Metrolinx: Presto Fare Card

[steveintoronto]

When Presto becomes pretty much 100% reliable (which it probably won't this year ), tapping on and tapping off will be the norm. Even within "fare paid area", you need to tap on and off at all reader you walk pass/through.

Excellent post.

Entering from the back doors of a bus is a no brainer, it has to be allowed in the future by default. People leaving the bus tap off, then people entering tap on, its pretty simple if you ask me.

What you state is the only rationale for card readers being at the rear doors. Logic alone dismisses every other reason posters have stated as being inconsistent. You make far more sense than the TTC does in explaining it. May I suggest to the TTC that they hire someone of your ability?

The exact procedure followed may alter from what you state, but until the TTC can figure it out themselves (and I seriously question that, so far they present enigmas) then confusion and non-compliance will rein. And it will be next to impossible to get an offence to be upheld in court.

What the TTC has bitten off in terms of the only logical way this can proceed (as you outline) is going to cost them more in one way or another, almost all of it needlessly-so purely for the sake of being obstinate about not moving to timed transfers.

PS: The rationale as you state it will allow the TTC to move toward a distance based fare. This has to happen.

Further clarity on this point is necessary:

The only inconsistency I can think of is when transferring from a subway to a bus/streetcar/LRT. Since you do not leave the fare paid area to switch modes, fare gates are not present for tapping off to the bus area. This isn't a big deal as individual Presto readers should know their current location and commute path can be calculated based on the tap on an offs. Here a scenario: Bus -> Subway -> LRT. So the procedure will be: Tap on (bus) -> Tap off (bus) -> Tap on (LRT) -> Tap off (LRT). The subway path "should" be the shortest distance with the least transfers, so no intermediate readers shouldn't be a problem unless someone is being inefficient (Bus to Line 2, switch to Line 1, switch back to Line 2, switch to LRT). I hope no one is dumb (or smart) enough to do this.

"I hope no one is dumb (or smart) enough to do this." It will happen! And that's exactly the challenge the TTC must face-up to since they're making this up as they go along (in all fairness, being forced to, but they're not helping).

Location determination is not working properly (at least the GPS derived locationing) with vehicles at present, so perhaps a new system to identify location on readers might be necessary? Your methodology appears very logical, I question the ability of the TTC to affect it though. They're going to need a lot better performance from their present system, let alone a higher level of function.

 

[crs1026]

The other day I was on a streetcar where, after a heavy boarding, the operator got on the PA and announced, "For those of you who just boarded, some of you were using bad transfers. If a fare inspector gets on this car, you will be fined. You may want to get off or pay the proper fare" In other words, these days operators aren't going to get into a confrontation with a passenger about fare evasion. I don't blame them, just not safe any more.

I understand the logic of tap-on, tap-off everywhere....but that puts the customer to a whole lot more trouble than before. The system should not be built to maximise customer inconvenience. If, in some situations the system is built to draw inferences, such as filling in the data gap for a missed tap off, then why not have it do so all the time?

Similar to GO - if fare by distance comes to TTC, suppose the system assumes that where there is no tap off (and no further tap on to another route) he rider has taken the bus to the end of that route. The added fare will not be ten or more dollars, as it may be on GO. The tap-off may only save twenty cents. Is this design sophistication worth it? Will TTC respond to requests for reimbursement when the missed tap off was inadvertent, as GO does today?

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

The other day I was on a streetcar where, after a heavy boarding, the operator got on the PA and announced, "For those of you who just boarded, some of you were using bad transfers. If a fare inspector gets on this car, you will be fined. You may want to get off or pay the proper fare" In other words, these days operators aren't going to get into a confrontation with a passenger about fare evasion. I don't blame them, just not safe any more.

Obviously it was a CLRV, but that's an odd scenario, he(she) collected them, and said nothing at the time. His(her) announcing it after indicates a sense of indignity at his(her) suspecting passengers of gaming the system. Some of them might, some not. The TTC had better get this figured out for everyone's benefit.

I understand the logic of tap-on, tap-off everywhere....but that puts the customer to a whole lot more trouble than before. The system should not be built to maximise customer inconvenience. If, in some situations the system is built to draw inferences, such as filling in the data gap for a missed tap off, then why not have it do so all the time?
- Paul

It's one of the questions I'm asking, and it's an excellent one. That is the point at which I utter (F U) to the TTC or anyone else who takes my money and takes my time and patience for granted to play their game because of their own incompetence.

Timed Transfers! When is the TTC ever going to 'get-it'?

