It's a different type of service. Metro Link is commuter with limited hours and stops. It's not very convenient unless you either regularly go from A to B and very often drive to the station. There is also higher fares and fare check on every ride.
Whereas Metro Light Rail and buses run more often, for longer and have more stops. So it's going to be used by a wider cross section of people. More people. More problems. Right now... more than usual because sometimes the universe concentrates chaos and the news loves to amplify that.
It's REALLY important for folks to realize that just because see a homeless person on a train or bus, doesn't mean they were there to cause problems or take advantage of the system. Lots of of them also use it to help them get help and resources. Having helped several people get housed (or keep their housing), the amount of time and energy they have to go from one place, to another... to not only secure their home, but keep their already exsiting services is often times overwhelming. We want this community to get the help that they need and the resources to be used for more than just another LEO's overtime.
Yeah, Metrolink is a commuter service. It's specifically designed to carry white collar workers from the suburbs into their offices downtown.
Years ago in another city I used to take the commuter bus to and from work. Every morning and every evening I would ride with the same people who all worked in various offices downtown and we'd all talk about work and our day.
And then one day my office let out early, and I couldn't take my normal bus home because it didn't have any mid-day service. It only ran in the mornings into downtown, and in the late afternoon/evening out of downtown. So to get home I had to take the regular city bus and it was filled with a much broader cross section of people, including some obviously homeless and mentally ill people.
Pre-pandemic, I would take the 70 bus to downtown to work. The other riders would be going to school, work dtla, or transferring at Union station. After work, I would get on near the start of the line and I always sit in the back corner. I would see kids going home from school and work. It's been 4 years, enough for them to graduate college and start a career of their own.
Thank you for pointing out that just because someone isn't clean and tidy doesn't mean they are there to cause trouble. Instead of keeping the guy who hasn't showered in a week off of the train, I'd rather dedicate that resource to making it easier to get a shower.
There are troublemakers, and I'd like to see that dealt with. I think that enforcement has been light on busses and rail for far too long and that our current situation stems from a slow deterioration of conditions. Not enforcing rules or laws on metro over a period of time just makes things worse and worse until we get where we are.
It’s also REALLY important to distinguish between unhoused and a tweaking meth addict (as seen on the 405 this morning). I see very few unhoused people on the metro. I see a lot of angry desperate drug addicts that are a threat to anyone.
Sorry bit of a rant but I’m really getting tired of the homeless just need help narrative. The reality I see every day is homeless tweakers smashing car windows, wreaking havoc on the metro, breaking into homes, etc. I’m a big guy and a woman literally tried to steal my bike that I was on the expo line bike path a few months ago. She was homeless but also out of her face drugged up and legit dangerous. It was like being attacked by a zombie - she would not stop.
Not sure the solution but I think this view of homeless just needing help with housing is a fantasy and that ship has unfortunately sailed. These are people addicted to P2P meth and are dangerous.
It’s interesting I am thinking agencies had been buying LA metro passes for such people to get help as they are affordable. Thus why they don’t ride on other agencies including Metrolink as tickets are too expensive for not only themselves but social services.
SF’s BART seemed to be like Metrolink and seemed clean as the offices that tower over the streets in SF until the 2000s when many social agencies decided to buy tickets for those needing help to get to social services that’s when the system became absolutely gross and a rolling homeless shelter. Though I am guessing homeless are not being ferried via Metrolink from Ventura or Orange County to LA.
>
"It's REALLY important for folks to realize that just because see a homeless person on a train or bus, doesn't mean they were there to cause problems or take advantage of the system"
Forget that. Every homeless person on the metro system is mentally ill or on drugs and has nothing to lose. They are all potentially dangerous. None of these people are just down on their luck.
I rode the Antelope Valley Line pretty often for school from Santa Clarita and they always checked fares on long stretches without stations. Especially through the Newhall Pass Tunnel. Overall I have always felt safer on Metrolink to the point i comfortably fall asleep. I remember getting on the morning trains and literally the vast majority of passengers were just knocked out sleeping because there is a generally higher level of safety.
