Fascinating.
640 does not have a maximum penalty in excess of $400 for the indicated offenses. So we must look elsewhere for where they're sneaking this $1000 number in as the excuse to put more teeth in their pass laws. I have not found it yet, and I encourage others to look.
Here is what I suspect is intended to be part of he operative language the spokeswoman was relying on.
(c) (1) Evasion of the payment of a fare of the system. For purposes of this section, fare evasion includes entering an enclosed area of a public transit facility beyond posted signs prohibiting entrance without obtaining valid fare, in addition to entering a transit vehicle without valid fare.
The question then becomes whether the red sign itself constitutes such notice, or whether 'enclosed area' means only an open platform with safety rails, rather than (as originally intended) an area physically separated by turnstiles or gates that cannot be legally reached without paying a fare or registering a card on the system.
Now, it is possible that this section (which I provide without comment on its semantics) may apply to this situation ... in some way.
(e) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a public transportation agency, as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (c) of Section 99580 of the Public Utilities Code, may do either of the following: (1) Enact and enforce an ordinance providing that a person who is the subject of a citation for any of the acts described in subdivision (b) of Section 99580 of the Public Utilities Code on or in a facility or vehicle described in subdivision (a) for which the public transportation agency has jurisdiction shall, under the circumstances set forth by the ordinance, be afforded an opportunity to complete an administrative process that imposes only an administrative penalty enforced in a civil proceeding. The ordinance for imposing and enforcing the administrative penalty shall be governed by Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 99580) of Part 11 of Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code.
(1) Enact and enforce an ordinance providing that a person who is the subject of a citation for any of the acts described in subdivision (b) of Section 99580 of the Public Utilities Code on or in a facility or vehicle described in subdivision (a) for which the public transportation agency has jurisdiction shall, under the circumstances set forth by the ordinance, be afforded an opportunity to complete an administrative process that imposes only an administrative penalty enforced in a civil proceeding. The ordinance for imposing and enforcing the administrative penalty shall be governed by Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 99580) of Part 11 of Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code.
I have a migraine and can't see to find the relevant sections of the PUC to see if it has anything to do with this, or whether it is this 'administrative penalty' (doubtless some sort of 'fine and costs' with a great deal of costs, as with contemporary traffic courts in California) that constitutes the indicated $1000.
What I see happening is an attempt, in part, to keep street people out of the fancy new facilities, mostly by scaring them just as they scared KP. While I do think there is an intent to allow Metro employees considerable leeway in ejecting 'undesirables' from their "facilities" (as described in 6-05) I think that at least some of the Admin Code's provisions as currently written will not stand up too long after some poor victim of extraordinary rendition is finally shuffled into a courtroom to be tried on an alleged violation of what the red sign proscribes.
I have run out of time to discuss Admin Code 6-05 in detail, and it will probably be covered by Brother Bishop better than my '70s-era ConTerp weenie view. But note that here, too, there are clear provisions on photography, and the mechanism to obtain permits that allow it; clear provisions that note Metro can nominally issue permits that override any provision in title 6; apparent omission of at least one highly-significant definition ('Notice of Violation'); and a confusion (perhaps intentional) between a platform area that is 'controlled access' fare-only (like a platform accessed only through turnstiles or gates) and an open platform leading to vehicles or fare machines that provide actual Metro 'service' for which a separate fare must be paid.
(Note that the Admin Code appears to have been structured by someone with 'nerd' computer experience: the sections are numbered 5 apart, like BASIC programming 'best practice', to allow insertions later, and there is no 'section zero' (perhaps to allow up to 5 'insertions' before the first one later). As a result section 6-05 is the only section in title 6, even though it looks incomplete to people familiar with numbering conventions in other codes and standards...)
My advice to KP is to find a friend at Metro who can make him an applicable "photography permission permit" for Metro facilities. That will also allow him to go into the cars to take pictures there without being deemed a farebeater and required to pay for the privilege ... and perhaps give him free or at least unharried access to other Metro property on request. Since he is not a commercial photographer for Metro purposes I expect there would be a minimum fee, perhaps no fee. (And from what I can see, it would be actionable if Metro artificially jacked up permitting, or intended to use it the way the Feds use tax stamping on controlled substances -- and KP would have a discrimination claim if they issue permits to anyone but then not to him...)
