The Globe reports the T is rolling out a credit-card system at the parking facilities at four large subway parking facilities and one commuter-rail stop this month.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Why reinvent the wheel?
By Cutriss
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 11:02am
Put in E-Z Pass scanners and call it a day.
Wow
By anon
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 11:29am
We're only past the halfway mark of 2012.
Time to leave the parking log
By DanCraig
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 11:59am
Kudos to the T for finally doing this.
Let's up that "a certain amount of time to leave" is at least an hour for Alewife. I've spent that long on a few occasions descending from the top floor to the gates.
I reported this on June
By boblothrope
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 12:23pm
I reported this on June 28th.
http://webmail.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f...
So, the T claims they're
By roadman
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 12:54pm
too broke to put fare vending machines in at outlying commuter rail stations, yet they somehow came up with the cash for yet another illogical "experiment" that does absolutely nothing to improve the reliablity, capacity, or frequency of the trains and buses.
And if this is what the fare increase is really paying for, then we need to get an initiative petition of the ballot STAT to repeal the fare increase and fire the T's head management.
So, what's the huge benefit of this that society can't live without anyway? Because somebody decided that it's too much of an inconvenience for drivers to carry cash with them or that changing the current "honor system" boxes with new boxes that you actually can put dollar bills in them without folding the bill 17 times is a waste of money.
For a reference, the new "pay and park" credit card parking payment machines that Melrose recently installed at their lots at Melrose Highlands, Cedar Park, and Wyoming stations cost about $8500.00 apiece. And it takes three times as long to get the ticket (swipe card, wait for prompt, push one buttion, wait for second prompt, push different button, wait for ticket, receipt, AND credit card receipt) as it did with the old machines only took bills or coins.
Instead of investing in more "maintenance free" machines that will eventually break down (like the Charlie faregates, etc.), here's a better solution - just drop the parking fees completely. Then the T won't have to waste any more time or effort on these useless schemes and can focus on actually running a transportation system.
On BART in San Francisco,
By Saul
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 1:04pm
On BART in San Francisco, each spot has a number and you use the fare machines to pay for your parking. No human attendant needed.
If only T management had such foresight when writing up the specs for the new fare machines six or so years ago.
Question.
By roadman
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 1:08pm
Does BART then require you to go back to your car and place the receipt on the dashboard?
That's how most "Pay and Park" systems (like the ones in Melrose I mentioned) work, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's how the MBTA one will as well. Although if it does, it will be unworkable from the start if the payment machine is on the station platform.
Not the two times I parked at
By Saul
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 1:13pm
Not the two times I parked at BART stops this past spring.
You park -- one of the lots I parked at had two areas, one for monthly permit holders and another for daily users, in which I swear I found the last spot, a few hours past rush hour -- note the spot number, and after you pass through the fare gates at the station, you go to the "Add Fare" machine (because you pay by distance on BART, there are machines inside the fare-controlled area in case you don't have enough value on your card to exit), enter the spot number and pay.
I have seen other "pay and park" systems that use the same spot number scheme, so no need to return to the car.
Commuter rail too
By massmarrier
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 1:24pm
CALTRAN uses the same system. I paid that way several times in different towns last week. The difference is that the parking-payment or ticket purchasing machines are on the platforms.
Every time we park at
By Saul
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 1:26pm
Every time we park at Riverside and have to hand our $6 to a person whose sole job it is to sit in a hut and collect money, I feel like I am back in 1980.
Alewife doesn't have honor
By boblothrope
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 1:30pm
Alewife doesn't have honor slot boxes. It has attendants in booths in the exit lanes. I haven't parked in all of the others (Wonderland, Route 128, Quincy Adams and Braintree), but some of them have attendants as well.
If you'd read the Globe article, you would have seen how this project will save money, since the T will be able to reduce the number of attendants.
It will also save time for drivers, since the line of cars waiting to pay is the bottleneck at certain times of day.
Do you get this angry about all the private garages that installed the same exact system?
Yes, I did read the article.
By roadman
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 3:12pm
However, and with respect, the Globe article was simply nothing more than a re-written T press release. Like most of the Boston media's coverage of the MBTA is these days, there is too much "blind faith" in the excuses and justifications the T gives.