 

[crs1026]

Obviously it was a CLRV, but that's an odd scenario, he(she) collected them, and said nothing at the time. His(her) announcing it after indicates a sense of indignity at his(her) suspecting passengers of gaming the system. Some of them might, some not. The TTC had better get this figured out for everyone's benefit.
I
'?

She didn't really 'collect' them so much as just let people walk by. (Yeah, I'm old enough to remember when operators physically collected transfers, counted them, and turned them in with their fare box in sealed brown envelopes). These days if you offer your transfer to an operator they don't reach out to take it from you.

My read was, she was eliminating the scenario where the fare inspector boards and the evader says 'yeah, but I showed the transfer to the operator when I boarded and she accepted it". You're on your own, buddy.

The non-personal but public shaming was a nice touch, IMHO.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Been thinking about this for hours as to the psychology at play:

She didn't really 'collect' them so much as just let people walk by. (Yeah, I'm old enough to remember when operators physically collected transfers, counted them, and turned them in with their fare box in sealed brown envelopes). These days if you offer your transfer to an operator they don't reach out to take it from you.

Yeah, slip of the 'tongue' on that one, 'viewed' may be more apt. But then, why would she even do that? And why would passengers feel obligated to show them, especially since the claim is that paper transfers are now redundant? (A questionable claim in light of the rampant chaos of conflicting missives).

The driver was more engaged than she needed to be, and like a class detention, made a general announcement that unsettled some, (both guilty and not) satisfied others (who also harboured a grudge against miscreants, for whatever reasons, some quite understandable) and the driver ostensibly has an ingrained attitude, whether warranted or not, of how she has to drive cheats on her streetcar.

My read was, she was eliminating the scenario where the fare inspector boards and the evader says 'yeah, but I showed the transfer to the operator when I boarded and she accepted it". You're on your own, buddy.

But why? There's something a bit disturbing about this entire picture, and ultimately the common denominator is the TTC's failure to be consistent.

If you work in a stupidmarket, you know that (for the sake of argument) 8-10% of the profits are lost to theft. Is it then acceptable (and the TTC is granted status to enact bylaws of their own) to check each customer going out to see if they're thieving? You can't poison the social environment by acting as if everyone is a miscreant, and then expect to retain them as loyal customers. In the case of the TTC, most have little choice, so they take the beratement on a daily basis. Shut up and do as you're told, or else.

That's not acceptable, and that is exactly why, given the chance, as I have today walking Big Black Lab medium distance (while the weather permits) I take UPX downtown from Dundas West rather than the subway. I get to inter-react with smiling, friendly, talkative staff and customers. They *appreciate* my custom, and for all of the UPX' shortcomings fiscally wise, it's a pleasure to ride. And great value! The TTC seems to have lost track of doing that*...(see proviso at end)

"The Better Way"? Not any more, you take it because there's no option in most cases.

* Proviso: Some, if not many, TTC front line staff are very friendly and reasonable, many stuck in the awkward position of they themselves not knowing what the rules are, let alone the intent of the rules, as that relates to transfers when/why/how/for how long? A lot of them have gladly given up being expected to be the 'enforcers', they didn't write the rules, can't make sense of them themselves, and don't want it to make their working day miserable.

TTC execs are the ones who have to own up to this, and perhaps they also have bona-fide grudges with Toronto Council, but surely...*surely*...there's enough backbone for them to stand up and say: "Hey, you want me to run this on a quality basis? Then put quality financing into it, or find someone else to run this Mickey Mouse operation".

 

[Zach6668]

So if there's no 'fare inspectors', how are they going to enforce tapping on at the rear doors of a bus in a subway station? TTC: Master of the Gordian Not. (sic)

They don't *have* to enforce anything. Someone will have already paid a fare to be in the fare paid zone at a subway station. They aren't evading a fare by not tapping. But they may cost themselves an extra fare if they have a further transfer on the trip - the system won't recognize, say, a Davisville Subway Station, Bathurst bus transfer, but it certainly would if you tapped Davisville Station > 32 Eglinton bus > 7 Bathurst bus -- if you were so inclined to make that trip.


I wish TTC would go to timed transfers too, but your logic isn't right for this specific scenario.

 

[amnesiajune]

They aren't evading a fare by not tapping. But they may cost themselves an extra fare if they have a further transfer on the trip - the system won't recognize, say, a Davisville Subway Station, Bathurst bus transfer, but it certainly would if you tapped Davisville Station > 32 Eglinton bus > 7 Bathurst bus -- if you were so inclined to make that trip.

Presto isn't actually that smart. It'll recognize any subway-to-surface transfer as valid, at least until the TTC starts letting buses have their route set in the Presto readers (which will need to happen eventually for the downtown express buses)

 

[steveintoronto]

They don't *have* to enforce anything. Someone will have already paid a fare to be in the fare paid zone at a subway station. They aren't evading a fare by not tapping.