Note that Metro also bends over backward to claim they support constitutional rights (apparently carefully supporting the right to run a picket line across a platform!) and some of the announced things photographers 'aren't allowed to do' are more severe than the sort of trumped-up 'excuse' an overzealous employee might use to make KP leave (including impeding 'free passage' of people getting on and off trains, or 'loitering' between trains without paying something).
J. Bishop (6-4) and Overmod (6-6):
In blowing the photo up, the small writing on the red sign’s bottom was found to say:
CA Penal Code Sec 640 LACMTA Admin Code Title 6
This post would have been taken care of two days ago, but attempting to post the material to the TRAINS website the website more or less went crazy multiple times. Things have greatly improved at this site in the last year, but there are still odd quirks hard to deal with remaining.
Best,
K.P.
PS:
For those interested, the below link is to Penal Code 640, at least the copy I found that works correctly at the TRAINS forum:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=640
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
The Penal Code is the Penal Code, there are no "versions." And there nothing in the range of sections you discern, and as I did too. Someone may be able to read the actual number for us. It also might be a wrong, non-existent section, which would be actually kind of fun. (Yeah I'm a lawyer, for my sins.)
Finally found this
"C. Evading payment of a Metro fare is prohibited.36 Fare evasion includes the following: 1. Boarding a Metro vehicle or entering a Metro facility platform or other fare-required zone, without adequate cash or proof of valid fare (bold by me) Who knew.
on page 194 of the Administrative Code. The amound paid to write the 219 page code must have cost over 100 thousand dollars. As Johnny Carsons sidekick used to say, EVERYTHING. you ever want to know but don't really want to know is in there (for a beaurocrat).
It's more obvious than before that we have to get rid of Fascists wherever we find them. It was bad enough when enforcement was just on the train, where at least it had some application to actual farebeating.
One of the references is to the "LACMTA" Administrative Code (the sign references a particular 'Title' of that code which I evidently can't read clearly enough). A PDF version of that code is here for your reading pleasure. I suspect there are provisions in there describing access to MTA assets or property.
The other reference is more interesting. It cites a highly specific section of the California Penal Code -- the number appears to be in the high 440s, but again what I think I see does not match any posted provision of the online versions of the California Penal Code. (Perhaps a better way to put that: when I type likely numbers into this reference, it gives me 'no data found'). In fact, there does not appear to be any section citation between 440 and 450 in any of the online codes (the 'official' one from the Legislature is apparently "down for maintenance" but here is an alternative from, I think, an Orange County law firm).
From the context, the 'missing section' very likely has to do with farebeating, or more properly a 'crime' that involves not paying for service on a transportation system. It will be highly interesting to see how this is worded to apply to access platforms that are not protected by one-way fare gates or turnstiles. In the past, I believe it has been 'lawful' for railroads to restrict access to platforms to people holding tickets (in England this extended to the revenue opportunity for selling 'platform tickets' to family members or others who wanted to meet somewhere other than in the crush of a main station) -- but that would be a private-property access right, and not properly apply to a Government agency for purposes of discrimination against citizens -- any 'crime' consisting only of active fare evasion by entering a space requiring paid fare to access. I doubt, sincerely, that an open platform with ramps ... especially one that has to be traversed in order to buy or verify a fare in the first place ...could possibly qualify.
Under fair laws, that is. And we all know California, and Los Angeles in particular, has a rather poor history in that respect. (I well remember seeing LA patrol drawing down on someone who didn't pull over fast enough to get out of the way of an official motorcade going down Olympic Boulevard. Cured me of wanting to live in Southern California full-time right there!)
Can someone better than me with data systems find and cite the appropriate provision of the current Penal Code (or other applicable statutes) so we can determine exactly what legal status KP's little friend at Metro might actually have for her claim?
[By the way, and for the record: Do not attempt to enlarge KP's picture by clicking on it from inside the Trains Magazine forum. That apparently 'tunnels' through your virus and malware protection, and I will now have to spend some time running tests, removing cookies, and the like from all the crapware and perhaps worse that his Photobucket site locked up my system with.]
