Railroad Fare Collection

scotty269 wrote:On another note, due to the already limited space at 30th Street, why not just make the ENTIRE upper level a paid area? Why bother starting at the staircase, when you can make the entire upper lobby a paid zone?

Because the Cira Center entrance is there, and the retail spaces have non-SEPTA customers

scotty269 wrote:On another note, due to the already limited space at 30th Street, why not just make the ENTIRE upper level a paid area? Why bother starting at the staircase, when you can make the entire upper lobby a paid zone?

Free transfers at CC would mean people going from zone 1 or 2 to zone 1 or 2 on another line would never have to pay a fare, as inbound is free and, outbound, cards will only be checked on-board after zone 2.

That also depends on where the faregates and the connecting train are. If the faregates are at the platform stairs and the connecting train's on another platform you wouldn't get the freebie. Something more likely to happen on an ex Pennsylvania to ex Pennsylvania trip, like Sharon Hill to Overbrook, than on an ex Reading to ex Reading trip, like Chestnut Hill East to Fox Chase.

But wouldn't a thru center city less than zone 3 not changing trains ride also be free if the fare is free inbound and collected only after zone 2 outbound?

Matthew Mitchell wrote: I don't think so, though I'm sure SEPTA can create a strawman by assuming complications like you describe. It's pretty easy to program a machine to offer one ticket on the next train to Philadelphia as the default (press one button and swipe your card) option. With two-way communication, it's even possible to make it a smart machine that knows whether the next train is peak or off-peak.

This is yet another example of how the spotlight always beams on the Regional Rail while the other services are changed like crazy just about overnight with little to no notice unbeknownst to the riders that choose to ride them.

Well that's because the great majority of transit riders aren't going to have much change in how their fares are paid. They'll be swiping a card instead of dropping a token or handing over a transfer, but they'll still be paying at fareboxes when boarding surface vehicles and at turnstiles when entering subway/elevated stations. The RRD changes are much more dramatic, much more of an inconvenience for riders, and a much greater revenue risk for SEPTA.

Ah the advancement of technology. It would be great to have such a simple system for automatically getting a ticket for the next train. I just worry about the "via Center City Tunnel" fares and the Intermediate Stop fares. It will be interesting to see what happens. Hopefully the fare simplification will make things simpler.

Although I understand the complex nature of the Regional Rail fare structure and the system to collect such fares, the transit side isn't so cut and dry (John McGee even pointed this out), especially since SEPTA seems to be extraordinarily reluctant to eliminate those wretched zone fares or to eliminate transfer fees as well. Plus, I think gating the P&W is a BIG change as well, especially since the stations weren't exactly designed with this in mind... I'll admit that I'm still annoyed about the handling fo the overnight name/station name/color changes that happened to the 100, 101, and 102 lines with minimal notice and fanfare while the Regional Rail "R" elimination proposal was blasted all over the news, etc for years.

The system for every mode still needs discussion in my opinion; while the transit side of things is a bit "further along" than the railroad (mainly due to the fact that similar technology has been used in other cities that have bus systems but not a unified bus/commuter rail system), it must not be ignored, especially in placing gates at locations that currently have no cashiers and definitely since the issue of daypasses, school passes, transpasses (and additional fees for using a transpass on a route that requires additional fare), how to handle mis-charges, and more. I guess that can be discussed in the future...and is for another thread.

loufah wrote:

scotty269 wrote:On another note, due to the already limited space at 30th Street, why not just make the ENTIRE upper level a paid area? Why bother starting at the staircase, when you can make the entire upper lobby a paid zone?

Free transfers at CC would mean people going from zone 1 or 2 to zone 1 or 2 on another line would never have to pay a fare, as inbound is free and, outbound, cards will only be checked on-board after zone 2.

That is complicated, especially since in today's system you pay for the "transfer" on your first train and just switch platforms in Center City.

Tritransit Area wrote:Ah the advancement of technology. It would be great to have such a simple system for automatically getting a ticket for the next train. I just worry about the "via Center City Tunnel" fares and the Intermediate Stop fares. It will be interesting to see what happens. Hopefully the fare simplification will make things simpler.

Well anything short of a totally flat fare is going to require both zone checks and customers knowing what zone they are traveling to. Merely reducing the number of zones doesn't really make a big difference. You can see already on the NJ Transit machines how you can make fare purchases more convenient with a little programming. Since the bulk of passengers boarding at the outlying stations are going to Center City, it makes sense to make that the default--press one button--option. The rest you do with software, accepting either the passenger's entry of a particular zone destination or a particular station (or using a memory function associated with the payment card--NJT does this and it's great for customers).

Tritransit Area wrote:Although I understand the complex nature of the Regional Rail fare structure and the system to collect such fares, the transit side isn't so cut and [dried] (John McGee even pointed this out), especially since SEPTA seems to be extraordinarily reluctant to eliminate those wretched zone fares or to eliminate transfer fees as well.

DVARP was pointing this out in 2010.