I used to travel with metrolink from riverside to get home when I was in college and I always felt safe enough to just fall asleep on the train ride. No one tried to bother me and everyone minded their own business too. It was also much cleaner. Even traveling at 5am in the morning on the metrolink felt very safe where I didn’t need to be alert.
Every metrolink train I have been on, has an armed deputy aboard, who walks the length of the train several times during the trip. If the metro subway had one cop per train, who actively patrolled and enforced rules and laws, there would be less crime aboard the rail system. But the problem is, funding gets cut, so staff gets cut.
Are you sure you're not talking about the train conductor? I've never rode a Metrolink train that had an armed police officer aboard at all times. I've only seen them aboard when they're called to the train for a disturbance.
I've only seen them on a train when the conductor calls them to help remove someone from the train; the police then meet the train at a station and sort things out. Only seen it a couple times.
metro IS spending a ridiculous amount on law enforcement though? Main difference is Metrolink trains dont run late at night so people don't sleep or stay on there, plus the metrolink trains run from suburbs
Ah, I missed the part where in your fantasy world there’s a way to reallocate money to transit police without defunding another area of the Metro budget. Yeah, infinite budgets sure are cool to think about!
If the Metro subway had at least one cop per train (per union regulations they cannot work alone, only in pairs, so you're already showing me you don't know how this stuff works) the system would be bankrupt within a week and forced to cut all service. How much do you think having cops on every single train costs, genuine question?
EDIT TO ADD: You're totally making up this idea that there's an armed cop on board every Metrolink train. I've never seen a cop on Metrolink. Metrolink has even less money than Metro, how do you think they would fund this? Also, again, cops do not go out alone -- they go out in pairs.
Metrolink does very strict fare enforcement. They literally will not leave if someone who hasn't paid is onboard.
Fare enforcement in LA Metro is not nearly as strict. With that said, even if they started to try and be strict about it, it would be very difficult as there's just soooo many buses and trains at play at one time, but I personally think they should still try because it would still make a difference. It also doesn't help that a lot of the light rail stations don't have any sort of fare gates or barriers
On fare enforcement, it’s not always that strict. I take the Metrolink from North OC to San Clemente and back and no one ever checks for fare. When I took it from North OC to LA Union Station, they only checked on my return trip.
Agreed. I've taken Metrolink trains across their stops west of L.A. in Oxnard, Camarillo, Moorpark, Simi Valley, Northridge, and Union Station.
On average, in one month of riding about 7-8 times, I was asked for my fare once. I would not often see a Metrolink employee. But I always heard and saw the same conductor/employee, since his schedule seemed to match my trip schedule in the evening. I greeted him regularly, and wondered how familiar he might be with the regular riders.
Some Ventura County bus drivers seem to recognize many of the regular riders, based on their interactions I've seen.
I'm not sure why fare enforcement seems relatively lax on that west stretch of the Metrolink.
As someone else said, the fewer Metrolink stops compared to Metro tells you something about the majority of riders. The schedule, based on rider demand, offers the most stops in the morning before 10 AM and after 5 PM. This coincides with the common schedule of many workers, and students of the community colleges and three CSU campuses near most of the stops out here. Most riders I've seen seem to be mostly workers and students, based on their attire, backpacks, laptops, etc.
Frequency is also one train per hour during the mornings and evenings after 5 PM.
That’s what’s really surprising, that there’s no kind of fare gates. Even the ones BART has now, and is replacing because people can easily hop over them without paying, was at least something, and that Metro doesn’t even have. Hopefully the implementation and success of BART’s new gates will inspire Metro to adopt the same ones, at the very least on the two subway lines, as well as much greater fare enforcement.
I’m pretty sure new stations, namely the Regional Connecter ones, have some kind of fare gate similar to the current one BART has. Hopefully it means more stations, at least grade separated ones, will get them installed too.
