getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

They don't have turnstiles and gated entry?

Nope. There are no barriers to entry for any ctrain station. Fare payment is on the honour system, although they do check tickets occasionally.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy14

Apparently, from what i'm reading, we don't need them because the same people that violate the rules around drug use on the train observe rules around paying to use the train, which would make turnstyles "moronic".

No it’s moronic because people who don’t follow the no drug use rules and don’t follow the paying to use the train rules aren’t going to follow the no jumping over the turnstile rule.

[Fuzzy14]

No it’s moronic because people who don’t follow the no drug use rules and don’t follow the paying to use the train rules aren’t going to follow the no jumping over the turnstile rule.

I don't know if you've been to any large metropolitan cities recently, but there have been significant improvements in the design of turnstiles. They are now much more difficult to jump over, and the demographic we're discussing isn't going to be leaping over these barrier, let alone throwing their shopping cart or other belongings over them.

There's also "personnel" in major metropolitan cities. A person that stands there to make sure people aren't easily doing what you say.

[Wormius]

Also nobody wants turnstiles; except maybe Big turnstile.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

No it’s moronic because people who don’t follow the no drug use rules and don’t follow the paying to use the train rules aren’t going to follow the no jumping over the turnstile rule.

I think that would be fairly likely to improve fare collection though. When I was younger and dumber I sometimes didn't buy a pass. Commuting downtown during rush hour they rarely came in the cars to check. And when they did it was trivial to avoid them. Stand in the middle and casually move to the other end whenever they did enter. 100% of the time they caught someone else before getting to me.

They use those checks to generate the statistics on how many people are paying, but they're a deeply flawed sampling mechanism. People who have paid don't avoid the checks and people who haven't do, so the sample is inherently biased.

For the problem we're discussing though probably the solution would be to have transit cops at every station, and kick people doing drugs out of the stations.

[Slava]

I don't know, it seems to work well enough in places like London and Hong Kong. While we're at it, maybe we could finally have a card/app and get our transit system (at least in that respect) into the early 2000's?

[JohnnyB]

In Vancouver I would say that there is a very clear disparity between the number of messed up people on the skytrain vs. the number on buses. Buses pretty much let anyone e on even if they refuse to pay whereas the skytrain has barriers.

It's kind of crazy to for there not to be turnstiles that require payment.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy14

I don't know if you've been to any large metropolitan cities recently, but there have been significant improvements in the design of turnstiles. They are now much more difficult to jump over, and the demographic we're discussing isn't going to be leaping over these barrier, let alone throwing their shopping cart or other belongings over them.

There's also "personnel" in major metropolitan cities. A person that stands there to make sure people aren't easily doing what you say.

Cool. But what does this accomplish when everybody has paid fare?

[Fuzz]

The last time this came up, I think the costs were around $200 million. You can buy a lot of community supports for people with that money. It's better spent elsewhere.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't know, it seems to work well enough in places like London and Hong Kong. While we're at it, maybe we could finally have a card/app and get our transit system (at least in that respect) into the early 2000's?

There's not even a card?!? Does Calgary transit still work on those paper stubs or something?

This could be like a tourist attraction like Heritage Park.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't know, it seems to work well enough in places like London and Hong Kong. While we're at it, maybe we could finally have a card/app and get our transit system (at least in that respect) into the early 2000's?

We have a transit app that you can buy tickets on now. It works pretty good.

What is your definition of works well enough. I’d argue that pre-pandemic the current system worked well enough.

Calgary is currently making a choice to allow this type of station use. Adding barriers as a fox doesn’t change that. Enforcement of existing laws would.

Think about what downtown would need to look like down 7th to restrict platform access. That’s just a poor street scape.

I don’t disagree it would improve fair collection though.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

There's not even a card?!? Does Calgary transit still work on those paper stubs or something?

This could be like a tourist attraction like Heritage Park.

haha, you can still use tickets I think. The app is "fine", but it's not NFC like you have in London. I don't know...that system (and HK's seems basically identical to me?) just works so well and makes so much sense.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

We have a transit app that you can buy tickets on now. It works pretty good.

