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

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 10:11 pm

lensovet wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 11:18 pmI linked to the regulations for a reason. They are very short. I challenge you to find how, exactly, LIRR could even attempt to get a waiver.

They could apply for a waiver. At the same time, while a lack of OPTO does limit some of the low ridership train expansion or make it more expensive, it fundamentally doesn't undermine the value of modernizing the fare collection system to POP.

Which waiver? The waivers are given out for specific reasons only, not because some people on the internet said it can be done. I linked to the CFR for a reason, the list of possible waivers is very short. So which one are they applying for?

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 10:10 pm I didn't realize the fare was $2.50. If you're not either breaking even on the fare evaders (minus enforcement cost), or driving the fare evasion rate to a very low level, then your fines and enforcement rates are out of balance.

So this whole time you've been arguing without actually knowing the facts? Shocking!

Multiple times in this thread, you've been asked to provide an example of successful POP system that actually makes money, as opposed to one that makes no money irrespective of whether they use POP or something else. You've hand-waved it away every time. Now you've suddenly discovered that POP systems don't make any money? Wow!

Here's another shocking revelation: historically, the whole shtick of POP was that you had to buy a ticket before getting on the train, and if you didn't, you'd be stuck with a hefty fine. How exactly does that work in 2024? Every agency has the ability to buy tickets through a mobile app, so there's literally no reason to buy the ticket before you board. Simply wait to see if someone shows up to check tickets, and purchase the ticket in seconds from your phone when you hear them asking for tickets. Who are these chumps paying fines? People who can't afford a smartphone? Good luck collecting the hypothetical fines from them. Might as well make the fine 1000x of the fare.

lensovet wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 11:24 pmWhich waiver? The waivers are given out for specific reasons only, not because some people on the internet said it can be done. I linked to the CFR for a reason, the list of possible waivers is very short. So which one are they applying for?

Apply to the FRA for a waiver. But again, requiring two people on the smallest of LIRR trains in no way undermines the need for and benefits of POP.

lensovet wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2024 11:27 pmSo this whole time you've been arguing without actually knowing the facts? Shocking!

I don't really care what one particular agency in San Diego is doing with their fare collection. It has at best tangential relevance or bearing on the fact that the Northeast agencies would save literally hundreds of millions of dollars per year by going to POP.

Multiple times in this thread, you've been asked to provide an example of successful POP system that actually makes money, as opposed to one that makes no money irrespective of whether they use POP or something else. You've hand-waved it away every time. Now you've suddenly discovered that POP systems don't make any money? Wow!

I laid out all the numbers in an extremely conservative estimate of the cost savings to the LIRR. The real number is likely closer to $300M/year. None of these railroads make any money, they're public transit, not a business. POP would just make them either lose less money (not a terrible thing), or my preference, which would be to roll that $300M/year on LIRR back into improved service and infrastructure projects. Even if I'm wrong and they only save my extremely conservative estimate of around $187M, that's still $187M more that they have to do something else with.

Here's another shocking revelation: historically, the whole shtick of POP was that you had to buy a ticket before getting on the train, and if you didn't, you'd be stuck with a hefty fine. How exactly does that work in 2024? Every agency has the ability to buy tickets through a mobile app, so there's literally no reason to buy the ticket before you board. Simply wait to see if someone shows up to check tickets, and purchase the ticket in seconds from your phone when you hear them asking for tickets. Who are these chumps paying fines? People who can't afford a smartphone? Good luck collecting the hypothetical fines from them. Might as well make the fine 1000x of the fare.

Gee, it must be totally impossible to make the software require that you buy the ticket within a certain time of getting on the train. Your excuses for outdated ticket systems are getting lamer and lazier.

I ride these systems 6x a week and interact with fare payers and evaders on both pop and non-pop systems more frequently in one week than you do all year. But yeah, I’m the one with lame and lazy excuses. Get real.

lensovet wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2024 9:16 pmI ride these systems 6x a week and interact with fare payers and evaders on both pop and non-pop systems more frequently in one week than you do all year. But yeah, I’m the one with lame and lazy excuses. Get real.