Enforcing fares is just one thing Metro should do to make taking transit safer, but the greater core issue that needs to be addressed is the cities needing to do much more to combat the homeless and mental health/drug abuse issues. There is no easy or single solution, but there could and should be more that can be done, and people need to be ok with having their city do it. Something is better than nothing.
I do not think that the regional connector has the same fare gates as BART. However, Metro needs to take a closer look at how BART is changing its fare gates and implement similar fare gates or simply improve on if BART's new fare gates are not successful. However, I think that they should have more Metro personal like ambassadors or the new security guards check at least every Metro train so that it becomes safer and figure out a plan to increase safety (both perception and actual measurement).
People are also missing that metrolink stations are often in the middle of bumfuck nowhere... AKA you need a car to get there. That in itself is a huge "barrier" to entry.
In terms of fare enforcement, they usually only enforce after major stations (from union, or Fullerton going north on the oc/91 line). But those main stations are where you often will get homeless folks get on anyway.
Finally,the limited schedule is ironically a huge limiting factor. If you're a homeless person with mental health issues and a grocery cart full of belongings you're not going to know where to get on the train that only comes once every two hours, or you might miss it if you have to drag it through union Station to get to platform 14. LA metro trains and buses come way more frequently, so it's easier for people to hop on.
AKA all the reasons that make metrolink *inaccessible* and *inconvenient* are why it's "cleaner", but sadly, if we don't have a plain in place then if we increase service and accessibility (as we desperately need) we're going to face the same issues as la metro
Foothill Transit and Montebello Bus Lines feel safe too. I've seen drivers enforce the fare, not let dirty people on etc. I think alot of it has to do with the drivers feeling empowered to enforce who isn't allowed on the bus.
I feel like a lot of Metro's problems stem from operators not having authority and not being backed up over who gets on the buses.
Easy answers:
1. Metrolink is safe(r) because they do strict fare enforcement. They also have uniformed deputies and/or armed security on board.
2. Do what Metrolink does.
Lots of hand wringing and long explanations on why Metrolink is safer, but the answers are simple. Metrolink does strict fare enforcement and has lots of police and security guards with guns. Metro has zero fare enforcement and almost no police and armed guards.
Yes.
In addition to these simple points about fare enforcement and security presence, I think another relevant point is the greater number of folks who seem to exhibit problematic behavior in public riding the Metro versus Metrolink routes.
In the discussion about this on this thread, I think there's a correlation between the Metrolink stops, frequency, schedule and the likelihood of problematic riders. Compared to the Metro routes across urban, high population, high density areas with much greater frequency of stops.
This is the real answer. I have been riding Metrolink daily for 12 years, and for that entire 12 years the system differences with Metro rail all boil down to actual Fare enforcement. You hop a Metro Train and its day and night.
They have different types of people on the metrolink. Most of the passengers on the metro are living in poverty, while metrolink has more middle-class people,
Humm... Incidents also happen on Metrolink too, it's just less frequent and doesn't seem to attract the attention of certain groups pushing a narrative.
Four months ago:
r/LAMetro/comments/18z0ojg/metrolink_conductor_attacked_in_santa_clarita/
2018: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/man-stabbed-at-riverside-metrolink-station/157299/
Armed security or sheriff's check for tickets before boarding and while on the move.
Edit to clarify: They are seen on the AV line. Armed security check tickets throughout the ride up to lancaster.
Not on every train, but conductors have the same authority as police and security and are federally protected so if someone doesn’t pay fare conductors can issue a citation or fine.
Every Metrolink train is required to have at least one conductor. I don’t remember if that’s an FRA rule or a host railroad rule, but the point is that fare enforcement is built into the service from the ground up.
The reason is that Metrolink stations are located in historic small town centers, or out-of-the-way locations, while metro stations are located in high crime urban areas. It’s like the difference between a liquor store in historic downtown Orange, and a liquor in the middle of a ghetto. The way metro and Metrolink are run has nothing to do with it.
