New Clipper Card Fee $3 - How to Not Pay It

Three Generations of Transit Fare Cards

The MTC has announced the Clipper card will no longer be given out for free starting September 1st.  The new card acquisition fee will be $3 in which they claim will be to cover the costs associated with the procurement of the cards.

Why an acquisition fee?
The acquisition fee has been a hotbed of controversy because the MTC originally proposed the card fee to be $5.  But after filing a required report under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they decided to drop it down to $3.  It was right in the middle for the agency, it didn't heavily impact people that are disadvantaged, but also didn't give out the cards for free.

The other controversy has been the cards have been treated as an item that can be thrown away.  As you may recall, some people who take longer and more costly trips on public transit have been abusing the system by taking advantage of the card's negative balance policy.  A passenger adds very little money to a card with $0 acquisition fee and riding transit that costs more than what was funded to the card; once it goes negative, the passenger just throws the card in the trash.  Because some people abuse the system this way, the MTC and public transit agencies lose a grand total of $700,000 in transit fares and card procurement costs.  One solution being implemented in the future is to force BART passengers to add funds to their Clipper card at the exitfare machines if there's not enough to cover the ride.

$3 fee to be a failure
In my own opinion, the $3 acquisition fee might be able to stop some people from abusing the negative balance policy, but the MTC is still going to lose money from those who can still take advantage of it.

Here's how simple it is.  Assuming BART is out of the picture, the most expensive transit fare is Caltrain at $12.75 one-way from zones one to six.  If Clipper also implemented a $10 minimum e-cash add on per new card, a passenger must pay $13 ($10 e-cash and $3 new card fee).  That means that while the passenger's one-way ride on Caltrain is paid in full, the passenger still has 25 cents left, therefore he/she can ride any other agency (except BART) for just 25 cents and dump the card in the trash.

UPDATE: Oops, I screwed up.  The new card fee doesn't make the e-cash total $13, it's still $10.  Therefore, if a passenger rides the $12.75 Caltrain ride, the passenger dumps their card in the trash after the first use of the card.

As I've just shown, people can still "save" money while transit agencies lose money.

How not to pay the $3 fee
The MTC is advising people to get the fee waived by ordering their card online and enrolling in the autoload program.  But as we all know too well, autoload has problems, just like the recent report of people whose money was loaded back in 2010 never got charged until just days ago.   So who wants to trust the MTC and Clipper on a piece of junk program?

Of course, the other way to avoid the fee is to get your new Clipper card now until September 1st, but how about after September 1st?

There's still a way to avoid the fee and it takes a little ingenuity.  Just obtain your card online, register a credit card under autoload, and as soon as you get your new card, CANCEL AUTOLOAD.  You see, you get a free card registered under your name (protection in case you lose your card), and you dumped autoload like dumping your date after a horrifying dinner.

Talking about dating... Akit's single!  Ladies, want to date a blogger?  :-)

Why I Don't Use Clipper Card's Autoload: 2010 Glitch Now Charging Customers

I've warned people before, Clipper card's Autoload program has problems.  But in light of the problems came the worst epic fail of all... being charged on your credit card for a reload of e-cash two years ago.

That's right.  KPIX reported yesterday that the folks at Clipper and MTC noticed a glitch in the system back from 2010.  Clipper card passengers who rode affected vehicles had their funds automatically reloaded for reaching a certain threshold, but the information from the consoles was not transmitted back to Clipper for credit card processing.

Basically, the passengers went off scott free with some free e-cash that was never charged to their linked credit card.

But now that the MTC found out, they are sending notices out to nearly 8,000 Clipper card users that they will get charged for the amount they owe.

Akit's Opinion
I can understand the MTC's point of view of getting back $230,000+ lost dollars, but it took two years?

Let's remember that Clipper card history reports can only be retrieved by customers as far back as 60 days.  The MTC should make an effort to show each customer being billed for the two year old charge to get some kind of documentation back from two years ago.

Now you wonder why I warn people to not use Autoload.  You'll get screwed no matter how long ago it was.  Stick to loading e-cash and passes by going to vendors and self-service machines.  You'll always know that when you load funds, it's both instantly available to use and you get a receipt of your transaction as proof.

Muni Operator Refuses Disabled Passenger to Board Bus - IT WAS ME

On my bad days, I had to wear an orthopedic boot.

Being injured is not fun.  I've been suffering with a foot injury which also causes ankle pain for about a month, and I have to use a cane and ankle brace on most occasions.

Just today, I was waiting for the 38L-Geary Limited going outbound from 20th Avenue and Geary, and here came bus number 6415 approaching the stop.

