Why the SFPD are Doing Muni Fare Inspections Improperly and Citing Innocent People

This morning, I was reading an article written by Jessica Kwong for the SF Examiner about a Muni passenger who was written a ticket by a San Francisco Police Department officer for not paying their Muni fare with their Clipper card.

The article stated the passenger boarded the F-Market streetcar and used his Clipper card to tag at the entry.  Ten minutes later, a SFPD officer asked for proof of payment from the passenger and tagged the passenger's Clipper card at the vehicle's card reader to verify.  The card was rejected and the passenger was issued a $200+ citation for fare evasion.  However, the passenger retrieved his Clipper card records from the Clipper Card website and it showed he did pay the fare.  The passenger intends to contest the citation in court next week.

The news reporter also got statements from SFPD officials and SFMTA/Muni basically stating that a police officer tagging a customer's card on a vehicle card reader is sufficient enough and there's no problems with it.

However, with my expertise on writing about the Clipper Card for numerous years, there's some serious flaws with having police officers and fare inspectors to verify a passenger's card use by tagging a card reader.  Here's why:

1. When a passenger boards a Muni vehicle and tags their Clipper card upon entry, the card reader will immediately verify the transaction with a green light and single beep.  The screen will also show the type of transaction completed ($2 fare deducted, transfer being used, or valid pass).
2. Once the card is tagged, it cannot be tagged again on the same vehicle reader; this rule is called "passback."  This is a standard rule used on all electronic transit fare cards to prevent a passenger from using the card for valid entry, and "passing back" the card to their friend or family member to tag the card again so they can score a free ride.
3. The "passback" is removed after a certain set amount of time for those who ride the same bus again for a return trip (for example, if I board a 6-Parnassus bus at 1PM, have lunch, and board same exact bus at 2:15PM, the passback is eliminated and tagging my card won't result in a rejection).
4. When a passenger transfers to another vehicle, the card is perfectly okay to tag and get the green light to enter.  This is because they are boarding a new vehicle, even if they tag card on bus #1 at 1PM, and board/tag bus #2 at 1:10PM.

PROPER FARE INSPECTION: When a police officer or fare inspector uses a handheld card reader that is issued by Clipper, it will read the card and verify if the card was tagged or not by showing a "YES" or "NO" on the screen, followed a confirmation sound of "ding" or "buzz."  If it says no, inspectors can immediately review the card use history clicking on a few screens on their reader to check if there's a valid pass and the last several times the card was used.  If it all checks-out fine after the secondary card history check, all is well; but if it shows passenger failed to pay, a ticket is issued.

IMPROPER FARE INSPECTION: If a police officer or fare inspector verifies use by tagging the card to a Clipper card reader, it will either give a single beep/green light confirmation or red light/error confirmation.  The single beep/green is because the "passback" was eliminated after the set window ended, but a red/error sound means the "PASSBACK" IS STILL ACTIVE.  Cops and fare inspectors SHOULD NOT use this method of inspection because if they get the red light, and are ignorant to realize "passback" is active, the passenger gets a citation and have to waste their time at a court hearing to fight the charge.

As for the statement from SFMTA's Paul Rose saying there's "no concerns" about law enforcement officers verifying via the vehicle's card readers, he is half-correct and half-wrong.  Here's why:

1. Correct statement: This can only happen in the Muni metro.  Only if a passenger tags their card upon entry to a subway station's fare gate, and a police officer verifies by tagging the card on a train's card reader, it will give the green light.  The rules state when a Muni passenger tags their card upon entry via a faregate, it is not necessary to tag their card on the vehicle card reader when they board the train; but if a passenger tags their card in the vehicle (after tagging card to enter the metro station) and a police officer checks the card, say 10 minutes after on the vehicle card reader, it will result in a red light/denied message and is subject to a ticket, even though they have tagged their card lawfully at a Muni fare gate.
2. Incorrect statement: There is a serious concern if a police officer verifies a passenger's Clipper card at the vehicle card reader because the "passback" may still be active on the card.  Reason for this explained earlier in this blog entry.

Akit's Opinions:
In summary, if we assume the passenger does have proof from the Clipper Card website saying he did tag his Clipper card and was cited by a police officer, he should be found not guilty or have his case dismissed on the grounds that the officer improperly issued the ticket.

Due to the poor judgment of the police and SFMTA, and improper procedures to verify Clipper card use, strict policies needs to be written-up to prevent this from happening again.

Fare inspections SHOULD NEVER be verifying card use by using a vehicle's card reader because of the "passback" policy.  ALWAYS use the handheld card reader.

Muni Fare Inspector Saturation Raids, Are They an Effective Use of Resources?

Last week Wednesday, I noticed several fare inspectors and two police officers waiting at the 19th Avenue and Holloway bus stop in front of San Francisco State University waiting for buses to arrive so they can be checked for proper proof of payment.

Last week Friday on my commute to my job, I noticed about the same number of fare inspectors and police officers at the 19th Avenue and Taraval bus stop for the 28/28L line going southbound.

It makes me wonder if the SFMTA is utilizing their Muni fare inspection teams in the most efficient manner.  I have questioned Muni's tactics in 2009 when thousands of Giants fans were inspected as usual at the entrance to the Muni metro platform in front of the ballpark, and was checked a second time at the Embarcadero station exit; it was a waste of the agency's resources because all the ballpark passengers were screened prior to entry to the system.

Their 'saturation' enforcement has been a controversial issue around certain communities as activists claimed fare inspectors target low income minorities, but in the agency's point of view, they are using the teams to transit lines that have the highest amount of fare evasion.

Normally, fare inspection teams are usually two inspectors that typically board a vehicle for a short ride, and go up and down the aisles to quickly check everyone for proof of payment.  But the saturation teams uses several inspectors and at least one police officer to board a vehicle at a stop, check everyone, disembark the vehicle, let the vehicle go, and wait for the next one.

While each method of enforcement meets the goal of surprise inspections to make sure passengers are in compliance with the established policies regarding proof of payment, I feel the saturation inspections are a waste of manner, and other methods of using them can be more effective.

By having several inspectors board the bus at once, it brings that feeling of the FBI wanting to raid a house and make you feel like a criminal.  When having a team of two handle a vehicle going from stop to stop, things are a lot calmer, and I've seen that be a lot more comfortable to see two inspectors ride the metro from one stop to another to quickly check everyone.

A Better Way?
In the above photo, this was in front of San Francisco State University where this particular team checked every single southbound 17, 28, 28L, and 29 bus that stopped there.  With two police officers also present, the feeling in the air was more like all the passengers are suspects and criminals, and those who wants to attempt to run will be tackled by the cops.

I feel a better and more effective way to make the large team more useful to check passengers is to spread them out at that particular intersection.  Have a team of two on the metro platform riding between the SF State and Stonestown stops checking passengers, have a team on the east side of the street to check the passengers riding northbound, and have the remaining at the west side stop.  By doing it this way, the large team is spread out checking all buses and trains going each direction, and police backup is right nearby when needed.

The same method could have also been used at 19th and Taraval by checking all the L-Taraval trains, but several inspectors just checked buses going one direction that came every 10 minutes.

What Inspections?
Personally, the number of fare inspections where I've been checked has been very rare and too far in between.  The most I've ever been checked is when I exit the Powell Street Station, but that's only about once every two or three months on the weekends.  The most hardcore fare inspections is after ballgames at AT&T Park, and that's necessary because everyone should pay their fare to ride the train to get home.

The agency thinks all the major lines are the headaches of fare evasion, but sometimes they should look at the smaller and less popular lines.  I don't think the agency realizes that the lines going through neighborhoods and are not considered a major route, also has their fair share of evasion and I feel Muni doesn't do a thing to make sure the agency is looking out for all cheats, no matter what route is taken.

Some Advice for Us, the Passengers
To some of you, you don't mind the inspectors.  To others, you hate their guts.

