MBTA Fare System (Charlie, AFC 2.0, Zone, Discounts)

HenryAlan said:
I agree that 16 fare engagement officers seems too low, but that may just be the initial class of hires, not a limit on total number. As far as how it works, proof of payment is pretty well established around the world and has shown to be quite effective. Most people will pay because we are conditioned to see that as the right thing to do. Those who won't, will risk hefty fines. It is one thing to board through a back door and pretend that you have a monthly pass when there is a crush load. But once people are accustomed to always being able to board at any door, coupled with the fare tap pads being located at each door, I suspect most will pay.
Click to expand...
I do believe in the better angels of our nature and trying to hold back my full cynicism. You’re right 16 is probably the initial batch of personnel. Just think around here that with the density of use and past practice as described, it’s going to take a lot of public outreach and conditioning to get people to pay when no one is looking. We’re so far behind the times.
 
HenryAlan said:
Yes, I thought about that particular wording, too. It might be wishful thinking, but I'm going to take that to be a confirmation that all door boarding is a planned feature.
Click to expand...
Yes. It's a planned feature, but, is it going to be rolling out this year? No detail is included in the presentation.

Why isnt the Globe's transportation beat reporter asking these accountability questions. Their reporting has been very imprecise and lackluster the last few years.
 
This board presentation was seemingly purely about the technical financial terms of the contract; very little was included about the operations and policy being envisioned. The T did note that the rollout is being timed to coincide with the summer schedule release, so I would expect to hear more about "how it'll work" as part of the actual public launch announcement.
 
I have a kind of weird theory about fare evasion from observing friends. I think honestly especially on GL surface branches the feeling is that riding the green line is basically being ripped off. Crowded, slow, unreliable… whereas when I was in Warsaw I was happy to pay the fare, cause things were reliable fast and frequent. I pay the fare either way (besides on the GLX) but I definitely think there’s an attitude of “they don’t deserve my money”. I could probably talk for an hour about how my coworkers keep hearing the track work going on is a train caught on fire or something and they have to shut down the tracks rather than schedule maintenance.
 
Longfellow said:
I have a kind of weird theory about fare evasion from observing friends. I think honestly especially on GL surface branches the feeling is that riding the green line is basically being ripped off. Crowded, slow, unreliable… whereas when I was in Warsaw I was happy to pay the fare, cause things were reliable fast and frequent. I pay the fare either way (besides on the GLX) but I definitely think there’s an attitude of “they don’t deserve my money”. I could probably talk for an hour about how my coworkers keep hearing the track work going on is a train caught on fire or something and they have to shut down the tracks rather than schedule maintenance.
Click to expand...
I imagine that's part of it. Thing is, the GLX is pretty good now! Feels like <7mim minute headways and almost always fast. No complaints from me.

My pet theory is the the current GLX fare system is just too out-of-the-way, slow, buggy (it errors out 1/3rd of the time for me), and all-around silly feeling. I've literally missed my train while trying to validate my fare. It's like, in order to pay your fare, you have to put on a big dunce cap that says "Goody Two Shoes", do five jumping jacks, and then slap yourself in the face.
 
Last edited:
kdmc said:
I imagine that's part of it. Thing is, the GLX is pretty good now! Feels like <7mim minute headways and almost always fast. No complaints from me.

My pet theory is the the current GLX fare system is just too out-of-the-way, slow, buggy (it errors out 1/3rd of the time for me), and all-around silly feeling. I've literally missed my train while trying to validate my fair. It's like, in order to pay your fare, you have to put on a big dunce cap that says "Goody Two Shoes", do five jumping jacks, and then slap yourself in the face.
Click to expand...
Can you imagine if everybody did that? Hundreds of rush hour passengers lined up at the two fare machines trying to fumble their way through the terrible touch screens? It's no wonder people don't pay.
 
kdmc said:
I imagine that's part of it. Thing is, the GLX is pretty good now! Feels like <7mim minute headways and almost always fast. No complaints from me.

My pet theory is the the current GLX fare system is just too out-of-the-way, slow, buggy (it errors out 1/3rd of the time for me), and all-around silly feeling. I've literally missed my train while trying to validate my fair. It's like, in order to pay your fare, you have to put on a big dunce cap that says "Goody Two Shoes", do five jumping jacks, and then slap yourself in the face.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s why I don’t pay. It’s such a pain. I am a transit guy but I’m not an idiot.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Can you imagine if everybody did that? Hundreds of rush hour passengers lined up at the two fare machines trying to fumble their way through the terrible touch screens? It's no wonder people don't pay.
Click to expand...
It's wild that they couldn't just get a touch on tap pad for temporary use.

The need to double tap & wait for a receipt is so wild.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Can you imagine if everybody did that? Hundreds of rush hour passengers lined up at the two fare machines trying to fumble their way through the terrible touch screens? It's no wonder people don't pay.
Click to expand...
On the first day that GLX opened, about 30-50 people riding the first train from Union Square were waiting in line to validate our fares. Eventually, the staff had to tell us to skip the validation and just board the train, so that it won't be late.
 
I don’t remember what my source data was (would need to go looking) but my previous analysis was that 77% (a large majority) of T riders pay via an unlimited-taps pass (weekly, monthly, etc). And of the remaining 23%, probably something between a third and a half of those are passing through a faregate at least once per day, which basically guarantees half of their daily commuting fare.

