Subway confidential

How safe is L.A.'s subway system? It's a question a lot of people are asking in the wake of the mercury scare. The Times Jean Guccione and Andrew Blankstein focus in on what security experts consider a weakness:

As Los Angeles transit officials pour millions of dollars into cameras and other high-tech security devices in the wake of 9/11, one major security gap persists: No one is stationed underground to help subway passengers in a crisis. Unlike most U.S. subways, Los Angeles' works on the honor system. There are no gates to pass through, no turnstiles that open when a fare is paid and no attendants — let alone police officers — stationed on the platforms. Subway planners designed it that way, hoping the open feel would encourage riders in a place weaned on the automobile but also reduce operating costs. But now — after Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials were embarrassed by the botched response to a mercury spill that was left on a downtown platform in December for eight hours — the look of Los Angeles' subways might change.

What's the solution? L.A. can look to other cities, but it will have to pay a lot:

There is growing discussion among MTA board members and other local officials about a major overhaul of how the stations work — adding barriers and possibly gate attendants as well as more security officers. Some officials say the mercury incident proves that the agency's reliance on closed-circuit cameras to show what's going on underground is inadequate..... An MTA study produced last year found that hiring 500 instation attendants would cost $24 million annually. Installing turnstiles in the subway's 16 stations would cost between $50 million and $150 million. To secure the subway, the report said, three attendants per shift would have to be added at each of the subway's 54 entrances.

Read the entire article here

And post comments below. Jean Guccione will respond on Monday.

Comments

[Matt]

Trying to draw a connection between fare barrier gates and safety or security is utter nonsense. In a true emergency such as a fire, or chemical or biological terror attack, riders will be crushed to death at such gates in the inevitable stampede such an emergency will create. Anyone truly concerned about the safey of passengers would be advocating to remove gates in all subway systems, not forcing LA into the costly mistakes of the east coast with retrogressive "technology". NY Straphangers have been asking NY MTA to removed subway gates since 9/11. NY MTA put in a few emergency exits instead. From the photos, the black steel doors look like an even worse choke point if you want be trampled to death in an emergency. Fare collection and fare evasion issues are separate from safety and security - but both can be handled with technology and trained personnel. Public transit passengers have been trusted since the opening of rail in 1990, why exactly can't we be trusted now? And what rail line has the worst fare evasion? According to MTA's own reports and studies, it's definitely not the Red Line. Gates at airports didn't deter terrorists on 9/11. So, the question remains, how does a gate create better safety and security? As a taxpayer, wasting money on this is outrageous. Gating will do nothing to improve mobility, and instead will go a long way toward making any emergency in a subway station far more dangerous. This is beginning to look like an issue only lobbyists could dream up. Getting cellular service in tunnels and stations would be a welcomed improvement that actually can improve security - and might be accomplished at relatively low to no cost with some exclusive advertising agreements.

[Stephen]

I believe adding station attendants would definitely help in the event of a situation such as this. Had a station attendant been there, the area where the mercury was spilled could have been immediately taken care of. There are some stations on the Red Line that I have rarely seen any attendants or fare inspectors, such as Civic Center Station. What would have the response time, even with the cameras in place, to a station with no attendants and Sheriff officers spread over the 73 mile Metro Rail network?

I feel one of the aspects the article did not cover is the amount of money Metro would accurately recuperate with fare barriers. Installing turnstiles would turn away fare evaders. Several times I have seen a group of students trying to show valid fare payment, then trying to pass it back to their friend or see a family of four rush off one end of a train as a fare inspector gets on the other end. Additionally, ridership counts could actually be more accurate compared with current Metro estimations (does Metro Rail ridership factor in non-paying riders or only the number of tickets bought?).

The drawbacks of a fare barrier would be the challenges of making this seamless with other transit agencies. For example, implementing barriers at Union Station would slow hundreds of riders at a time in the morning as they transferred from their Metrolink train to the Red Line. Metrolink fare media is currently good for free rides on Metro, but their fare media is printed on paper. Would that require Metrolink to redesign their fare media so it can be accepted by the Metro fare barriers?

All this and Metro is still in their testing phase of the regional 'TAP' (Transportation Access Pass) contact-less fare payment system, which was supposed to be implemented four years ago to coincide with the Gold line opening. While Chicago, Boston (very recently), and Washington DC have implemented this system with relative ease, Metro continues to lag behind. Imagine then, how long it would take to get fare barriers in place at all Red and Purple Line stations.

Could we keep Metro Rail a barrier free system while assigning in-station attendants to every Red and Purple Line station?

[Aaron]

I don't think that there's a logical connection between the mercury spill and installing fare barriers. First, the obvious - fare barriers aren't going to keep mercury out of the station. Secondly, the fault here clearly lies with a dispatcher that either wasn't paying attention to the situation, didn't recognize the danger, or failed to communicate and/or was somehow blocked from communicating the danger to persons who were capable of dealing with it.

Fare barriers won't improve that. If we're going to insist on throwing money at the problem, let's throw it at the LA County Sheriff's office, who can increase patrols conducted by trained professionals. Hiring low-wage station attendants wouldn't have addressed this problem. The barrier-free system is one feature that makes LA's subway a pleasure to use compared to other systems with fare barriers that frequently break down; it is a great convenience for passholders to be able to, for example, go straight to the platform at Wilshire/Vermont. Let's not lose that due to one incident whose true remedy is better training, not a costly and needless overhaul.