When a commuter train serves more than one state fare problems may arise. This will happen with New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority in March. New York will raise the fare to Rye and Port Chester to $269 a month. The nest station is Greenwich, Connecticut. Connecticut will also raise fares but the Greenwich fare will only be $263 a month, $6 less than the fare at closer in stations. To deal with the problem the New York MTA will apply a hold down and charge only $263 to Rye and Port Chester.
This information appeared in Mass Transit. Here is a link to the article:
http://www.masstransitmag.com/news/10855364/ny-mta-pricing-anomaly-to-lower-upcoming-port-chester-fare-hike
South Shore faces a similar situation. They have their own fare scale to stations in Indiana but the fares between stations in Illinois (Randolph Street to Hegewisch) are the same as comparable Metra fares.
CSSHEGEWISCHSouth Shore faces a similar situation
What I can't understand is why the states involved cannot articulate a permanent policy to address the issue. They know the train crosses a state line. They know their fares go up from time to time. And they know that their fare structures are different. So why not just provide a permanent policy that says in the case of fare differences the fare shall be governed by whatever they agree on and that the states themselves will make certain transfers of funds between the two transit agencies? That is what they wind up doing anyway.
Hence the commerce clause in the constitution, but regulation is a dirty word around here.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
John WR CSSHEGEWISCHSouth Shore faces a similar situation What I can't understand is why the states involved cannot articulate a permanent policy to address the issue. They know the train crosses a state line. They know their fares go up from time to time. And they know that their fare structures are different. So why not just provide a permanent policy that says in the case of fare differences the fare shall be governed by whatever they agree on and that the states themselves will make certain transfers of funds between the two transit agencies? That is what they wind up doing anyway.
Now, there you go talkin' sense again!
There's always the Memphis bus solution...
Where bus routes extend into, or even pass through, separately-incorporated areas (like the towns of Bartlett and Germantown) which have not contributed to the cost of the MATA service, there is a surcharge (currently 85 cents). This applies whether or not you're traveling on a discounted fare or a system pass. It's also collected for passengers LEAVING the bus at a stop within the concerned area, not just for people who board there.
Source of great complaint, of course, and no doubt induces some 'selective' loss of patronage, but it certainly establishes the precedent that you can charge 'more' for train access to or from points with a different level of Government subsidy or support.
Another clever Memphis trick is to allow airlines to charge a higher rate from Memphis to many destinations than from many points at greater distances... that connect through Memphis! (There are actually people who try to justify this practice, but their noses tend to get longer and longer...) The key enforcement mechanism here is that you can't board in Memphis with, say, a Nashville ticket unless you've actually ridden the Nashville segment first.
In the cases of the $269 towns before Greenwich, a simple expedient might be to enforce use of a New York State version of the pass when boarding from them... and just have the system 'eat' the potential revenue 'loss' from those riding the outbound trains. If you wanted the lower fare, you could always go to Greenwich to board the train... just as we used to travel to Little Rock, or Nashville, using a jitney bus to save more overall on the trip cost...
OvermodThere's always the Memphis bus solution...
Actually Connecticut will make a lump sum payment to the Metropolitan Transit Authority to settle the differenced in fares.
But the Memphis solution is interesting. If I lived in Memphis I would not complain about the surcharge. I would feel getting the service to the place where I need it is worth the extra cost.
However, my own experience with a pay-when-you-get-off line is that a lot of people just don't do it. Once you have left the bus there is not a lot the driver can do about it. The system also causes a lot of fare disputes.
John WR ... my own experience with a pay-when-you-get-off line is that a lot of people just don't do it. Once you have left the bus there is not a lot the driver can do about it. The system also causes a lot of fare disputes.
... my own experience with a pay-when-you-get-off line is that a lot of people just don't do it. Once you have left the bus there is not a lot the driver can do about it. The system also causes a lot of fare disputes.
It's comparatively simple in Memphis, which has only an all-day pass system without explicit transfers to the normal riding public (you pay a straight $3.50 to ride everywhere in network). If you are, say, riding the #50 bus, where only the end portion of the ride goes to surcharge territory, the bus driver actually stops at the transition zone, asks for the extra fare, and doesn't budge if someone won't pay the surcharge and won't get off. (Usually this occurs with marginally-homeless people who use the bus as a conveniently-heated shelter and ride the 'loop' continuously, similar to how some NYC subways were commonly used...) The standard practice for 'loopers' is that they have to get off and wait for the bus to come back the other way (they can then board free with the all-day pass) -- note that if you loop and pay surcharge, you'll be doing it twice, once inbound to Exeter and then again 'outbound'
The situation is more complex on the #40, which passes through an 'island' where the extra fare is charged. Getting on is no organizational problem, as you're asked to pay the extra fare 'up front', again usually before the bus moves. Getting off: the usual procedure for those who can't or won't pay the surcharge is to keep them on the bus until the first 'free' stop after the island (this is the junction of Stage Rd. and Summer/hwy 70 going eastbound/outbound, for those who know the area), and they then have to walk back. This actually seems eminently fair to me.
I have not yet seen the situation arise where someone insists on getting off the bus without paying the extra fare... my suspicion is that they give the person a lecture and let them off the first time; but if they make a habit out of the trick there might be some action taken... you will notice that my proposed 'solution' gets around this indirectly by applying only the first half of the surcharging, by ensuring that anyone boarding is paying the appropriate 'overage' for the local political entity.
RME
John WR ... my own experience with a pay-when-you-get-off line is that a lot of people just don't do it. Once you have left the bus there is not a lot the driver can do about it. The system also causes a lot of fare disputes. ...