Here's some tips to making things just a little easier, and to keep that $75 ticket monkey/ticket off your back:

1. Always get a transfer if you pay a cash fare.  Make sure it has at least 90 minutes on it.  If not, ask the driver for a new one, because 90 minutes is the MINIMUM.
2. If you pay e-cash on Clipper, use a stopwatch to time how long your transfer is valid.  Once 90 minutes goes by after the first tag, the card is invalid.
3. Carry spare cash with you if you have a Clipper card.  If you board the bus at the 89th minute and the card reader says okay, 60 seconds later, your transfer just expired.  Pay cash and just take a paper transfer.
4. Always be aware, expired transfers are not valid during the journey.  This means, if you boarded while it was valid, but expires during the ride, either pay for a new one or get off the vehicle immediately.  But if Muni lacks the manpower or efficiency to check transfers, you might as well continue to ride expired.

Why a Senior Muni Rider Was Fined $100 for Fare Evasion

 

KPIX (CBS San Francisco) and the Consumerist reported about a senior Muni passenger who was fined $100 for fare evasion and also lost his appeal which cost him an extra $25.

Read articles from KPIX and the Consumerist.

The senior claimed he boarded a crowded metro train and had to get his hand through the crowd to tag his senior Clipper card.  When he exited the train, fare inspectors was waiting to check passengers and when scanning his card with their reader, they noticed he didn't tag his card and had a balance of 70 cents remaining.

Both the Consumerist and KPIX are giving sides towards the senior passenger saying a rule in Clipper's policy allows the card to go into the negative balance if the card has at least one cent on the card.

And while there's a lot of people siding with the passenger, when I read the stories, there's some missing details and that needs to be addressed.

Here's what I see to be problems:

Low Balance Means Different Clipper Vehicle Reader Reaction
If you have a Clipper card with a low balance, the Clipper card reader will give two beeps in different tones and the reader's color lights will illuminate the yellow and green lights.  The problem is the story reported that the passenger claims he tagged his card and "heard a beep."

But here's the clue there's a problem, he only heard a "beep" not "two beeps" as per policy.  With only 70 cents left on the card, the two beeps indicates valid fare transaction, but needs to replenish the card.

The Negative Balance Policy
The articles claim his card had 70 cents, five cents short of the 75 cent fare.  But if the passenger tagged his card, it should have deducted it from his card and left him with a negative five cent balance.  The fare inspector's reader would have said "YES" because even though the card was in the negative, the purchased ride is still valid.

But, the fare inspector wrote the citation because it wasn't due his card was five cents short, it was because the inspector's card reader said "NO" indicating he never tagged his Clipper card.

How the inspector's reader works:
When an inspector scans a card, the first thing that shows up on his/her screen is the words "yes" or "no."  When it says "yes" the card was scanned (even if it went negative).  When it says "NO" it shows up as suspect and the inspector does a further review of the card's history and determines if the passenger has some valid use of the card (e.g. Muni pass loaded) or not valid (e.g. not paying).

He Didn't Truly Confirm His Card Was Scanned
The KPIX story states he had to "reach between people" to get to the card reader and believed he tagged his card and heard the beep sound.  The problem with this is, he didn't visually confirm it.  Maybe another passenger was tagging his card while he was doing the reach around.

When the inspector checked his card, the senior said to the reporter that the inspector told him the card did not have any money deducted.  Inspectors have readers that can read the history/data on the card, such as when was it last used, the balance left, any passes on the card, etc.

You should only be confident that your Clipper card was tagged properly when you visually and hear the following:

1. See the green light (or green and yellow when low balance)
2. Read the text in the screen confirming the tag.
3. Hear the single beep (or two beeps if low balance)

The passenger didn't see it, so he assumed.

His Appeal Failed, Where's the Evidence?
He appealed to Muni to cancel his $100 fare evasion citation and lost, but the article never mentioned if he ever reviewed his Clipper card transaction/history report.  This report is available to each registered cardholder that logs into the Clipper card's website.  It's one of the nice perks about Clipper, if you truly believe you tagged your card and you get accused of not doing so, that transaction report will save your butt.  It's unlike parking tickets because a corrupt parking cop can claim you parked a foot in the red zone, but you don't have decent evidence that you didn't; taking a photo of your car would not work that well because it could be assumed you backed the car out of the red zone and snapped the photo.

If the history report showed he did properly tag his Clipper card at that time and date, that is sufficient evidence for Muni to admit to the error on their end and void the citation.

Akit's Opinion
The last statement about the history report would have solved everything.  KPIX and the Consumerist should have asked the elderly passenger to show them his transaction report to prove he actually did tag his card.  But without providing that documentation, we are left to assume that Muni is the bad guys based on the way the article was written and broadcasted on TV.

Being that I'm one of the foremost experts regarding Clipper and doesn't work for any public transportation agency, I can tell you that while there's a sobbing story of a senior citizen getting a $100 ticket, I've poked a bunch of holes into the situation.  Until proven otherwise with a history report, he's responsible for paying the fine.

Next time news agencies, DO A BETTER JOB and gather the facts.

BREAKING: Muni All-Door Boarding to Start on July 1

Photo from SFMTA
The official sign on all rear doors

If you recall from a past blog post, Muni is supposed to start the all-door boarding program on July 1, 2012.

It's now official.  Hours ago, the SFMTA announced starting Sunday, July 1, 2012 all passengers can board ANY door of ALL Muni vehicles and lines.

Statistically, Muni will be the first agency in the nation to implement all-door boarding for its entire fleet and routes.  The goal is to speed up the boarding process so buses can keep moving on our streets.  Muni will have to invest an extra $900K in salary and benefits to hire ten more fare inspectors.  The extra cost will be offset by an estimated $200K in tickets written to violators and other cost savings.

How all-door boarding works:
This is exactly like the Proof of Payment system already in place on the Muni metro and the rear door boarding procedures remains the same for the rest of the Muni fleet.  This has been unofficially and illegally done on non-metro lines such as the lines going through Chinatown for many years, but has proven itself to board buses faster than through the traditional method of front door only.

Passengers with a Clipper card, metro ticket (Limited Use Ticket/LUT), paper transfer, paper pass, visitor Muni Passport, and other pre-paid Muni media can board any door.  Those using a Clipper card or LUT must tag their card at the card reader inside the vehicle.  Those non-Clipper media can simply board and take a seat.

Passengers paying with cash, youth fare coupon books, and those needing the wheelchair lift or bus kneeling feature must board the front door of the bus.  Cash fares to the farebox, Clipper cards uses the reader, and youth coupons handed to the driver.

Pesky rules to remember:

1. All Muni lines are now using the honor system known as "Proof of Payment."  You must have a valid pass or fare receipt at all times.  Expired passes and fare receipts/transfers are invalid and a violation of city law.  It is necessary to have unexpired media at hand at all times.  Passengers are subject to inspection by an officer of the peace or transit fare inspector.
2. Anyone using a Clipper card or a Muni metro Limited Use Ticket (LUT) must ALWAYS tag their card/ticket on a Clipper card reader, regardless if you have a valid monthly pass or know your electronic transfer has not yet expired.  If you have a current monthly pass and didn't tag it, the fare inspector will have to hassle with you and check the data on your card using their handheld reader, and that's a waste of time.  For more information on why it is important to tag your card, click here.

Respect and Courtesy
This is a very important topic for all-door boarding.  If you are used to the unwritten "commuter rules" for BART, you know the basics for the upcoming July 1st implementation of Muni's all-door boarding.

Rule #1: Always let passengers exit the vehicle first.  It's a matter of courtesy to let exiting passengers leave the vehicle first, then boarding passengers enter second.  Also, exiting passengers should always be ready to exit the vehicle, don't do it late; if it's crowded, be vocal and say you need to exit the bus just BEFORE it arrives at the stop.

Rule #2: Don't clothesline passengers.  If you have a Clipper card, try your best to board the correct side of the rear door that is closest to the Clipper card reader.  If you board the wrong side, don't stick your arm out to tag your Clipper card on the opposite side, you could hurt someone; just wait until everyone else boarded, then tag your card.

Rule #3: If you are the only passenger at the stop, just board the front door.  It's a waste of time and annoying to a bus driver and fellow passengers if you are the only person at a bus stop and you want to board the rear.  Just use the front door.  This makes even more practical sense for the less used Muni lines such as the community service routes.  Exception: Muni metro lines, just press the door open button.

Rule #4: Respect the fare inspectors.  Have your fare media available for inspection in an easy to access place.  Don't crinkle your transfer up and toss it in your pocket.  If you have a Clipper card, I suggest using a clear plastic protective sleeve instead of digging in your pocket for your wallet.