What is your definition of works well enough. I’d argue that pre-pandemic the current system worked well enough.

Calgary is currently making a choice to allow this type of station use. Adding barriers as a fox doesn’t change that. Enforcement of existing laws would.

Think about what downtown would need to look like down 7th to restrict platform access. That’s just a poor street scape.

I don’t disagree it would improve fair collection though.

I'd probably leave 7th open. For one thing, it's the free fare zone anyway, and would be very difficult to restrict. Most of the Suburban stations would be much easier (many have only 1 entrance/exit already).

That would 80/20 rule the fare collection - everyone commuting pays at least one way, and the cost would be way less than trying to restrict the free fare zone.

But you're correct that the city is choosing to let the system be used in this manner. I'd be surprised if this doesn't become an issue in the next municipal election though. We elected a pretty progressive council last time, but I think physical safety is a likely wedge issue for right wing candidates to use.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'd probably leave 7th open. For one thing, it's the free fare zone anyway, and would be very difficult to restrict. Most of the Suburban stations would be much easier (many have only 1 entrance/exit already).

That would 80/20 rule the fare collection - everyone commuting pays at least one way, and the cost would be way less than trying to restrict the free fare zone.

But you're correct that the city is choosing to let the system be used in this manner. I'd be surprised if this doesn't become an issue in the next municipal election though. We elected a pretty progressive council last time, but I think physical safety is a likely wedge issue for right wing candidates to use.

I don't know if we are there yet but if by the next election we have footage like what happened in Toronto last week, that would be very damaging. So there's still time for this council to try and prevent that.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'd probably leave 7th open. For one thing, it's the free fare zone anyway, and would be very difficult to restrict. Most of the Suburban stations would be much easier (many have only 1 entrance/exit already).

That would 80/20 rule the fare collection - everyone commuting pays at least one way, and the cost would be way less than trying to restrict the free fare zone.

But you're correct that the city is choosing to let the system be used in this manner. I'd be surprised if this doesn't become an issue in the next municipal election though. We elected a pretty progressive council last time, but I think physical safety is a likely wedge issue for right wing candidates to use.

Restricting access to any platform doesn't seem like it should be that complicated. Just build a little glass wall/fence around it. Put doors that align with the train doors on the platform, and make them so they only open when the train has arrived and stopped. Problem solved, and better for safety so that nobody is getting pushed/jumping onto the tracks or dropping things onto the tracks.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Restricting access to any platform doesn't seem like it should be that complicated. Just build a little glass wall/fence around it. Put doors that align with the train doors on the platform, and make them so they only open when the train has arrived and stopped. Problem solved, and better for safety so that nobody is getting pushed/jumping onto the tracks or dropping things onto the tracks.

Again, your talking about large technology costs to fix a social problem. All this does is move the problem elsewhere.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Again, your talking about large technology costs to fix a social problem. All this does is move the problem elsewhere.

Right, but do you think that there's an element of enabling here with the current setup?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Right, but do you think that there's an element of enabling here with the current setup?

I'm not sure gates would make a huge difference. I think spending it on supports for them would do a better job of reducing the issue. Same with adding officers on the train.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The last time this came up, I think the costs were around $200 million. You can buy a lot of community supports for people with that money. It's better spent elsewhere.

Agree.

It's probably been 15 years since I was on the C-Train, but from what I recall, the system works pretty well from an efficiency standpoint.

So, rather than inconvenience the vast majority of C-Train riders that have seemingly no problem voluntarily paying their fares, I think the $200m (or whatever it is) would be better spent on transit cops enforcing loitering (or whatever you want to call shooing away the crackheads) and community supports.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Again, your talking about large technology costs to fix a social problem. All this does is move the problem elsewhere.

It obviously doesn't solve the issues of homelessness or addiction. It would just make the train system a more contained system with better controls over access.

It seems crazy to me that costs would be $200 million to do it. What is that, close to $500,000 per station in Calgary?