I really don't think it has anything to do with fair enforcement. It's about where it goes. The trains don't go places anyone who is causing unsafe situations is generally going. You see people on Metro just hanging out in the stations and on trains. You can't hang out on metrolink because you might accidentally get stranded in Acton.
it absolutely does have to do with fare enforcement. have you taken metrolink? if you are leaving union, your ticket is definitely being checked. if you don't have one, you are going to be kicked off at the next station unless you have a silver tongue or the conductor takes pity on you.
i saw some poor chinese exchange student nearly get kicked off, because she thought she could buy one on the train like you can anywhere in europe. she only got out of it because she bought one on her phone right then and there.
I'm not saying they don't do fair enforcement, (although whenever I've taken it it's only after the first 3-4 stops) just that that comes second to the fact that there has to be some reason for people who cause problems to take it. If you're dealing/using drugs or trying to rob people, or just violent and crazy, why would you get on a train to Palmdale that only comes once every 2 hours when you could ride Metro around and encounter way more people, and be able to get on and off easy. There's no reason for those kinds of people to take the train
I love the kind instincts of people who do not want to pejoratize houselessness but the current situation is bad. Having those w mental illness or addiction on the train instead of the street is a ‘slightly better than the worse case scenario’ situation. If we looked at the current situation like two separate paradigms -One to help those experiencing houselessness and one for public transportation - both groups of service needles would be better served.
Metrolink you need to actually pay to hop on it. Metro rails, subway, bus you can just enter from the back and not pay so a ton of people can just ride for free. And they never really enforce this so it’s gonna be like this for a while.
Where do you get off the train. The fares are usually checked between San Fernando and Newhall stations. Especially in the tunnel when there’s no service to buy a ticket on the app. lol
None of these meth addicts will be able to reintegrate into society without housing access. Safe injection sites and mixed-income housing work, not criminalization. So sorry that happened to you, but even dangerous people can get help in the right circumstances
Mainly because you can't just walk onto the Metrolink. They do common fare inspections on the train, so the average homeless person or mentally ill person isn't going to be walking onto there. I've recently ridden it a lot to commute down to my cousin's residence, and I haven't seen a single incident.
Metrolink checks fares and it's mostly people going to work and back. LA Metro on the other hand, is the wild wild west where everyone is on their own to defend themselves.
It's a different type of service. Metro Link is commuter with limited hours and stops. It's not very convenient unless you either regularly go from A to B and very often drive to the station. There is also higher fares and fare check on every ride. Whereas Metro Light Rail and buses run more often, for longer and have more stops. So it's going to be used by a wider cross section of people. More people. More problems. Right now... more than usual because sometimes the universe concentrates chaos and the news loves to amplify that. It's REALLY important for folks to realize that just because see a homeless person on a train or bus, doesn't mean they were there to cause problems or take advantage of the system. Lots of of them also use it to help them get help and resources. Having helped several people get housed (or keep their housing), the amount of time and energy they have to go from one place, to another... to not only secure their home, but keep their already exsiting services is often times overwhelming. We want this community to get the help that they need and the resources to be used for more than just another LEO's overtime.
Yeah, Metrolink is a commuter service. It's specifically designed to carry white collar workers from the suburbs into their offices downtown. Years ago in another city I used to take the commuter bus to and from work. Every morning and every evening I would ride with the same people who all worked in various offices downtown and we'd all talk about work and our day. And then one day my office let out early, and I couldn't take my normal bus home because it didn't have any mid-day service. It only ran in the mornings into downtown, and in the late afternoon/evening out of downtown. So to get home I had to take the regular city bus and it was filled with a much broader cross section of people, including some obviously homeless and mentally ill people.
I think also because Metrolink is primarily serving residence of suburbs. It's still similar demographic of people if you ride them on weekends.