Rule #5: Always properly tag your Clipper card.  Getting the dreaded "three beeps of death" is not just annoying to hear, but also holds up other passengers behind you trying to board and tag their card.  Never swipe the card like a credit card, don't move the card around the sensor, or quickly tap the card and move the card away from the sensor.  The proper procedure is: Hold the card steady on the reader until you get the single beep confirmation tone, and then remove the card.  Read more for tips on properly tagging your Clipper card.



So that's it.  Monday, July 2nd will be the first business day for the program.  Let's see if it really speeds up service as it promises.

On a side note: Strangely, I just finished a blog post hours prior to Muni's big announcement; I was questioning why there was no updates or if it was going to start on July 1st.  Then I get the twitter message and had to delete all the material I had ready.

Muni to do All-Door Boarding? The Good and Bad

Late Friday, Streetsblog SF presented a report about Muni changing to all-door boarding starting July 1st for the entire transit system. This would expand beyond the existing metro system's policies and would be the first in North America to establish such a major program.

But as you all know, Akit isn't here to stand on the sidelines and cheer, he's got his own thoughts on this idea. If you are reading this blog entry, what else would you expect from this blogger?

Perks of all-door boarding...

1. We all know the agency's buses are slow; it shouldn't take 45 minutes to go end to end on the 38L-Geary Limited, but that's what happens all the time. We all know Muni's average speed is a sluggish 8 MPH, in fact, you can probably ride a bike and make it to your destination faster.
2. In theory, if we go with all-door boarding, passengers don't need to flood the front door of buses and wait in line to either pay in cash or tag their Clipper card. That should be able to reduce the time for boarding and encourage more passengers to spread out on the buses where many bunch-up in the front half and refuse to go to the rear.
3. More people want a Clipper card to pay for their rides? Why not enjoy the benefit of tagging your Clipper card to enter a different door?
   

But I do have my concerns...

More Fare Evasion
This has to be the riskiest thing Muni will have to face. The honor system is not exactly the greatest idea in our city. When I ride the 38-Geary and see people boarding through the rear door, hardly anyone is tagging their Clipper card, or doing the "flash their pass/transfer" at the driver who isn't even paying attention to their rear mirror; and let's remember, this is happening today, before the new policy is in place!

Also, with the possible plan to allow all of SF's youth to ride free (in which, I hate the idea), and that will cause even more turmoil. Youth could argue to inspectors and police: "why do I need to tag my Clipper card's free pass when you already allow all-door boarding?" If inspectors or cops decides to write a ticket to a person under 18, that's a trip down to the Juvenile Justice Center as per state law; that means backing up the already busy juvenile court system.

I can understand Muni has card readers on their back doors, but only on one side. If a passenger boards the opposite side, they'd have to do the wrestling clothesline move to validate their Clipper card. Even on the metro lines, passengers complain there are too few card readers and passengers boarding a crowded train will have to get through a layer of people just to validate their card.

Passenger Courtesy
Remember riding BART and you always let passengers exit first, and then you board? On Muni... HA! The Muni metro at Powell Street station is a perfect example of seeing old Chinese ladies shoving their way onto an outbound K-Ingleside train while dozens of other passengers are trying to exit FIRST.

Even for me, I got off jury duty and rode the 8X to downtown, and I was about to exit when a Chinese lady decided to board the rear door illegally and sandwiched me into the stairwell's handrail just so she can board first.

If Muni wants to do this, they need to teach passengers some respect. Let people exit first, then board the rear door. If you want to board first while I'm exiting, I don't mind blocking the doorway until you get the hell out of my way.

Smaller & Lesser Known Lines
All-door boarding is a good option for major bus lines and ones heavily used by the public. All the 38 Geary lines is a perfect example because 54,000 people ride the Geary lines on a single weekday at approximately a 75% on-time rate (stats from SF Examiner). By improving boarding times, the Geary lines can increase their on-time rate even higher, or if very successful, adjust their time schedules.

But smaller lines like the 39-Coit, 18-46th Avenue, 17-Parkmerced, 3-Jackson, and a ton more doesn't need all-door boarding. If you think about it, if there's only a few passengers waiting at a bus stop, why not just let them board the front door? What if there was just one passenger? Why waste time and let them board the rear when the front door should be the primary way?

Fare Inspectors
If Muni plans to expand all-door, they need more fare inspectors.

I can understand, if all-door expands to only major lines, hiring extra inspector teams to conduct inspections won't be so bad because they can still concentrate on the metro lines and the lines added to all-door boarding. Surely, they can still inspect the lines without all-door as surprise inspections just to keep people in check with the rules.

If Muni decides to expand to the smaller lines, what a waste of resources it will be. If all-door boarding was on the 17-Parkmerced, I'd bet fare evasion would jump because fare inspectors would hardly ever do any fare checks, and those entering the back door could have a transfer that's fake, expired, or just nothing at all, and the driver would just assume the passenger is A-OK. The larger the number of all-door boarding lines, the more inspectors will be needed to keep passengers in check with obeying the honor policy. Or even worse, forcing inspectors to blanket the whole city to do fare checks on every single line of Muni to make sure of compliance of boarding the rear doors.

What's easier is the smaller lines stick to regular policy, board the front doors only, and exit doors are just exit doors. The driver has full control to make sure every person who enters the front door has paid their fare, used a valid Clipper card, or has shown a paper transfer. Drivers are defacto fare inspectors with authority to halt a passenger who has an expired transfer or something else going wrong, so why hire tons more inspectors or thin out the inspector teams to cover the whole city, when an operator can do themselves?

F-Market
The F-Market is a tourist line and truly needs to stick with front door boarding. I'd say about 85% of visitors pay for the F-Market in cash, so by allowing rear-door boarding, that will say to tourists, "hey, my streetcar is free!" Very few passengers board with a Clipper card, so front door boarding needs to stay to make sure they collect the revenue to help fund the agency.

If Muni wants all-door boarding for the F-Market, they need ticket machines. Put them at all the major stops so that it reduces dwell time for the vehicles (at the Ferry Building, it can take five minutes for everyone to board and pay cash). Muni could also consider having official ticket sellers at major stops during peak periods (weekends, Fleet Week, holidays, summer time) to encourage faster boarding. Lastly, Muni could consider bringing back the conductors that used to be on the streetcar lines many decades ago to check tickets and force new passengers to pay their fare.

All these suggestions for the F-Market are expensive, but it reduces the risk of fare evasion. If it was up to me, I'd stick with front door boarding only as a cost effective measure. Plus, doing fare inspections on tourists would be torment on the inspectors, from people with various language barriers, and international visitors won't even pay-off the citation because will Muni really chase them for a $100 ticket if they are in France?

If Akit Ran Muni...
If I was the king of Muni, here's what I'd do about this topic:

1. Only implement on the major and most heavily used bus lines.
2. Implement at all major stops, even for less popular routes where there's a lot of passengers waiting to board (e.g. SF State curb stops on 19th/Holloway).
   
3. Do not allow all-door on smaller bus lines and the F-Market.
   
4. Add pre-purchase ticketing machines at popular stops to encourage faster boarding.
5. Educate passengers early on about the rules and courtesy to other passengers.
6. Change the attitude of passengers about all-door boarding by discouraging fare evasion (does hypnosis work?).
7. Change the penalty structure; instead of a $100 fine, add an incentive to pay within three weeks and it's cut to $50; youth who violate are still remanded to the juvenile court system as I strongly believe youth crime is the path towards future crimes (even the city says so).
   

Pro Tip: Always Tag Your Clipper Card on Muni (Regardless if a Pass or Not)

I've likely said it a bunch of times on my blog, so let's wipe off the dust and take the cobwebs off and remind everyone...

Don't forget to tag your Clipper card on Muni!

Over the past couple of weeks, some news stories came up about people not tagging their Clipper card and either getting hassled by a fare inspector or getting a fat $100 ticket.

Several hours ago, Muni Diaries heard from the folks at Muni that anyone with a monthly pass isn't required to tag their card.

And at KRON Channel 4, Stanley Roberts (a.k.a. the guy who filmed the infamous elmo shirt rant) did a couple of video segments of fare evaders getting caught for not paying their Muni fare with Clipper and getting a big $100 ticket. (First video on top of blog entry, and second video on bottom of entry).

