Proof-of-Payment (POP) vs. Traditional Ticket Collection

jamoldover wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 9:27 am I think your numbers for Dallas are off - based on the same data I got the 7M riders a year on Caltrain commuter rail, Dallas light rail shows a ridership of 20M/year in 2022

Numbers adjusted. It's still 2-3x CalTrain regardless.

True. However, I don't think there's an accurate way to measure the fare evasion percentage that could be used to compare different systems - at least not one that gets reported and is publicly available.

eolesen wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 12:46 am It's not a stretch to conclude:

1) POP works in smaller markets with low ridership, where it's easier to execute.

2) It's really not suitable in a larger system with the financial justification to do 100% checks en route.

That's not just a stretch, it's a total fabrication. There's no reason that POP wouldn't work on LIRR, MNRR, NJT, etc. Just because a few of the largest agencies are stuck in a previous century doesn't mean that POP doesn't work on large systems.

RandallW wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 9:48 amAssuming that "fare recovery percentage" and "farebox recovery ratio" are the same thing, the recovery percentage has little to do with the fare evasion percentage (a system may have a low fare evasion rate and a low fare box recovery ratio such that reducing that evasion rate won't make a significant difference to that recovery ratio).

Correct. They are two different things. MNRR is one of the, if not the highest in the nation, but with POP it would be even higher, mostly due to lower costs in ticket collection.

You clearly have an axe to grind against the "dinosaurs" but decide an opinion you disagree with is a total fabrication?

It's a fact that none of the large systems use this.

It's also a fact that collective bargaining agreements enshrine the human onboard ticket checking practices in place on the Big Five markets of BOS, PHL, NYC and CHI.

You're espousing theory based on opinions of your own and others that you agree with.

But I'm the one fabricating.

Got it.



Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

eolesen wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 3:38 pmYou clearly have an axe to grind against the "dinosaurs" but decide an opinion you disagree with is a total fabrication?

That idea that POP doesn't work on larger systems is based on.... nothing.

It's a fact that none of the large systems use this.

It's also a fact that collective bargaining agreements enshrine the human onboard ticket checking practices in place on the Big Five markets of BOS, PHL, NYC and CHI.

You're espousing theory based on opinions of your own and others that you agree with.

But I'm the one fabricating.

Got it.

That is complete non-logic. The Northeastern railroads not using POP has nothing to do with whether it would work there. It would. The unions continuing their protectionism of useless jobs has nothing to do with whether POP will work there. It would.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 3:43 pm

eolesen wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 3:38 pmYou clearly have an axe to grind against the "dinosaurs" but decide an opinion you disagree with is a total fabrication?

That idea that POP doesn't work on larger systems is based on.... nothing.

So what's a large system where it works? Not in theory but in practice?

There is a lot of academic literature on fare evasion in POP-based transit systems (POP-TS), and surprisingly little on non-POP TS, and a lot of that literature seems to make a common point: the only way to really know if fare evasion is happening is that 100% of passengers have their fare inspected on 100% of journeys, which begins to sound an awful lot like ticket collection a la MNRR. Absent video recordings or people evading physical barriers like turnstiles, any other mechanism for determining if a fare is being evaded is a statistical risk decision that not collecting a certain amount of fares is acceptable.

The same is true for commuter railroads -- if the ticket collector(s) or conductor(s) can't collect or validate 100% of tickets, the railroad is accepting a certain amount of fares not being collected. This leads me to think that arguing that LIRR or MNRR are not already effectively operating as POP systems and need to act like other POP systems (i.e. stop attempting to inspect ticket) is simply grinding an axe against these railroads and their employees.

While it is true that not collecting fares or making travel free on both POP-TS and non-POP-TS to avoid personal contact is making it difficult to enforce fares now, and a perceived increase in violence against public transit operators may make fare collectors other then police officers more likely to not press the issue with a fare evader, it doesn't mean that railroads that attempt to collect 100% of fares should just give up on that attempt.

MNRR had an audit unit that would pay passengers to report whether their ticket was lifted or not. I knew this from a friend who was in charge of it. Not sure whether or not they still do this.

lensovet wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 11:53 pmSo what's a large system where it works? Not in theory but in practice?

Why wouldn't it work? If it works on a railroad with one train, it will work on a railroad with 100 trains. Or 1000 trains (actually none are that big).

