GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[steveintoronto]

The point was raised in this string a month or so back as to the legality of use of the tunnel by the general public (not paying fare) to pass under the tracks. I did that two weeks back, cognizant of the discussion in this string on the matter, and could not see a sign anywhere stating that it was not for use by the general public, or that a fare was required to do it. It's a very convenient way to cross from the south to Liberty Village.

 

[TOareaFan]

The point was raised in this string a month or so back as to the legality of use of the tunnel by the general public (not paying fare) to pass under the tracks. I did that two weeks back, cognizant of the discussion in this string on the matter, and could not see a sign anywhere stating that it was not for use by the general public, or that a fare was required to do it. It's a very convenient way to cross from the south to Liberty Village.

it is perfectly legal to do so.....not only are there not signs telling you not to do it...there are signs guiding you to do so.....the fare paid zones at Exhibition station are the platforms and there is even a portion of the platform (at least platform 1) that is not considered a fare paid zone because people headed to/from Liberty Village to/from the Ex grounds need to a access it.

All that said....the mess at this station post TFC matches was highlighted last night...3 years into a temporary inconvenience and GO's performance in managing crowds around that "temporary" situation is superbly awful.

 

[steveintoronto]

What made me double check is that you have to walk along the most northern platform to exit or enter:

Technically you are wrong....there are clear signs as you get to platforms that you are entering a "fare paid zone".......if you are going to a train the expectation is that you have paid (or tapped) before you get to that point.

it is perfectly legal to do so.....not only are there not signs telling you not to do it...there are signs guiding you to do so.....the fare paid zones at Exhibition station are the platforms and there is even a portion of the platform (at least platform 1) that is not considered a fare paid zone because people headed to/from Liberty Village to/from the Ex grounds need to a access it.

Edit to Add: The more northern pedestrian tunnel under Bloor Station, which also must be entered/exited from the east side by platform directly accessible from the adjacent West Rail Path and streets, is bereft of signs forbidding non-fare through passage, except ironically on the west end where before entering the stairwell, a notice that "dogs not allowed" is posted...just off of the tracks UPX uses.

All three UPX stations (and ostensibly the Airport too) have those signs on their entrance doors. It makes a bit of a mockery that there's a lack of uniformity in posting them, let alone trying to enforce them. I'm told by staff that they only apply to those "walking through"...which only reinforces the ambiguity of intent.

It would make enforcement in a court impossible if the court is presented with the multitude of missives that conflict.

 

[drum118]

The Bloor Tunnel is a "FREE ZONE" and that has been on the books since day one to allow people to get under the tracks. In Fact, there was to be 2 tunnels with one being at the north end to allow people to get to/from the plaza (Shopper +Freshco) on Dundas St, but was remove due to cost. It was also to have elevators as well.

The same things applies to the Exhibition tunnel.

I stand to be corrected, a few years ago it became legal to be on the platform without paying a fare and this came about a case of a Star Reporter being charge at Union Station that was later withdrawn and the ruling platforms where "Free Zone" by Metrolinx. Still need a fare to use the train.

 

[steveintoronto]

... a few years ago it became legal to be on the platform without paying a fare and this came about a case of a Star Reporter being charge at Union Station that was later withdrawn and the ruling platforms where "Free Zone" by Metrolinx. Still need a fare to use the train.

Many thanks for your reply. I was able to find that incident by Googling:

A charge of trespassing was withdrawn Friday against Toronto Star reporter Alex Consiglio in connection with a June incident outside Union Station in which he took a photo of an injured GO transit officer.

Crown prosecutor Geoff Kerr told the court Friday the charge had been dropped, three months after Consiglio’s arrest drew statements of concern from Canadian Journalists for Free Expression and PEN Canada.

Consiglio had witnessed several Toronto officers rush toward the GO Transit track level at Union Station early on June 2. On the basis there could be breaking news, he followed and took a photo of an injured transit officer crouched beside the track. He was told he had to leave and moved on.[...]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...photographed_news_event_at_union_station.html

That addressed two other issues, albeit the latter one is still contentious:
Whether the reporter/photographer was on Union Station property (he wasn't, and that's further complicated by how the law views public domain or not)(federal and provincial are different)

Whether he has a *right* to be on that property, in other words, was it trespass or not? I'm still digging to find if and where that's stated in legal terms. It's an interesting point, and a number of posters have made the claim (gist) "On a platform, it is paid fare access only".