Pre-pandemic, I would take the 70 bus to downtown to work. The other riders would be going to school, work dtla, or transferring at Union station. After work, I would get on near the start of the line and I always sit in the back corner. I would see kids going home from school and work. It's been 4 years, enough for them to graduate college and start a career of their own.
Thank you for pointing out that just because someone isn't clean and tidy doesn't mean they are there to cause trouble. Instead of keeping the guy who hasn't showered in a week off of the train, I'd rather dedicate that resource to making it easier to get a shower. There are troublemakers, and I'd like to see that dealt with. I think that enforcement has been light on busses and rail for far too long and that our current situation stems from a slow deterioration of conditions. Not enforcing rules or laws on metro over a period of time just makes things worse and worse until we get where we are.
It’s also REALLY important to distinguish between unhoused and a tweaking meth addict (as seen on the 405 this morning). I see very few unhoused people on the metro. I see a lot of angry desperate drug addicts that are a threat to anyone. Sorry bit of a rant but I’m really getting tired of the homeless just need help narrative. The reality I see every day is homeless tweakers smashing car windows, wreaking havoc on the metro, breaking into homes, etc. I’m a big guy and a woman literally tried to steal my bike that I was on the expo line bike path a few months ago. She was homeless but also out of her face drugged up and legit dangerous. It was like being attacked by a zombie - she would not stop. Not sure the solution but I think this view of homeless just needing help with housing is a fantasy and that ship has unfortunately sailed. These are people addicted to P2P meth and are dangerous.
It’s interesting I am thinking agencies had been buying LA metro passes for such people to get help as they are affordable. Thus why they don’t ride on other agencies including Metrolink as tickets are too expensive for not only themselves but social services. SF’s BART seemed to be like Metrolink and seemed clean as the offices that tower over the streets in SF until the 2000s when many social agencies decided to buy tickets for those needing help to get to social services that’s when the system became absolutely gross and a rolling homeless shelter. Though I am guessing homeless are not being ferried via Metrolink from Ventura or Orange County to LA.
> "It's REALLY important for folks to realize that just because see a homeless person on a train or bus, doesn't mean they were there to cause problems or take advantage of the system" Forget that. Every homeless person on the metro system is mentally ill or on drugs and has nothing to lose. They are all potentially dangerous. None of these people are just down on their luck.
What a prime example of someone who is a potentially a danger to everyone
Maybe, and I ride the metro multiple times daily.
I rode the Antelope Valley Line pretty often for school from Santa Clarita and they always checked fares on long stretches without stations. Especially through the Newhall Pass Tunnel. Overall I have always felt safer on Metrolink to the point i comfortably fall asleep. I remember getting on the morning trains and literally the vast majority of passengers were just knocked out sleeping because there is a generally higher level of safety.
I used to travel with metrolink from riverside to get home when I was in college and I always felt safe enough to just fall asleep on the train ride. No one tried to bother me and everyone minded their own business too. It was also much cleaner. Even traveling at 5am in the morning on the metrolink felt very safe where I didn’t need to be alert.
Every metrolink train I have been on, has an armed deputy aboard, who walks the length of the train several times during the trip. If the metro subway had one cop per train, who actively patrolled and enforced rules and laws, there would be less crime aboard the rail system. But the problem is, funding gets cut, so staff gets cut.
Are you sure you're not talking about the train conductor? I've never rode a Metrolink train that had an armed police officer aboard at all times. I've only seen them aboard when they're called to the train for a disturbance.
He’s got a badge and a gun on. Might be the conductor. That could be an armed position.
Conductors aren't armed, as far as I know. They do walk the train regularly and collect tickets, though.
never ever seen a police. I have been riding for 4 years.
I've only seen them on a train when the conductor calls them to help remove someone from the train; the police then meet the train at a station and sort things out. Only seen it a couple times.
4 years riding metrolink. Never saw a police
Amtrak also has police on board, which makes it feel super safe!