We all should know by now, fare evasion is a bad thing to do, and sets a bad example to the rest of the public ("hey, monkey see, monkey do!"). I've mentioned it a few times back when the brand new Muni fare gates had a "glitch" in which people could use their hand to open the gates and gain free entry.

For those of you paying for Muni with the blue card using e-cash or an electronic token ridebook, tagging is mandatory every time you board. Don't do it, you'll eventually get caught.

Pro tip #1: Always tag your card correctly. Getting the error tone means you card is NOT VALIDATED! Don't swipe, hold and wait for confirmation.

But as Muni Diaries mentioned, what about monthly passes? Good point. Muni's policy is not to cite people, but the fare inspector has to sift through the data on your card to find out if you have a pass or not; and that means wasted time.

But this is only for the metro service. Not tagging on a bus or F-Market streetcar could get likely in trouble with the operator as passengers are supposed to board the front door and either pay cash, show the transfer, or tag their Clipper card.

Even then, tagging your card is highly encouraged; not just to avoid wasting time with an inspector, but it also helps Muni gather ridership data. When they do an assessment, they have hard proof to the state and federal government that the money they are receiving is not enough based on the ridership numbers.

They can also use the data to find out about usage patterns; say if at 9PM at night, there's a high volume of tagging on the 1-California line, that could indicate to Muni that an extra bus might be needed to run. But it could run negatively to help support reductions of service for a line as well.

Pro tip #2: If the metro train's card reader is not functioning, go to the other half of the car; the "A" car's Clipper card readers are independent from the "B" car's.

So always remember, tag your Clipper card or face the wrath of a notorious fare inspector...

Have a great Wednesday!

A Newer Way to Evade the Muni Metro Gates

If you thought the Muni metro gate fiasco is over, think again. Muni is still working with Cubic to fix the existing problem of people using their hand to open a gate, but now there's another way to enter the system with much less effort.

Since many Muni metro stations have two booths, a primary booth manned all the time and a secondary booth normally during weekday rush hours and some weekends, the agency has instated a new policy:

• Passengers with valid proof of payment, other than Clipper cards and paper magnetic stripe passes, can now enter the metro system by using the gate closest to the unmanned booth (sign shown in the photo). The gate is unlocked when a passenger walks towards it.

It's not a big shock to me, because it's just another way to evade the system, just like the swing gates were used during the 30+ year era of the turnstiles.

On one hand, it's another way to evade the system if you don't have valid proof of payment, but the other benefit is that if you have a pass or paper transfer not compatible with the gates, there's an easy way to enter the system than hauling your butt to the other set of gates.

Even if the booth is unmanned and there's fare inspectors nearby, they might not even notice those who are evading because they are not doing the hand trick over the sensor. Someone could act like they are tagging their Clipper card (using some non-RFID card) and enter the system, and it doesn't look suspect at all. The flipside of this is if a passenger with no intention of evading tags their card improperly and they walk through the gate doors that opens automatically (without the need to tag); the Clipper card is invalid (not tagged) and may get cited by an inspector for evasion during their journey or when exiting.

Here's the sign in full:

Clipper Cards Now Free Until June 2011

In light of the controversy over Muni's new equipment that makes it easy to fare evade (a.k.a. "GateGate") and the controversial 25 cent fee for limited use tickets at metro vending machines, there's a bright spot in all this mess.

Remember when I told you there was an easy way to not pay the 25 cent surcharge?

If you haven't been reading my blog lately, here's a shortened version...

The new Muni ticketing machines at metro stations sell paper limited use tickets and plastic Clipper cards. The paper version costs 25 cents each to issue and has heavy restrictions on usage (Muni only, up to two rides stored, and expires in 90 days). The plastic Clipper cards, which has far few restrictions, are FREE as long as the customer adds a minimum $2 to the card, pass, or some other transit media.

UPDATE: Muni has waived the 25 cent surcharge. --End of Update--

But to make the pot of honey just a little bit sweeter...

Clipper cards are now free until JUNE 2011! I'm not kidding folks.
(Verified by KGO news and SF Gate's "City Insider")

Clipper's plan was to give out the adult cards for a limited time. All youth and senior cards is issued free of charge (permanently). I'd expect the freebie cards to end sometime in the next month or two, but this extension is quite exciting. Once the free adult card program ends, the fee to obtain a card will be $5.

Now that you have been informed, never buy a paper limited use ticket! The plastic cards will continue to be sold at the machines for no surcharge for eight more months! If you are a citizen of the Bay Area, regardless if you ride transit daily or infrequently, why spend an extra quarter on a paper ticket when one plastic card will make-up its value in the long term?

Go ahead folks, tell your friends and those random tourists. Free cards for all!

Wanted for Misconduct & Fare Evasion: Muni Employee & Union Rep Should be Fired

Misconduct in the workplace is not a good thing, especially when your boss wants to grill your ass. You'd be lining up at the unemployment office while the clerk tells you have been denied for gross incompetence.

In my previous posting, I mentioned about a KRON news report showing how people can evade the new Muni metro gates with the movement of their hand. Yeah yeah yeah, just a way to break the law. I won't get into that morals crap right now, just a little bit later.

When watching the video, the person who really demonstrated in detail about how to break the law was a Muni employee, who is also a station agent union representative by the name of James O'Brien (photographed).

Mr. O'Brien violated the law, by demonstrating how to break the law TWICE:

1. A violation of city law, article 7, section 7.2.101 (better known as Traffic Code 127) - Fare Evasion. Mr. O'Brien demonstrated twice, on video, how to evade fares. He did not tag his Clipper card, swipe a monthly pass, use a limited use ticket, or show his employee badge to the station agent. Even if he had a legal fare media in possession, he still walked into the metro system illegally.
   
2. A violation of city law, Article 7, section 7.31 - Other Fare Evasion and Passenger Conduct Regulations; subsection "B" - Interfering with the turnstile or fare register. Mr. O'Brien also demonstrated, twice, on video, interfering with the proper operations of Muni turnstiles by waving his hand over it to enter the metro system illegally.

Let's count up his fines (as stated in Article 300, section 302 of the traffic code):

• For fare evasion: He owes $75 for the first offense, and $250 for the second offense within a year.
• For misconduct (tampering with gates): He owes $75 for the first offense, and $250 for the second offense within a year.

A grand total of: $650.00. Ka-ching!

So if you think getting caught on camera won't get you punishment, think again... Let's all remember, cameras that catch crooks in the act do get a nice ticket in the mail or arrested by cops in the near future. Red light cameras gets a nice fat ticket in the mail, 38-Geary Muni buses have cameras that catches people parked in the bus lanes on Geary and O'Farrell, and even this news report of Alameda County parking cops at a BART station taking photographs of cars parked in a bus stop if they can't issue the ticket in time.

--------------------

Time for some good old "morals, honor and respect" talk:

Just being a Muni employee does not exclude you from breaking the law. I've called the cops at times when Muni buses blatantly ran the red light at dangerous intersections just so they can get a head start.

As Stanley Roberts of KRON 4 says: Mr. O'Brien demonstrated his law breaking talent and "who just happened to be present when the flaw was discovered." So basically, Mr. O'Brien did not get permission from the SFMTA to demonstrate this to the press (this is why there are PR departments who do this stuff), but he did anyway, and demonstrated to thousands of Bay Area residents on how to break the law.

My moral gut tells me, James O'Brien shouldn't have done that on video. By showing a Muni employee (also a union rep) demonstrating something illegal, in which others may follow is just plain wrong. Remember the saying, "monkey see, monkey do?" Yeah, well the king monkey (James O'Brien) just demonstrated to the chimps (the general public) how to break the law.

Let me get straight to the point: James O'Brien should get that $650 ticket, and have his ass face Nataniel Ford for firing. He ain't no whistle blower as he "happened to be present," there's a formal process to complain and receive legal protection status. As I stated before, there's a reason why Muni has a PR department, they handle talking to the press, not unauthorized people like James O'Brien.

There's some criticism that KRON should have not shown this report, as thousands of viewers will follow along and break the law. At the same time, exposing it to the mass media is a good thing as Muni's well... response time to issues is just outright slow. Kudos to KTVU's 10PM news for not demonstrating it on video, as they have a very high viewership and fare evasion will get even worse.