Perhaps you don't recall, but cost savings and labor reductions were two of management's selling points when they originally announced the Charlie fare collection system. Neither of those goals have yet been achieved.
With respect, perhaps you should realize that the T is a public agency that is supposed to be in the business of providing people transportation services. It is not supposed to be a private company gouging money from communters for parking.
Especially when they cry poverty and force a fare increase down out throats, and then go and waste money on nonsense like this.
Want to save money and make things easier for commuters. Then just eliminate the parking fees completely.
"Perhaps you don't recall,
By anon
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 4:01pm
"Perhaps you don't recall, but cost savings and labor reductions were two of management's selling points when they originally announced the Charlie fare collection system. Neither of those goals have yet been achieved."
Do you know how much the T spent on fare collection before and after Charlie implementation? I *have* noticed that a lot of entrances that used to be staffed full-time are now staffed part-time, or not at all.
The T's manager said how much they'll save in labor costs on this parking project. If you think it won't actually happen, feel free to keep an eye on the T's budget for the next few years, and write some letters if the savings don't actually happen.
"Want to save money and make things easier for commuters. Then just eliminate the parking fees completely."
How would eliminating parking fees save the T money?
I'm beginning to think that engaging in discussions with you is a waste of time.
Angst, anger, and annoyance
By Cutriss
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 3:10pm
So, your solution, as it often is, is to have the MBTA simply stop doing *something*. So, how does it recover the lost funds that come from the parking? They raised the parking fees on the garages/lots as part of the fare increase, and you'd have them ditch it entirely? I'll bet after that's done, you'll complain when they lower service and/or increase fares further to cover the gap.
The credit parking systems you talk about sound much like the self-service ticket machines at AMC. Three times slower than something that already takes only a couple of seconds is still 10-15 seconds, nothing that will kill you. Also it helps reduce fraud/theft from payment collectors. You think "honor system" only applies to the drivers? I'm surprised you're not dancing in the streets over the idea of taking cash access away from the thugs that work for the MBTA.
Put in E-Z Pass gates, require everyone using the lot to have transceivers and linked accounts, send tickets to car owners for noncompliance. There's your honor system. We already do it in Dedham. Who's going to be driving a car, has the money to take CR, has the money to *park in the lot*, and *not* have a credit/debit card?
I've said this before in other posts
By roadman
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 3:20pm
but I'll repeat it again for your benefit
When you look at all the funding the T gets form various sources, the T is hardly broke. The problem is that the T is not permitted to spend the money they receive to meet their priorities.
Ditch the unnecessary divide btween "capital" and "operating" accounts. If the T needs money to actually run trains and buses reduce the number of security inspections to fund that. But I guess in your mind, needless planning studies and public meetings and overbuilt stations are more important.
It's how responsible homeowners manage their budgets - speing the money where the priorities require.
Final note - what better way to encourage people to use public transportation than by giving free parking at the stations?
Jesus. You're never happy.
By anon
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 3:32pm
Jesus. You're never happy. This is a customer service action that will pay for itself in just a few of years.
Why don't you name some projects the T could do that meet your approval and how much they cost?
I bet the cheapest thing you list will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Won't happen
By Cutriss
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 4:32pm
I wouldn't expect someone named "road man" to ever advocate anything beyond shutting the MBTA down.
Do you seriously believe that
By Cutriss
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 4:41pm
Do you seriously believe that the MBTA likes throwing its own money out the window to fulfill someone else's security theater requirements?
The problem with E-ZPass is
By anon
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 4:08pm
The problem with E-ZPass is that it's a *very* expensive system to install.
There are just a few places where you can pay for parking with E-ZPass -- some airports in New York State, and parking lots in Atlantic City. And you still need to put a ticket in a slot, and tell a booth attendant to charge your E-ZPass.
How expensive could it possibly be?
By Cutriss
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 4:31pm
They installed one at the Amtrak station in Dedham on 128, not someplace I would consider worth such a "very expensive" fare management system. So it exists in MA, not just NY/NJ. The lot here does not require a slotted ticket, you just drive in/drive out.
The equipment can't be that expensive - it's less sophisticated than most red-light camera systems, and it can't require much maintenance since there are no moving parts.