You can't default to "it won't work because they don't use it". That is circular nonsense.

RandallW wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 6:19 amAbsent video recordings or people evading physical barriers like turnstiles, any other mechanism for determining if a fare is being evaded is a statistical risk decision that not collecting a certain amount of fares is acceptable.

If you are catching 10% of the fare evaders and the fine is 10x the fare, then you break even, which the current system doesn't because tickets go uncollected.

The same is true for commuter railroads -- if the ticket collector(s) or conductor(s) can't collect or validate 100% of tickets, the railroad is accepting a certain amount of fares not being collected.

Except that tickets today go uncollected, whereas most of those uncollected tickets would be paid under a POP system.

While it is true that not collecting fares or making travel free on both POP-TS and non-POP-TS to avoid personal contact is making it difficult to enforce fares now, and a perceived increase in violence against public transit operators may make fare collectors other then police officers more likely to not press the issue with a fare evader, it doesn't mean that railroads that attempt to collect 100% of fares should just give up on that attempt.

You're totally ignoring the point. It's costing LIRR alone $171.34M per year to collect tickets MORE than it would cost to do POP based on an extremely conservative estimate with no overhead, so the real number is likely well north of $300M/year.

Even with the same level of service, LIRR would:
A) Lower ticket prices.
B) Spend the money doing something else (building tracks, stations, buying trains, whatever).

But it's more than just that, it's about being able to add more service in a cost-effectively way, which they can't do with the current system.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:22 pm

lensovet wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 11:53 pmSo what's a large system where it works? Not in theory but in practice?

Why wouldn't it work? If it works on a railroad with one train, it will work on a railroad with 100 trains. Or 1000 trains (actually none are that big).

You can't default to "it won't work because they don't use it". That is circular nonsense.

The question wasn't asking for a hypothetical. Can you name a large transit system that uses POP? If not, state that you can't. If you can, name it.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:22 pm

RandallW wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 6:19 amAbsent video recordings or people evading physical barriers like turnstiles, any other mechanism for determining if a fare is being evaded is a statistical risk decision that not collecting a certain amount of fares is acceptable.

If you are catching 10% of the fare evaders and the fine is 10x the fare, then you break even, which the current system doesn't because tickets go uncollected.

You can't name a system where this would be true because no transit system using POP would even come close to breaking even on fare collection even with a zero percent fare evasion rate.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:22 pm

The same is true for commuter railroads -- if the ticket collector(s) or conductor(s) can't collect or validate 100% of tickets, the railroad is accepting a certain amount of fares not being collected.

Except that tickets today go uncollected, whereas most of those uncollected tickets would be paid under a POP system.

I can't buy a ticket that doesn't have expire on LIRR, Metra, or MNRR, so if I didn't want to take a chance that my ticket wouldn't be collected/punched/validated, I'd still need to buy new tickets. That's no different than a POP system where I can take the chance that I won't see any fare collectors or inspectors (especially one where I can purchase the fare on a phone while on board the train to show to an inspector when I see him board the train).

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 4:22 pm

While it is true that not collecting fares or making travel free on both POP-TS and non-POP-TS to avoid personal contact is making it difficult to enforce fares now, and a perceived increase in violence against public transit operators may make fare collectors other then police officers more likely to not press the issue with a fare evader, it doesn't mean that railroads that attempt to collect 100% of fares should just give up on that attempt.

You're totally ignoring the point. It's costing LIRR alone $171.34M per year to collect tickets MORE than it would cost to do POP based on an extremely conservative estimate with no overhead, so the real number is likely well north of $300M/year.

Even with the same level of service, LIRR would:
A) Lower ticket prices.
B) Spend the money doing something else (building tracks, stations, buying trains, whatever).

But it's more than just that, it's about being able to add more service in a cost-effectively way, which they can't do with the current system.

