Turnstiles annoy some commuters, but transit officials fret it would cost too much to dump the pilot project--even if they wanted to.

Commuter Navil Rico pauses to chat near the bank of newly installed turnstiles that stand in his way at downtown L.A.'s Union Station. Three months ago, the devices, so common in subway stations around the world, started cropping up along the Red Line in Los Angeles as part of a pilot project.

But Rico is confused because the turnstiles are free-spinning, meaning anyone can pass through them without tapping a special plastic transit pass on the top of the machine or showing a paper ticket. "I don't understand what they're testing. When the security guards aren't here, people pass right through. And once they actually lock the gates it's really going to slow people down, and they're not testing that."

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is moving away from the gate-free honor system and testing the effectiveness of turnstiles in a three-part pilot project. Ads plastered inside trains that proclaim, "Turnstiles are coming to Metro Rail," imply that Metro believes the tests will prove successful and that turnstiles will soon infiltrate Los Angeles subway and light-rail stations.

Metro Board Member Richard Katz remains the only foe of the plan. In January 2008, when former Metro board CEO Roger Snoble spearheaded the turnstile initiative at the urging of ex-Board member Yvonne Burke, Katz cast the only vote against it.

"I was the only person who thought that the board was making a big mistake by moving full-speed ahead on the turnstile project," said Katz. "I don't think it makes sense to spend more than a $100 million to generate at most $250,000 for something that certainly doesn't solve safety issues."

Although Katz predicts the Metro board will likely go forward with the turnstile plan, he's determined to make fellow board members and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa see the error of their ways and recognize the massive financial burden they're tapping into. But it may be too late for second-guessing as Metro could face a heavy penalty for breaking the contract, making it too expensive not to proceed with the turnstile initiative.

"Who knows, the turnstiles may not happen, but you have to factor in how much it's going to cost Metro to get out of a big contract; it might just be more cost-efficient to continue the project," said Katz.

Metro's contract with Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc. includes equipment leasing costs of about $46 million over 10 years plus a maintenance bill of nearly $12 million and an additional $10 million for general civil engineering work. Added up, the total capital cost and contract value for the turnstile project comes out to roughly $106 million.

Just how expensive would it be to punt the contract? Without specific penalties spelled out for dissolving the agreement, Metro would face a possible lawsuit if they decide to abandon the turnstiles project.

"We didn't go into the contract thinking we'd have to pull out of it. There isn't a specific arrangement so we'll have to negotiate. Cubic will probably claim damages and we'll have to settle," said Metro Chief Communications Officer Matt Raymond.

Now, nearly 18 months after Metro signed on the dotted line, promising Angelenos a turnstile-filled transit experience, and starting installation, Metro officials and board members are scrambling to crunch numbers and produce cost-analysis reports to determine their next step, and a critical one.

"The big question is, 'How does it all pencil out?' If you track the contract, assumptions were made, we got into it all quickly, and the situation changed," said Raymond. "Sometimes you miss variables and now we're trying to see how those variables come into play."

What changed is a new CEO stepped in. The turnstile proposal was Snoble's last big executive decision before he retired. When his successor, Arthur Leahy, took over, he began conducting an independent performance audit on the Union Station, Normandie/Wilshire, Westlake and Pershing Square stations already equipped with the new gates.

"Art is forcing all programs to undergo stringent reviews to make sure contractors are doing their part and that tax dollars are being protected," said Katz. "He's making management changes to avoid oversights and that everything is on track and executed in an appropriate fashion first."

Security or a boondoggle?

For years, Metro remained the only major transit agency in the country that relied on the honor system and did not use turnstiles and security barriers. Determined to prevent fare evasion and improve transit station security, the Metro board turned to turnstiles as the answer to their problems.

"For some reason, this [plan] appears to have been driven by the fact that we have the only heavy rail system in North America without gates or turnstiles. Is that a good enough reason? I don't think so," said member of the Metro San Fernando Valley Service Sector Governance Council and Citizen's Advisory Council Secretary Kymberleigh Richards.

Many Metro enthusiasts question the board's investment in a high-cost project with little-to-no return in immediate sight, especially during California's budget crisis.

"When Yvonne Burke was still on the board with Snoble, she pushed for the turnstiles without any sound logic, " said blogger and longtime-transportation critic John Walsh. "We're spending a ton to save almost nothing, the evasion rate is so minor."

While the contract provides for the full installation of the gates, it also includes a testing period for the Metro to conduct a comprehensive analysis on ways to offset program costs and increase revenue.

Leahy shared his first comments on the turnstile pilot program during a Metro board meeting September 24. Leahy said the free-spinning fair gates have increased revenue from the sales of single tickets and daily passes by 22 percent. Furthermore, customer responses have been positive and the turnstiles haven't presented any cuing problems.

"The turnstiles are working out great, fare revenues are definitely up. It's been successful so far," said Metro Senior Department Systems Analyst Revenue Collection Mark Simpson, while overseeing the gates at Union Station.

Yet, Katz argues that while revenue from the four test sites is up 20 to 40 percent, the payback comes out to roughly $1,200 a month from each site, a tiny sum compared to the actual cost of catching fare evaders.

