIs. FIs can also do enforcement on the
platforms, so that's no guarantee either. Still, you seem to be mixed
up with the idea that enforcement needs to be absolute; that is not how
POP works. You merely need to catch enough evaders that overall evasion
stays in the ideal 2-4% range and total revenue breaks even, not every
evader.
>> You just need to give people the impression that there are no times when there
>> is no chance of inspection - doing such a raid on one or two stations per day
>> should suffice to ensure a decent inspection rate.
>
> On a system that's 24/7 like the NYC subway, raiding 1 or 2 stations
> once a day out of 400 or so stations, won't even be noticed by the bulk
> of the populace.
You obviously need to check a lot more than 1-2 stations per day.
Look at it this way: there are ~450 subway stations in NYC, each with at
least one token clerk. You need five people to staff 24x7 shifts, so
that means a minimum of 2000 token clerks total. 200-500 fare
inspectors would result in significant cost savings and allow you 10-25
four-man teams _at any given time_ doing enforcement all over the
system, which is probably even overkill.
Jimmy
> Nothing can be done about the platforms, which are more than a century old;
> indeed they're getting a little smaller as elevators are added to
> accommodate the wheelchairs you want to exclude from the system.
Why are you still intentionally misinterpreting what Hans-Joachim
meant by "get rid of the gates"? He didn't mean that there should be
a fare barrier fence with no gates for wheelchairs in it. He meant
that there should be no fence at all.
Even if you make a valid point about POP not being appropriate for
NYC, it makes it difficult to hold a civilized discussion with you
when you keep misinterpreting things and throwing around insults.
Jimmy
Stephen Sprunk
> On Oct 11, 4:16 am, Valentin Brückel <vb.usenet.0...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> As I said, for peak times, there's always the "raid" option: Check people
>> leaving a random station using several dozen inspectors plus police.
>
> "stations".
What about the fare gates, barriers, etc.? That doesn't sound "open to
the public" to me. You simply trade one paid area for another.
> You need to check at exits from the platforms or paid areas. However,
> that would create dangerous backlogs of people. Some platforms now
> barely clear out one load of people before another load is dumped on
> the platform by the next train.
One reason it takes so long to clear a platform is forcing people
through turnstiles. Another is that the number of exits is limited
because of the cost of manning and installing turnstiles at each exit.
Neither problem would apply to POP except when the FIs were present.
> With all due respect, I don't think you're familiar with the operating
> conditions of the NYC subway system.
I don't know if he is, but I am.
That also smells suspiciously like NIH Syndrome.
>> You just need to give people the impression that there are no times
>> when there is no chance of inspection - doing such a raid on one or
>> two stations per day should suffice to ensure a decent inspection rate.
>
> In a system of the characteristics of the NYC subway, there is no way
> that kind of impression could be given. It would be _extremely_ easy
> for someone in a crowd to see ahead that there's an inspection going
> on and go back to find another exist or get back on the train to ride
> another stop.
... and there are tactics for dealing with that.
Jimmy
> Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do drivers get token booth clerks to provide directions? Why should
> > transit users? Transit routes are usually more easily explained than
> > driving routes anyway.
>
> frequently ask the toll collector for directions.
The vast majority of roads on earth do not have tolls. And I've never
heard of anyone advocating that we should add manned tollbooths, or
avoid eliminating them, so that a toll collector will be available for
providing directions.
Jimmy