It's obvious that you just have hatred for POP and will distort the reality to whatever you can to try to avoid the fact that POP would save LIRR hundreds of millions of dollars (as it would be MNRR) and that collecting tickets is an archaic, backwards, and extremely expensive endeavor.

I appreciate that you didn't dispute any of the facts in my post and resorted to a personal attack instead.

lensovet wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:46 pmI appreciate that you didn't dispute any of the facts in my post and resorted to a personal attack instead.

I've already posted the facts about how much money POP would save LIRR and you choose to ignore them. You clearly have an agenda that's anti-POP for whatever reason that isn't related to what would actually provide the best service in a cost-efficient way.

Yeah, that's just bloviating. Maybe on paper and in a clean sheet startup you might be able to pull this off.

But that's not reality.

Your fantasy requires ripping up labor agreements with over 100 years of past practice built into them, not to mention getting waivers from existing regulations. And my firsthand experience negotiating with labor says they never give up headcount to benefit the company or the public.

You lost your argument weeks ago. Being book smart but street stupid isn't a great look, but continuing to push back in the face of inconvenient facts is a much worse approach.

Take the L, learn a few things that wrecked your assumptions, and move on.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

eolesen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:15 pmYour fantasy requires ripping up labor agreements with over 100 years of past practice built into them, not to mention getting waivers from existing regulations. And my firsthand experience negotiating with labor says they never give up headcount to benefit the company or the public.

I'm generally pro-union, but the out of control railroad unions are a problem in terms of improving transit. However, as I have already said, most of the benefits of POP can be realized without OPTO, as you can still cut your crew sizes way down on many trains from 6-7 to 2-3. Almost no one is suggesting that OPTO should be used with 12-car commuter trains. The lack of OPTO only affects adding way off-peak low-volume trains where you'd only have one or two cars open, and they could be safely operated by a single engineer/conductor.

Again, you're living in a theoretical world where you want to wave your magic POP wand, and expect that the union staffing levels will be dropped.

News flash: the crew staffing specifying additional conductors isn't driven by the need for ticket collection. Trainmen are there for safety and operations first, customer servicing last.

Ticket collection/inspection by onboard commuter crews is and always has been a downtime task.

Where's your benefit analysis if there's no corresponding crew reduction?

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 6:55 pmNews flash: the crew staffing specifying additional conductors isn't driven by the need for ticket collection. Trainmen are there for safety and operations first, customer servicing last.

A lot of trains are way over-crewed. So they're either there to collect tickets, or they're there for some other reason not related to actually operating the train.

I don't like the idea of having OPTO with more than a couple of cars open at most, just for safety's sake in case of an emergency when in the tunnels, but there's no technical reason that trains should in their current state require more than one person to operate them. With POP, crew members other than the one engineer/conductor wouldn't have any set duties.

The MNRR New Haven Line would be a great place to implement a form of fixed-block CBTC on FRA heavy rail, in which case, both/all of the crew members should be able to roam the cars, randomly do POP inspections, see how people are doing, and just generally focus on customer experience (ok, THAT would require a culture change) and let the trains drive themselves. The trains already know where they are and how to follow signals, it's mostly a processing and software upgrade for them to drive themselves on a set schedule. LIRR would be an ideal place but for the grade crossings which would require some additional protections.

You might think they're overstaffed, but I suspect they are crewed to the letter of the collective bargaining agreement.

If that's what the railroad negotiated with the union, nothing changes unless the two parties agree to it.

If someone has a link to the LIRR agreement with the BLET, I'm pretty certain staffing is defined there.

with the POP inspectors, you would also have to negotiate with all the unions to figure out which union would be the right fit (not sure how many unions represent the crafts in the NYC area.) then with the representing union what the new job position is, the duties of the position and the pay of said position. And if you think these ticket inspector type people will not be unionized you would be wrong.

Very true, which just shifts the costs from one workgroup to another.