LIRR and Metro North extend ticket validity

[Jimmy]

Starting September 4th, LIRR and Metro North tickets will be valid for
longer periods.

One-way tickets will be valid for two months, up from 14 days.

One way tickes will be refundable for two months, up from one month;
ten-trip tickets will be refundable for their six-month validity
period, up from one month. The $10 fee per refund transaction will
remain.

Ticket validities were shortened in December 2010 to reduce revenue
loss from uncollected tickets, but pressure from politicians and the
public encouraged this partial reversal.

Jimmy

[Michael Finfer]

Like NJT, they wouldn't have this problem if they could actually collect
the tickets.

NJT actually gave up on this issue. Their one way tickets do not expire.

Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 24, 8:34 pm, Michael Finfer <fin...@optonline.net> wrote:

> Like NJT, they wouldn't have this problem if they could actually collect
> the tickets.

In the 1960s the LIRR tested an automatic fare collection system
similar to what the ICG used and what PATCO would use. It was a big
success. But after the test the equipment was pulled out and that was
the end of that.

Since both the LIRR and MNRR have almost all high platforms it would
be relatively easy to put in faregates and controls. (Admittedly, the
NYC terminals would be a challenge). Since both run long trains there
should be savings in crew costs.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

I heard somewhere that they were looking at doing that sometime in the
early '80s, just after New York State took over Conrail operations,
though it was shot down on the grounds that it would cause too many
technical difficulties.

I think that they pointed to GO Transit in Toronto as an example of how
things screwed up.

For that to happen, however, I really think that the MTA needs to
integrate all of its assets, MNRR, LIRR, Bus, Subway for one fare
network as well as finally introduce a proper Smart Card.

I'm guessing as well that the MTA needs to learn to make friends with
the PA, such as sign a proper peace treaty. My impression in the past as
been that the relationship between the two agencies has been little
better than that between the Koreas.

[Michael Finfer]

It would not be difficult in a stub-end terminal like Grand Central.
Penn Station would be a real challenge.

On the LIRR, it might be better to put readers on the trains by the
doors given the complexity of Penn Station and Jamaica and the large
numbers of riders who change trains en route.

Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 25, 7:50 pm, Michael Finfer <fin...@optonline.net> wrote:

> > Since both the LIRR and MNRR have almost all high platforms it would
> > be relatively easy to put in faregates and controls.  (Admittedly, the
> > NYC terminals would be a challenge).  Since both run long trains there
> > should be savings in crew costs.

> Penn Station would be a real challenge.

> doors given the complexity of Penn Station and Jamaica and the large
> numbers of riders who change trains en route.

TheLIRR would especially benefit since they now attempt to check all
tickets twice--east and west of Jamaica.

In the mid 1960s experiment, revenue went up. I don't know how they
handled it at Penn Station, if at all. The two stations were Kew
Gardens and Forest Hills. I read about it in a report about the
project in a college library; I have tried to find the report but have
been unsuccessful.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 26/07/2012 00:50, Michael Finfer wrote:
> On 7/24/2012 10:22 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 8:34 pm, Michael Finfer<fin...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Like NJT, they wouldn't have this problem if they could actually collect
>>> the tickets.
>>
>> In the 1960s the LIRR tested an automatic fare collection system
>> similar to what the ICG used and what PATCO would use. It was a big
>> success. But after the test the equipment was pulled out and that was
>> the end of that.
>>
>> Since both the LIRR and MNRR have almost all high platforms it would
>> be relatively easy to put in faregates and controls. (Admittedly, the
>> NYC terminals would be a challenge). Since both run long trains there
>> should be savings in crew costs.
>>
>>
>
> It would not be difficult in a stub-end terminal like Grand Central.
> Penn Station would be a real challenge.

I dunno, they have gates with readers at places like Stratford and
Clapham Junction, the latter of which is quite large and the busiest
railroad station in the United Kingdom.

> On the LIRR, it might be better to put readers on the trains by the
> doors given the complexity of Penn Station and Jamaica and the large
> numbers of riders who change trains en route.
>

They do that here as well, actually. One example is when people transfer
from National Rail to the London Underground.

But they also have that on the Croydon Tramlink and the DLR.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 26/07/2012 15:27, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 25, 7:50 pm, Michael Finfer <fin...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> Since both the LIRR and MNRR have almost all high platforms it would
>>> be relatively easy to put in faregates and controls. (Admittedly, the
>>> NYC terminals would be a challenge). Since both run long trains there
>>> should be savings in crew costs.
>
>> Penn Station would be a real challenge.
>> doors given the complexity of Penn Station and Jamaica and the large
>> numbers of riders who change trains en route.
>
> TheLIRR would especially benefit since they now attempt to check all
> tickets twice--east and west of Jamaica.
>

I think that they have been doing that for a while, actually. They also
check tickets on the Montauk Branch, east of Babylon, in addition to the
City Zone and checks in Nassau County.

[Clark F Morris]

Or they could do it like many European countries and use Proof Of
Payment (GO Transit is platforms with no barriers to access which are
considered paid area where you are required to have a valid ticket)
with random checks for tickets. Most if not all German and Swiss
cities are this way and have zone fares. No need for fancy readers.
Paper and tickets work. This "experiment" started over 40 years ago
in Hamburg.

Clark Morris
>
>Michael Finfer
>Bridgewater, NJ

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 26, 6:17 pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Or they could do it like many European countries and use Proof Of
> Payment (GO Transit is platforms with no barriers to access which are
> considered paid area where you are required to have a valid ticket)
> with random checks for tickets.  Most if not all German and Swiss
> cities are this way and have zone fares.  No need for fancy readers.
> Paper and tickets work.  This "experiment" started over 40 years ago
> in Hamburg.

I can't help but suspect that German and Swiss railway passengers are
more cooperative with procedure and ticketing than NYC commuter rail
passengers are. In other words, a number of passengers will try to
game the system to save money, others will game the system to beat it
out of spite. Still others will use the fare inspection as an excuse
to file civil liberties lawsuits. A few will engage in violent
confrontation.

I sure as heck don't want to be on Pt. Washington train loaded with
"well fortified" Mets fans on their way to a game when tickets are
checked.

I also suspect that the unpleasant atmosphere that presently exists on
the NJT River Line between the inspectors and passengers would not be
tolerated by NYC commuter rail passengers and would serve to reduce
ridership.

Note that LA is converting _away_ from POP.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

That is basically what they do now, isn't it?

[Jimmy]

"hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk" <hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > TheLIRR would especially benefit since they now attempt to check all
> > tickets twice--east and west of Jamaica.
>
> I think that they have been doing that for a while, actually. They also
> check tickets on the Montauk Branch, east of Babylon, in addition to the
> City Zone and checks in Nassau County.

Yes, they check tickets on every train. So if you transfer to a train
that starts at Babylon, that means another ticket check.

If you change to a train in the middle of its route, and don't ride
all the way to the end (or to Jamaica), they might not get to check
your ticket. For example, if you're riding from Ronkonkoma to Mineola
on a weekend, you'd need to change to a westbound Huntington Branch
train at Hicksville, and they might not get to check all cars between
Hicksville and Mineola.

Jimmy

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

No, I was referring to Montauk trains. Your ticket is checked once in
the City Terminal Zone, whether your journey starts at NYP or at LIC. It
is also checked at least once after departing from Jamaica. I seem to
also remember that tickets were checked east of either Bay Shore or
Patchogue.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 26, 6:57 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> Note that LA is converting  _away_ from POP.

I will amend my thoughts to say POP could work on the MTA on the outer
diesel lines and light electric lines (except crowded Hamptons
trains), where the atmosphere is more informal and there are less
passengers. I don't know if that would save money.