That's further complicated by UPX, where you can pay the fare on the train (at a $2 surcharge). The previous debate in this forum ensues on and adjacent to Page 171.

At the end of the day, I suspect you're right drum, but I'd like to see this quoted and linked, it's a point that still needs clarifying. The 'rule' may not even exist. I'll pore through the relevant legislation and rules to see if it is. Anyone have a definitive reference?

Edit to Add:
This is probably the basis of some posters having claimed prior that platforms, unless stated otherwise, are 'fare paid zones only':

2.
REQUIREMENT TO PAY FARE
–
CONDITIONS OF USE
Requirement to
pay and carry a
valid
ticket
2.1
No person shall travel or attempt to travel on the
transit system without
:
(a)
paying the appropriate fare
; and
(b)
having in their possession while on
the transit system
or any
transit
system
vehicle a valid ticket issued by and acceptable to the
Corporation

http://www.gotransit.com/public/en/docs/bylaws/By-Law_2_EN.pdf

Here's the legal point of contention:
"while on the transit system or any transit system vehicle". That *infers* that being on the property requires a paid fare! In practice, that would have to be interpreted by a court. It's oxymoronic, for obvious reasons.

What I did glean definitively is this:

operating bicycle
3.13
No person shall
[...]
while
on a train,
leave a bicycle unattended or outside of arms reach
of
the user
so as to be
un
able to immediately control its movements [...]

Interesting. That may also be an impossible situation, since to satisfy that requirement, if there are two bikes placed where instructed, the riders would have to stand in the doorway, or in such a way as to obstruct entry and exit of the car and normal passage of other passengers.

If that came to court, it might prove unfortunate for Metrolinx. That clause might be struck until re-written. That might not be such a bad idea, as many other jurisdictions using those same cars provide for bikes in a much more rational way. Blocking a seat for three persons to stash two bikes is just plain ridiculous, and unless they have quick-release wheels, actually create a dangerous situation with the wheel extending into the segue to the stairs. The TTC seem to have addressed this far better with the new subway and street-cars. Metrolinx is way behind on this one.
.

 

[mdrejhon]

Observing the ban on unpermitted photography at Union being mentioned in the 2013 article.... I was not aware of this.

At least they seem OK with most "citizen journalists" nowadays, and are even promoting their #EtiquetteFail campaign, inviting shaming by commuters ("citizen journalists") observing an etiquette abberation by other commuters. Anne-Marie, GO's social media spokeswoman, has retweeted some of my Union photos of the New Cabs. I suppose the line is now drawn at paid journalism, though that can get fuzzy with sponsored blogs and YouTube nowadays. Times are changing, eh...

 

[steveintoronto]

This is a situation occurring in many nations right now, hysteria over public infrastructure being photographed, based on the bizarre overreach of security legislation. In practice, on this issue, the Law is an Ass.

You mention Aikins. It seems she's changed her tune somewhat:

At the time, Anne Marie Aikins, media relations manager for Metrolinx, said news photographers must ask permission to take any photos at Union Station, even though members of the public are often seen snapping shots using smartphones.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...photographed_news_event_at_union_station.html

And yet she uses pics taken by the public (professional or not) for PR purposes. I'm doing a slow boil on this, as it reminds me of the total hypocrisy of many events recently:

In any society where the police, military or government hold inordinate power over the people, there are restrictions on the right to take and publish photographs, especially when those pictures prove embarrassing or incriminating to those in charge. One sure measure of a society’s freedom is how its leaders react to such images. If the photographers go unpunished, that society is probably a relatively free one. If they go to jail, it definitely isn’t.

The situation in Canada has reached the point where it needs to be said loudly and clearly: there is no law against public photography in Canada; no one here can ever be arrested for the simple act of making a picture or film, unless other laws are being broken in the process; and police officers who are in uniform and executing their duties in public have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The following incidents illustrate why this point needs to be made.

In 2010, National Post photographers Brett Gundlock and Colin O’Connor were arrested during the Toronto G20 protests while attempting to photograph aggressive police crowd-dispersal tactics. They were never accused of anything except being “amongst violent people.”