OK, let's go with your claim. Then what are the readers at the back doors on buses for?

Presto isn't actually that smart. It'll recognize any subway-to-surface transfer as valid, at least until the TTC starts letting buses have their route set in the Presto readers (which will need to happen eventually for the downtown express buses)

Presto is remarkably limited in operational algorithms, which is one of the major criticisms of the present generation. Metrolinx knows this and is proposing a 'next generation card'...lol...no comment needed.

The conflict of system specific parameters is already overwhelming the present generation of Presto. Let's blame the...errrr....users! Yes, blame the customers!

 

[Leo_Chan]

Presto isn't actually that smart. It'll recognize any subway-to-surface transfer as valid, at least until the TTC starts letting buses have their route set in the Presto readers (which will need to happen eventually for the downtown express buses)

So you're saying the Presto readers on the buses don't know what route they are in, let alone what stop they're at? This has to be implement as its a basic need to track your payment history on the Presto site.

 

[steveintoronto]

So you're saying the Presto readers on the buses don't know what route they are in, let alone what stop they're at? This has to be implement as its a basic need to track your payment history on the Presto site.

I don't think they get it, Leo. Is it any wonder Average Pleb doesn't?

 

[Voltz]

OK, let's go with your claim. Then what are the readers at the back doors on buses for?

As you have already been told, the readers are for tapping when boarding from a Subway Station, this will be required soon and will be the same thing as having to tap out when exiting a subway station, which will also be required soon. And as you have also already been told, tapping on a bus at a station is probably necessary so the system knows if a subsequent tap on another surface route is a transfer or a new fare. And if Metrolinx ever gets their way and implements a fare by distance scheme on the subway lines then tapping on a bus at a subway station will be necessary so Presto knows how far you went.

So you're saying the Presto readers on the buses don't know what route they are in, let alone what stop they're at? This has to be implement as its a basic need to track your payment history on the Presto site.

The Presto readers on busses do currently know where they are, using GPS positioning,

 

[DSC]

Presto isn't actually that smart. It'll recognize any subway-to-surface transfer as valid, at least until the TTC starts letting buses have their route set in the Presto readers (which will need to happen eventually for the downtown express buses)

Of course PRESTO knows the location of the buses - though it is certainly not always right!) If you are saying that PRESTO has problems enforcing the TTC's crazy transfer rules you may be right. Of course the TTC should go to 2-hour transfers - it would make programing PRESTO far easier and it really would be good customer service too.

 

[steveintoronto]

Of course PRESTO knows the location of the buses - though it is certainly not always right!)

And nowhere near the accuracy needed to start billing distance fares by. As long as Toronto has high-rises, the *present* GPS system the TTC is using is never going to be accurate. Just one more level of glitching to an already glitchy system.
Discussed in detail here: https://stevemunro.ca/2015/12/09/ttc-proposes-new-fare-rules-for-presto-roll-out/

At the end of the day (a very long one) it will have been multiples cheaper for the TTC to just accept a reasonable degree of 'shrinkage' (as the stupidmarkets call it) and until total fare integration with GO is instituted, just go for the two hour transfer window.

 

[crs1026]

The plan for tap-off subway/tap on bus combo eliminates the concept of a fare paid loading zone at subway stations. That's as dumb as a box of rocks. Those gate-free transfers are so efficient.

And, the way gates at those subway stations with fare-paid loading are currently laid out, it will force people to tap into the subway and out again, in order to board a bus or street car at that station. Many won't - they will walk straight in along the bus driveway, which is illegal at the moment and no doubt unsafe even if it ceases to lead to fare evasion.

I can't wait to see how many gates are needed to set up Kipling for that configuration. Or even Royal York, where the doors to each bus bay will have to be gated. Tons of people walk into Dundas West to board the streetcar rather than the subway. Yeesh.

- Paul

 

[Leo_Chan]

The plan for tap-off subway/tap on bus combo eliminates the concept of a fare paid loading zone at subway stations. That's as dumb as a box of rocks. Those gate-free transfers are so efficient. And, the gates at those subway stations with fare-paid loading are currently laid out to force people to tap into the subway and out again, in order to board a bus or street car at that station.

I can't wait to see how many gates are needed to set up Kipling for that configuration. Or even Royal York, where the doors to the bus loading will have to be gated.

- Paul

Fare gates between subway and bus/streetcar/LRT won't be required when a tapping on and off from the bus/streetcar/LRT will know the specific route and location it is on.