If that is the case, the sign should say "Proof of Fare Required Beyond This Sign" As is, most would figure it referred to riding the train. But what matters is what the law says, not what Metrolink's "policy" is. Unfortunately the resolution of the photo isn't good enough to see what the provisions cited at the bottom of the sign. It looks like a cite to the Penal Code, and the some admininstrative code, but I can't read the numbers.
RME (5-28): That Sign!
The policy you advised of needing a “validated fare” “on the train” may or may not have been the case in the past …
… BUT, according to Bertha Brunner of LA Metro’s “Customer Relations,” the current Metro policy is that “Proof of fare is required beyond the sign,” just how this forumist had interpreted the sign.
On the day of the above photo a list a photo areas was had from the Los Angeles area to Banning-Hemet, and it took 12 hours to complete the task. In light of the updated Metro policy, the plan now is to purchase an all-day pass and get my money’s worth in taking photos, a number of which the hope is to share with the forum.
Until then,
One of the earliest systems that required a fare ID with only spot checks was developed in Switzerland over 40 years ago. Cars and busses have an eye-shaped symbol on them if the system is in effect. There was no fine for not having a ticket when the Kontrolleur checked for it - only a "supplement" initially of SFr 10 but quickly raised to SFr 20 . That represented about $6 to $12 US in those days.
RMEKP, that sign is intended to dramatize that you need a validated fare ON THE TRAIN.
RMEI am disgusted in a sense to see that the enforcement penalties are now up to $1000, and include jail time.
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
K. P. HarrierAbove, in the middle of the picture, note a very red sign! What that sign says … A decision right then was made to leave. A different tactic will be tried another time in documenting the scene. Since K.P. is NOT homeless, the lodging for a year didn’t appeal to him …
KP, that sign is intended to dramatize that you need a validated fare ON THE TRAIN. Since there is no requirement (or notice) that you cannot be on the platform without a ticket, or worse that you'd be considered 'trespassing' on transit-agency property if you did not have a validated fare in your possession -- both of which would require separate signage explicitly stating that -- you should not be worried. It's more likely that some overzealous transit employee would try to get you not to photograph trains with people visible in the scene, as New Jersey Transit does (NJT said to have perennial trouble with people trying to catch cheating spouses and the like and then NJT being dragged into court activities).
I am disgusted in a sense to see that the enforcement penalties are now up to $1000, and include jail time. Is the fine for being in the handicap lane with an inflatable doll up to the same amount now too? Makes me embarrassed for Democrats in the Golden State -- hooray for throwing the book at easily-bullied perps of victimless crimes, because you can. But hey! gotta recoup that high subsidized construction expense somehow!
Enough politics -- that sign only applies to not proving you've paid your fare when you need to produce 'propusk' that substantiates that. (It was fun for me to watch the scene on the San Jose light rail years ago, as the armed blackshirts strut through the car and everyone fumbles with terrified faces to produce their little stamped cards and thrust them out for perusal. One guy had lost his and sure enough they bundled him off the train and into a waiting cruiser with guns and dogs ... how did we get to this when we were warned it can't happen here?)
Update as of Saturday, May 21, 2016
Part D (of A-D)
Bad News at the Maintenance Facility
Monrovia, CA
A light gray trainset was parked at the new yard in Monrovia, this one with yellow paint markings!
Another, less colorful set:
The facility, unfortunately, has a high fencing that has been put in, making photography very difficult.
So, this visit to the Foothill Extension was much less than stellar. As mentioned briefly earlier, K.P. plans on returning, at least to the light rail trains, with a very different tactic. One that ‘nature’ may have a say in during very, very long photo sessions …
This will end the series.
Part “C” (of A-D)
A Very Brief Look at the Beginning …
… of the Line in Azusa
Out on the street, looking south at the closed road to the station stop:
Because of that closure, a circuitous, round about route to and from the stop has to be utilized until the bridge and road is open. That circuitous route includes one of K.P.’s dreads -- a roundabout!
The roundabout is scenic and picturesque, but K.P. sees then as an impractical nuisance
By that roundabout, once can look over to the stop itself, and a trainset is seen.