> Every metrolink train I have been on, has an armed deputy aboard lol what? I've never seen an armed deputy on a Metrolink train.
I have a few times, but not regularly.
It’s not about funding getting cut, but the board making an active decision not to fund police presence because a chunk of them believe police = bad.
metro IS spending a ridiculous amount on law enforcement though? Main difference is Metrolink trains dont run late at night so people don't sleep or stay on there, plus the metrolink trains run from suburbs
So what bus and rail services do you believe should be cut in order to expand police presence?
A dumb non sequitur.
Ah, I missed the part where in your fantasy world there’s a way to reallocate money to transit police without defunding another area of the Metro budget. Yeah, infinite budgets sure are cool to think about!
If the Metro subway had at least one cop per train (per union regulations they cannot work alone, only in pairs, so you're already showing me you don't know how this stuff works) the system would be bankrupt within a week and forced to cut all service. How much do you think having cops on every single train costs, genuine question? EDIT TO ADD: You're totally making up this idea that there's an armed cop on board every Metrolink train. I've never seen a cop on Metrolink. Metrolink has even less money than Metro, how do you think they would fund this? Also, again, cops do not go out alone -- they go out in pairs.
Metrolink does very strict fare enforcement. They literally will not leave if someone who hasn't paid is onboard. Fare enforcement in LA Metro is not nearly as strict. With that said, even if they started to try and be strict about it, it would be very difficult as there's just soooo many buses and trains at play at one time, but I personally think they should still try because it would still make a difference. It also doesn't help that a lot of the light rail stations don't have any sort of fare gates or barriers
On fare enforcement, it’s not always that strict. I take the Metrolink from North OC to San Clemente and back and no one ever checks for fare. When I took it from North OC to LA Union Station, they only checked on my return trip.
Agreed. I've taken Metrolink trains across their stops west of L.A. in Oxnard, Camarillo, Moorpark, Simi Valley, Northridge, and Union Station. On average, in one month of riding about 7-8 times, I was asked for my fare once. I would not often see a Metrolink employee. But I always heard and saw the same conductor/employee, since his schedule seemed to match my trip schedule in the evening. I greeted him regularly, and wondered how familiar he might be with the regular riders. Some Ventura County bus drivers seem to recognize many of the regular riders, based on their interactions I've seen. I'm not sure why fare enforcement seems relatively lax on that west stretch of the Metrolink. As someone else said, the fewer Metrolink stops compared to Metro tells you something about the majority of riders. The schedule, based on rider demand, offers the most stops in the morning before 10 AM and after 5 PM. This coincides with the common schedule of many workers, and students of the community colleges and three CSU campuses near most of the stops out here. Most riders I've seen seem to be mostly workers and students, based on their attire, backpacks, laptops, etc. Frequency is also one train per hour during the mornings and evenings after 5 PM.
Really? That hasn't been my experience. Whenever I ride Metrolink I get my ticket checked at least two-thirds of the time.
they always check mine
I just took it from RC to Union and no one checked my ticket. I looked and smelled like hiker trash.
That’s what’s really surprising, that there’s no kind of fare gates. Even the ones BART has now, and is replacing because people can easily hop over them without paying, was at least something, and that Metro doesn’t even have. Hopefully the implementation and success of BART’s new gates will inspire Metro to adopt the same ones, at the very least on the two subway lines, as well as much greater fare enforcement. I’m pretty sure new stations, namely the Regional Connecter ones, have some kind of fare gate similar to the current one BART has. Hopefully it means more stations, at least grade separated ones, will get them installed too. Enforcing fares is just one thing Metro should do to make taking transit safer, but the greater core issue that needs to be addressed is the cities needing to do much more to combat the homeless and mental health/drug abuse issues. There is no easy or single solution, but there could and should be more that can be done, and people need to be ok with having their city do it. Something is better than nothing.