(Photos are screen captures from Stanley Robert's YouTube video footage)

Now There's a Way to Cheat New Muni Fare Gates - Who Cares?

Courtesy of Stanley Roberts of KRON channel 4 news, now there's a way to cheat the Muni fare gates and I could really not give much of a damn; but since I report on Clipper and the changes that comes forth, you the readers expect to learn about my point of view.

Here we go...

(Click here to watch the follow-up news report)

So some smart ass tells a news reporter how to cheat the new fare gates, and a union official that represents station agents also demonstrates to the news reporter just how easy it is to break the law (fare evasion). All you have to do is wave your hand over the sensors near the swing gates, and the doors open like magic for entry into Muni metro.

Am I surprised by this? Hell no. Even before the new gates were installed, people can easily evade fares at metro stations, they just used the swing gates that was not alarmed or jumped the turnstiles.

Even with the new gates installed, there are still plenty of ways to abuse the system and gain free entry (other than the hand trick), such as tailgating (which happens on BART), or holding the gates open to let a friend in.

--------------------

I don't know why Muni purchased the automatic door flaps for the system, it was a bad choice. Since Muni metro gates are supposed to be locked when entering the system (until a valid media is paid), and unlocked upon exiting, the hand cheating exploit makes it simple for someone to break the law.

The door flap system can only work if the gates acted exactly like BART's does, a ticket must be used for entry, and the same ticket used for exiting; no hand motion will open the gates.

But, if Muni decided to keep the brand new equipment and exchange the doors for turnstiles, the problem gets solved because the user cannot wave their hand as the gate won't magically unlock to gain entry.

The primary reasons why Muni bought the new gates is because:

1. The coin slot turnstiles was getting really old. They are from when the metro system first started about 30 years ago.
2. Maintenance is a serious pain in the ass for the old turnstiles. Look at BART, nearly a decade ago, their aging ticketing machines and gates was running on rubber bands, paper clips, and duct tape because replacement parts was not made anymore.
3. With the mandatory switch from paper passes to Clipper cards, there's not enough of the old turnstiles with Clipper readers to meet the demand. Clipper could not install the card reader devices on the coin slot turnstiles and can only put them on the exit gates.
   

--------------------

Even if Muni had no gates and just a red painted line saying you must have proper proof of payment to enter the system; you just don't blatantly break the law. I have a strong sense of good morals and I don't cheat Muni, even if I don't like the agency.

If you cheat, you will eventually pay with cold hard cash.

Do you know why there's no fare evasion in Japan? It's because they have a good sense of morals, honor and respect. People know that breaking the law and getting caught brings dishonor to themselves and their family, and the family is the most important factor to every person.

SF Traffic Code section 127 mentions the fines for fare evasion:

• First offense: $75
• Second offense within one year: $250
• Third offense within one year: $500

So, for you who wants to try this stupid trick, is it really worth getting caught? As Muni says, please pay your "fare share."

Muni Fare Inspectors Should Stop Writing $75 Tickets

You might think I'm crazy by what you read in the title of this blog post, but let me assure you, I'm perfectly sane.

Not long ago, Muni's fare inspectors returned to the task of doing saturation raids on vehicles after alleged complaints the inspectors were insensitive and possibly targeting certain minorities. The saturation tactic is simple, have a group of inspectors raid a vehicle at a stop and check everyone on the vehicle for valid proof of payment. Once the vehicle is done, the next vehicle arrives and they go through the cycle again. For those who fail to show proof, the violator leaves the vehicle and receives a ticket of $75 for the violation.

If people don't pay their "fare share," race or ethnicity is never an excuse for not paying for that bus ride. The agency has to target bus lines that is heavily abused with fare evaders, so if the line is heavily used by a minority group and the bus line has a bad reputation, crying out race/ethnicity is a the sole reason is just pure dumb.

Surely, the inspectors have gained a bad rap in the past years, from photographer Troy Holden encountering inspector #32, to a YouTube video of an inspector harassing a passenger filming on a train. I don't always like them either, but at least they help the agency to collect the revenue, especially with the heavy inspector presence after ballgames at AT&T Park with the thousands of people going home.

--------------------

It made me think about the fare inspectors...

I know the force does not issue enough tickets to cover their entire salaries ($9,844.64 average in tickets vs. a salary of at least $52K a year). In one point of view, Muni spends too much on inspectors that writes out so few tickets, and that means a waste of money. In another point of view, Muni invests into fare inspectors so they help generate more farebox revenue by preventing illegal boarding of vehicles and not paying their share of the price of a pass or single ride.

I have an idea... what if the fare inspectors don't issue tickets for fare evasion?

Here's the reasoning behind it:
The fare evasion ticket is $75. Sure, it sounds a little expensive for us in the general public, but when you have to also think about all the labor that is involved in it:

1. The time it takes for the inspector to issue the ticket.
2. The people at the SFMTA office must process every handwritten ticket.
3. If the fine is paid at the SFMTA in-person office, the time and salary must be taken into account to process the money; if paid in check, the check cashing fees of the bank as well.
4. If the fine is paid online via the SFMTA website, there is a nice surcharge just for the service.
5. If the fine is paid through the mail, the cost and salary of the person(s) who must process the payment and update their databases.
6. If the case must be appealed, the time and salary of the appeals officer.
7. If the ticket must go to collections, the cost of using the collections agency.
   
8. Lastly, the cost of having the armored trucks and the armed guards to haul the sacks of money and checks to the bank.

If you think about how many steps and financial cost to process a $75 ticket, do you think it's really worth the SFMTA's value? In my opinion, the answer is no. Government workers get some really nice benefits packages, from kick-ass healthcare to pension plans; and the money comes from us taxpayers. So basically, a SFMTA employee's salary is just tacking on another 40-70 cents to every dollar earned.

If fare inspectors didn't issue tickets for fare evasion, what will they resort to? The answer is: ejection from the vehicle.

If a saturation raid finds fare evaders, they kick them off the vehicle and make sure that the next vehicle they board, they pay the farebox for their ride. For those inspectors who ride in pairs in vehicles in motion on the streets, the fare evader is kicked-off to the next available stop while the passenger has fun waiting for another vehicle in 20 minutes.

What this does is saves the SFMTA a lot of resources. I've already mentioned the cost of issuing and processing a $75 ticket, but also realize the fare inspector tickets are processed like parking tickets. For those who appeal their parking tickets, you know the many months it takes to get a decision, and by dramatically reducing the contested fare evasion tickets, this reduces the parking appeal backlog.

For the fare inspector force, they are able to be on more vehicles and conduct more inspections. If writing a ticket takes five to fifteen minutes (depending on hostile the person is), that's wasted time for the inspector to be roaming up and down the lines they are assigned to find more evaders and kick them off the bus. Also, with a uniformed presence, they can also help prevent some of the other bad stuff that goes on, like the graffiti that costs us taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

The SFMTA used to issue fare evasion tickets by treating them like traffic violations. Each citation required the person to appear in court, and that put a major strain on the justice system already flooded with other cases that are much more serious than evading a bus fare. The city passed a new law by decriminalizing fare evasion and making it the same as a parking ticket. Maybe it's time to realize that by even making a fare evasion ticket decriminalized still messes-up the system that has to process all those $75 tickets.

I have to admit, my idea is not perfect. It won't work well on the Muni metro system in the underground portions because if the inspector is stationed at a exit and the passenger is to leave the system, the inspector can't really kick the passenger out of the paid area, the passenger is about to leave the system. In this case, the inspector would issue a $75 ticket.

Tell me your thoughts about this idea. Have I gone nuts?

Who Created This Stupid Muni Ad on Fare Evasion?

Muni is on some kind of crazy campaign to remind people to pay their "fare share" or get a nice $75 fine. They plan to return to the classic "saturation raids" starting Thursday.

When I look at this Muni advertisement on the buses and on their website, I can't understand why the fare inspectors are citing a SEA LION!

A sea lion for crying out loud. Do they carry passes or transfers? No; nor do they ride the worst transit system in the nation. Plus, why a creature whose primary transit is on the water? Can't it be someone like SFMTA chief Nat Ford getting caught without payment?

What's next? Write a ticket to a pigeon for eating on the bus? Whoever created this ad should be fired for incompetence.


Photo from SFMTA website.

Can Muni Simplify the Proof of Payment Policies?