Continued in Part D
Part “B” (of A-D)
Fare ticking machines (lower left) are seen, and that same train waiting for departure time.
Above, in the middle of the picture, note a very red sign!
What that sign says …
A decision right then was made to leave. A different tactic will be tried another time in documenting the scene. Since K.P. is NOT homeless, the lodging for a year didn’t appeal to him …
A view of the parking garage:
Continued in Part C
Part “A” (of A-D)
With a long photo day planned, we go right to the tracks at the Foothill Extension’s Azusa Pacific University (APU) / Citrus College new end of the line station stop, and find flashers and gates.
And, a train in the stop itself is found.
Up the ramp, we look the other way, outbound, and tracks NOT used.
Above, note the yellow ribbon and red flags on the lower left!
Continued in Part B
Nearly Two and a Half Months after the …
… Foothill Extension Opening, K.P. Arrives
Basically the whole day, like 12 hours, was consumed photographing trains and public transit, from San Gabriel to Banning (CA). Early in the day, the Foothill Extension Citrus Ave. grade separation was photographed from the south side, looking north. The underpass is still not open.
Nor is the future south side roadway even a roadway yet …
K.P. was able to obtain some (“some”) photos by the end of the line stop area, but there is a very, very RED sign at the stop that abruptly changed his efforts, and he moved on. He will return sometime in the future with a different photographic tactic. You probably would too. Anyway, it is hoped that a report can be put together soon on what could be seen and photographed.
Have fun with your trains
Over one month into the extension opening, ridership has reached an unexpectedly high level:
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20160411/what-we-learned-about-new-gold-line-train-riders-might-surprise-you
The majority of the rush hour ridership is to Pasadena destinations rather than downtown LA; weekend usage is also quite high. This bodes well for the planned extension to Montclair.
Due primarily to contractual issues new rail car delivery is behind and the Expo line extension opening in five weeks will exacerbate the car shortage.
Here is a full cab ride video from Asuza CC to downtown LA:
Went on opening day. Very cool line; the Gold Line is now the longest at 31.2 miles, and the Metro Rail system is now 99 miles in total length. Here's a video that was taken of the line on opening day of the entire 11.5 mile extension:
081552 I just rode the Gold Line extension this morning on a rainy L.A. day. The last time I was on this route was in the early 90s on Amtrak. Great ride and you do get the "interurban" feel around Irwindale.
I just rode the Gold Line extension this morning on a rainy L.A. day. The last time I was on this route was in the early 90s on Amtrak. Great ride and you do get the "interurban" feel around Irwindale.
Guess you missed the fun and the shut down less than a full day ?
http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20160306/fiery-crash-on-210-freeway-severs-just-opened-gold-line-between-pasadena-arcadia
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gold-line-extension-closed-big-rig-crash-20160306-story.html
Today is the Gold Line Extension opening day and the festivities are on!
http://moregold.metro.net/
The main construction 'punch list' item remaining is for the local developer to build the Citrus Ave section adjacent to the APU/Citrus College station.
For your navigational pleasure, here is my 'geographically correct' Google map of the LAC Metro rail stations:
http://goo.gl/XQGpY9
The phase '2B' twelve mile long extension to Montclair is in the design phase and AFAIK no construction funding has been allocated yet. Beyond that, the regional transit agency 'SANBAG' would have to take the lead on extensions elsewhere.
One distant hope is the new Ontario Airport authority that has just wrested control from LAWA; the city seems eager to reverse the recent declining passenger trend and many of those people could originate in the San Gabriel Valley along the Gold Line. It is only seven miles from the Montclair station to the airport, not a lot of light rail to build.
Who says there is no operating HSR in California?
Metro has just posted a YouTube video of a cab ride through the six new stations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSkdFixZROU
Arrggh. Video insert is not working for me today ....
MikeF90 The local cities and Rosedale developer requested that Metro delay opening of this station, which Metro has rejected: http://thesource.metro.net/2016/01/14/metro-responds-to-azusa-rosedale-all-new-gold-line-stations-to-open-march-5/ Apparently the exact 'alignment' of Citrus Ave could not be agreed upon in time for completed construction by the GL opening date. I'm not sure what the latest status is, but you can get there by using a circuitous street routing or a new shuttle bus from the APU and CC campuses.