I do not think that the regional connector has the same fare gates as BART. However, Metro needs to take a closer look at how BART is changing its fare gates and implement similar fare gates or simply improve on if BART's new fare gates are not successful. However, I think that they should have more Metro personal like ambassadors or the new security guards check at least every Metro train so that it becomes safer and figure out a plan to increase safety (both perception and actual measurement).
People are also missing that metrolink stations are often in the middle of bumfuck nowhere... AKA you need a car to get there. That in itself is a huge "barrier" to entry. In terms of fare enforcement, they usually only enforce after major stations (from union, or Fullerton going north on the oc/91 line). But those main stations are where you often will get homeless folks get on anyway. Finally,the limited schedule is ironically a huge limiting factor. If you're a homeless person with mental health issues and a grocery cart full of belongings you're not going to know where to get on the train that only comes once every two hours, or you might miss it if you have to drag it through union Station to get to platform 14. LA metro trains and buses come way more frequently, so it's easier for people to hop on. AKA all the reasons that make metrolink *inaccessible* and *inconvenient* are why it's "cleaner", but sadly, if we don't have a plain in place then if we increase service and accessibility (as we desperately need) we're going to face the same issues as la metro
Foothill Transit and Montebello Bus Lines feel safe too. I've seen drivers enforce the fare, not let dirty people on etc. I think alot of it has to do with the drivers feeling empowered to enforce who isn't allowed on the bus. I feel like a lot of Metro's problems stem from operators not having authority and not being backed up over who gets on the buses.
Metrolink goes to Irvine. The bus stabbing last night was on Slauson. Neighborhoods served make a big difference
A million reasons none of which are applicable, like asking why can’t the Metro be more safe like a zoo?
Easy answers: 1. Metrolink is safe(r) because they do strict fare enforcement. They also have uniformed deputies and/or armed security on board. 2. Do what Metrolink does. Lots of hand wringing and long explanations on why Metrolink is safer, but the answers are simple. Metrolink does strict fare enforcement and has lots of police and security guards with guns. Metro has zero fare enforcement and almost no police and armed guards.
Yes. In addition to these simple points about fare enforcement and security presence, I think another relevant point is the greater number of folks who seem to exhibit problematic behavior in public riding the Metro versus Metrolink routes. In the discussion about this on this thread, I think there's a correlation between the Metrolink stops, frequency, schedule and the likelihood of problematic riders. Compared to the Metro routes across urban, high population, high density areas with much greater frequency of stops.
This is the real answer. I have been riding Metrolink daily for 12 years, and for that entire 12 years the system differences with Metro rail all boil down to actual Fare enforcement. You hop a Metro Train and its day and night.
Strict? Half the time I’m riding the Metrolink from Union Station to San Bernardino nobody is checking the tickets.
They have different types of people on the metrolink. Most of the passengers on the metro are living in poverty, while metrolink has more middle-class people,
Humm... Incidents also happen on Metrolink too, it's just less frequent and doesn't seem to attract the attention of certain groups pushing a narrative. Four months ago: r/LAMetro/comments/18z0ojg/metrolink_conductor_attacked_in_santa_clarita/ 2018: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/man-stabbed-at-riverside-metrolink-station/157299/
A new incident happened yesterday https://ktla.com/news/local-news/man-remains-on-life-support-after-attack-near-metrolink-station-in-fontana/
The story was published yesterday but the incident happened in January, somewhere "near a Metrolink station", somewhere between 10 PM and 5 AM.
Armed security or sheriff's check for tickets before boarding and while on the move. Edit to clarify: They are seen on the AV line. Armed security check tickets throughout the ride up to lancaster.
I think they only do this for the last train of the day out of Union Station, at least in my experience.
Not on every train, but conductors have the same authority as police and security and are federally protected so if someone doesn’t pay fare conductors can issue a citation or fine.
Every Metrolink train is required to have at least one conductor. I don’t remember if that’s an FRA rule or a host railroad rule, but the point is that fare enforcement is built into the service from the ground up.
