General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

What's your provider? I've had service underground since last November I believe. I remember that it surprised me too, one day, when I was headed to a public meeting at 10 Park Plaza actually. That was with AT&T and now it works with T-mobile too.

I think Sprint/Verizon did not sign onto the underground provider's agreement until recently.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Yeah you could pull this off by duct taping an iphone to the control panel of the trolley, and have it automatically send its GPS position to the MBTA. Hell, it doesn't even have to be an exact location - just send a ping out every time the trolley enters a station. Then the ETA signs can update based on the average travel time between the train's current location and the sign's station. Problem solved; and it only costs $200 + $60/month per train for an AT&T iphone! That's probably way cheaper than any alternative.

I'm only half joking.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Yeah you could pull this off by duct taping an iphone to the control panel of the trolley, and have it automatically send its GPS position to the MBTA. Hell, it doesn't even have to be an exact location - just send a ping out every time the trolley enters a station. Then the ETA signs can update based on the average travel time between the train's current location and the sign's station. Problem solved; and it only costs $200 + $60/month per train for an AT&T iphone! That's probably way cheaper than any alternative.

I'm only half joking.

I proposed an idea using super cheap video camera (Bonus: Homeland security grant) and software that reads the call-sign letter.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

If I was in the computer vision group I might have tried to write that software.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I guess this picture came out crappy, but I had to snap one while watching just how slowly and stupidly the MBTA was at getting people onboard the SL5 at Temple Place.

10214403766_2420b4d072_c.jpg


That's with the help of an official MBTA bus inspector, too.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

60 foot bus
1 door.

YOURE DOING IT WRONG
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

The SL5 at Temple Place often load using all doors -- and with no one paying!

Great system (not).

Proof of Purchase Proof of Purchase Proof of Purchase!!!!! Why Americans can't wrap their heads around this is frustrating to all hell!
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

(I don't mean this as a defense of MBTA not using POP.)

How many transit systems use Proof of Purchase on buses? Any in USA/Canada?

I thought Muni in San Francisco may have switched to that system recently, but am not aware of any others.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

(I don't mean this as a defense of MBTA not using POP.)

How many transit systems use Proof of Purchase on buses? Any in USA/Canada?

Why do you ask? I don't think it matters. Real bus people know it is an option. Uncrowded buses (most systems in the USA outside big metros) should prefer a farebox (enlisting the driver as a control officer), but in crowded, busy systems for whom speed and rush-hour and crowding are issues, POP is superior.

As it happens, the VRE (www.vre.org) (commuter rail) uses POP and seems pretty happy with it. Note the popup (no pun intended) on http://www.vre.org/service/newrider.htm that screams:
*Tickets Must Be Validated Prior to Each Ride!
*Exceptions:
Five-Day Passes
Need to be Validated for First Ride Only
Monthly Passes
Do Not Need to be Validated

Do Not Board the Train without a validated ticket. You will receive a summons and fine of $100. See conductor prior to boarding if you have a ticket issue
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Just curiosity really. I know it's fairly common on newer rail systems (not so much on legacy rail systems, at least in USA/Canada). And, I agree, it certainly is an option for bus systems as well. Just wondered if anyone was aware of the experience of transit systems that had adopted it for bus (not just rail).
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Muni and NYC's Select Bus Service, although they have a somewhat stupid implementation where they stop the bus during inspections.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Why do you ask? I don't think it matters. Real bus people know it is an option. Uncrowded buses (most systems in the USA outside big metros) should prefer a farebox (enlisting the driver as a control officer), but in crowded, busy systems for whom speed and rush-hour and crowding are issues, POP is superior.

