Update as of Saturday, May 21, 2016
Part “A” (of A-D)
A Very Brief Look at the Beginning …
… of the Line in Azusa
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
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 “C” (of A-D)
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 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.
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?)
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! ***
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.
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,
K.P.
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.
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.]
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).
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.)
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,
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
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. BishopThe Penal Code is the Penal Code, there are no "versions."
When I used the term "versions" I was referring to the way the Web sites presented the code for review -- in other words, the clickable interface, the way the site rendered the text, the presence or absence of hyperlinks to different sections, etc. -- and not the underlying codes themselves.
There is no question that "the code is the code" and that the current revision is the basis of applicable law enforcement. The question lies only in whether we are reading the current revision accurately when we use a particular online site -- even a site nominally provided by a California government agency or entity.
(By the way, it appears that 'loitering' could not be applied to KP for a couple of reasons. It is explicltly noted in the Admin Code itself that the relevant section of PEN is 647(h), which in California would need to be noted on the red sign to be applicable as notice. And in section 647(h) itself, we read
As used in this subdivision, “loiter” means to delay or linger without a lawful purpose for being on the property and for the purpose of committing a crime as opportunity may be discovered.
Note that this says "and" and not "or", a very significant word. In other words, if no actual criminal intent is present, an attempt to eject KP -- let alone issue him an actionable Notice of Violation (which I take to be a similar euphemism to 'citation' or 'summons') -- for being on the platform doing railfan photography will result only in KP being able to file charges against the employee(s) involved in particular, and Metro in general...
I look forward to your interpretation of section 640 and the other applicable provisions of other codes, and MTA title 6. In the meantime, do you have a link to a copy of the 'Metro penalty schedule' referenced in Admin Code 6-05-240(C)(2) et seq.?
Once, at least 10-15 years ago, I had flown into Burbank Airport, intending to then catch a train to downtown LA. Just as I was getting to the platform a Metrolink train was arriving, so I didn't think I'd have time to pick up a ticket at the (to me) unfamiliar machine. So, I figured I'd jump on the train and buy a ticket from the conductor, even if it incurred an extra charge, as I had done on occasion on Caltrain and Amtrak.
Well, once the train is moving, here comes what I thought was the conductor. Nope, it was a fare inspector, who proceeds to read me the riot act and threatens a $250 fine for fare evasion. I explained that I was from Northern California, where the rail systems allow on-board ticket purchases, had no intent to evade, etc.
Finally, he said he would let me go "this time", but I needed to go and buy a ticket upon arrival at LA Union Station (to make up for the fare I hadn't paid)!
Always paid more attention after that.
DragomanOn the subject of requiring a fare to be on the platform, could that be considered (for those not actually traveling) some sort of "platform fee"? Like a small charge for the ability to take pictures. Didn't some railroads somewhere use to charge a small fee for a "visitor pass" to access the platform when seeing off paying passengers?
Metro's photography and filming guidelines are here:
https://www.metro.net/about/filming-metro/metro-filming-photography-guidelines/
Limited non-commercial photography is allowed for the price of a ticket.
MikeF90Limited non-commercial photography is allowed for the price of a ticket.
Put that way, and so simply, makes me embarrassed for all the constitutional-rights carrying on.
British Rail once sold "Platform" passes.
Amazing that the Irwindale parking lot is full on weekdays. I thought this station would be a bust because there's nothing around it except the 210 freeway, gravel pits, and industrial buildings.
Foothill Transit's neighboring bus lines have been impacted by the opening of the Gold Line. Route 690, the commuter line to Pasadena is being cut back to change into a rail-feeder route.
081552Amazing that the Irwindale parking lot is full on weekdays. I thought this station would be a bust because there's nothing around it except the 210 freeway, gravel pits, and industrial buildings.
The Irwindale station is the closest one to I-210, so no doubt commuters are bailing off of the freeway there to hop on the Gold Line.
Commuters have been complaining loudly on Metro's The Source blog about the shortage of parking. Some action is being taken by Metro to 'reclassify' some of the spaces that they control (like in downtown Azusa).
The shortage of cars on the Gold and Expo lines has discouraged some ridership. Later this year when the Citrus Ave connection in Azusa is complete, more parking frustration could ensue. Time will tell.
Meanwhile SANBAG and Omnitrans aren't doing squat to help their own westbound commuters. Not many decent jobs in downtown San Berdoozy.
A Brief Revisiting of the New Foothill Extension …
… to Further See the New Operations
On Saturday, June 25, 2016 the new Foothill Extension was passed by and a few locations were photographed, such as the Irwindale stop.
Did you notice the main photo composition’s train is larger than the one on the far right? The inbound and outbound light rail train sets tend to generally meet at the Irwindale stop, at least when this forumist was present.
A number of minutes was spend at the Irwindale stop, and quite a few photos taken, including the very near by rider’s parking structure.
A few photos will be prepared for a presentation to the forum in the next few days.
The Speed Demon Hot Rod Express
Irwindale-Arcadia, CA
Part I (of I-VI)
To set the stage for the findings on the Gold Line Foothill Extension visit of Saturday, June 25, 2016, this Mountain Ave.-Duarte Road scene is shown. The rod iron fencing made a safe demarcation between the public sidewalk area and the tracks, where an electrified light rail set came zooming quietly by at speed, probably 50 M.P.H.
Irwindale
Speed demon hot rod express is an apt description, as the three areas of this visit – Irwindale, Duarte, and Arcadia -- found such speedy operations a common thread or similarity.
At Irwindale, boarding is across the tracks, both the BNSF and Gold Line.
The BNSF single-track track is probably once a day arrival and return from this end of the line area, while the two-track Foothill Extension sees movements basically all day, except overnight.
Continued in Part II
Part II (of I-VI)
On the west side of Irwindale Blvd., south of all the tracks, is a new parking structure.
Up on the Irwindale Blvd. overpass a westward inbound view. BNSF tracks are on the left, Metro’s tracks are in the center.
An inbound arrives.
Continued in Part III
Part III (of I-VI)
In the Mountain Ave. Area
Duarte
In Duarte, east of Mountain Ave. looking west (or inbound):
Above, note the pot-like signal on the right, lit green on the lower position.
An inbound comes and takes the green signal.
Once that light rail movement was ahead, the signal went from red to green again.
An outbound comes and K.P.’s hair gets ruffled!
Continued in Part IV
Part IV (of I-VI)
Santa Clara St. & First Ave.
Arcadia
At first arrival in Arcadia, an outbound shows up.
A half a block to the west is this stop’s parking structure.
The Arcadia stop.
Continued in Part V
Part V (of I-VI)
The Arcadia stop is on that ex-AT&SF track that goes diagonally through the intersection.
An inbound comes along.
Another outbound shows up and then leaves.
Continued in Part VI
Part VI (of I-VI)
The station stop is diagonal, so designers had little choice but putting in a park-like arrangement on the south side.
A final view, an inbound arrives. Note the lower headlights. The camera caught only one on, but the alternate flashes right and left and right and left …
All during the visit one sees a steady flow of equipment passing, whether it was in Irwindale, Duarte, or Arcadia.
K. P. HarrierAll during the visit one sees a steady flow of equipment passing, whether it was in Irwindale, Duarte, or Arcadia.
That's what riders want to see - regular and rapid transportation. BTW the opening of the Citrus Ave extension is anticipated for the September 2016 timeframe.
The near absence of the new P3010 cars from your photos has been noted elsewhere. Metro needs to explain what is going on.
For reference, a list of Metro rolling stock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metro_Rail_rolling_stock
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.