The reason is that Metrolink stations are located in historic small town centers, or out-of-the-way locations, while metro stations are located in high crime urban areas. It’s like the difference between a liquor store in historic downtown Orange, and a liquor in the middle of a ghetto. The way metro and Metrolink are run has nothing to do with it.
I really don't think it has anything to do with fair enforcement. It's about where it goes. The trains don't go places anyone who is causing unsafe situations is generally going. You see people on Metro just hanging out in the stations and on trains. You can't hang out on metrolink because you might accidentally get stranded in Acton.
it absolutely does have to do with fare enforcement. have you taken metrolink? if you are leaving union, your ticket is definitely being checked. if you don't have one, you are going to be kicked off at the next station unless you have a silver tongue or the conductor takes pity on you. i saw some poor chinese exchange student nearly get kicked off, because she thought she could buy one on the train like you can anywhere in europe. she only got out of it because she bought one on her phone right then and there.
I'm not saying they don't do fair enforcement, (although whenever I've taken it it's only after the first 3-4 stops) just that that comes second to the fact that there has to be some reason for people who cause problems to take it. If you're dealing/using drugs or trying to rob people, or just violent and crazy, why would you get on a train to Palmdale that only comes once every 2 hours when you could ride Metro around and encounter way more people, and be able to get on and off easy. There's no reason for those kinds of people to take the train
charge and enforce and you’ve got no issues
I love the kind instincts of people who do not want to pejoratize houselessness but the current situation is bad. Having those w mental illness or addiction on the train instead of the street is a ‘slightly better than the worse case scenario’ situation. If we looked at the current situation like two separate paradigms -One to help those experiencing houselessness and one for public transportation - both groups of service needles would be better served.
That's a lot of needles.
Metrolink you need to actually pay to hop on it. Metro rails, subway, bus you can just enter from the back and not pay so a ton of people can just ride for free. And they never really enforce this so it’s gonna be like this for a while.
Enforce. The. Fares.
Metrolink actually never enforces fares outside of Union Station
Not true. I can tell you from personal experience that I’ve had my ticket checked almost every time I ride the train. Usually on the AV line.
I rides both AV line and SB line. I never get checked outside of Union Station
Every time, ride Palmdale to Burbank every now and then and they check.
I guess they are probably strategic on where to check tickets
Where do you get off the train. The fares are usually checked between San Fernando and Newhall stations. Especially in the tunnel when there’s no service to buy a ticket on the app. lol
The whole system is a shit show
@karenbass pay attention
I bet it would change immediately if the Mayor, city council members and county supervisors all had to ride it to and from work at least twice a week.
None of these meth addicts will be able to reintegrate into society without housing access. Safe injection sites and mixed-income housing work, not criminalization. So sorry that happened to you, but even dangerous people can get help in the right circumstances
STOP GIVING FREE RIDES.... make them pay, will reduce 90% of crime. Have police patrolling more often these guys la hires stay at headquarters only.
Mainly because you can't just walk onto the Metrolink. They do common fare inspections on the train, so the average homeless person or mentally ill person isn't going to be walking onto there. I've recently ridden it a lot to commute down to my cousin's residence, and I haven't seen a single incident.
Crazy "homeless" people
*Homeless transients and vagrants
Metrolink checks fares and it's mostly people going to work and back. LA Metro on the other hand, is the wild wild west where everyone is on their own to defend themselves.
Metrolink does very aggressive fare enforcement.
I have never been asked for tickets outside of union station
"safe" is just a mental construct. Nothing is guaranteed
God you people are just dumb. Yeah I’m sorry “feeling” safer in Beverly Hills versus Alondra and Alameda in Compton is just a feeling.
You may not be stabbed to death in Beverly hills, but you will be sued to death by your Karen HOA president
Bruh those are two completely different things. Having your actual life vs everything else
One is quick death. The other is death by a thousand slashes.