I think the NJT Princeton shuttle has two conductors. That probably
could be one man operation (it has high platforms at both ends) with
POP.

[Jimmy]

"hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk" <hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Jimmy wrote:
> > Yes, they check tickets on every train.  So if you transfer to a train
> > that starts at Babylon, that means another ticket check.
>

> No, I was referring to Montauk trains. Your ticket is checked once in
> the City Terminal Zone, whether your journey starts at NYP or at LIC. It
> is also checked at least once after departing from Jamaica. I seem to
> also remember that tickets were checked east of either Bay Shore or
> Patchogue.

I assumed you were talking about an eastbound Montauk branch train
that started at Babylon, as about half of them do.

If the train started somewhere west of Babylon (Jamaica, LIC/
Hunterspoint, or a Penn Station dual mode), I'd be surprised if they
checked tickets again after Babylon.

In my experience, on westbound trains they keep track of whose tickets
they checked using seat checks (slips of paper they put on each row of
seats, punched for the number of people they checked in that row).
After the last stop before Jamaica, and again after the train's
penultimate stop, they do a final sweep for people whose row doesn't
have a seat check.

On eastbound trains, they check all the tickets just after departure,
and again after Jamaica if applicable. If you board an eastbound
train at an intermediate stop , they either remember you and find you,
or you don't get checked.

Jimmy

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

But they already do that.

[Sancho Panza]

On 7/24/2012 2:42 PM, Jimmy wrote:

How does a railroad lose revenue on uncollected tickets?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Just as savings and checking deposits are liabilities, not assets, to
a bank, so also is an outstanding ticket. Your $2 ticket to someplace
is a $2 liability (and if every passenger trip costs more than $2,
then it's a greater liability than that).

[Sancho Panza]

In other words, there is no real "loss of revenue," or actual income,
for the carrier, but rather an accounting adjustment.

[Bolwerk]

On 7/26/2012 6:57 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 26, 6:17 pm, Clark F Morris<cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Or they could do it like many European countries and use Proof Of
>> Payment (GO Transit is platforms with no barriers to access which
>> are considered paid area where you are required to have a valid
>> ticket) with random checks for tickets. Most if not all German and
>> Swiss cities are this way and have zone fares. No need for fancy
>> readers. Paper and tickets work. This "experiment" started over 40
>> years ago in Hamburg.

POP might be a little different on LIRR than in Germany, in all
fairness. German systems that use POP tend to have shorter vehicles,
not 10+ chalked cars of passengers.

POP is notably not used on longer inter-city trains.

Of course, POP certainly belongs on NYC buses and any future LRT services.

> I can't help but suspect that German and Swiss railway passengers
> are more cooperative with procedure and ticketing than NYC commuter
> rail passengers are.

Yes, good Germans. Bad New Yorkers.

> In other words, a number of passengers will try to game the system to
> save money,

Good. They'll lose that lottery, on average, and the system will make
more money.

> others will game the system to beat it out of spite.

They would lose too. Probably even more.

> Still others will use the fare inspection as an excuse to file civil
> liberties lawsuits.

Think for a second. How well does that work for parking tickets and
most other fines in NYC/NYS?

> A few will engage in violent confrontation.

So we should stop ticketing motorists?

> I sure as heck don't want to be on Pt. Washington train loaded with
> "well fortified" Mets fans on their way to a game when tickets are
> checked.
>
> I also suspect that the unpleasant atmosphere that presently exists
> on the NJT River Line between the inspectors and passengers would not
> be tolerated by NYC commuter rail passengers and would serve to
> reduce ridership.

Yes, obese suburbanites truly are menacing to trained ticket inspectors.

> Note that LA is converting _away_ from POP.

We could too, if it didn't work out. That's the beauty of inexpensive
changes.

[Stephen Sprunk]

You are confusing a cash inflow with a revenue; under GAAP, they are not
the same thing.

When someone prepays for a good or service, that is recorded as an asset
(cash) and a liability (for the good or service in question). It is not
until the good or service they paid for is _delivered_ that the
associated revenues and expenses can be recorded.

For a profitable business, prepayment is a good thing because the asset
is larger than the liability, so it boosts their balance sheet. For an
unprofitable business, eg. a transit agency, the opposite is true--and
their books will continue to suffer until the prepayment expires.

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

[Sancho Panza]

And in the end, after all the accounting, it becomes income. Basically
unearned, at that.

[Bolwerk]

There is a loss if the ticket is uncollected and then used later, which
can be done legitimately (or at least without consequence) - and it's
exactly what almost anyone would do.

It definitely can lead to lost revenue, unless the passenger is so
morally righteous as to cancel the ticket himself.

[Peter T. Daniels]

> unearned, at that.-

Only if there is a specific expiration date, after which the
accounting can be done. Hence, "ticket validities were shortened," the
statement that prompted your original question.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 29, 10:45 am, Sancho Panza <otterpo...@xhotmail.com> wrote:

> How does a railroad lose revenue on uncollected tickets?

People reuse them and thus ride their subsequent trip for free.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 29, 2:47 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is a loss if the ticket is uncollected and then used later, which
> can be done legitimately (or at least without consequence) - and it's
> exactly what almost anyone would do.
>
> It definitely can lead to lost revenue, unless the passenger is so

> morally righteous as to cancel the ticket himself.-

Some passengers turn in their uncollected tickets to a conductor when
they leave the train. Others just leave them on the seat.

But of course many simply reuse them and get another ride for free.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

I certainly would when the conductor didn't get to me.

[Sancho Panza]

On 7/29/2012 2:47 PM, Bolwerk wrote:
> There is a loss if the ticket is uncollected

The problem of not collecting tickets is a problem of mismanagement.

[Clark F Morris]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:30:52 -0400, Bolwerk <bol...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/26/2012 6:57 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 6:17 pm, Clark F Morris<cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Or they could do it like many European countries and use Proof Of
>>> Payment (GO Transit is platforms with no barriers to access which
>>> are considered paid area where you are required to have a valid
>>> ticket) with random checks for tickets. Most if not all German and
>>> Swiss cities are this way and have zone fares. No need for fancy
>>> readers. Paper and tickets work. This "experiment" started over 40
>>> years ago in Hamburg.
>
>POP might be a little different on LIRR than in Germany, in all
>fairness. German systems that use POP tend to have shorter vehicles,
>not 10+ chalked cars of passengers.

Even seen the S-BAhn trains in Munich and other cities. Marienplatz
station in Munich is reputed to handle 60,000 people an hour peak
period. The Hamburg S-Bahn and U-Bahn trains seemed as big as their
Philadelphia counterparts.

LA was unwilling to adequately police the system. Also LA has a flat
fare, disastrous financially in a city that large.

Clark Morris

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

They already do have POP on MNRR and LIRR in the form of conductors,
however.

The London Underground sometimes uses POP, however.

[Bolwerk]

I guess, though it's probably like POP. You expect to miss some and
plan accordingly. I doubt there is such a thing as 100% collection.

[Daniel Convissor]

In <jv3s1c$oko$1...@dont-email.me> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:

>>> On Jul 29, 10:45 am, Sancho Panza<otterpo...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How does a railroad lose revenue on uncollected tickets?

>For an
>unprofitable business, eg. a transit agency, the opposite is true--and
>their books will continue to suffer until the prepayment expires.

While all that accounting stuff is true, the more direct problem for the
transit provider is the person "reusing" the uncancelled ticket.

Say the rider pays $10 for a ticket for each trip. The conductor doesn't
collect the ticket. The next time that rider takes the trip, that rider
will most likely use the uncancelled ticket instead of spending $10 for a
new one. So the provider is now out $10.