In all honesty, I'm no RF engineer, but they're basically powered-up RFID scanners with a cellular connection to transmit data and photos. In other words, a cellphone with some extra parts and a higher quality camera.
If I had to guess any reason why it's not as widespread as it should be, it's because most parking facilities are privately owned and they have a financial interest in the status quo.
128 Station FastLane parking
By anon
Tue, 07/17/2012 - 1:57pm
Hmm, so it is.
http://technicalities.mu.nu/ho-hum/its_working_pro... is a news story about a guy who was charged $600 because of a malfunction reading his E-ZPass there. The software decided he was parked there for two months, even though he was using his E-ZPass on the Pike every day during that period.
(And please don't compare E-ZPass parking payment to red light cameras if you want my support.)
One-time glitch
By Cutriss
Tue, 07/17/2012 - 3:41pm
I empathize with the man (I saw that news article too), but certainly he's not really on the hook for that, when there's copious evidence that it's a bug or possibly a defective transponder. A one-off glitch shouldn't prevent the rollout of a decent, low-cost, low-manpower revenue-management system.
And yeah, I hate red-light cameras as well, they were just coming into vogue in my old city before I moved here, and I'm glad that there's a firm stand against them in Boston.
Roadman
By Pete Nice
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 8:19pm
If you saw a list of people's suggestions, complaints, and proposals for mbta payment systems, being able to pay by credit card is going to be #1. People love to pay by credit card, and they will voice their opinions about it. Here are some of the pros and cons of using credit card system.
Pro: if you don't have change, you can use the card ( convenience)
Pro: you don't have to pay someone to physically collect the money ( as much anyway, you could reduce staff at the very least. You also have less money to count, bag, send to the bank, etc. I believe the T has a facility in Charlestown where they do this on their own though.
Pro: people tend to put the maximum amount of money on credit cards vs cash or coins, even if the amount of time on the meter is 2 hours.
Cons: you need a stable wireless system to send the credit card payments.
Con: the credit card company will charge you a fee, and some companies (Amex) won't negotiate with you.
So, if throngs of MBTA riders
By roadman
Tue, 07/17/2012 - 12:36pm
really want to pay by credit card, then please explain the rationale behind the MBTA's stubborn refusal to provide ticket vending machines at outlying commuter rail stations. That would eliminate the need for cash sales on trains entirely.
I do agree with your "pro and con" points about the proposed parking payment system, which are equally applicable to the placement of FVMs at commuter rail stations. I am just tired of this "double speak" from the MBTA - they say they won't provide machines so you can buy fares at outlying stations (which would actually benefit the majority of riders) because of the cost, and then turn around and spend money on machines to collect parking fees.
Don't forget the upcoming
By Saul
Tue, 07/17/2012 - 12:44pm
Don't forget the upcoming mobile payments for commuter rail. I will be attending a T focus group tonight to see a beta of the app.
So in a few months, you will have all of the following options to pay for commuter rail --
Notice how none of them use the CharlieCard.
Charlie machines are very
By anon
Tue, 07/17/2012 - 1:50pm
Charlie machines are very expensive, much more than these new parking payment machines. And they would require periodic visits by maintenance workers.
The parking garages getting these new machines already are staffed, and serve thousands of people per day.
That said, while many commuter rail stations don't have the traffic to make Charlie machines worthwhile, I don't see why the T doesn't install machines at the busiest stations that lack them. (A few already have them, such as Lowell, Providence, and Worcester.)
Why would a Charlie machine,
By Saul
Tue, 07/17/2012 - 2:16pm
Why would a Charlie machine, especially one that only takes plastic, be any more expensive than one of the parking machines? Hardware-wise, they're pretty identical: card reader, communications link to validate card and make payment, printer.
And what does staffing at garages have to do with anything? It's not as if the garage attendants can service the machines.
Cost vs. Benefit
By FranklinRider
Tue, 07/17/2012 - 2:13pm
There's no double speak, it's just being honest about the costs versus the benefits.
As anon points out they don't install the ticket machines at every commuter rail station because they cost so much relative to the usage.
Remember, the T estimated it would cost $70 million dollars just to install them. Then maintenence on all 134+ machines and additional travel will be sky high compared to the mobile app, which is probably being developed for less than $500k.
