St. Louis Public Transportation
I rode the Metrolink to work today, and a couple of things struck me:
1. The Metrolink comes relatively on time (the time that is posted for each station on their website), which, compared to NY transit is an amazing feat.
2. The Metrolink needs to come on time because the come every 10 minutes, and if you miss one, you're screwed.
3. When you arrive at the Metrolink at the same time the train is arriving, and have yet to buy a ticket, the station attendants do not ask the conductor to hold the train for you for a moment, while you "do the right thing."
Point number 3, however, leads me to the actual topic of my post: The Metrolink as a tool to further segregate the black/poor from the white/rich in St. Louis.
I say this, not because I think that it's purposeful on the cities behalf to make public transportation nearly completely inefficient just because it's primary riders are poor (though I do feel the sense of apathy that comes with attempting to improve transportation is there solely because nobody cares about the poor who are relegated to riding it).
I say this because, for one, the Metrolink costs $2 to get a 2-hour pass, in which you can ride any mode of public transportation (busses included) during that time span. $2 is the cost of NY Public Transportation, and any that have been to New York, or know about it, know that the Metrolink cannot possibly be comparable. Overcharging the public for a less than mediocre transportation system (if you're lucky, the bus you need comes every half hour) is the first offense.
The second offense, however, is the way the Metrolink is run, and how it coincides with this outrageous cost. When you ride the Metrolink at peak hours, there is generally a station attendant who asks to see your ticket or bus transfer before entering the platform. I say generally, because they're not always there, and peak hours because it's usually early mornings when people are off to work. However, these attendants are only at the most crowded stations, and they only stand at one entrance, so when there is more than one this point is moot. Next, you have people on the train asking to see your ticket, and in turn giving you a fine if you do not have one (what that fine is, I have yet to determine, but I will find out).
This all seems like a decent system for a small time train, doesn't it? The fact is, however, that the people on the train looking at tickets are rarely, if at all, on the train. I've encountered this situation twice, and I've ridden the Metrolink well over a dozen times. The people at the station checking if you have your tickets are also rarely there (with the exception of the peak hours at crowded stations I just mentioned). This creates quite a conundrum for those who don't have a lot of money. If there is no person on the platform, do you take what appears to be a 25% chance (figuring conservatively) that you will be asked for your ticket on the train, or do you "do the right thing" and buy your ticket regardless? If you're making a short trip, that significantly decreases the likelyhood that you'll be asked to show your ticket, and even further so if the train is semi-crowded, as anytime someone is caught without a ticket the transportation working is forced to remove the person from the train and get their information on the platform. Therefore, it would seem that the chances of getting caught were slim to none.
So now you have this system, designed to overcharge people (particularly poor people, of which make up at least 50% of the Metrolink riders, I can safely assume), and you have a government that is almost entirely too trustworthy, almost to the point of an attempt to trap those people. The fact is, that if the NYC subway were an "optional" payment as the Metrolink is, I probably would not pay it as often either. The fact that I generally have to take a bus before I get to the Metrolink is mainly the reason I pay my fair, other than the fact that I do have the money to afford it, and therefore don't see the point of forcing a negative consequence on myself.
But if I didn't have the money? Well, you can bet I would take my chances. And why shouldn't I? It's practically encouraged. The fact remains that what the Metrolink needs to do is institue a smaller fare, and a more exact measure in being able to determine who has payed that fare. It's not to catch people that don't pay it, but simply to be fair to the people that can't afford to pay it as easily. As it stands, most people on the Metrolink that get caught without a ticket, seem to me, not to be trying to get a free ride, but feeling like what's the sense in paying money that you don't have when the odds are with you that you won't get caught. It's an unfair system, and something's gotta give.
1. The Metrolink comes relatively on time (the time that is posted for each station on their website), which, compared to NY transit is an amazing feat.
2. The Metrolink needs to come on time because the come every 10 minutes, and if you miss one, you're screwed.
3. When you arrive at the Metrolink at the same time the train is arriving, and have yet to buy a ticket, the station attendants do not ask the conductor to hold the train for you for a moment, while you "do the right thing."
Point number 3, however, leads me to the actual topic of my post: The Metrolink as a tool to further segregate the black/poor from the white/rich in St. Louis.
I say this, not because I think that it's purposeful on the cities behalf to make public transportation nearly completely inefficient just because it's primary riders are poor (though I do feel the sense of apathy that comes with attempting to improve transportation is there solely because nobody cares about the poor who are relegated to riding it).
I say this because, for one, the Metrolink costs $2 to get a 2-hour pass, in which you can ride any mode of public transportation (busses included) during that time span. $2 is the cost of NY Public Transportation, and any that have been to New York, or know about it, know that the Metrolink cannot possibly be comparable. Overcharging the public for a less than mediocre transportation system (if you're lucky, the bus you need comes every half hour) is the first offense.
The second offense, however, is the way the Metrolink is run, and how it coincides with this outrageous cost. When you ride the Metrolink at peak hours, there is generally a station attendant who asks to see your ticket or bus transfer before entering the platform. I say generally, because they're not always there, and peak hours because it's usually early mornings when people are off to work. However, these attendants are only at the most crowded stations, and they only stand at one entrance, so when there is more than one this point is moot. Next, you have people on the train asking to see your ticket, and in turn giving you a fine if you do not have one (what that fine is, I have yet to determine, but I will find out).
This all seems like a decent system for a small time train, doesn't it? The fact is, however, that the people on the train looking at tickets are rarely, if at all, on the train. I've encountered this situation twice, and I've ridden the Metrolink well over a dozen times. The people at the station checking if you have your tickets are also rarely there (with the exception of the peak hours at crowded stations I just mentioned). This creates quite a conundrum for those who don't have a lot of money. If there is no person on the platform, do you take what appears to be a 25% chance (figuring conservatively) that you will be asked for your ticket on the train, or do you "do the right thing" and buy your ticket regardless? If you're making a short trip, that significantly decreases the likelyhood that you'll be asked to show your ticket, and even further so if the train is semi-crowded, as anytime someone is caught without a ticket the transportation working is forced to remove the person from the train and get their information on the platform. Therefore, it would seem that the chances of getting caught were slim to none.
So now you have this system, designed to overcharge people (particularly poor people, of which make up at least 50% of the Metrolink riders, I can safely assume), and you have a government that is almost entirely too trustworthy, almost to the point of an attempt to trap those people. The fact is, that if the NYC subway were an "optional" payment as the Metrolink is, I probably would not pay it as often either. The fact that I generally have to take a bus before I get to the Metrolink is mainly the reason I pay my fair, other than the fact that I do have the money to afford it, and therefore don't see the point of forcing a negative consequence on myself.
But if I didn't have the money? Well, you can bet I would take my chances. And why shouldn't I? It's practically encouraged. The fact remains that what the Metrolink needs to do is institue a smaller fare, and a more exact measure in being able to determine who has payed that fare. It's not to catch people that don't pay it, but simply to be fair to the people that can't afford to pay it as easily. As it stands, most people on the Metrolink that get caught without a ticket, seem to me, not to be trying to get a free ride, but feeling like what's the sense in paying money that you don't have when the odds are with you that you won't get caught. It's an unfair system, and something's gotta give.
posted by Intellectivist at 1:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home