The people who really love it are the EU folks whose dirty secret history includes:

[with appropriate accent] "Your Papers Please" -- in such places the subways don't even have turnstyles
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Really, PoP should be a no-brainer in the security cam era where you can monitor compliance with random-sample checks of the recording. You can even make computer-assisted decisions from that data on which routes and which time of day + particular day on each route should be due for a sampling check, how often a route should be sampled at what time of day vs. other routes, when selective enforcement is needed, which operators have a worse fare enforcement than others vs. route assignments (i.e. determining if the operator is failing the route or if the route is failing the operator), and get hard numbers on compliance rates. People get psychologically conditioned to stop gaming the system when they know they're being watched and when the odds of a plainclothes transit offer handing them a $50 ticket make it not worth it...and when they can't predict when selective enforcement is likely to occur. You will always have that determined group who try to beat the system at all odds, but the goal is not much different from how an insurance company would measure home security: put enough common-sense prevention into your security practices to make it enough of a pain in the ass that 97% or whatever of the would-be criminals simply don't bother and move on to an easier target. It's harms reduction in almost a public health sense rather than an all-or-nothing thing where fare enforcement must be 100% at all draconian costs.

Right now they are overstretched trying to get total enforcement. You have these overwhelmed drivers and trolley operators dealing with crush loads where they can't monitor everyone, and where they're under enormous pressure to make total fare enforcement while making total on-time schedule...two goals that compete with each other on these overstuffed boarding queues. Operators waving people aboard when the dwells are hopelessly fucked in order to salvage schedule is a bigger problem than they'll admit that's hurting their farebox recovery. And it's not fair to the operators to be forced into a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't position of having to weigh both competing goals and hedge. Not only are those decisions losing the T money, but the fact that the operators are distracted enough with all of those thoughts + the multi-tasking element of all that crowd control emboldens people to capitalize on that distraction to game the system. They keep throwing more staff at the problem, which increases their costs. And then the system strains under its own weight that their farebox recovery ends up little better then if they'd taken the random sampling + prevention tact.

If an independent auditor came in and did comprehensive observations of their fare collection as practiced, I bet they'd conclude their cure is worse than the disease and call for total revamp along those lines.

It's in their own heads. Other agencies have let go of the fear and embraced the metrics and psychology of random/targeted enforcement to good effect. They have the technology backbone to pull it off, especially as more and more of the vehicle fleets get outfitted with cams and transit in awash in Homeland Security funding sources to increase that surveillance. But the T just needs to see a shrink about their collective nervous breakdown about fare enforcement before they let go a bit and start thinking straight.


Whether the solution is proceeding right to PoP or taking some interim steps to achieve both OTP and fare enforcement goals on the schedules + stops that are most in conflict with both goals...at the very least they should leverage this growing capability of monitoring to help inform some better decisions about how to evolve the policy. I recognize it's gonna take a few years to churn through the vehicle fleets with cams and get feeds installed around key stations. Truly reliable PoP probably will have to be a gradual rollout and a long process. But they have enough monitoring capability today to start the ball rolling and at least evolve the policies to be less self-defeating.

It's just gotten so far inside their heads it might take a psychoanalysis...or exorcism...to pull their idea of fare enforcement back from the brink and get them thinking straight. They're not in a place where they can perceive this in terms of harms reduction instead of total good vs. total evil.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

In my opinion, operators should never have to handle fare control as well as safely pilot their vehicle. It's also a conflict of interest, with potentially deadly consequences. You often see it, where the bus driver tries to do it all: help the rider pay the fare, while also steering the bus. Or they have to deal with belligerent passengers. It's not fair to them.

Drivers should focus on driving. Fare control should be left to trained officers.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I've been riding the D line every couple weeks at random times (because of other travel needs, not because i want to) and find that many times when i board everyone must pay. Even the people that don't load their charlie card before and we just sit there. By time we get to Fenway, on about 40% of the trips, the operator ends up waving people on or putting people in the back because it takes forever. The T gives up a lot more revenue there. Hell, when i was in the area often, i knew students who would tell out of town friends, just dont buy a ticket and get in back. Takes little effort.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Fairly soon there will be an "Ap for it" running on anyone's phone

The key is to give folks with the Ap a discount on the fare

The carrot is much more productive than the stick of "Your Papers Please"

Those with cash or no-phone will have to use a door by the operator
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Whighlander - I don't understanding both your comparison to "Papers please" communism and your phone app (and it's spelled app, what article or written anything have you read that spell "ap" for app - any advertisement that said "there's an app for that" spelled it with two p's).