Can you show the source for your numbers? Absent citations, I'm not buying your math because:

• LIRR has an estimates fare evasion rate of 6.3% of passengers and incorrect fare rate of %24 percent of passengers in 2022 (source)
• LIRR has losses of $22.1M in 2022 to fare evasionand $2.34M to incorrect fares paid (source)
• LIRR's farebox operating ratio in 2023 was 27.8%, with farebox revenues of $569M (source)
• In 2023, LIRR's total expenses were $2,618M, of which $1,229M were labor costs other than pensions (source)
• LIRR has a policy of collecting 100% of fares (I'm not claiming they reach that goal)
• San Diego MTS (a POP-TS) has a fare evasion rate of 29.13% in 2023 ()
• San Diego MTS can only afford to inspect 5% of riders daily ()
• San Diego MTS's fine for being caught evading a fare is 10x it's fare (the number you propose it should be)
• LA Metro has found that 94% of crime on its system other than fare evasion is perpetrated by fare evaders (source) Note also that this article about increasing fare inspections, protective services, police presence, and adding or improving physical barriers to entry without always paying a fare to reduce crime rates.
• There are a number of articles about LA Metro beginning to abandon POP at its busiest stations and introduce entry turnstiles from around 2014 that cite high fare evasion rates and associated crime as the reason to reduce its reliance on POP. Articles from this year note that LA Metro is introducing exit turnstiles for the same reason. I can't find fare evasion or inspection rates for LA Metro.

These numbers suggest that:

• A passenger on San Diego MTS can expect to have to only pay for 1/2 of his trips at the current fine of 10x the fare (the fine you proposed), so the math are in favor of evading fares on at least one POP system.
• Even if LIRR got 10x the fare for every caught fare evader, it would still net <10% of its operating costs, which doesn't come close to allowing LIRR to reduce ticket prices and make the other improvements as you propose.
• If LIRR reduced ticket inspections by switching to POP, LIRR would have a higher fare evasion rate (and more revenue lost), and ultimately only shift its payroll from conductors to other types of fare inspectors and police officers.

While I didn't cite it's overtime costs, simply hiring more people to cut down on overtime would reduce LIRR's labor costs by close to the number you claim (without demonstration) LIRR would save by reducing its attempts to collect fares.

I have shared the reasoning behind my claims and my calculations that led to that reasoning. If you aren't willing to share the basis of your claims of cost savings, it's not worth having any sort of discussion about the costs or cost benefits of a given course of action.

RandallW wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 7:42 pmThe question wasn't asking for a hypothetical. Can you name a large transit system that uses POP? If not, state that you can't. If you can, name it.

Not a valid argument. If nothing that wasn't already done could ever work, we'd still be living in caves.

I can't buy a ticket that doesn't have expire on LIRR, Metra, or MNRR, so if I didn't want to take a chance that my ticket wouldn't be collected/punched/validated, I'd still need to buy new tickets. That's no different than a POP system where I can take the chance that I won't see any fare collectors or inspectors (especially one where I can purchase the fare on a phone while on board the train to show to an inspector when I see him board the train).

Except that you can re-use that ticket within the expiration period.

Can you show the source for your numbers? Absent citations, I'm not buying your math because:

Dude, scroll up a few posts. I laid the whole thing out. The $171M and change is an extremely conservative no overhead number that in reality is probably well north of $300M when you include overhead and more realistic numbers.

Dude, you clearly don't want to consider facts that might disagree with your opinion.

You've had three different people produce contradictory information that's easily verifiable from public records.

Continue to shout at the moon all you wish, but you've wasted enough of my time.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 9:52 pm

RandallW wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 7:42 pmCan you show the source for your numbers? Absent citations, I'm not buying your math because:

Dude, scroll up a few posts. I laid the whole thing out. The $171M and change is an extremely conservative no overhead number that in reality is probably well north of $300M when you include overhead and more realistic numbers.

I saw those numbers the first time you posted them, and asked that you show how you arrived at them because I am genuinely interested in that process and the data you used. Your unwillingness to share the source data and the process, or to point people to where they might find that data and dismissive reiteration of those numbers forces me to consider that you are not interested in having an open, nuanced, and transparent discussion based on factual data.

Either you share your data and how you arrived at those numbers, or you are, as others have pointed out already, wasting everyone's time.

Unsure if this has been raised regarding uncollected tickets: it seems to me that a large percentage of tickets these days are of the electronic variant, i.e. on your mobile phone. You're required to activate those tickets prior to boarding. If the conductor fails to "lift" them, you've still activated it. This has happened to me on the LIRR on several occasions. Of course, if it's a ticket from a TVM or agent, then you have the "free-ride" scenario. This may play into the missed revenue discussion.

Correct, Jeff. There's no re-using an activated ticket.

Also don't overlook monthly tickets. Doesn't matter if they get checked/lifted. They expire when they expire regardless if they're used.