So, the T is guaranteed full fares from 77% of riders, and likely gets another 6%-ish from riders passing through faregates. That is to say, an awful lot of time and money and effort is being spent on collecting less than 18% of the T’s fare revenue.
 
Riverside said:
I don’t remember what my source data was (would need to go looking) but my previous analysis was that 77% (a large majority) of T riders pay via an unlimited-taps pass (weekly, monthly, etc). And of the remaining 23%, probably something between a third and a half of those are passing through a faregate at least once per day, which basically guarantees half of their daily commuting fare.

So, the T is guaranteed full fares from 77% of riders, and likely gets another 6%-ish from riders passing through faregates. That is to say, an awful lot of time and money and effort is being spent on collecting less than 18% of the T’s fare revenue.
Click to expand...
The T helpfully included a slide on this in its preliminary budget presentation! In short, only about 42% of the Ts revenue came from monthly passes of all sorts in 2023.

1000033435.jpg
 
Riverside said:
I don’t remember what my source data was (would need to go looking) but my previous analysis was that 77% (a large majority) of T riders pay via an unlimited-taps pass (weekly, monthly, etc). And of the remaining 23%, probably something between a third and a half of those are passing through a faregate at least once per day, which basically guarantees half of their daily commuting fare.

So, the T is guaranteed full fares from 77% of riders, and likely gets another 6%-ish from riders passing through faregates. That is to say, an awful lot of time and money and effort is being spent on collecting less than 18% of the T’s fare revenue.
Click to expand...
In addition to what @Stlin had said, if someone knows they can evade fares somewhat reliably, it affects the calculus of whether a monthly pass is worth it for them, and thus makes them less likely to buy a pass.
 
Huh, interesting, I’ll need to go hunting for where I derived that 77% figure from. That being said, it still stands that less than a third — historically around about a quarter — is coming from farebox taps. That’s… just not a lot.

@Teban54, that’s a fair point, but fare evasion through fare gates is a lot more ambitious than just not tapping on to your bus. So, IMO, this comes down to how many people regularly commute without passing through a fare gate at least once.
 
Riverside said:
Huh, interesting, I’ll need to go hunting for where I derived that 77% figure from. That being said, it still stands that less than a third — historically around about a quarter — is coming from farebox taps. That’s… just not a lot.

@Teban54, that’s a fair point, but fare evasion through fare gates is a lot more ambitious than just not tapping on to your bus. So, IMO, this comes down to how many people regularly commute without passing through a fare gate at least once.
Click to expand...
The 32 for example where 80% of trips start/end at Forest Hills, it hardly even seems worth collecting fares on that route as I've expressed plenty of times before.
BOS2BON said:
I would pay my fare more if there were some fare readers on surface level green line stops. The B line could use some love from the T
Click to expand...
This is the attitude I think is most prevalent. People generally don't mind paying the fare, but don't expect them to go out of their way to. All door boarding and contactless payment will go a long way here.
 
I'll quote myself from a different thread a few weeks ago:

Yes, fare evasion with all-door boarding is possible, but it's not actually the massive issue that Pioneer et al make it out to be. Systems that have converted haven't seen a massive increase in fare evasion - it turns out that most riders are basically honest. Trying to get the remaining few to pay (who end up, generally, being the least able to) probably costs your system more in increased operating costs than it saves in additional fares. It's no coincidence that the fare evasion story is pushed by Pioneer and their ilk who care more about getting more cops in stations than they do about transit efficiency or serving riders.
 
Actually, a question, albeit specific to the green line. Why did they decide to go with pay/tap-on-board in the first place? I've been on some systems like San Diego MTS, Seattle Link and Portland Tri-met where all validators are on platforms, and stepping on board the train / being in the platform area itself requires a valid fare. They're already planning on that for the Mattapan Line, and how GLX is supposed to currently operate. (The PCCs apparently can't handle the power draw.) Yes, the GLX system is currently clunky as hell, but nothing is really stopping them from doing it a quick tap here and go pedestal like all other systems.

While I understand that the B,C&E branches don't have FVMs, it's not as if the Mattapan Line is any less austere in its current state, so the infrastructure can't really be *that* hard. (Granted, the E's street running segment) Is the capital cost of installing tap pedestals at the ~57 stations without fare gates really that much more than the 240 car fleet, and can we include off-board fare validators as part of station renovations? Even in an all-doors boarding environment, passengers will still be pausing as they tap onto a train, which is effectively eliminated when it's all "pre-paid" akin to gated stations. So why did AFC 2.0 chose to keep validators on board?
 
Riverside said:
Huh, interesting, I’ll need to go hunting for where I derived that 77% figure from. That being said, it still stands that less than a third — historically around about a quarter — is coming from farebox taps. That’s… just not a lot.
Click to expand...
I am guessing I took the "24% via Stored Value", and just subtracted from 100%, under the assumption that "Passes + Stored Value" represented the full set. That's my mistake to overlook Commuter Rail fares.
Stlin said:
The T helpfully included a slide on this in its preliminary budget presentation!
Click to expand...
Do you have a link for this handy?
 
Stlin said:
Actually, a question, albeit specific to the green line. Why did they decide to go with pay/tap-on-board in the first place?
Click to expand...
Probably since the system is already needed for the buses so it's easier to just copy-paste it onto the GL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top