Maybe they still want cash and/or the carmen?
By Pete Nice
Tue, 07/17/2012 - 2:31pm
Seems like they may like the carmen, and want to keep them on commuter rails. As long as you have them, you might as well make them take/keep/give change?
I dunno, it does seem like kind of an odd process, but I have a feeling that people like these carmen and want them to continue to serve the MBTA and its customers?
Somerville
By Pete Nice
Mon, 07/16/2012 - 8:25pm
They use a company called Duncan for all their parking enforcement, and they have several "pay by space" lots, which work well from what I heard.
You basically park, remember what spot you parked in ( each spot has a number). And when you leave the lot, there is a machine where you pay for how much time you want in your spot. The enforcement officer can look online on a mobile device to see which spots are open or expired as well.
These seem like the perfect meters for lots, although there are some lots out where I am where I can sit in my car until the train comes, and it would be easier for my lazy ass if I could just pay right in front of the space and get back in my car.
How many people actually use
By James H.
Tue, 07/17/2012 - 6:58am
How many people actually use these lots? Are they even worth investing in? I get the idea of trying to induce people to ride the T by parking at locations at the end of the lines, but it seems that the overburdened and worn out bits of the system (hello Green Line Central Subway?) could use upgrades more than the little parking lots out in the 'burbs.
IMHO, congestion charges for driving into the city would be a more effective way to get people on the T and stop complaining about the paltry parking fees.
Yes, there's high usage
By adamg
Tue, 07/17/2012 - 8:34am
Forest Hills, which I don't think is on the credit-card list, runs out of spaces well before 9 a.m. (at both of its lots).
I'm not sure why there's such antipathy to parking lots at terminal stations. They keep people from driving into the city; isn't that a good thing? And, especially at the ends of the lines, there often isn't an alternative for people further out (in my case, for example, yes, there is a bus to Forest Hills that stops a couple blocks away - very infrequently). Oh, yeah, and they generate revenue, which, as we all know, the T badly needs.
Rapid transit lots
By Matthew
Tue, 07/17/2012 - 9:52am
...Get pretty decent usage. Commuter rail lots, not so much.
The antipathy isn't towards parking lots at terminal stations -- it's towards parking lots in urban neighborhoods which displace development and form a barrier to walking. Park-n-rides make a lot of sense near highways, because they generate a lot of traffic which can overwhelm smaller streets. They don't make as much sense when you want to attract two-way traffic: people arriving at the station and walking to jobs/activities/homes as well as people commuting to the city.
When the T spends $50 million on a big monolithic garage, it does not recover those costs from parking revenue. Arguably, parking is a business it should not be in, at least in some places. If there's enough demand for parking at a station, why can't a private owner buy some land and build a lot? What's the benefit to having the T do this instead? They just lose money on the deal and take forever to install basic improvements like decent ticketing machines.
The T should be able to make
By anon
Tue, 07/17/2012 - 2:03pm
The T should be able to make a profit from parking garages, if they manage them properly.
I'd much rather have a single well-designed T garage, rather than private landowners knocking down buildings near stations to build parking lots.
Public bulldozers are still bulldozers
By Matthew
Tue, 07/17/2012 - 2:28pm
What makes you think the T isn't knocking down buildings to build parking lots? Or, more likely, preventing buildings from getting built in the first place?
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. It could work if the T sold or leased the land immediately abutting the station to private entities to build whatever they felt appropriate. Whether that be homes, businesses, or parking lots.
P.S. "well-designed" and T do not belong in the same sentence.
Look at the Blue Line north of Wonderland
By Cutriss
Tue, 07/17/2012 - 4:44pm
The T has known since well before it existed (back in the BERy days) that they would eventually be running service to Lynn. That hasn't stopped a number of private developers from intruding upon the ROW they'd need to make that extension happen, so now if they finally get the money and the legislative support for the project, they'll have to raze a bunch of buildings that they apparently were powerless to keep from going up.
Some people just seem to have this idea of an iron-fisted dictatorial agency running the train system here, and considering how often people treat the MBTA like a stepchild agency (which isn't all that far from the truth, given the genesis of MassDOT), I just cannot fathom how it's in any way grounded in reality.