The whole accounting asset/liability thing mainly comes into play when the
rider doesn't make that subsequent trip.

--Dan

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 29, 6:34 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess, though it's probably like POP.  You expect to miss some and
> plan accordingly.  I doubt there is such a thing as 100% collection.

Correct. At some point, the cost of collecting the last dime of
revenue--from any kind of business--will significantly exceed the cost
of collecting it, as well as goodwill and other factors.

When NJT has gotten tough with passengers on collecting revenue, it
often results in an unflattering article in the newspaper.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

Nonsense.

[Michael Finfer]

The point is that if the ticket is not collected, it can be reused
within the period of validity. They tried to minimize this by making
the validity period very short. The problem is not with the ticket
validity period, it is the inability of the railroad to make sure that
all tickets are collected on every train.

Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ

[Michael Finfer]

As would I. This still happens all the time on NJT. The crews feel
that their primary responsibility is the safe operation of the train and
that it is not their job to get trampled while trying to collect
tickets, and I have to say that I agree with them. There have been many
occasions during peak periods and on the weekends when I have been on a
train that is too crowded to move through and collect tickets.

Note that I see this as management/service issue (major delays and
overcrowding are far too common, and almost new equipment experiences
mechanical failures with distressing regularity resulting in cancelled
and overcrowded trains).

Note that NJT's one way tickets do not expire.

Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ

[Sancho Panza]

Thus, if the railroad was able to collect tickets properly, then all
uncollected tickets would amount to pure profit, so to speak. That would
occur, of course, after all the appropriate accounting maneuvers.

[Daniel Convissor]

In <5015f4ec$0$1208$607e...@cv.net> Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> writes:

>Thus, if the railroad was able to collect tickets properly, then all
>uncollected tickets would amount to pure profit, so to speak. That would
>occur, of course, after all the appropriate accounting maneuvers.

Unused? Sure. Uncollected? Nonsense.

The person took a trip. If the person never "reuses" the ticket, then it's a
wash for everyone involed. If the person takes another trip using the ticket,
the transit system lost revenue.

--Dan

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 29, 9:04 pm, Michael Finfer <fin...@optonline.net> wrote:

> As would I.  This still happens all the time on NJT.  The crews feel
> that their primary responsibility is the safe operation of the train and
> that it is not their job to get trampled while trying to collect
> tickets, and I have to say that I agree with them.  There have been many
> occasions during peak periods and on the weekends when I have been on a
> train that is too crowded to move through and collect tickets.

I see them make the effort to collect tickets, but there are just too
many people to reach them all. Didn't NJT cut back on crew sizes on
long trains? On the NEC, with high platforms and automatic doors,
they can get by with fewer crews unlike the old days with steps and
traps. (The M&E is still mostly low platform, right?)

> Note that NJT's one way tickets do not expire.

But they are restricted to a single direction (to New York or from New
York), that is, you must the proper half of a round trip pair of
tickets; and my observation is that they do enforce that rather
strictly. MNRR, LIRR, and SEPTA don't care. (All SEPTA tickets have
is the zone number; they are not computer generated).

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 29-Jul-12 12:30, Bolwerk wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 6:57 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 6:17 pm, Clark F Morris<cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>> Or they could do it like many European countries and use Proof Of
>>> Payment (GO Transit is platforms with no barriers to access which
>>> are considered paid area where you are required to have a valid
>>> ticket) with random checks for tickets. Most if not all German and
>>> Swiss cities are this way and have zone fares. No need for fancy
>>> readers. Paper and tickets work. This "experiment" started over 40
>>> years ago in Hamburg.
>
> POP might be a little different on LIRR than in Germany, in all
> fairness. German systems that use POP tend to have shorter vehicles,
> not 10+ chalked cars of passengers.

The S-Bahn and U-Bahn systems in many German cities have long trains
packed full of passengers.

> POP is notably not used on longer inter-city trains.

I'm not aware of anyone doing that.

> Of course, POP certainly belongs on NYC buses and any future LRT services.

I agree, but IMHO it makes the _most_ sense to do it on subway and
commuter trains.

>> I can't help but suspect that German and Swiss railway passengers
>> are more cooperative with procedure and ticketing than NYC commuter
>> rail passengers are.
>
> Yes, good Germans. Bad New Yorkers.

I wonder how much of that is an effect of the relative sensibility of
the two fare systems.

>> Note that LA is converting _away_ from POP.
>
> We could too, if it didn't work out. That's the beauty of inexpensive
> changes.

There is good reason to suspect LA is converting because of kickbacks
from the new fare-system manufacturer. Their own studies say they're
going to lose money on the deal--and they'll be locked into a one-vendor
relationship for decades after the first contract expires--and then the
vendor can raise prices as high as they want.

BCTA did a study on their POP system and found that, while they did lose
some money to fare evasion, the costs of going to a barrier system would
be _higher_, so in the end they'd lose more.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 29-Jul-12 16:58, houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> They already do have POP on MNRR and LIRR in the form of conductors,
> however.

Incomplete fare collection is not the same as POP.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Yes. However, such problems tend to be chronic: for every unused ticket
that expires, a new one is sold, so the hit to the balance sheet becomes
permanent.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 29-Jul-12 18:44, Daniel Convissor wrote:
> In <jv3s1c$oko$1...@dont-email.me> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>> For an
>> unprofitable business, eg. a transit agency, the opposite is true--and
>> their books will continue to suffer until the prepayment expires.
>
> While all that accounting stuff is true, the more direct problem for the
> transit provider is the person "reusing" the uncancelled ticket.
>
> Say the rider pays $10 for a ticket for each trip. The conductor doesn't
> collect the ticket. The next time that rider takes the trip, that rider
> will most likely use the uncancelled ticket instead of spending $10 for a
> new one. So the provider is now out $10.

Ah, I wasn't thinking of that scenario. I assumed that MNRR, LIRR, etc.
were competent enough to collect tickets from riders.

> The whole accounting asset/liability thing mainly comes into play when the
> rider doesn't make that subsequent trip.

Or, more simply, he buys a ticket and loses it before making the trip.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jul 30, 2:37 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> BCTA did a study on their POP system and found that, while they did lose
> some money to fare evasion, the costs of going to a barrier system would
> be _higher_, so in the end they'd lose more.

What about a system where the barriers already exist? They'd lose
money on fare evasion, but would it be saved on turnstile maintenance?

[Stephen Sprunk]

A properly implemented POP system turns a profit on fare evasion.

[Sancho Panza]

NJ Transit one-way tickets are good anywhere in either direction between
the two station stops printed on them.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 30, 3:31 pm, Sancho Panza <otterpo...@xhotmail.com> wrote:

> NJ Transit one-way tickets are good anywhere in either direction between
> the two station stops printed on them.

That would be news to the many passengers who present tickets for the
wrong direction and have them refused.

[Sancho Panza]

Not with one-way tickets. They do not indicate the direction of travel.

[Daniel Convissor]

In <37443670-5902-4afb...@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

Are you thinking about the old round trip tickets? That was the case with
them.

--Dan

[Jimmy]

hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> But they are restricted to a single direction (to New York or from New
> York), that is, you must the proper half of a round trip pair of
> tickets; and my observation is that they do enforce that rather
> strictly.  MNRR, LIRR, and SEPTA don't care.

The LIRR used to care in the case of round trip tickets bought on
board. Those had separate punch boxes for the eastbound and westbound
trips.

But starting with the December 2010 fare increase, they no longer sell
round trip tickets on board.

They haven't cared about trip direction for any ticket bought at a
machine or ticket window, at least for the last few decades.