Metro reports an overall 5 percent fare evasion rate across its rail lines and estimates that the agency loses nearly $5 million annually to fare freeloaders willing to risk a random ticket inspection and the accompanying $250 fine. However, the quest to recover revenue will have to take a backseat to the agency's footing the bill for the turnstile equipment, if the turnstile system passes its efficiency test.

"The turnstiles aren't here to benefit the public, they only benefit the transit contractor. Unprofessional board members were duped by the contractor to spend all this money to recover $2 million," said Bart Reed, executive director of the Transit Coalition, a San Fernando Valley based nonprofit organization. "To staff gates at each rail station will cost $20 million to $30 million a year." 

How the testing works?

The turnstiles at the four pilot stations are currently free spinning, allowing patrons to walk through the gates without having to scan their Transit Access Cards (TAP). Sometimes security guards stake out the gates, checking for paper tickets or ensuring that patrons scan their TAP cards.

"The pilot program is closer to a 'real' experience to permit all patrons, including paper and TAP customers, to walk through the gates," said Metro spokesman Rick Jager. "It 'trains' our regular customers and informs infrequent riders that they need to buy fare media."

Next, the turnstile initiative will enter phase two and Metro will lock entry gates at the four test stations once the agency finishes converting the remaining passes to TAP cards. And by phase three, exit gateways will be locked. Considering more than 50 percent of patrons still commute with paper tickets at Union Station alone, the conversion is far from finished, without a set completion date. No dates are set for the start of the next phase of the pilot program.

An audit report released by KPMG two months ago shed light on deeper problems and delays for the TAP program. The audit revealed that the cost of TAP has risen from $78.5 million to $154 million since 1998 and that the deadline for completing the system has been extended from an initial estimate of three years to more than 10.

"The audit hasn't slowed down any process, our target date to lock the gates was December, but we're still in the process of developing the software necessary for TAP to function," said Metro's Raymond. "Until then, the turnstiles will remain free-spinning."

Citing a lack of oversight, insufficient staffing, and no established finish date or final cost estimate, the report showed severe budgeting conflicts. And Leahy acknowledged that adding fare gates has only inflated the TAP budget.

"There's good news and bad news when there's a change in leadership. The good news is that they have fresh eyes on everything. The bad news is that sometimes they find major problems," said Katz.

If officials ultimately give the turnstile initiative a green light after testing all three phases, Metro will install 387 turnstiles and security fencing at all subway and Green Line light-rail stations as well as certain Blue Line and Gold Line light-rail train stops by early 2010.

The turnstile initiative will also involve the reassignment of security staff from fare checking to patrolling and eventually, the installation of additional video surveillance cameras at all gate entrances. But most importantly, the Metro Board sees the gating project as a security measure in and of itself.

"The turnstiles will provide a barrier to ensure that only our rail patrons are accessing the stations, which will improve security of the stations and trains for our customers, " said Director of Transit Access Pass (TAP) technology James Pachan.

In contrast, Katz openly rejected Snoble's argument that turnstiles would protect riders from any threat, especially terrorism as the turnstile proposal failed to include the new bomb-detecting technology that Snoble once so publically championed.

"All of the September 11 hijackers bought first-class tickets so a $1.25 isn't going to stop terrorists from getting on a subway," said Katz. "It's in our best interest to have more people on platforms for additional security and assistance, especially from a dollars standpoint. People are better crime deterrents than turnstiles."

Those who share Katz's skepticism, also question whether the turnstiles will significantly boost security or in fact, obstruct evacuation efforts in the event of an emergency.

"The turnstiles we are installing, in my opinion, can be easily jumped if someone has the energy and strength to boost themselves over them," said Richards. "In the case of a terrorist incident I believe the turnstiles will hinder evacuation compared to the existing open-station design."

Moreover, the turnstiles may impede the rapid flow of commuters, especially due to the time lost with each passenger scanning their TAP cards, waiting for the turnstile to release, and then passing through.

"The present open-station design allows for a large number of people to enter and exit simultaneously, whereas the turnstiles limit the number of people able to do so," said Richards. "Stand at the East portal of Union Station at rush hour and observe the number of passengers that move between Metrolink and the subway. I don't think those passengers will appreciate the delay after they miss a train."

The initiative also fails to provide onsite attendants to assist both physically impaired riders and the general public in using the new TAP technology. The personnel necessary to staff TAP stations would be costly, adding up to tens of millions of dollars, a cost that Metro hasn't factored into the budget, opponents say.

"The true test will come when the gates are locked and we can see if the transaction times are significantly slower," said Metro's Raymond. "But we do know that the gates would work better with a hybrid system of monitors and roving attendants; we just hadn't anticipated that cost."

And as the fate of the ambitious turnstile plan remains unknown, commuters express mixed feelings about the new gating system.

"We're spending a lot more money that California can't afford to waste. They should've done this way from the get-go, not now," said Union Station commuter Erwin Paz.

"This is my first time seeing the turnstiles. If people know they can get on for free, they're going to take advantage of it. If the turnstiles can cut down on that and help people avoid hefty fines, then I'm all for it," said Pasadena resident Morris White.

While the financial feasibility of the turnstile program remains in question and concerns about the safety and efficiency of the gates abound, many wonder what the long-term effects of this initiative will be for commuting Angelenos and the transit system at large. And it remains to be seen whether the turnstile initiative will prove to be a money-saving security measure or one more bureaucratic blunder that pushes the California deficit into an even deeper shade of red.