Comments on: Muni Announces Plan to Install TransLink Machines At All Subway Stations

By: bikerider

bikerider — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:04:10 +0000

“In Munich, my understanding is that all fare revenue just goes to pay for collecting itself.”

I don’t know how anyone could come to that conclusion. Munich pioneered the concept of Systemwide POP. First thing to go was faregates — and anything else that added cost to the process of fare collection. The farebox recovery of MVV (the “Verkehrsverbund” of Munich) is >80%.

By: Todd Edelman

Todd Edelman — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:11:02 +0000

#11 bikerider – in Munich, my understanding is that all fare revenue just goes to pay for collecting itself. Sure, it also creates some jobs, and keeps people from choosing to use the system, those who normally drive/cycle/work at home.

By: Sasha

Sasha — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:47:23 +0000

@bikerider: I like the model you describe. However, as I understand things, there’s a big difference between Europe and the U.S. in how transit is paid for. In Europe, transit is heavily subsidized by governments, with regular, relatively undisputed funding. Thus, one goal of the transit agency is to get as many people as possible onto transit.
Here, of course, transit subsidies are hard-fought, irregular, and can’t be counted on from year to year. As gas prices peaked last year and locals began to abandon their cars for MUNI, the trains and buses got packed and uncomfortable. Amid cries for increased service to meet the rising demand, several media pieces pointed out that MUNI actually loses money on each rider. Thus, it wasn’t a question of adding more vehicles or more runs.
Without crunching the numbers, I fear that the single-ride ticket would have to surpass cable car rates ($5?) to begin to bridge the budget gap and push a critical mass of riders toward the FastPass, and I don’t see $6 MUNI rides as politically feasible, much less economically reasonable for a good chunk of SF residents who can’t afford a FastPass. Perverse as it is, until public transit is seen as a public good and subsidized accordingly, MUNI’s current goal can’t be to add more riders.

By: patrick

patrick — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:57:27 +0000

excellent point bikerider, too bad muni didn’t use the recent budget issues to implement a system like this, they could have raised the single ride price to $2.50 and left the fastpass at the previous price.

By: bikerider

bikerider — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:42:36 +0000

Commenters here are making the mistake of confusing Translink and Faregates. Those are two completely separate technologies that have nothing to do with each other.

Regarding price of FastPass: the fact that even regular users find it too expensive indcates Muni has the completely wrong pricing and business model. Again, to use the example of the European transit systems: they sell Single-ride tickets at (relatively) very high cost so as to encourage as many residents as possible to get a Season pass.

The goal is to get as many Season Passes as possible into people’s wallets. Once you do that, residents start to use transit for all kinds of discretionary trips that they would not have ordinarily considered. When they go out the door, they figure “hey, I already ‘paid’ for a transit pass, I may as well use it.” This model is extremely successful — the vast majority of ticket revenue in a place like Munich comes from the Season pass.

By: Sasha

Sasha — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:32:55 +0000

I would be a bit leery of this system had I not already experienced similar implementations in New York and Boston. Imagine: no one blocking faregates rummaging through their pockets for change and then counting it. In Boston, there’s also a neat system in place that effectively gives locals a discount: to get a rechargeable card, you need to mail away for it; when buying fares from a machine, you get a disposable paper card with a slightly higher price per fare. As an out of town visitor, this feels okay to me, since locals are subsidizing the system through taxes.
My only worry about this system is managing the conflict between in and out gates. Right now, all the Translink enable fare gates are also the out gates at MUNI stations. During heavy traffic periods, it can be difficult to negotiate ins and outs in the same gate. Is there a drawback to the NYC system, where faregates are only for entering the system, and exits are generally through one-way full-body turnstiles?

By: patrick

patrick — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:05:55 +0000

Totally agree with huh & ZA, translink is way more convenient for those who don’t ride enough to get a fastpass. I imagine it will be equally convenient for anybody who needs to ride more than one system. Can’t wait until it’s deployed throughout the Bay Area.

By: huh

huh — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:53:15 +0000

I have been using translink on muni for many months now, and I can say it is a godsend for those of us who are frequent Muni riders but don’t ride enough to justify fastpasses. Having to carry exact change and worry about that every time you want to get on a bus is agonizing. Not only that, but is automatically credits the transfer discounts between systems (like BART and Muni), which is useful, especially because those crappy transfer machines are often out of service.

By: bikerider

bikerider — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:25:09 +0000

In most European countries, one’s wallet contains a single yearly (or monthly, or weekly…) passcard — good for any tram, bus, boat, ferry, or train in the entire metro area.

Is that thin enough for you?

By: ZA

ZA — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:57:56 +0000

They seem to work well enough for London, so why not us? I’d rather like to thin my wallet down to a single widget for Bay Area transit.

By: jay

jay — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:38:24 +0000

Datasheet of the fare gate for whoever is interested.

http://www.cubic.com/cts/Publications/DataSheets/Ltr/Universal%20Gate%202000.pdf

By: Richard Mlynarik

Richard Mlynarik — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:27:28 +0000

How very nice that MTC and SFMTA continue to look after their very very very special friends at Cubic. Can somebody please remind me where to find the carefully justified study that shows that MTC-shilled, Cubic-profiting Translink(tm)(c)(sm)(r) will has even a remote approximation of positive cost-benefit? I'm sure one must exist somewhere — after all it would be a criminal offense to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of a favored contractor with not public policy justification. I must have overlooked it somehow. Clearly the highly professional and spotlessly ethical executive staff and board of a nationally famous Metropolitan Planning Organization will have some carefully justified plan for just why a smart card system, and a smart card system from just this one particular vendor, are the very best possible technical and logistical solution to the problem of collecting and allocating fare revenues, right? Right?

By: John Murphy

John Murphy — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:38:41 +0000

@bikerider they serve a nominal purpose in an understaffed POP system. Then again, locks are usually best to keep honest people from making stupid mistakes, not to keep someone who really wants to get in from getting in.

By: bikerider

bikerider — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:22:32 +0000

Faregates, of course, serve NO PURPOSE in a POP system. Another $29 million in scarce, discretionary transit funds flushed down the drain.

By: ian

ian — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:46:58 +0000

shiny. i hope this will push more operators to take translink.

and then i hope we start to combine (at least the rider-facing design of) the transit agencies, so it’s easier for riders to understand.