Jimmy

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jul 30, 2:45 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 29-Jul-12 18:44, Daniel Convissor wrote:

> > In <jv3s1c$ok...@dont-email.me> Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> writes:

> >> For an
> >> unprofitable business, eg. a transit agency, the opposite is true--and
> >> their books will continue to suffer until the prepayment expires.
>
> > While all that accounting stuff is true, the more direct problem for the
> > transit provider is the person "reusing" the uncancelled ticket.
>
> > Say the rider pays $10 for a ticket for each trip.  The conductor doesn't
> > collect the ticket.  The next time that rider takes the trip, that rider
> > will most likely use the uncancelled ticket instead of spending $10 for a
> > new one.  So the provider is now out $10.
>
> Ah, I wasn't thinking of that scenario.  I assumed that MNRR, LIRR, etc.
> were competent enough to collect tickets from riders.

You haven't been paying attention? The trains can be too crowded for
that to be possible.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jul 30, 3:10 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 30-Jul-12 13:46, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On Jul 30, 2:37 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> BCTA did a study on their POP system and found that, while they did lose
> >> some money to fare evasion, the costs of going to a barrier system would
> >> be _higher_, so in the end they'd lose more.
>
> > What about a system where the barriers already exist? They'd lose
> > money on fare evasion, but would it be saved on turnstile maintenance?
>
> A properly implemented POP system turns a profit on fare evasion.

How would you "properly implement" such a system in the New York City
subways (where, obviously, the "barrier system" already exists, so
there is no capital investment involved)?

[John Levine]

>> Ah, I wasn't thinking of that scenario. �I assumed that MNRR, LIRR, etc.
>> were competent enough to collect tickets from riders.
>
>You haven't been paying attention? The trains can be too crowded for
>that to be possible.

I would expect that on the most crowded trains, the majority of
passengers would have monthly tickets, so it doesn't much matter
whether the conductor inspects them.

R's,
John
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 30/07/2012 02:04, Michael Finfer wrote:
>
> Note that NJT's one way tickets do not expire.
>

All the better, then.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

The do the same thing here in Britain with directions.

What does it matter if you plan to go in the same direction at another
time, though?

[Sancho Panza]

On 7/30/2012 2:42 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 29-Jul-12 13:40, Sancho Panza wrote:
>> On 7/29/2012 1:31 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> When someone prepays for a good or service, that is recorded as an asset
>>> (cash) and a liability (for the good or service in question). It is not
>>> until the good or service they paid for is _delivered_ that the
>>> associated revenues and expenses can be recorded.
>>>
>>> For a profitable business, prepayment is a good thing because the asset
>>> is larger than the liability, so it boosts their balance sheet. For an
>>> unprofitable business, eg. a transit agency, the opposite is true--and
>>> their books will continue to suffer until the prepayment expires.
>>
>> And in the end, after all the accounting, it becomes income. Basically
>> unearned, at that.
>
> Yes. However, such problems tend to be chronic: for every unused ticket
> that expires, a new one is sold, so the hit to the balance sheet becomes
> permanent.

Not necessarily. Passengers like tourists, theatergoers, attendees at
conferences or even casual workers may catch a ride home and never use
the uncollected ticket before its expiration.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

I remember once presenting a ticket for travel from Scarsdale to Mt.
Vernon West to White Plains, and it was accepted without any problems.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 30/07/2012 19:37, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 29-Jul-12 12:30, Bolwerk wrote:
>> On 7/26/2012 6:57 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> On Jul 26, 6:17 pm, Clark F Morris<cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Or they could do it like many European countries and use Proof Of
>>>> Payment (GO Transit is platforms with no barriers to access which
>>>> are considered paid area where you are required to have a valid
>>>> ticket) with random checks for tickets. Most if not all German and
>>>> Swiss cities are this way and have zone fares. No need for fancy
>>>> readers. Paper and tickets work. This "experiment" started over 40
>>>> years ago in Hamburg.
>>
>> POP might be a little different on LIRR than in Germany, in all
>> fairness. German systems that use POP tend to have shorter vehicles,
>> not 10+ chalked cars of passengers.
>
> The S-Bahn and U-Bahn systems in many German cities have long trains
> packed full of passengers.
>
>> POP is notably not used on longer inter-city trains.
>
> I'm not aware of anyone doing that.
>
>> Of course, POP certainly belongs on NYC buses and any future LRT services.
>
> I agree, but IMHO it makes the _most_ sense to do it on subway and
> commuter trains.

How the hell do you propose to introduce POP on the New York City
Subway? And they already have POP on LIRR and MNRR, I might add.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 30/07/2012 19:41, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 29-Jul-12 16:58, houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> They already do have POP on MNRR and LIRR in the form of conductors,
>> however.
>
> Incomplete fare collection is not the same as POP.
>
> S
>

And what is POP? Do you think that they are going to get to everybody on
a crowded New Haven Line train or Lexington Avenue subway train?

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 30-Jul-12 16:23, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Jul 30, 3:10 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 30-Jul-12 13:46, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 2:37 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> BCTA did a study on their POP system and found that, while they
>>>> did lose some money to fare evasion, the costs of going to a
>>>> barrier system would be _higher_, so in the end they'd lose more.
>>>
>>> What about a system where the barriers already exist? They'd lose
>>> money on fare evasion, but would it be saved on turnstile maintenance?
>>
>> A properly implemented POP system turns a profit on fare evasion.
>
> How would you "properly implement" such a system in the New York City

> subways ...?

What problems do you see with implementing POP in NYC, as opposed to
various subways and other rail systems around the world using it?

> (where, obviously, the "barrier system" already exists, so there is
> no capital investment involved)

Removing all those barriers would be a capital expense, as would writing
off their undepreciated value when they were scrapped--unless some other
TA could be suckered into buying them.

You'd also need to reprogram all the ticket machines and replace their
printers with something more functional for POP purposes. On the plus
side, the stock itself would be much cheaper.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Given a sufficiently large set of buyers, when person A's uncollected
ticket expires, person B buys another ticket that ends up being
uncollected, so a relatively constant number of uncollected tickets are
always outstanding.

Short-term policy changes may cause a large number of uncollected
tickets to expire earlier or later, which will cause a temporary boost
or hit to the financial reports, but equilibrium eventually returns.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 30-Jul-12 17:43, houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 30/07/2012 19:41, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 29-Jul-12 16:58, houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> They already do have POP on MNRR and LIRR in the form of conductors,
>>> however.
>>
>> Incomplete fare collection is not the same as POP.
>

> And what is POP?

Proof Of Payment.

> Do you think that they are going to get to everybody on a crowded New
> Haven Line train or Lexington Avenue subway train?

One of the benefits of POP is that they don't have to "get to everyone".
Also, tickets don't have to be checked _on_ the train; they can be
checked anywhere within the paid area.

[Stephen Sprunk]

What problems do you see with implementing POP in NYC, as opposed to
various subways and other rail systems around the world using it?

> And they already have POP on LIRR and MNRR, I might add.

Incomplete fare collection is not the same as POP.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 30, 6:31 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:

> >You haven't been paying attention? The trains can be too crowded for
> >that to be possible.
>
> I would expect that on the most crowded trains, the majority of
> passengers would have monthly tickets, so it doesn't much matter
> whether the conductor inspects them.

Not on weekends or on special event days.