I've mentioned in a recent blog entry about needing some clarification about Muni's "Proof of Payment" policy.

I stated my interpretation of the expired transfer policies are different between POP (metro) and non-POP lines (buses and F-Market). For metro lines, an expired transfer during the journey is bad because of the risk of a $75 ticket, but for buses, the policy is different as an expired transfer during the journey is OK, just as long as the passenger entered the vehicle when the transfer didn't expire.

A recent anonymous commenter made a good point:

Not sure what you mean by non-POP line. All of what I have read explains that every bus, train and platform is POP.

"You must have valid Proof of Payment when riding on a Muni rail line or bus route or while within the paid area of Muni stations."

My response to his/her comment:

It's a two part definition:

Proof of Payment is required for all Muni lines as inspectors can check if a passenger has a valid pass or paid their fare with a transfer.

Proof of Payment is also defined to differentiate the metro lines vs. the non-metro lines. Metro requires valid "proof of payment" which is a valid pass or non-expired transfer during the entire journey. Non-POP lines are defined as the buses and F-Market where a valid pass is required or a non-expired transfer upon entry (OK to expire during journey).

--------------------

It made me think about the POP policies posted on the SFMTA website. It's just way too complicated.

The word "Proof of Payment" is defined in more than one way, and that confuses the hell out of me. When it is defined as a receipt or pass for when riding all vehicles and paid platforms, it's quite simple. But when using it to also define "POP lines" and "non-POP" lines with different sets of rules (e.g. expired transfer policy), it messes things up.

It also complicates the problem with Clipper cards. Since passengers who pay with e-cash don't get a paper transfer that tells them when it expires, some may not keep track of what time they first tagged their card, and if their card is still valid within the 90 minute window. When a person tags their card between minute one and minute 89 of their valid transfer for entry to a metro vehicle, their entry is valid, but most won't keep track of their transfer validity. How is this handled when encountering a fare inspector?


I propose simplifying the Proof of Payment system to make it easier for everyone.

1. The standard rules of fare evasion still applies. No proof of payment and boarding through the rear doors of buses regardless of valid proof of payment in constitutes a violation.
2. Proof of Payment is required for all Muni lines.
   
3. To obtain proof of payment, pay at a faregate, a farebox on vehicles, or for metro vehicles, the operator's cab on the first car. Clipper automatically retains proof of payment electronically when successfully tagged on a card reader.
   
4. For paper transfers, riding any vehicle requires the transfer to not be expired. If expired, obtain a new transfer from the operator.
   
5. For Clipper e-transfers paid with e-cash, entry into the vehicle for the first tag gives 90 minutes of validity, however, if the passenger enters a vehicle with less than 30 minutes left on the transfer, the passenger has 30 minutes to complete their stage of the journey without being fined (e.g. passenger enters w/e-transfer with 15 minutes left, but can ride until 15 minutes after e-transfer expires).

That was easy, just five rules. There's no fork in the road that separates the "POP lines" versus the "non-POP lines," and differing expiring transfer policies. Either you have proof or not.

Muni can still speed-up their bus service if they allow all-door boarding. Yep... in their [unionized] dreams.

What's the Policy for Riding Muni Buses when Transfer Expires During Trip?

Here's an interesting question to think about:

What is Muni's official policy when a transfer expires while in journey on a non "Proof of Payment" line?


I have to ask this question because the SFMTA/Muni posted a new campaign on fare evasion as well as updated their "Proof of Payment" policies in coordination with the Clipper card.

The expired transfer policy on buses (NOT TRAINS) has been a frustrating policy and the fear of fare inspectors giving out $75 tickets makes the matter worse. During SFMTA board meetings, public commentators express that if they ride a bus line like the 30-Stockton and it expires during their journey, they allegedly claim the passengers get ticketed by the fare inspector for an expired transfer.

I originally stated in April the policy was confusing, but while doing very in-depth reading, it is clearly separated between metro vehicles and non-metro vehicles. For metro vehicles, an expired transfer is bad. But for buses, an expired transfer during the journey is OK.

It's time for Akit to ask the hard questions to Muni officials. I expect a response.

As for their most recent changes to the POP page:
I can easily understand the policy for all metro lines regarding expired transfers:

• The transfer must be valid during the entire trip, that includes waiting at paid waiting areas.
• If the transfer expires during the journey, a passenger must pay the driver, or if in subway, can also go up to surface to pay.

But with the updated material added to the "Proof of Payment" page, it's really confusing what the SFMTA is telling us passengers about the expired transfer policy:

As it says on the newly updated material near the top of the page:

• "Don't get stuck entering with a transfer/fare receipt that will later expire while you are waiting on a platform or riding in a vehicle. If you are not sure your transfer/fare receipt will last, then pay for a fresh transfer/fare receipt on the surface or at a faregate in the subway."

This sounds a little confusing. What is a definition of a "vehicle" in this context? Does it pertain to metro vehicles only or all vehicles (including buses)?

To make matters worse, when it comes to their FAQ section titled: What if you lose your Proof of Payment? What if your Proof of Payment expires during your trip?

• "There is no need to correct the problem on non-POP lines, but you will not be able to subsequently board a POP line or enter the paid area of a subway station without obtaining Proof of Payment."

This tells me if I ride a non-POP line (buses), if my transfer expires, I don't have to do anything, and I can continue riding without being cited/ticketed by a fare inspector.

--------------------

Two conflicting statements... so what's the answer?
OK SFMTA PR folks, let's get your official answer. If my transfer expires during the journey on a bus (but was valid upon boarding), what's the rule? Will I get cited for an expired transfer by inspectors?

No More Muni Paper Transfers Starting September 2011 - Fare Inspectors Worried

With the progression of the TransLink/Clipper program to take over all paper media including passes, tickets, and transfers within the next couple of years, there will be some serious changes to the atmosphere of public transit. Muni is going to be one big target.

The MTC mentions on page 25 of resolution #3866 (PDF document) that bus and metro transfers is tentatively scheduled to be eliminated by September 30, 2011 (as long as the SFMTA Board approves this transition date). After this date, the only form of free transfers would be only on the TransLink/Clipper card. This is similar to Washington D.C.'s rail and bus service where as of January 4, 2009, paper transfers are no longer issued, and an RFID fare card was required to do all transferring.

For Muni, eliminating paper transfers means a huge cost savings on printing the thousands of transfers for every single day of the year, and will stop the litter at terminal stops where in some places, are just all over the ground and the trash can is just a few steps away.

Surely, no more paper transfers will help save money for the suffering agency, but Muni will have to fix some serious problems and issues with their current "Proof of Payment" system:

• People who pay cash won't be issued a transfer or payment receipt. What do they show when demanded to provide proof? An empty wallet? I asked a similar question last April about what to do if Muni charged all passengers if they wanted a transfer.
  
• Without the paper transfers as proof to show the fare inspectors, this means the inspectors are much less useful to enforce the fare evasion laws/codes that governs the transit agency. A passenger can easily claim to the inspector that he/she paid in cash, when in reality, boarded the back door and didn't pay a cent.
• Fare inspectors would be only able to do one thing since they can't check for "proof" anymore, just write tickets for gate jumping and back door boarding.
  

For the fare inspector force, get ready for some fat trimming. The amount of tickets they write doesn't make-up for their salaries (simple math shows each inspector only writes an average of $9,800 worth of tickets per year vs. a $50K+ salary), and by killing paper transfers, at least expect a pay cut (minimum).

Fare inspectors, I suggest: You have one year and seven months to start looking for another job. I'm sure Muni won't need your services anymore while their budget is hemorrhaging like crazy.

Why are there Translink card readers on rear doors of SFMTA Muni vehicles?

If you have ever wondered... why are there Translink card readers on the rear doors of Muni vehicles?

The answer has been quite obvious from a recent article from SF Appeal; the idea is to improve efficiency of boarding SFMTA/Muni vehicles by allowing people with Transink cards to board the rear doors LEGALLY.

But with the rampant numbers illegally boarding the rear doors, lack of fare enforcement, and the honor system being shattered like glass, Translink boarding through the rear doors may never happen.

The exception is Muni metro where at all doors of the train, there is a card reader just a few steps away from the entrance for users to tag their card without going to the front door first; basically the POP/honor system makes the system work

--------------------

But has anyone wondered what other purposes could the back door readers be used?