Now in fact, SEPTA has been reducing and eliminating zone fares (which may not be so good from an economic and equity standpoint) while hiking transfers (which is definitely bad from an equity standpoint and promotes inefficient use of long-haul bus routes). I can give you plenty of examples.

But the most important transit fare policy decisions: whether or not to retain monthly and weekly passes, and what to charge for transfers, don't have a significant bearing on the transit hardware; and SEPTA has made clear those decisions will be made closer to the implementation date.

Right now, the railroad-side decision is what has the potential to drive transit fare policy in a bad direction. SEPTA has said that they think they could use transit fare policy to reduce the revenue loss from one-direction railroad fares. However, they've not said anything about the specifics. I think that's because the obvious solution is going to be one which is going to make a lot of stakeholders and passengers mad, and SEPTA wants to get its preferred solution locked into the contract before anyone makes a stink about the policy implications.

Specifically, the most obvious way you keep from losing transit revenue from customers who take advantage of the free inbound RRD rides is to charge a very high fare if you ride only one transit trip a day, and charge less for each successive trip. That would mean something like a $3.50 base fare, and 50 cents for transfers or return trips.

loufah wrote:Free transfers at CC would mean people going from zone 1 or 2 to zone 1 or 2 on another line would never have to pay a fare, as inbound is free and, outbound, cards will only be checked on-board after zone 2.

Exactly, and yes, outer-zone to inner- or middle-zone travel would also be free. SEPTA has not publicly acknowledged that revenue loss yet, and if their figures are correct, it could amount to 3 percent of current revenue or maybe more. That's starting to get you up towards current revenue shrinkage levels.

You can't dodge it by charging for transfers in Center City because 1--there are through trains (and even if you abolished them, you'd still have same-platform transfers), and 2--you need to accommodate travel to/from University City and Temple University (and trains terminating at Suburban).

That leaves you either having to validate every card leaving Center City (which is what we presumed SEPTA would do and they subsequently said they weren't doing), or making spot-checks in Center City and the inner zones to make sure everyone has a valid fare instrument--in which case you effectively have a POP system.

House. Of. Cards.

People will just start to get off at Fern Rock and take the subway in, especially if one must transfer to the subway for their commute from Suburban in the first place.

Some, more money-strapped people might use Sharon Hill or Media, and Norristown customers may switch to the NHSL.

Amtrak7 wrote:People will just start to get off at Fern Rock and take the subway in, especially if one must transfer to the subway for their commute from Suburban in the first place.

Some, more money-strapped people might use Sharon Hill or Media, and Norristown customers may switch to the NHSL.

I brought that up, too. Fern Rock is being considered for faregates as well. Luckily, the station was designed in such a way to control access.

So at Fern Rock would one walk through a turnstile getting off a train, and then through another turnstile to get on the subway? Why don't they just call this Fare-GATE city?

At what point would it be easier to do away with the fare-GATEs and just put the card readers on the vehicles like in the city?

bikentransit wrote:So at Fern Rock would one walk through a turnstile getting off a train, and then through another turnstile to get on the subway? Why don't they just call this Fare-GATE city?

At what point would it be easier to do away with the fare-GATEs and just put the card readers on the vehicles like in the city?

At Suburban and Market East it'd be the same way... although those stations are just a tad larger. Still.

Matthew Mitchell wrote:which is going to make a lot of stakeholders and passengers mad, and SEPTA wants to get its preferred solution locked into the contract before anyone makes a stink about the policy implications.

Am I the only one that sees this a a VERY bad thing? If they are so sure that there will be a stink about the policy implications, doesn't that imply that this hasn't been well thought out, and that they know this isn't the best solution?

Stakeholders and passengers aren't stakeholders and passengers for the fun of it. If the only way SEPTA can get something built is to blindside its own stakeholders and passengers by "locking in," I think we have an obligation to shut it down until we have the facts.

That applies to all of us, including you, Dr. Mitchell. If we don't have all the facts, or if we aren't yet sure of the "policy implications," we need to very loudly ask SEPTA to hold off on signing any contracts, before we wreck Suburban Station with what the plans show as 70! turnstiles and hundreds of feet of stainless steel fence.

Seriously. We can still do this right.

bikentransit wrote:At what point would it be easier to do away with the fare-GATEs and just put the card readers on the vehicles like in the city?

Unlikely to happen. First, you'd need many more readers, and second, it would be too easy for riders to tag off before their stop and pay less than the full fare.

John Scott wrote: That applies to all of us, including you, Dr. Mitchell. If we don't have all the facts, or if we aren't yet sure of the "policy implications," we need to very loudly ask SEPTA to hold off on signing any contracts, before we wreck Suburban Station with what the plans show as 70! turnstiles and hundreds of feet of stainless steel fence.

Uhh, that's been our position since this mess was first discovered, the point of a rather strongly-worded resolution we presented to the Board months ago, and what I reiterated at the stakeholder meeting last week.

We can award the contracts for the back-end and transit components of the system now so there won't be any delay to the parts of the system we have regional consensus on, and then do the railroad as an overlay on it. There's so much difference between the RRD and transit hardware and software that there will not be much economy of scale.