[Michael Finfer]

On 7/30/2012 9:54 AM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> But they are restricted to a single direction (to New York or from New
> York), that is, you must the proper half of a round trip pair of
> tickets; and my observation is that they do enforce that rather

> strictly. MNRR, LIRR, and SEPTA don't care. (All SEPTA tickets have
> is the zone number; they are not computer generated).
>

No. Those tickets are valid in either direction. If a transfer is
involved, the direction of travel SHOULD be indicated by the way the
tickets are punched (the first punch is supposed to be placed in the
corner by the name of the originating station, either top or bottom
depending on the situation), but the crews on the NY trains often do not
do that correctly (westbound). It must happen often enough that the
Raritan Line crews always ignore it, at least nobody has ever given me a
hard time about it.

If no transfer is involved, the ticket is just cancelled.

The old off peak round trips were different. With those, the direction
did make a difference, and it was strictly enforced.

Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 30, 7:56 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> What problems do you see with implementing POP in NYC, as opposed to
> various subways and other rail systems around the world using it?

You seem to think fare evasion can be controlled by merely a
mathematical formula. Math is no substitute for human emotion.

NYC subways have a lot of emotion.

[Michael Finfer]

Stuff like what's quoted below is part of the problem. There will
probably be large numbers of uncollected fares day after tomorrow
(except for the Meadowlands tickets which are collected at the fare
gates at Secaucus and cannot be reused even if the crews don't get a
chance to lift them.)



Travel Alerts
Jul 30, 2012 07:00:34 PM
Large crowds are expected at Secaucus Jct., New York Penn Station,
Hoboken Terminal and Newark Penn Station due to a major event at MetLife
Stadium on Wednesday, August 1 beginning around 4 p.m. – Customers
should allow for extra travel time throughout the evening.

Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 30, 7:55 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> One of the benefits of POP is that they don't have to "get to everyone".
>  Also, tickets don't have to be checked _on_ the train; they can be
> checked anywhere within the paid area.

On the River Line and Newark Subway, POP, tickets are checked on board
or upon exit for relatively few people. There's no backup.

But twelve car commuter trains have lots of people alighting, and
leaving at various exits along the long platform. To be effective,
they'd either need many inspectors or to seal off the exits except one
to get everyone. Either way produces a backup which is a safety
hazard and an annoyance to passengers.

To inspect tickets of exiting passengers at Penn or GCT would be even
worse.

How about 11 car trains of the Flushing Line at Grand Central? Or on
the Lexington Ave line?

Why the MTA hasn't implemented POP on SIRT and instead just gives
local riders free rides? Could it be that the cost of installing fare
machines and hiring inspectors exceeds the benefit?

[Phil Kane]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:30:52 -0400, Bolwerk <bol...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Note that LA is converting _away_ from POP.
>
>We could too, if it didn't work out. That's the beauty of inexpensive
>changes.

One of the reasons that they are doing this is that the "inspectors"
are uniformed fully-armed police officers detailed from LAPD and the
LA Sheriff's Department, and with the present budget crunch, no one
can hire anyone - not more officers and not more inspectors - to
replace these officers when they are pulled back and sent out on the
street to be real cops. Definitely not a win-win situation.
---

Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District

[Phil Kane]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:24:53 +0100, "houn...@yahoo.co.uk"
<houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>> How does a railroad lose revenue on uncollected tickets?
>>
>> People reuse them and thus ride their subsequent trip for free.
>>
>
>I certainly would when the conductor didn't get to me.

Do you sneak out of the greengrocers without paying if the counter
clerk is busy elsewhere?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jul 30, 6:53 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 30-Jul-12 16:23, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On Jul 30, 3:10 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> On 30-Jul-12 13:46, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Jul 30, 2:37 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >>>> BCTA did a study on their POP system and found that, while they
> >>>> did lose some money to fare evasion, the costs of going to a
> >>>> barrier system would be _higher_, so in the end they'd lose more.
>
> >>> What about a system where the barriers already exist? They'd lose
> >>> money on fare evasion, but would it be saved on turnstile maintenance?
>
> >> A properly implemented POP system turns a profit on fare evasion.
>
> > How would you "properly implement" such a system in the New York City
> > subways ...?
>
> What problems do you see with implementing POP in NYC, as opposed to
> various subways and other rail systems around the world using it?

See the responses from EVERYONE ELSE -- people who have actually
ridden on the NYC subways. There are 437 stations, 18 lines, between 8
and 11 cars per train, and every station is served 24/7.

> > (where, obviously, the "barrier system" already exists, so there is
> > no capital investment involved)
>
> Removing all those barriers would be a capital expense, as would writing
> off their undepreciated value when they were scrapped--unless some other
> TA could be suckered into buying them.

Why would you "remove" them? Just set them to not take payment for
entry.

> You'd also need to reprogram all the ticket machines and replace their
> printers with something more functional for POP purposes.  On the plus
> side, the stock itself would be much cheaper.

And I forgot to mention -- the perception of safety. The existing
barriers provide a degree of exclusion of muggers, gangbangers, etc.,
that would be gone.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jul 30, 9:01 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 30, 7:56 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
> > What problems do you see with implementing POP in NYC, as opposed to
> > various subways and other rail systems around the world using it?
>
> You seem to think fare evasion can be controlled by merely a
> mathematical formula.  Math is no substitute for human emotion.

Please. You're addressing an Up-in-the-Air MBA apostle who believes
everything they told him in business school and has no experience of
the real world -- not to mentiion the freedom to be contributing to
newsgroups at every hour of the day or night.

[Clark F Morris]

They do not have POP on either. POP systems have one way tickets that
are only valid for a number of hours depending on distant (normally 1
- 3 hours) and period passes (day, week, month, etc.). POP is random
checking. MNRR and LIRR theoretically check every ticket.

Clark Morris

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 31-Jul-12 06:17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Jul 30, 6:53 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 30-Jul-12 16:23, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> How would you "properly implement" such a system in the New York City
>>> subways ...?
>>
>> What problems do you see with implementing POP in NYC, as opposed to
>> various subways and other rail systems around the world using it?
>
> See the responses from EVERYONE ELSE -- people who have actually
> ridden on the NYC subways. There are 437 stations, 18 lines, between 8
> and 11 cars per train, and every station is served 24/7.

Thanks for the Wikipedia stats, but what relevance does that have to the
actual implementation of POP, at least versus similarly large systems
elsewhere? Specifics, not a bunch of hand waving.

>>> (where, obviously, the "barrier system" already exists, so there is
>>> no capital investment involved)
>>
>> Removing all those barriers would be a capital expense, as would writing
>> off their undepreciated value when they were scrapped--unless some other
>> TA could be suckered into buying them.
>
> Why would you "remove" them? Just set them to not take payment for
> entry.

So you're going to continue to pay the capital expenses even though
you're not using them--and they're going to continue to impede the free
flow of passengers for no good reason?

>> You'd also need to reprogram all the ticket machines and replace their
>> printers with something more functional for POP purposes. On the plus
>> side, the stock itself would be much cheaper.
>
> And I forgot to mention -- the perception of safety. The existing
> barriers provide a degree of exclusion of muggers, gangbangers, etc.,
> that would be gone.

Muggers, gangbangers, etc. can't buy (or steal) MetroCards today? They
wouldn't be able to figure out how to operate a turnstile that didn't
require payment?

POP would _improve_ the perception of safety (and maybe even actual
safety) by having visible transit cops actively moving around the system
randomly and talking to passengers.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 30-Jul-12 20:01, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 30, 7:56 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> What problems do you see with implementing POP in NYC, as opposed to
>> various subways and other rail systems around the world using it?
>
> You seem to think fare evasion can be controlled by merely a
> mathematical formula.