The Utah Transit Authority uses the same exact technology as Translink (but they allow RFID credit cards too!), and they explain in this YouTube video of why there is a second card reader installed on the back doors. Go to clip time 2:13 for the explanation.

(Sorry folks, but the transit authority banned embedding the video)

To give you the briefing... The reason why they have a card reader on the back doors is for research. As always, you have to tag to be allowed to ride the vehicle, but when tagging-off the vehicle, you are giving research data to the bus company; or as they proclaim to helping to make "better service."

Actually, that's not a bad idea, by tracking how often passengers ride vehicles, and by linking GPS data with real-time tagging of cards, can tell the agency of how to meet the changing demands of the pubic transit system.

--------------------

Golden Gate Transit's use of the "tag-on" "tag-off" policy for Translink users is to make sure they get the proper fare deducted, plus they have to rely on GPS technology to know when they cross into another fare zone. The usage data can provide helpful information to Golden Gate Transit to see how each bus line is doing and what improvements should be made.

But on Muni's end, that may be a challenge; its buses run on a basic fare structure. Translink and Muni's policies would have to make it optional to tag-off, and the only true incentive for tagging-off is to simply give research data to possibly improve service. That could save Muni time and precious $$$$ to conduct research the old-fashioned way, a person on a random bus riding for hours and counting people with a clicker.

Interestingly, a trial of the tag-off rule is already happening with SFPD officers. Police officers who must ride a Muni bus while on-duty must tag their Translink card when boarding, and tag-off when exiting. The data provides proof to their supervisors that they did ride a Muni vehicle, tagging-off will tell how long the journey was, and with GPS technology, where they boarded and exited. Police as guinea pigs? Interesting idea...
But truth be told of when Translink on Muni will ever get going in full swing and stop calling it a trial. Cable Cars are not accepting it, not all fare inspectors carry the card readers, and local SF usage with a Fast Pass for BART is not even ready.

--------------------

On a brighter note... I'm getting a monthly fast pass starting in September on my Translink card! I missed the Commuter Check deadline to get it applied for August.

SF Muni's Nat Ford admits fare evasion is a problem - What else is new?

Muni has been mismanaged for over ten years that it's reached a point where the big chief with a $300,000+ salary admits that fare evasion a leading cause of the massive deficit that SFMTA is experiencing. Ford admits to the Chronicle/SFgate that there is a projected loss of "tens of millions of dollars" every single year.

Really Nat? Really?

I'm a person who always pays my "fare share" and I'm fed-up that I have to pay EVEN MORE for transit that still operates like a piece of crap.

Here's a big question: You claim that you had staff riding random buses and observing other locations where people board and counted how many people broke the law. Just how many of those were holding transfers that were not expired or carrying a pass? Assuming that half of rear-door boarding people are really carrying a legitimate form of proof, "tens of millions" would really be more like five million in loss revenue.


Strangely, Ford doesn't give the #1 blame to people who intentionally break the law, he also shares the blame of malfunctioning fare equipment, confusing fare policies, and lack of staffing.

Malfunctioning fare equipment? Did you know that not long ago, Cubic, the company who makes fare gates and fare boxes received the contract to refurbish the agency's aging fare boxes? As for the fare gates, they work OK on the Metro system, but stimulus money will eventually replace them. The big problem is the change machines at certain metro stations, they are slow and just plain terrible, and they won't take $5 bills.

Confusing fare policies? It was easy to understand in the past, even with the inter-agency agreements like BART/Muni 25 cent discount coupons, Golden Gate Ferry free Muni transfers, and a Muni pass option for Samtrans and Golden Gate monthly pass users...

but with the birth of POP, the can of worms didn't just open, it exploded.

--------------------

The mismanagement of Muni is to blame for all this. Muni never increased service with the growth in population and ridership in San Francisco. Sure, you can put a new metro line to serve Third Street (massive failure), new metro cars, and articulated buses on the 71 line, but that doesn't stop the problem.

How about those bus drivers who have to stick to a schedule and drive the busiest bus lines in town? If there was a swarm of people trying to board, they'd be waiting for a long time to get people on the vehicle if front-door boarding was the only method. Have you ever experienced the F-Market going toward Fisherman's Wharf at the Ferry Building stop? I was on one of those vehicles and it didn't move for FIVE MINUTES to get everyone on the vehicle.

How about lack of enforcement? Yeah, fare inspectors do suck ass, but many drivers don't give a damn about fare evasion. Fare evasion is next to zero on the non-downtown routes (i.e. "crosstown" routes) because it's easier to get caught and the drivers DO CARE. But for many of the routes that goes to/from downtown, it's like the drivers don't really give a damn and have to stick to their driving schedule.

Where's some of the many improvements needed to make Muni to operate faster and more efficient? You just can't add more limited or express buses to stop the problem. Bus bulbs are an easy solution with some concrete to extend the bus stop further out so that the bus doesn't have to waste time pulling into the curb to pick-up passengers and be compliant with ADA laws. You could also install pre-paid fare machines at many major stops so that passengers can flash a ticket at the driver instead of lining-up to slowly insert their two dollars in the fare box. Signal priority lights are an interesting thing to have, but do cost money and does require a dedicated Bus Rapid Transit line to make it work at its peak efficiency.

Fare inspectors are grossly expensive because they pay them over $50,000 and that doesn't even cover their medical and dental plan, uniforms, union benefits, etc. They should do what they tried before, and it is effective! BOUNCERS. They don't have ticket writing authority, can't check fares, but they can sure enforce the back door policy strictly, this means more cash in the fare box. In this economy, people will work even for minimum wage and no benefits, so that's a big bargain for Muni. For the price of 5 fare inspectors ($250,000 at $50K a year), you can easily hire about ten or fifteen with no benefits. But this is San Francisco, so your health plan will be the bare minimum and you'll get a few days of sick time.

--------------------

And I keep arguing this forever: TRANSLINK. Think about how much faster it is to board a Muni bus and pay your fare.

• If you don't rely on a Fast Pass (can't make-up the cost), a Translink card is just as fast to deduct your fare and get you on your way.
• Reduction in printing costs since all passes and transfers are electronic.
• Reduced cost on maintaining fare boxes and fare gates.
• Hassle free adding of funds through a pre-tax commuting program like Commuter Check.

GET YOUR BUTT ON IT MUNI. STOP PROMOTING "TESTING" AND ALLOW REGULAR USE. If you have to cut certain policies like no more paper transfers and e-transfers only, people will grab those cards quick.

But I don't get it, why do some people just hate the Translink program? I put a comment about Translink on the SF Gate comments page and get booed down every single time.

Muni Fare Inspectors: Wasting Tax Dollars by Inspecting Ballpark Passengers TWICE

Today (Sunday) was the final game of a three game series of the Giants vs. the A's, and the game was really fun to watch, but as we all know, once the game is over, it is dreading it back on public transit or walking home.

As many people who ride Muni metro back from the game know, you must pre-pay your fare (before or after the game) and show your transfer or pass to the fare inspector before you are able to step foot on the platform.

These procedures have been the norm since AT&T Park first opened in 1999, but...

It is totally stupid to also have fare inspectors at Embarcadero station to check [the mostly] ballpark passengers leaving that station too. They did this TODAY. Everyone was already checked upon entering the ballpark platform, so it really defeats the purpose of checking again at Embarcadero where people transfer to BART.

Why not send those lazy bastards over to another station where there is a good possibility of writing tickets for a fare cheats vs. the near zero possibility of writing a ticket to the ballpark fans who were just checked five minutes ago?

For f*** sake, there were THREE checking for proof of payment at just ONE of the TWO faregate areas in the station.

And you wonder why SFMTA/Muni is raising transit fares and passes, eliminating/cutting/modifying bus service, raising parking garage and meter fees, and sticking a $3 fee on parking tickets; MUNI IS MANAGED BY A BUNCH OF IDIOTS!

TERMINATE THE SUPERVISOR WHO ORDERED THEM TO MONITOR EMBARACADERO STATION AFTER A GIANTS GAME JUST ENDED. IT'S CALLED COMMON SENSE; if you don't have it, then you shouldn't have a job.