In September of 2012, 16-year-old Jakub Markiewicz was detained by security guards and arrested by police after filming the violent takedown of a man by security guards at Metrotown shopping mall in Burnaby, B.C. Markiewicz was ordered by the guards to delete his footage, but since he was using a film camera, he could not comply. After Markiewicz took a second picture of arriving RCMP officers, he was physically attacked and restrained by security guards. At their request he was then handcuffed by police. Markiewicz was ultimately arrested for causing a disturbance. He was never officially charged.

On March 26, 2013, a Montreal student named Jennifer Pawluck, 20, an active protester with no criminal record, discovered some graffiti depicting police spokesman Ian Lafrenière with a bullet hole in his head. She took a picture of the image and posted it on Instagram. She was charged with uttering threats against Lafrenière.

On June 2, 2013, Star photographer Alex Consiglio was arrested at Union Station, put into a headlock, and charged with trespassing after he photographed police officers who were dealing with a disturbance on the tracks.

What do all these photographers have in common? None of them were breaking any laws at the time of their arrest.[...]

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/07/28/freedom_to_photograph_under_threat.html

This affects this forum especially, since many of the pics are of a very high quality, some of them stunningly good. As if anyone is going to take those pics openly and sharing them if they're going to be used nefariously!

 

[mdrejhon]

My casual photography of GO and Union only started mostly into late 2014 or 2015, so some this appears to have soften since then. Good thing.

 

[drum118]

I asked Anne Marie Aikins at a Metrolinx BOD after the withdraw of the charges as to what was the rule related to taking photos on Metrolinx land and station property. She stated that it was legal to do so regardless what you use to do it, even if you were not using GO. Safety has to be maintain at all time and not interfering with riders using GO.

Time Metrolinx update the rules and state clearly about photographing on Metrolinx Property like TTC did some years ago.

Photographing transit on transit & RR property is a real issue around the world for years and for the wrong reason. Anyone doesn't need to do any photographing of a target they plan on attacking as they are on line as archives from the past, Google shows them from all angles with their maps and views, newspaper articles and the list goes on. You can also get the plan of X target from the city at a cost which means nothing to the party planning the attack in the first place.

When I did Europe in 2012 and some of the countries I visited, I was expected to be challenge and told not to take photo, yet was never was even in full view of police or army personnel.

Been challenge by TTC personal in the past, but not in the last year or so.

Was challenge in Phil a few years ago on a platform by a station personal, who call both police force and they ended up telling that person I was in my legal rights to do so. I know a few people at SEPTA who told me my legal right to shoot on the property before going there and to expect this challenge. NYC is a bad place for taking photo, even after being sue and legal to do so.

From my point of view, I become a set of eyes to see things that could be an issue for X that either a call is made to X to report it or bring it to their attention. Was in the states some years ago and noticed theft was taking place on a moving slow train and call it in. Was in formated at a later date that the train was stop down the line and the thieves were caught. It was found out they were tossing items off the car to be pickup by another group.

There are place for safety reason you never shoot, but people do it anyway.

Brampton, YRT, GRT and Mississauga don't allow photographing on their property.

The big problem is the uninformed public who do things that cause problems in the first place that lead to someone getting injure of kill. The selif stick is becoming a major issue all around.

When I visited various systems and not knowing the policy of it, I shoot from the street since its public property. Even then, do get challenge, even by the police who move on once they learn what I am doing in the first place.

 

[steveintoronto]

Photographing transit on transit & RR property is a real issue around the world for years and for the wrong reason.

When I was living in London (UK) for six months a decade or so back, I was fascinated by the connecting tunnels of the Metropolitan around King's Cross and St Pancras stations. It's intriguing history, and since then, those tunnels have disappeared as a new alignment of Thameslink has seen them destroyed. I guess that had to happen, credit to the Brits for doing marvels in London right now as that pertains to to bringing their system into the modern age. Crossrail is the single largest transit and infrastructure project in Europe right now.

Anyway...I wanted to get a glimpse of the two tunnels, one was clearly obvious on the east side, even though it was not in use, I wanted to find the one on the west side (I've since found pictures, text and even features on Youtube), so I walked into this parking lot (lol..I realized after it was the National Transport Police parking lot...what was I thinking?) and walk past a car with someone getting out, and he truly lost it! If he'd been armed, guaranteed he would have pulled it on me. I guess my North Am accent go me out of that one. Had I had a non Anglo one (and I showed my British passport to him, even though I sound like a "Yank") and I think that saved me from being tortured by them making me watch Coronation Street re-runs until I confessed.