Experience from all over the world shows it can.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 30, 8:59 pm, Michael Finfer <fin...@optonline.net> wrote:

[njt tickets]

> > But they are restricted to a single direction (to New York or from New
> > York), that is, you must the proper half of a round trip pair of
> > tickets; and my observation is that they do enforce that rather
> > strictly.  MNRR, LIRR, and SEPTA don't care.  (All SEPTA tickets have
> > is the zone number; they are not computer generated).
>
> No.  Those tickets are valid in either direction.  If a transfer is
> involved, the direction of travel SHOULD be indicated by the way the
> tickets are punched (the first punch is supposed to be placed in the
> corner by the name of the originating station, either top or bottom
> depending on the situation), but the crews on the NY trains often do not
> do that correctly (westbound).  It must happen often enough that the
> Raritan Line crews always ignore it, at least nobody has ever given me a
> hard time about it.

All I can tell you is that on my recent NJT trips on the NEC, the
ticket machines printed tickets in two different directions for round
trip tickets, and the crews were still strict about taking the ticket
with the proper direction on it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jul 31, 11:51 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 31-Jul-12 06:17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On Jul 30, 6:53 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> On 30-Jul-12 16:23, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> How would you "properly implement" such a system in the New York City
> >>> subways ...?
>
> >> What problems do you see with implementing POP in NYC, as opposed to
> >> various subways and other rail systems around the world using it?
>
> > See the responses from EVERYONE ELSE -- people who have actually
> > ridden on the NYC subways. There are 437 stations, 18 lines, between 8
> > and 11 cars per train, and every station is served 24/7.
>
> Thanks for the Wikipedia stats, but what relevance does that have to the
> actual implementation of POP, at least versus similarly large systems
> elsewhere?  Specifics, not a bunch of hand waving.

How many tickets do _you_ propose to check held by the hundreds of
thousands of riders every day? How many checkers would it take to do
it? Would the checkers look for people they thought might be trying to
evade fares (or did you overlook the discussion of Stop&Frisk)?

> >>> (where, obviously, the "barrier system" already exists, so there is
> >>> no capital investment involved)
>
> >> Removing all those barriers would be a capital expense, as would writing
> >> off their undepreciated value when they were scrapped--unless some other
> >> TA could be suckered into buying them.
>
> > Why would you "remove" them? Just set them to not take payment for
> > entry.
>
> So you're going to continue to pay the capital expenses even though
> you're not using them--and they're going to continue to impede the free
> flow of passengers for no good reason?

Which "capital expenses" are those?

> >> You'd also need to reprogram all the ticket machines and replace their
> >> printers with something more functional for POP purposes.  On the plus
> >> side, the stock itself would be much cheaper.
>
> > And I forgot to mention -- the perception of safety. The existing
> > barriers provide a degree of exclusion of muggers, gangbangers, etc.,
> > that would be gone.
>
> Muggers, gangbangers, etc. can't buy (or steal) MetroCards today?  They
> wouldn't be able to figure out how to operate a turnstile that didn't
> require payment?

I said the PERCEPTION of safety.

Do you really not understand that it's easier for a bad guy to walk
into an unregulated "fare control area" than for him to "buy (or
steal) MetroCards" or jump the turnstile?

> POP would _improve_ the perception of safety (and maybe even actual
> safety) by having visible transit cops actively moving around the system
> randomly and talking to passengers.

???? Now you want them to be "visible transit cops"???? Did you miss
the message about how they tried using actual policemen in L.A., and
they got called to actual police situations whenever necessary?

Or maybe you don't know that many decades ago, the Transit Police were
eliminated and their duties assumed by the NYPD?

And explain that "actively moving around the system"? You really never
have been on a NYC subway in your entire life? "Actively moving
around" is not an option.

The two times I have encountered a POP agent were: in St. Louis going
to and from the airport, where not even all the seats in the car were
occupied and there was a long run between stations; and in Cologne,
where the agent entered the car and by the time he got near me (two or
three stations later), I had reached my destination -- I didn't have a
ticket because I hadn't been able to figure out the machine on the
platform where I got on, and it turned out that my all-day pass for
all the museums included a full day of transit service, so I was
"retroactively ticketed," sort of like romney.

In San Diego, where I took the light rail from the hotel up to the
Mission (_not_ worth the trip -- the supposed first settlement in
California was built in the 1930s) and to downtown, no agent boarded
to check tickets on any of my four rides.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 31, 12:10 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

> How many tickets do _you_ propose to check held by the hundreds of
> thousands of riders every day? How many checkers would it take to do
> it? Would the checkers look for people they thought might be trying to
> evade fares (or did you overlook the discussion of Stop&Frisk)?

New Yorkers will not appreciate being blocked as they're exiting a
station. Heck, if there's a long line at the machines they'll jump
the turnstile just to save a few seconds.

"Stop 'n Frisk" is an important point. That's a very controversial
issue, and undoubtedly the activists in NYC will make a claim that
certain groups are being singled to out to be checked for tickets or
cited for fare evasion. (As an aside, I've been stopped several
times under the program.)

[Phil Kane]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:10:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>In San Diego, where I took the light rail from the hotel up to the
>Mission (_not_ worth the trip -- the supposed first settlement in
>California was built in the 1930s) and to downtown, no agent boarded
>to check tickets on any of my four rides.

I've ridden the San Diego Trolley twice, and Esmerelda the POP-checker
checked both times. I remember the name because when she boarded she
announced "I'm Esmerelda and I'm going to check tickets. Please have
them ready." No one got up to leave. Maybe by the time that you rode
the Trolley she had retired.

In the 13 years that I have been riding Portland's Tri-Met MAX system,
I've been POP-checked three times, one of them after a police officer
handled a "police matter" - someone throwing rocks at the train - and
was riding back to his regular station.

On the LA Red line, I rode it twice and was POP-checked by LAPD both
times.

Granted, a sample of two is not all that statistically significant,
but checking does happen.

[Steven M. O'Neill]

Phil Kane <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
>I've ridden the San Diego Trolley twice, and Esmerelda the POP-checker
>checked both times. I remember the name because when she boarded she
>announced "I'm Esmerelda and I'm going to check tickets. Please have
>them ready." No one got up to leave. Maybe by the time that you rode
>the Trolley she had retired.
>
>In the 13 years that I have been riding Portland's Tri-Met MAX system,
>I've been POP-checked three times, one of them after a police officer
>handled a "police matter" - someone throwing rocks at the train - and
>was riding back to his regular station.
>
>On the LA Red line, I rode it twice and was POP-checked by LAPD both
>times.

I got checked in the Prague subway many years ago, after taking
the advice given by a local that "tickets are never checked."
The agent presented his badge, and at first I thought it was a
trinket the he was trying to sell me. The fine was collected
immediately, in cash, about $5. He kept the badge.

--
Steven O'Neill ste...@panix.com
Brooklyn, NY http://www.panix.com/~steveo

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

Nope.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

Well said.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

Fair enough.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 31/07/2012 00:55, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 30-Jul-12 17:43, houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> On 30/07/2012 19:41, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 29-Jul-12 16:58, houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>> They already do have POP on MNRR and LIRR in the form of conductors,
>>>> however.
>>>
>>> Incomplete fare collection is not the same as POP.
>>
>> And what is POP?
>
> Proof Of Payment.

I know what POP is, they have it throughout Europe, including on the
London Underground.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 31, 3:29 pm, ste...@panix.com (Steven M. O'Neill) wrote:

> I got checked in the Prague subway many years ago, after taking
> the advice given by a local that "tickets are never checked."
> The agent presented his badge, and at first I thought it was a
> trinket the he was trying to sell me.  The fine was collected
> immediately, in cash, about $5.  He kept the badge.

There's one inspector on the NJT Newark City Subway who is very nice.