On the "papers please" that just seem to be an derogation. Arguing against PoP by saying it is similar to fascist/communist system of terrorizing citizens. Guilt by association. That can be applied to anything, if Nazi like peanuts, does that mean liking peanuts is now unacceptable? If you have an issue with PoP, what's wrong with the actual system?

On the app system, that's the same as the old system. People paying cash pay up front. People with the pass or card can jump on the back. Heck, the cards even get a discount too, just like your "ap". Just replace "ap" with card or pass, and it's the same thing system with the same problems. How does the app be any different when it comes to fair evasion?

I suggested before and suggest it again. It has been ignored without debate, but why can't we have a person manning the above around stations? Gates are expensive and most don't have the separation. And it's probably more expensive than PoP. But we can have a person taking fares. We already do this at like Fenway station after a game. We can do more and keep it strategic at like rush hour and at heavy use stations. The lighter ones are more manageable at the doors anyways. It sounds like a reasonable compromise if PoP is not an option to the MBTA's mind.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Whighlander - I don't understanding both your comparison to "Papers please" communism and your phone app (and it's spelled app, what article or written anything have you read that spell "ap" for app - any advertisement that said "there's an app for that" spelled it with two p's).

On the "papers please" that just seem to be an derogation. Arguing against PoP by saying it is similar to fascist/communist system of terrorizing citizens. Guilt by association. That can be applied to anything, if Nazi like peanuts, does that mean liking peanuts is now unacceptable? If you have an issue with PoP, what's wrong with the actual system?

On the app system, that's the same as the old system. People paying cash pay up front. People with the pass or card can jump on the back. Heck, the cards even get a discount too, just like your "ap". Just replace "ap" with card or pass, and it's the same thing system with the same problems. How does the app be any different when it comes to fair evasion?

I suggested before and suggest it again. It has been ignored without debate, but why can't we have a person manning the above around stations? Gates are expensive and most don't have the separation. And it's probably more expensive than PoP. But we can have a person taking fares. We already do this at like Fenway station after a game. We can do more and keep it strategic at like rush hour and at heavy use stations. The lighter ones are more manageable at the doors anyways. It sounds like a reasonable compromise if PoP is not an option to the MBTA's mind.

The MBTA does not need an excuse to throw more staff salaries at the problem. That is already hurting their farebox recovery way too much on their current enforcement scheme. You just end up with more employees promoted to highly-paid inspector. That is an absolutely awful idea. They need to streamline, not expand their bloated ranks.

Also, that opens up the pandora's box of fluff station upgrades. You need crew shelters. Then why not make some D stations prepayment. Then why not build some pretty glass headhouses and enclosures. Then why not invent new and ingeneously expensive ways to add more parking. Then why not make all D stations prepayment. Or make some of the roomier reservation stops prepayment.


That's all like crack for the agency's monument-building fetish and internal waste. DO NOT WANT. PoP forces efficiencies to be implemented. More than the current crackdown does. They not only need more efficiencies, but they need to be hard-bound to those efficiencies by virtue of the type of implementation if we have any hope of conditioning this behavior and training out the culture of waste.


If anything, we need to get PoP perfected enough and the security cam era good enough that things are efficient enough to start leaving some light-use staffed stations unstaffed at the deadest service hours and let the Charlie gates run themselves. Maybe with just an onsite security guard.

Going in the opposite direction would be catastrophic. You could argue it already is.
 
Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

^They used to have an inspector with a handheld reader at Harvard Ave and Coolidge Corner almost every day at rush hour. It was awesome.

And I don't get the "papers please" thing either, the first time I thought it was a joke. I mean, my first experience with POP was in Berlin on the ubahn, people seemed fine with it there. (They also had on demand doors).
 

Back
Top