I also visited the Philip's UK headquarters unannounced (I sold more Philip's raw loudspeakers in Canada than anyone else at the time, I just wanted to talk shop), and again...the guards flipped, immediately escorted me to the front door.

That was then, this is now...and perhaps the obvious has sunk in" The 'enemy' isn't going to be out there in plain sight. If someone had evil intentions, the last thing they'd be doing is flaunting it. Hopefully the obvious is sinking in, because if it hasn't..."terrorism" wins.

That being said, we still get events like this happening, albeit the cops handled this extremely well, but public comments in the media were still hysterical:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-mall-video-men-1.3406619

 

[crs1026]

If you check around you will find that just about every public place has restrictions around photography these days, and may require permits. The issue is not terrorism but heightened sensitivty about privacy..... and revenue. The definition of 'professional' photography is very broad as is the definition of 'publishing'. Even do it yourself wedding photography requires a permit in most GTA parks. As does a photography class doing a class assignment. Photo permits issued by some GTA municipalities can run to $1000 or more.

You will usually not get challenged if you are taking a selfie or family photo with grannie, but anything that looks like more serious photography, whether creative or documentary, will get challenged. Point your camera at women or children, doubly so.

- Paul

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

I would not be surprised if there are transit surveillance systems now with facial recognition. It is a growing trend. Freaking out on transit fans is no longer necessary; they can identify that you're an enthusiast and not a threat. I bet some UTers here even have 'profiles', sorry if that freaks you out. But it's just the reality of it.

But for any agency that still does not allow photography on their systems, I would really like to see it hold up in court. I can see a creative enough lawyer make a successful case for photographing on transit property; it's considered private property in a legal sense, but could be differentiated based on the fact that it is a public common space/system.

 

[steveintoronto]

So that this doesn't veer off-topic too far and keep it relevant to to those who post glorious pics here, and further to drum's comments (and the law isn't definitive on this, court rulings set the precedent by interpreting what is hazy and inapplicable to digital media)

This rather dour assessment of reporters' and photographers' potential exposure to trespassing charges needs some real-world leavening.

The charges against Alex Consiglio were dropped for a reason - Metrolinx realized it had overreacted. After a constructive dialogue with Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, media relations manager Anne-Marie Aikins -- herself a former journalist -- let it be known that she is aware of the importance of allowing news workers to do their jobs. She made it clear that Metrolinx does not intend to require news workers to obtain consent before covering breaking news on its premises, or to treat them differently than anyone else.

Here's the Star's paraphrase of Aikins' position, taken from its Sept. 15 story about the charges being dropped:

"If a journalist today was to take a photo under similar circumstances [to those faced by Consiglio] he or she would not be charged with trespassing .... As long as the journalist is not putting anyone at risk and is not anywhere he or she is not supposed to be -- such as jumping down on train tracks -- taking photos of a breaking news event shouldn't be a problem ...."

Trespassing charges against reporters and photographers are very rare. In the vast majority of cases, a news worker who leaves private property when asked to do so will suffer no legal consequences. During more than 40 years in and around the news business, I've never met anyone who believes that obtaining prior consent ought to be the default. Relax, get out and report!

- See more at: http://www.j-source.ca/article/jour...cal-and-digital-trespass#sthash.nLBloHuG.dpuf

 

[raptor]

From the Metrolinx Tenders page, there are 4 closed bids for pedestrian tunnels on the Barrie line: Rutherford, Maple, Aurora and East Guillimbury GO Stations.
Here's hoping construction starts soon.

 

[reaperexpress]

From the Metrolinx Tenders page, there are 4 closed bids for pedestrian tunnels on the Barrie line: Rutherford, Maple, Aurora and East Guillimbury GO Stations.
Here's hoping construction starts soon.

Fantastic news, looks we're well on our way to full double track. Though part of me is a bit disappointed that they're just incrementally expanding Rutherford station rather than starting over. The road crossing hasn't been grade separated yet and the current platform seems to be in the former trackbed of the second track. I was envisioning resolving both problems while adding the second track by building an elevated station over the (lowered) road.

Access would be much better, since you wouldn't need to cross to the south side of Rutherford to get to the station anymore.