On the NJT River Line, the inspectors are like eastern European border
guards during the cold war. "YOUR PAPERS? These papers are expired!
You'll have to come with us!!"

But some folks say that atmosphere provides a sense of 'passenger
security' and encourages ridership. I don't think so. Here are some
articles:

http://www.trentonian.com/article/20090528/NEWS/305289999/sheriff-we-re-going-to-crack-down-on-river-line-thugs

http://www.trentonian.com/article/20050803/TMP02/308039999/nightmare-on-the-river-line

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

If you were to buy a ticket from London Victoria to Brighton, the gates
would accept only the outbound ticket. The conductor would also only
accept the outbound ticket. I have at times made the mistake of giving
the conductor an inbound ticket on an outbound journey, only to have it
pointed out to me that I made a mistake.

[Steven M. O'Neill]

Since when? Had turnstiles when I was there.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 31/07/2012 16:51, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 31-Jul-12 06:17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 6:53 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> On 30-Jul-12 16:23, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> How would you "properly implement" such a system in the New York City
>>>> subways ...?
>>>
>>> What problems do you see with implementing POP in NYC, as opposed to
>>> various subways and other rail systems around the world using it?
>>
>> See the responses from EVERYONE ELSE -- people who have actually
>> ridden on the NYC subways. There are 437 stations, 18 lines, between 8
>> and 11 cars per train, and every station is served 24/7.
>
> Thanks for the Wikipedia stats, but what relevance does that have to the
> actual implementation of POP, at least versus similarly large systems
> elsewhere? Specifics, not a bunch of hand waving.
>

How do you check if somebody buys a single-fare ticket and discards it
as soon as he/she goes through the turnstiles?

Exits from the subway are not locked, mind you.

> Muggers, gangbangers, etc. can't buy (or steal) MetroCards today? They
> wouldn't be able to figure out how to operate a turnstile that didn't
> require payment?

They can just jump the turnstiles, as they had before, in any event.

> POP would _improve_ the perception of safety (and maybe even actual
> safety) by having visible transit cops actively moving around the system
> randomly and talking to passengers.
>

You would have massive revenue hemorrhaging if you eliminated turnstiles
on the Subway.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 31/07/2012 22:09, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
> houn...@yahoo.co.uk <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 31/07/2012 00:55, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 30-Jul-12 17:43, houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>> On 30/07/2012 19:41, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>> On 29-Jul-12 16:58, houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>> They already do have POP on MNRR and LIRR in the form of conductors,
>>>>>> however.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incomplete fare collection is not the same as POP.
>>>>
>>>> And what is POP?
>>>
>>> Proof Of Payment.
>>
>> I know what POP is, they have it throughout Europe, including on the
>> London Underground.
>
> Since when? Had turnstiles when I was there.
>

They don't have turnstiles, but gates or barriers.

You will very occasionally see revenue inspectors on Underground trains
themselves, though you will see them more often at larger hubs, such as
at Notting Hill Gate, where passengers can transfer between two lines.

They will also be standing by exit gates sometimes.

I myself have seen revenue inspectors in action on a westbound
Piccadilly Line, just west of Acton Town. They were probably hoping to
get people on the way out to Heathrow Airport with flights to catch, so
they would put up the least resistance.

[Sancho Panza]

On 7/31/2012 4:49 PM, houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 29/07/2012 22:48, Phil Kane wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:24:53 +0100, "houn...@yahoo.co.uk"
>> <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>> How does a railroad lose revenue on uncollected tickets?
>>>>
>>>> People reuse them and thus ride their subsequent trip for free.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I certainly would when the conductor didn't get to me.
>>
>> Do you sneak out of the greengrocers without paying if the counter
>> clerk is busy elsewhere?

In years of riding NJ Transit, I have never seen anyone ever seek out a
conductor to present a ticket.

[Phil Kane]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:01:36 -0400, Sancho Panza
<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:

>>> Do you sneak out of the greengrocers without paying if the counter
>>> clerk is busy elsewhere?
>
>In years of riding NJ Transit, I have never seen anyone ever seek out a
>conductor to present a ticket.

The issue is not seeking out a conductor, it is using a ticket twice.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 30-Jul-12 19:57, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 30, 7:55 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> One of the benefits of POP is that they don't have to "get to everyone".
>> Also, tickets don't have to be checked _on_ the train; they can be
>> checked anywhere within the paid area.
>
> On the River Line and Newark Subway, POP, tickets are checked on board
> or upon exit for relatively few people. There's no backup.
>
> But twelve car commuter trains have lots of people alighting, and
> leaving at various exits along the long platform. To be effective,
> they'd either need many inspectors

That's the idea; since you don't need to inspect _every_ train, just a
statistical sample, that isn't a problem: rather than conductors spread
thinly over every train, you have concentrated teams of fare inspectors
that pop up randomly all over the system.

> or to seal off the exits except one to get everyone.

This is a horrible idea.

> Either way produces a backup which is a safety
> hazard and an annoyance to passengers.

The backup is minimal if you have sufficiently large teams, and any
passenger annoyance is mitigated by the fact that on the majority of
their trips, they will experience _less_ delay than they do today.

In an ideal system, the fare inspectors just stand by the exits and
passengers hold up their tickets as they walk past. If the FI sees
someone not holding up a ticket, or the date doesn't look right, he
pulls that person aside (out of the flow of traffic). No backup required.

> To inspect tickets of exiting passengers at Penn or GCT would be even
> worse.

Hitting those particular locations would probably be quite rare, but
you'd need to do it now and then--and probably pull in every fare
inspector in the entire system.

> Why the MTA hasn't implemented POP on SIRT

MTA uses barriers or conductors on all of its other lines, and TAs with
that mindset seem to have a hard time accepting POP--just like all the
people here arguing against it without understanding how it works.

AFAIK, NJT is the only operator in the US that uses both POP and non-POP
fare collection--and from your (perhaps biased) anecdotes, they don't
seem to do a very good job of the POP part.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 31-Jul-12 14:29, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
> I got checked in the Prague subway many years ago, after taking
> the advice given by a local that "tickets are never checked."
> The agent presented his badge, and at first I thought it was a
> trinket the he was trying to sell me. The fine was collected
> immediately, in cash, about $5. He kept the badge.

A $5 fine? No point to that. I wonder if, perhaps, the agent was
supplementing his income rather than charging the actual fine, which
needs to be an order of magnitude or two greater than the fare for POP
to work properly.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 31-Jul-12 15:46, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> But some folks say that atmosphere provides a sense of 'passenger
> security' and encourages ridership. I don't think so. Here are some
> articles:
>
> http://www.trentonian.com/article/20090528/NEWS/305289999/sheriff-we-re-going-to-crack-down-on-river-line-thugs

That's about gangs, not fare inspectors. Though it does seem to
indicate that NJT needs more transit cops present. Would conductors, as
used on other NJT lines, help? I doubt it.

Note that when a transit cop or other FI starts to write a citation,
they also check the person's ID for outstanding warrants. Many, many
fugitives are discovered this way.

> http://www.trentonian.com/article/20050803/TMP02/308039999/nightmare-on-the-river-line

This is an utter failure of public relations--and of the courts using
common sense. Not having seen NJT's TVMs or signage, but knowing how
bad they are in most places around the US, that's probably also a design
problem.

