Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos
Oh? That's better than usual, where they force EVERYONE to go up front, even the monthly passholders. And before that you have to wait for everyone to squeeze out of the train through the front door.
Honestly, I'm beyond arguing with the T on reason with this one. They don't listen to arguments about cost-effectiveness or efficiency. They would rather shoot themselves in the foot, and hurt all the riders too. The people who run the Green Line don't ride it and don't care.
I'm approaching it now as an accessibility issue -- because it is that also -- and that seems to be the only way to get them to listen. I've seen too many disabled patrons get maltreated by the T at this point, it's not right.
Fair point. And I understand your frustration and I completely agree.
In my view, the issue is a political leadership one. The government funds the MBTA, in part, it has every right and opportunity to speak forcefully on this issue to insist on the optimal solution (proof of payment
POP) and refute the flaws in the populist fare evasion argument. Political leaders who vote for the supplemental funding for the MBTA budget should be arguing for efficient service.
People don't complain about patronizing restaurants because 2% of customers 'dine n' dash', or take hotel bathrobes or liquor stores that get robbed, or 7-11's where teenagers steel soda, or any other example where not every customer pays their fair share. Who do you think pays for this? The rest of the customers. It's a cost to doing business, which everyone accepts.
Beyond this implementing a thoughtful proof of payment system subject to a straightforward cost-benefit analysis should keep this 'wastage and fare leakage' to a rational economic minimum. Almost all people who can afford to pay for a ticket, do. FWIW London estimates annual fare evasion costs at
GBP 67m (2010) which was roughly
2% of revenue. A more detailed report on the bus system can be found
here. Granted they have 'payment inspectors', but even in the heavy recession years of 2010 the evasion costs were estimated at 2.1% on just the bus network which is much easier to cheat than the Underground. And it is currently at 1%. (NB I did not thoroughly read this report, so I am happy for these conclusions to be verified and refuted if appropriate).
We should not be running a transport system which is operating in a completely outmoded and inefficient way. It's possible, that in a rational world that we should not run the Green line. Even for someone like me who massively supports and solely uses public transport. If, as a society, we are unwilling to make the system operate in a cost-efficient manner it might be better to stop supporting it. (Otherwise known as the
'Why can't we have nice things meme').
The fact is, as many people before me, including Matthew, have argued implementing these systems is not complicated. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. All of Europe, London, San Fran and other US places (I gather) have implemented a system that seems to work. I would be happy to argue that we do not have the (
social capital) of other places, like Switzlerand or Scandanvia or Japan. Instead we ignore society and community in order to celebrate the selfish, which is ironic for 'Christian' country. But I digress.
The point is, that even in London which is fairly culturally similar, Anglo-Saxon and all that, they use a very effective system for their buses and
Docklands Light Rail . Importantly they are also a society with a reasonable level of 'social equity'.
In fact, in addition to Green line POP, the MBTA as a whole should implement something very close to the London payment system. It works very well I think.
1. Use of a card based contactless system
- MBTA basically has this, although the implementation (i.e. getting a card) is beyond ridiculous
2. Tickets can be bought universally at retail outlets
3. No cash purchases of fares on board (bus or rapid transit or rail)
- see above, unfortunately cash single ride retail purchase it what's missing here, in addition to a reasonable number of station based machines
- however, this is critical to the bus boarding system in London
4. Proof of payment through readers either at a station stop or on board buses
- fundamentally I believe this would boil down to a cost issue, but ideally the MBTA could have long articulated buses with all door entry and
'touch and go'. This should improve transfers as well.
5. As a result there should never be a payment line at a door, there should be no 'paper tickets' in the system and there should never be manned with 'manual readers' (I can't find the link right now, but I am sure most of you know tha policy to which I refer).
The bottom line is this system,
properly implemented, would vastly improve performance and efficiency by reducing dwell times, and therefore directly lower operating costs, but also indirectly increase ridership and thereby lower average costs through increased customer satisfaction (in other words a win-win-win). If you want to get on the Green line now, and not pay a fare, you can probably do it.
But shockingly, just when researching for this post, I read
this post from a Boston com blogger who I would have thought would be a transit user, advocate and understand the issues at a basic level. But even here, she writes "(If you ask me, [the front door only policy is] a great idea, and I'm not just saying this for the sake of agreeing. It's important that everyone pay their share. I wholeheartedly endorse giving anyone who tries to piggyback on your fare what for.)" And quotes the T's spokesperson " that customers have actually pushed the agency to put these policies into place at public meetings across the city and state."
Perhaps education, and I mean 4th grade math and high school economics, is the way forward. Maybe we need to educate the public first. Or as I said earlier, maybe the US does not want nice things. There are other supportive points, but I went on too long, so ... for later.