As I'm waiting on the curb, the bus doesn't even make an attempt to pull to the curb.  He lets the rear doors open to let passengers off and board, but he notices me standing at the front door as I had no choice but to walk ten feet to the bus.

I indicate to him that I want to board the bus.  He refuses to open the doors.  I even said to him that I am disabled and showed my walking cane to him.  Still refuses to board.

I was pissed.  He let others board the back, but refuses to let me in the front?  The bus may have been crowded, but the passengers getting off should have provided enough room for me to get a front seat for the disabled.

And to make matters worse, just before he was able to leave, he briefly opens the front doors, then shuts them.

I've never been so pissed-off at Muni as I am right now.  I've already filed an ADA complaint against them.  Just because I filed a complaint with Muni, odds are, the operator will not be punished.  So what better way than use my blog to further humiliate the driver and this agency.

Info to know:
Line: 38L-Geary Limited
Direction: Outbound to 48th Avenue & Pt. Lobos
Location of incident: 20th Avenue and Geary
Time: Approximately 2:00PM
Bus number: 6415
Operator: Male, Asian, mid age

On a final note, I boarded the next 38L-Geary Limited and behind me was a lady with a walker needing the wheelchair lift.  After I boarded and took a seat near the front, the person sitting on my left commented to the lady needing the wheelchair lift "you've got to be kidding me."  I wanted to slap that person; learn to keep your mouth shut if you don't have something nice to say.

The 2012 Survival Guide to the Outside Lands Festival

Outside Lands is back for the 2012 three day festival starting this Friday and going until Sunday, and you know what that means for us local citizen commuters and people who live nearby... three nightmare days.

This survival guide is NOT for those of you going to the event.  This is for us locals who wants to go on our happy way to other things in life, like our jobs.

Traffic impacts:
If you normally drive north and south through Golden Gate Park, literally every park road entrance in the "Outer" district areas will be closed to traffic starting at 8PM this Thursday.

North-south alternate routes: Great Highway, and Crossover Drive (19th Avenue on Sunset end, and Park Presidio/25th Avenue on Richmond end).  If there's no bad weather or high winds, Upper Great Highway is an excellent alternative than detouring via Sunset Boulevard.

East & West routes: No known traffic closures outside of Golden Gate Park, but if entering or driving through Golden Gate Park on going east or west may experience road closures or detours.

East-West streets to avoid: Lincoln and Fulton.
Better east-west streets to use: Judah and Balboa.

Public transit impacts:
For those of you commuting on Muni lines: 5-Fulton, N-Judah, 71-Height Noriega, 28-19th Avenue, 38-Geary, and 38L-Geary Limited, expect heavy ridership.  Last year, concert goers took the 38 and 38L, which is a decent walk to Golden Gate Park to attend Outside Lands.  To give you an idea, buses packed to maximum capacity and LONG WAIT TIMES.

Alternate public transit routes:
Sunset district: 6-Parnassus, NX-Judah Express, 66-Quintara, 16X-Noriega Express, and 48-Quintara/24th.
Richmond district: 1-California, any weekday peak express buses (1AX/BX, 38AX/BX, 31AX/BX), 31-Balboa,
North-south routes: 18-46th Avenue and 29-Sunset.

Parking impacts:
If you live not far from Golden Gate Park, prepare for hell.  If you have a garage, no problem.  If you park your car on the street, you should park it there on Friday, and don't move the car until Sunday evening.

Blocked driveway?  Call 311.  Outside Lands will have one dedicated SFMTA parking officer and two tow trucks in each affected neighborhood.


Don't let this event ruin your weekend!  For more info, view Outside Land's "311" page: http://www.sfoutsidelands.com/311/

Did the SF Marathon Violate City Law Regarding Public Notices?

Are athletic events in the city giving proper notice to people in affected communities about road closures?  The answer is yes and no

In the San Francisco Transportation Code, Division I, Article 6 (Temporary Use or Occupancy of Public Streets), section 6.12 (b) states the following:

If the temporary street closing is approved, the applicant shall cause notices of the event to be conspicuously posted on both sides of the street along the entire route, at not more than 300 feet in distance apart on each street so posted, but not less than three notices on each street forming part of the route. The notices shall be posted not less than 72 hours prior to the scheduled start of the event. The applicant shall remove the notices within 48 hours after the completion of the event, or be liable for the costs of removal by the City pursuant to Article 10 of the San Francisco Police Code.

Each notice shall be headed "STREET CLOSED FOR ATHLETIC EVENT" in letters not less than one inch in height, and shall in legible characters (1) briefly describe the event to be held; (2) identify the date and time the event is to take place; and, (3) warn that the street will be closed to traffic at that time.