The local cities and Rosedale developer requested that Metro delay opening of this station, which Metro has rejected: http://thesource.metro.net/2016/01/14/metro-responds-to-azusa-rosedale-all-new-gold-line-stations-to-open-march-5/
Apparently the exact 'alignment' of Citrus Ave could not be agreed upon in time for completed construction by the GL opening date. I'm not sure what the latest status is, but you can get there by using a circuitous street routing or a new shuttle bus from the APU and CC campuses.
Metro is adamant about opening on March 5. If Azusa isn't ready, tough luck --they had 10 years to prepare for this. They rejected their reuqest for delay:
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20160114/metro-to-azusa-all-gold-line-stations-will-open-march-5-rejects-request-for-delay
K. P. HarrierThere is a bridge that now goes over an underpass (at least K.P. thinks so). Thus, the 90 degree curved transition from Citrus Ave. and Foothill Blvd. (bottom of above photo) may soon have an access route to the Gold Line's end of the line station.
Update as of Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Lights On at the Irwindale Stop
Irwindale, CA
Part II (of I-II)
The separate, higher level Foothill Extension platforms all lit up.
Looking west:
When going south (leftward) over the overpass (to return) the BNSF track AND a siding looked like they had all new track and ties. BNSF must have made out like a bandit on a basically new line for a local a day to run on.
Ticket machines:
After the ‘lit up platform’ experience, it was time to call it a day.
Part I (of I-II)
Among the last photos taken for the day was this evening shot depicting the Irwindale Ave. Bridge that K.P. went over, a northward view the same way he was driving when he saw all the stop’s lights on.
When he finally got turned round and parked near the bridge, the above flashers activated, before even the camera could be gotten! So, the BNSF train went by before a photo could be taken.
This was the scene when K.P. finally got over to the tracks. Note there are two sets of flashers (and yet uninstalled gate arms), one for the BNSF track and another set for the Foothill Extension tracks. Note also the red automatic block signal on the right.
Lights all lit up.
An assumedly green block signal and flashers all BNSF headlight lit up would have made a cool photo.
Continued in Part II
Howling at the Moon!
Because of K.P.’s part werewolf blood, he almost started howling at the moon when he came across this lit signal scene!
Kidding aside, just east of the Irwindale Ave. overpass, the BNSF signal (on the paralleling track along the Foothill Extension) was lit red because an eastbound BNSF local had just gone by. K.P. was just a minute or two too late, otherwise he could have gotten photos of that slow moving, short eastbound freight with a warbonnet painted GP60M leading a blue and yellow standard non-wide cab unit.
When first going on the bridging over the tracks at the Irwindale Ave. overpass, K.P. was surprised that the Irwindale Gold Line Foothill Extension stop was all lit up! It is unknown how long or how many incomplete stations on the Extension have been lit up at night, but he went back over the bridge, over to the station itself, to get photos. A short selection of nearly dark, twilight lighting photos will be posted in a few days.
According to a recent announcement on the GL extension web site, Metro will start service on March 5, 2016. Meanwhile, Metro presumably has started acceptance testing, operator training and local driver conditioning but has not bothered to update their own web site since last year ....
The Southern Section of the Gold Line …
… Plus a Tidbit about the Northern End
Part “E” (of A-E)
Finally the line gets to the Atlantic Blvd. and Pomona Ave. end of the line stop.
K.P. return to this Atlantic Blvd. and Pomona Ave. stop in East Los Angeles to specifically photograph those little signs on the tracks that show the tracks were identified as Tracks 3 and 4, but the signs were gone! Had K.P. been in the Twilight Zone?
The above consist had three two-unit light rail cars laying over, so it could not be seen if the track had a little sign underneath a car, but judging from the counterpart track, it probably did not.
The Northern End of the Line Area (for the Tidbit)
In Azusa, the last station stop appeared to be in, but nobody could get to it, as if it is a secret cult stop.
There is a bridge that now goes over an underpass (at least K.P. thinks so). Thus, the 90 degree curved transition from Citrus Ave. and Foothill Blvd. (bottom of above photo) may soon have an access route to the Gold Line's end of the line station.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.