If no warrant is found during the ID check above, and there is no record
of prior warnings, they _should_ give the person a written warning
rather than a citation for the first offense.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 31-Jul-12 16:25, houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 31/07/2012 16:51, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 31-Jul-12 06:17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 6:53 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> On 30-Jul-12 16:23, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> How would you "properly implement" such a system in the New York City
>>>>> subways ...?
>>>>
>>>> What problems do you see with implementing POP in NYC, as opposed to
>>>> various subways and other rail systems around the world using it?
>>>
>>> See the responses from EVERYONE ELSE -- people who have actually
>>> ridden on the NYC subways. There are 437 stations, 18 lines, between 8
>>> and 11 cars per train, and every station is served 24/7.
>>
>> Thanks for the Wikipedia stats, but what relevance does that have to the
>> actual implementation of POP, at least versus similarly large systems
>> elsewhere? Specifics, not a bunch of hand waving.
>
> How do you check if somebody buys a single-fare ticket and discards it
> as soon as he/she goes through the turnstiles?

If they are found inside the paid area without a valid ticket, that is a
violation.

Lesson: Don't throw your ticket away until after you exit the paid area.
Better yet, buy a pass rather than a single-ride ticket, and don't
throw it away until it expires.

> Exits from the subway are not locked, mind you.

Without turnstiles, all of those exits would also become entrances,
improving passenger flow.

[John Levine]

>>I know what POP is, they have it throughout Europe, including on the
>>London Underground.
>
>Since when? Had turnstiles when I was there.

Most LU stations have gates (turnstiles in American), but some don't, just Oyster
validators where you are supposed to tap in and out.

R's,
John
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 31-Jul-12 11:10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Jul 31, 11:51 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 31-Jul-12 06:17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 6:53 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> On 30-Jul-12 16:23, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> How would you "properly implement" such a system in the New York City
>>>>> subways ...?
>>>>
>>>> What problems do you see with implementing POP in NYC, as opposed to
>>>> various subways and other rail systems around the world using it?
>>
>>> See the responses from EVERYONE ELSE -- people who have actually
>>> ridden on the NYC subways. There are 437 stations, 18 lines, between 8
>>> and 11 cars per train, and every station is served 24/7.
>>
>> Thanks for the Wikipedia stats, but what relevance does that have to the
>> actual implementation of POP, at least versus similarly large systems
>> elsewhere? Specifics, not a bunch of hand waving.
>
> How many tickets do _you_ propose to check held by the hundreds of
> thousands of riders every day?

At least an order of magnitude fewer than the number of tickets that are
checked today, i.e. in theory all of them.

> Would the checkers look for people they thought might be trying to

> evade fares ...?

Of course; it is their _job_ to find those without a valid ticket.

>>>>> (where, obviously, the "barrier system" already exists, so there is
>>>>> no capital investment involved)
>>>>
>>>> Removing all those barriers would be a capital expense, as would writing
>>>> off their undepreciated value when they were scrapped--unless some other
>>>> TA could be suckered into buying them.
>>>
>>> Why would you "remove" them? Just set them to not take payment for
>>> entry.
>>
>> So you're going to continue to pay the capital expenses even though
>> you're not using them--and they're going to continue to impede the free
>> flow of passengers for no good reason?
>
> Which "capital expenses" are those?

Depreciation.

>>> And I forgot to mention -- the perception of safety. The existing
>>> barriers provide a degree of exclusion of muggers, gangbangers, etc.,
>>> that would be gone.
>>
>> Muggers, gangbangers, etc. can't buy (or steal) MetroCards today? They
>> wouldn't be able to figure out how to operate a turnstile that didn't
>> require payment?
>
> I said the PERCEPTION of safety.
>
> Do you really not understand that it's easier for a bad guy to walk
> into an unregulated "fare control area" than for him to "buy (or
> steal) MetroCards" or jump the turnstile?

Only marginally so.

>> POP would _improve_ the perception of safety (and maybe even actual
>> safety) by having visible transit cops actively moving around the system
>> randomly and talking to passengers.
>
> ???? Now you want them to be "visible transit cops"????

That's how it works.

> Did you miss the message about how they tried using actual policemen
> in L.A., and they got called to actual police situations whenever
> necessary?

That's why most transit agencies, like railroads, have their own police
forces: the local municipal police or sheriffs forces are neither
trained for nor interested in dealing with trains.

> Or maybe you don't know that many decades ago, the Transit Police were
> eliminated and their duties assumed by the NYPD?

That was obviously a mistake.

> And explain that "actively moving around the system"? You really never
> have been on a NYC subway in your entire life? "Actively moving
> around" is not an option.

If "moving around" is not an option, then how does anyone get anywhere?
Isn't "moving around" the entire _point_ of a transportation system?

> The two times I have encountered a POP agent were: in St. Louis going
> to and from the airport, where not even all the seats in the car were
> occupied and there was a long run between stations; and in Cologne,
> where the agent entered the car and by the time he got near me (two or
> three stations later), I had reached my destination

DART and FWTA deploy sufficient transit cops or FIs that they can check
_every_ passenger on a train between successive stations. Generally,
one enters through each end door and they work toward the middle door,
exiting (usually with one or two violators in tow) at the next station.

> I didn't have a ticket

Then you were a criminal, just one that didn't get caught.

> because I hadn't been able to figure out the machine on the
> platform where I got on,

If you couldn't figure out how to buy a ticket, you shouldn't have
gotten on the train.

> In San Diego, ... no agent boarded to check tickets on any of my
> four rides.

That's not unusual. Another passenger making four trips might get
checked every time. Such is the nature of random sampling.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 31, 5:25 pm, "hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk" <hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> How do you check if somebody buys a single-fare ticket and discards it
> as soon as he/she goes through the turnstiles?

Passengers would have to retain their ticket until the completion of
the trip.

> Exits from the subway are not locked, mind you.

In the NYC subway, the volume of passengers, New Yorkers' attitudes,
and the constricted passageways would make inspection upon exit--as
done elsewhere--impractical in NYC.

This would likewise apply to many NYC area commuter railroad
stations. It might work on the distant branches.

> > Muggers, gangbangers, etc. can't buy (or steal) MetroCards today?  They
> > wouldn't be able to figure out how to operate a turnstile that didn't
> > require payment?
>
> They can just jump the turnstiles, as they had before, in any event.

The turnstiles do serve as a deterrent to muggers entering the
subway. Many such crimes are crimes of chance opportunity as opposed
to planned, and turnstiles deter aimless wandering around. Further,
jumping turnstiles is an offense in itself and relatively easy to
patrol.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 31, 9:12 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> In an ideal system, the fare inspectors just stand by the exits and
> passengers hold up their tickets as they walk past.  If the FI sees
> someone not holding up a ticket, or the date doesn't look right, he
> pulls that person aside (out of the flow of traffic).  No backup required.

On NJT tickets, the validation stamp is too small to read as a walk-
by. It must be carefully checked to ensure it's not being reused.

> AFAIK, NJT is the only operator in the US that uses both POP and non-POP
> fare collection--and from your (perhaps biased) anecdotes, they don't
> seem to do a very good job of the POP part.

Did you read the two newspaper articles? Someone bought the wrong
ticket and spent the night in jail as a result.

[Steven M. O'Neill]

Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>On 31-Jul-12 14:29, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>> I got checked in the Prague subway many years ago, after taking
>> the advice given by a local that "tickets are never checked."
>> The agent presented his badge, and at first I thought it was a
>> trinket the he was trying to sell me. The fine was collected
>> immediately, in cash, about $5. He kept the badge.
>
>A $5 fine? No point to that. I wonder if, perhaps, the agent was
>supplementing his income rather than charging the actual fine, which
>needs to be an order of magnitude or two greater than the fare for POP
>to work properly.

I wondered that too, of course. But he did have me. Current
fare for 30 minutes is just over a dollar. Back then I recall
it was much less, but yeah, more than 5 cents.