Some events have followed 6.12 very carefully by putting them on lamp posts and in areas lacking lamp posts (such as in Golden Gate Park) on temporary construction work A-frames every few hundred feet.  The AIDS Walk in Golden Gate Park also put additional signage at main entrances to the park where closures will happen in very large metal signage at least a week in advance.

But I'm very disappointed at the SF Marathon's organizers.  I regularly drive through Golden Gate Park on a daily basis and all I've noticed was just temporary barrier fencing laying down on the ground at every intersection.  On Saturday, less than 24 hours before the race, I drove on eastbound Fulton to 25th Avenue, and drove through the park to the Sunset district and also noticed just barricades.  There was no "STREET CLOSED FOR ATHLETIC EVENT" signage anywhere.  I had to find out about road closures by reading the Chronicle and looking at the marathon's website.

Why is the city lacking the proper enforcement of posting the signage around the marathon/race routes?  I feel the notices are helpful, and it's not just for people who live on the streets.  When I drive by and notice the signs saying the road is closed, it makes me curious to do a little research to find out for myself.  And the 72 hour policy works well, giving people at least three days advance notice to be warned to alter their route.  If I didn't tell my parents to take Great Highway to get around, they'd be stuck driving in circles or fighting through the traffic valve going eastbound/westbound between 26th and 27th Avenues.

The city and athletic event organizers can do better.  I know they can.

MTC Votes: No Funding for Free Youth Passes for Muni

For many months, the battle of youth Muni passengers getting free passes for rides has been a hot topic.  While many youth and low income advocates are pushing hard for it, and the SFMTA and SFUSD has put their support towards it, I've noticed a lot of other people feel they don't like the idea.

The epic battle raged on yesterday at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's meeting where they decided on the fate of giving $5 million in funding, which will cover over half of the $9 million needed for the 22 month project.

The vote was close and it failed with only seven commissioners saying yes, and eight commissioners saying no.  Majority ruled and the attendees was angry because all the work they've done just went down the toilet in a very close vote.

Akit's Opinion:
I can sympathize the fact that the people who have been hard at advocating for the free passes are both upset and depressed.  When you fight hard for a cause and it can be taken away with a simple vote, things can go from bright to dark in a flash.  But just because the MTC voted against giving $5 million for the project doesn't mean you should get full blown emotional with anger and crying (as shown by the Chronicle), will not being able to get free passes affect your grades?  I've seen people with much more difficult financial situations and those in foster care beat the odds.

I have to look at the whole picture.  What can five million dollars be used for and how can it benefit everyone?  It doesn't make practical sense to give the youth of SF free rides.  I believe money should be invested in something that can benefit EVERYONE and would be a long term benefit versus a 22 month pass pilot project.  For five million, it could partially pay for a new bus which can last at least 10-15 years and serve hundreds of thousands of passengers in its lifetime, rehabbing transit vehicles so they can operate longer with fewer breakdowns, fund transit routes to areas neglected with lack of transit, and plenty more.

There can also be the argument of discrimination; why should the MTC, a regional authority regarding transportation would give Muni a huge chunk of money for free passes, when other agencies such as AC Transit and VTA would only get some funding for a reduction in fares or passes?  It could be argued that others that live in Marin County (which is under the MTC's jurisdiction) and San Mateo County can also demand for it too.  So truly the project will be more than just several million, because other counties and their advocates will demand they should get free passes too; therefore a chain reaction will start.  Even if the pilot program is successful, continued investment into it will be extremely expensive, and what will happen if the MTC decides to kill funding to it?  I feel the youth of the Bay Area will revolt.

If there's a middle ground to all of this, I'd consider an option to only give the youth of San Francisco two rides per school day with the usual 90 minute electronic transfers on their Clipper card.   This keeps both the costs lower and would supplement the years of neglect from the SFUSD for not funding school buses to get students to and from school.  Having free rides on weekends, holidays, and non-school hours is a big no-no.

As I mentioned in my blog in March, the youth of San Francisco should be grateful of Muni's contribution to keep fares low.  When comparing transit agencies within the region, Muni gives both the steepest discount (in comparison to the adult fare) and free transfers valid for 90 minutes to get to where they need to go.  Other agencies gives a discount, but doesn't come with transfer privileges:

• Muni: $2 adult, $0.75 youth (62.5% discount) with free transfer.
• Samtrans: $2 adult, $1.25 youth (37.5% discount) with no transfer.
• VTA: $2 adult, $1.75 youth (12.5% discount) with no transfer.
• AC Transit: $2.10 adult, $1.05 youth (50% discount) with additional $0.25 for one ride transfer.

Lastly, cheers to the MTC for doing the right thing.  Kids, stop crying and getting angry, it makes you look like fools in the Chronicle.

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.