#2 -- there is always the 'modest proposal' solution I saw applied in California on the San Jose light rail system. This has one of those el cheapo 'honor system' fare schemes, as in some places in Europe, where you pay your three bucks to a machine that prints a receipt. None of that silly business in DC and elsewhere where you have to 'ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston' if you forgot your exact change. But a new wrinkle entirely...
You see, the beloved California Democrats neatly criminalized farebeating via the time-honored South Africa expedient: at any moment, black-shirted armed people may demand that you produce that little paper receipt, and God help you if you can't do it. I was treated to the sight of a young man who was drawn down upon when he ventured to argue (briefly!) about his 'failure to produce' -- and he was then taken off the train in handcuffs at the first stop where a cruiser could be found waiting to escort him to detention. (Oh yes, the minimum fine for this was the same at the time as violation of the HOV lanes, $273 with mandatory costs applied).
Needless to say, it was comical to watch all the passengers scramble in fear to produce and then proffer their date-stamped equivalent of garlic to ward off the minion of darkness. Just not particularly American as I understood our general national values to be.
On the other hand, it would certainly work if you extend it to cover collection of extra surcharge fare or deal with fare disputes -- the MTA policy already in place in the days of paper bus transfers clearly noted, right on the transfer, 'in case of dispute PAY FARE' (and good luck taking matters up with the bureaucracy afterward!); I assume but haven't bothered to confirm that there are similar provisions on use of a MetroCard (the principal 'solution' there being that you are just silently charged another fare if you go over your two-transfers-in-two-hours-or-whatever-it-is-now...)
The Riverline in Trenton as well as the Newark Light Rail has a similar method of collecting fares. If you have ID you get a $75 ticket. If you don't you are taken away in handcuffs. I saw that happen to an obviously homeless man. He appeared to be on his way to the Country Welfare Office at the next stop to collect his $140 a month.
But on a pay as you exist bus? People would just pay the 85¢ when they saw the enforcer. But to put on on every bus? It is unlikely that will happen.
John WRBut on a pay as you exist bus? People would just pay the 85¢ when they saw the enforcer. But to put on on every bus? It is unlikely that will happen.
And that, of course, is the 'justification' for the Draconian enforcement... if you can just say "oh, my bad" it gets round the idea that law enforcement's goal is to change patterns of thinking 'for the better'. Imagine if anyone accused of tax fraud only had to pay the amount in dispute, with no fine or penalty! Of if people like Bernie Madoff were let off, no harm no foul, if he agreed only to put back the net losses to the investors -- and then was allowed to go right back with more schemes... (/sarcasm)
Remember that the bus driver has the authority not to move until the supplemental fare is paid (or the rider agrees to be carried past the extra-fare zone). All the buses have cameras and communications, and have that nifty little "911" feature where all the lights flash and the destination sign says incident in process, contact the police. There is now a Federal law (homeland security; you can look it up) that says that any kind of threatening of a bus driver ('employee of a transit system' is I think how it's worded) is liable to hellacious statutory enforcement action and penalties, on the general order of those imposed for saying things like "I have a bomb" on an airplane. Yes, it isn't difficult, even in the absence of the blackshirts, to secure Fascistic authority over someone who refuses to pay the extra fare. (In general practice, of course... don't be silly, the driver will let the person off and keep going. But ask anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society about the difference between 'can' and 'will' if you are perceived as a social undesirable, or come under strict scrutiny, etc. ...)
My concern is that something gets lost, just as with that little footnote in the Kommissarbefehl, when expedience in accomplishing social engineering trumps common-sense humanity. I do know that it went a long way toward curing me of wanting to ride public transit in California... on principle.
OvermodRemember that the bus driver has the authority not to move until the supplemental fare is paid (or the rider agrees to be carried past the extra-fare zone).
Since this is a pay as you exit fare the rider can just step out the door and be on his way. If several peple are leaving at the same time it is even easier.
Of course a quick witted driver can slam the door in the fare beater's face. Maybe that will do the trick and the guy will just pay the fare. Maybe not. Then there is a dilemma. If the driver drives off to the nearest police station he is in effect kidnapping all of the other riders not to mention inconveniencing them.
In this day of cell phones and cameras the implications boggle my mind.
Memphis presents a special situation where a buses passes through an extra fare zone with no extra fare on either side. I suspect if it is at all possible many passengers will get off just before or just after the extra fare zone and walk a few blocks to where they are going.
I believe there was time when the Cleveland streetcar system, where the line ran from one suburb, through downtown, on to another suburb. So, people getting on an "inbound" car would pay a fare (valid to downtown); boarding outbound cars downtown was without paying there, and fare was collected at exit. So, someone going from one suburb to the other would pay twice -- once on boarding and once on disembarking. Never heard of any problems there.
DragomanI believe there was time when the Cleveland streetcar system, where the line ran from one suburb, through downtown, on to another suburb.
1. There are two ways to set up streetcar or bus routes. One way is from the center of town to an outlying point in the suburbs. Most routes are set up that way. However, it is also possible to start at one outlying point, go through the center of town and continue on to another outlying point. Some systems use that method. Most bus routes in Mercer County, New Jersey are set up that way.
2. Most people ride into the center of town in the morning to get to work and out to there homes in the evening. So in the morning a few people will get on at each stop but almost all with leave in the center of town. Paying as you enter is more efficient. In the evening everyone gets on all at once to go home and a few get off at each stop. So in an ideal world paying as you leave is efficient. But paying as you leave makes it easier for fare beaters. Therefore today most systems always use pay as you enter.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.