(Photo by Flickr user: kelsey* using a Creative Commons License)

Muni Fare Inspectors are stupid & mean spirited ***holes

I'm getting really sick of these stories. I keep reading around the web that people are being issued citations for "fare evasion" for simply having an expired transfer. Now, I'm not talking about some transfer that expired yesterday or just a few hours ago, I mean the ones that are less than an hour expired, and in some cases, just less than 30 minutes.

(Read back: a previous posting on my blog questioning the expired transfer policy)

And where is this happening? Our "wonderful" and "fabulous" Muni metro, home to the fare inspectors who could be considered by our city's citizens as the most hated bunch of people working for Muni.

I'm writing about this because I want to mention a recent unfortunate incident for this particular Muni passenger who got a citation for an expired Muni transfer that was ONLY 9 MINUTES EXPIRED. This was posted on Saturday, April 11, 2009.

"I rode MUNI Metro for the first time yesterday, took the N from Powell out to Ocean Beach. It was slow, uncomfortable and noisy. Surprisingly much less enjoyable than BART. I had a transfer that was good until 3:45. I got on the train to head back at just before 3:00, figured that'd be more than enough time to get back to Powell before my transfer expires. Of course, there was traffic and the train was backed up for quite some time. I got into Powell st at about 3:54, and of course ran into fare inspectors at the gates. I was fined $50 for fare evasion, for being 9 minutes past my transfer time. I explained, and he recommended I fight it, which I absolutely will. But I think they're taking this too far. I understand fining SERIOUS fare evaders, but it's obvious I wasn't trying to get something for nothing, my train was just a few minutes late!

It seems that MUNI is hurting, and this is a really good way of gathering a bunch of money very quickly. At $50 per person, or more if it's not the first offense, they can make up for all the people that get away with fare evasion regularly.

RIDICULOUS"

Really? It looks like fare inspectors don't give a shit if the train went too slowly, or maybe there was some incident in the system that backed-up all the trains.

Do you know what I think? They put fare inspectors on the metro system because Muni knows that's an easy way to rake money (yeah, but they are losing TONS of money when you compare their salaries vs. what they write for tickets). If they don't feel like maintaining their trains and they break down in the tunnel, Muni management would be dancing with joy and not giving a shit that pissed-off passengers who just got off a long delayed train are now being ticketed for "fare evasion."

Also, I believe Muni doesn't put fare inspectors on buses and the historic streetcars because if a bus gets delayed, passengers can easily get-off the surface vehicle and take another one, or just walk it. In the tunnel, if you get stuck, there's no escape, and you are just bait for the hungry fare inspectors ready to piss you off for an expired transfer. And it's not your fault if the train is stuck because some maintenance guy forgot to tighten the screws on a door that's now broken (see photo), so why should passengers be hassled by fare inspectors on an unexpected delay?

Fare inspectors are supposed to be for SERIOUS violations of the law (no proof or way too expired transfer), not this petty 10 minute expiration. For a system that only has seven stations underground (where most fare inspectors hang out), Muni sure has plenty of money to conduct fare inspections with people who make $50,000+ yearly, and they make much more than me, a person who has a Master's degree, plus, Muni fare inspectors only requires a high school diploma and basic math skills. I manage the day to day operations of two major accounts at my job, multiple purchase orders, and multiple corporate credit cards requiring more than just basic math skills.

Want to hire someone for a $50,000 salary? Find people who have at least BACHELOR DEGREE and knows the keywords COMPASSION and FORGIVENESS.

And just to note, an old article from the Examiner written by Ken Garcia mentions that many of the fare inspectors were hired because they completed the TURF program, an ex-Mayor Willie Brown program for at risk youth. Garcia also notes that people hired by the city through this program have been stirring up trouble for whatever city agency they work for. Putting them as ticket toting ticket writers is... um... not the greatest idea.

Now, I can't claim that all fare inspectors are total jackasses, there may only be a select few that are totally ruining the entire system.

Luckily, the SFMTA is eliminating 28 fare inspector positions due to the budget problems, and that's a very good thing. Hopefully some of those so-called "badass" fare inspectors will finally be shown the door, with no need for a hearing on the wide variety of complaints nailed on them from various citizens.

Let's just wait for the hell that will come when Muni may start charging for transfers and the fare inspectors asking themselves... if a passenger is taking one metro train directly home and doesn't need a 50 cent transfer, where's he/she's proof of payment? Or maybe they should ask themselves, where's the nearest unemployment office? Since it's pointless to ask for a fare receipt anymore.

Easy tip for everyone: Take the damn bus, and screw the metro. You might actually make it by bus faster.

Is Muni's Proof of Payment "Expired" Transfer Policy Fair?

SFMTA/Muni's "Proof of Payment" program is one of the more citizen hated Muni programs, especially the fare inspectors who just love to piss passengers off by checking you in some cases, twice, or even three times if you get lucky.

But while this program is supposed to catch the people who fail to pay for their train fare (in which I applaud), it also has a disturbing side to it as well, when it comes to the "validity" of the "proof of payment." More in particular, the Muni transfer, which is issued in a few ways: the tear-off that comes from the vehicle operators, the fare gates at metro stations, ticketing machines at platforms like S.F. State, and the Translink e-transfer.

----------

According to SFMTA/Muni's policy on POP in the metro, it states:

• "Don't get stuck entering with a transfer/fare receipt that will later expire while you are waiting on a platform or riding in a vehicle. If you are not sure your transfer/fare receipt will last, then pay for a fresh transfer/fare receipt on the surface or at a faregate in the subway."

This policy is not clearly noted on the metro vehicles. They say in a very bland manner that a transfer/pass must be valid at all times. To me, it sounds halfway legitimate, but I think it could be a little more clear.

Maybe Muni should add signage saying: "If your transfer is expiring, please buy a new one."

How about this one? "If your train is delayed, ask the operator for a FREE fresh transfer since you just been probed in the butt by our poorly maintained equipment." Actually, in Japan, if your train is late or delayed, you are given a little note about the delay to give to your supervisor at work so you don't get in trouble.

----------

An even more disturbing policy is highlighted here in their FAQ section of their website, where they answer the question on what to do when your transfer expires, in particular:

• "Don't try this (get a new transfer) if Proof of Payment enforcement officers are aboard the vehicle or present in the paid area of the station; it is too late to correct the problem."

Hey Muni, this quote is just really bad P.R. If your transfer just recently went invalid, how about giving the passenger a break, and encouraging him/her to obtain a new one? It's NEVER TOO LATE.

----------

In my point of view, the "expired" transfer policy doesn't even seem really that fair at all. Journeys can be longer than we may sometimes expect due to delays, incidents, etc., and people who ride Muni generally knows that once you enter a Muni vehicle with a valid transfer that has not expired, you will be allowed entry without question; even if a passenger has just 15 minutes left on the transfer; that's not a problem on the buses and historic streetcars, but will be a problem on the Metro 15 minutes later.

Here's a few situations that may happen to you:

• Say your train is stuck in the metro tunnel due to a train ahead that is disabled, or possibly an incident that occurred (which is more likely to happen today). Once the train finally enters the station and you exit, you get nailed by a fare inspector simply because your transfer was expired, but surely your transfer was valid while suffering in the tunnel.
• Your paper transfer issued by the operator was less than 90 minutes or the ticket machine at the metro platform cut it short (which happened here), how the hell do you contest that? Muni could argue that you didn't look at your transfer when it was issued. Yeah, tell that to a visually impaired guy appealing his ticket.
  

I say, wouldn't this way be more fair way to enforce validity?

• If the transfer is expired by no longer than one hour, then it is fine. Now, I'm saying just an hour because traveling on the Metro should not take more than an hour. It takes 45 minutes on the 38L-Geary Limited from end to end (Transbay to 48th/Pt. Lobos), so an hour is fair enough on a metro ride.
• But if it is more than an hour, then a citation should be issued, especially if it is by more than two hours, that's obviously a violation of someone trying to cheat the system.

So Muni, I encourage you to chase the folks who evade fares, not the recently expired transfers. At least the people who have recently expired transfers paid their $1.50.

Also while you are at it, how about reducing the number of fare inspectors at one station? Recently, I saw NINE at Powell (four at the main gate area, three at the secondary gates, and two on the platform). Even worse, three of them was harassing a family of Japanese tourists. Gees, that's a nice welcome mat we put out.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user: "rick" from a Creative Commons license.