EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
Although I think they should may consider them for Spadina and Union to act as a barrier for people exiting so poel can't jump the line by using the exit.
|
|
|
crs1026
Senior Member
So, there will be an exception to the "everyone must tap off the subway" rule? That's not what I had inferred from previous posts in this thread.
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
Without addressing this directly (since we're debating what *should* happen), I'll ask this:
Why is it required to tap on/off and on/off again on GO from train to bus, and converse? If Metrolinx can't make the process any more seamless for their own system, how is the TTC going to be able?
Could it be done with a more sophisticated system? Absolutely, and a damn good chunk of investment, like to the order of a $B or so. So why is the TTC making this so incredibly complex and radically expensive to implement?
I think almost all of us know the answer to the dilemma: Timed transfers, almost inevitably like GO's tried and trued two hours.
PS: Proviso to above: *IF* there is a serious plan firming up to totally integrate the fare structure with GO (and I highly favour that with caveats, it has to happen at some point) then graduate implementation with a timed transfer as an interim step so that all costs into infrastructure and software upgrade/card upgrade are aimed at achieving that, not the present cockamamie screwup makeshift Goldberg fantasy.
https://media.rubegoldberg.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/RG_Hankie_v3_10s_1_3MB.mp4
Last edited:
crs1026
Senior Member
How about: You tap on each new vehicle you board, but you only tap off at your final destination. If you fail to tap off, you pay the maximum to the end of the line for that route (which may be moot until distance-based fares comes along).
The tap onto the second vehicle automatically taps you off the first route. Unless the duration between the tap ons is more than two hours....in which case it is treated as a new ride, and initiates a new fare calculation.
- Paul
Voltz
Senior Member
Tapping on a bus or streetcar in a fare paid subway terminal will be considered the same as tapping off at a Subway Station.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Let me answer by saying that I wonder why GO can't do it exactly that way? That's my impressionable answer, I reserve a final answer until knowing why GO can't....or at least *claim* that they can't.
You make an essential point that 'systems' overlook: Make it as easy as possible! And your suggestion is a move in that direction. I'll also add this: I think there's an essential piece in the logic possible with Presto as it now stands that's not being disclosed to us, or being made available, and it may be exactly as you propose.
Many times, many of us have wondered: "Well dammit, the system shows me tapping on two minutes after 'missing' the tap off they're now dinging me for, what other possible logical path could my trip have taken since the system knows I just tapped on again, and then tapped off at a *logically algorithm derived final destination*.
If a service agent can see this at a glance on your Presto record, how incredibly dull is the system's software ability to also not only figure out the same, but do so in a thousandth of a second? Or less?
steveintoronto
Superstar
You'd best read back on your previous posts. I refrained from commenting on your last one, I can't overlook it now. You're talking in circles, even as you talk down to me.
Now please provide a reference for your claim, you're just making this up as you go, just like the TTC. And that is exactly the problem.
Leo has been very diplomatic and methodical in his answers, but this still has not been answered satisfactorily:
OK, St Clair station on Spadina line, underground, lots of metal above, massive concrete walls. Very important transfer hub to buses and street cars from subway.
Since the GPS signal will be coming from all angles (if at all, poor penetration may rending the level unusable altogether) and not reliable. How does Presto know where the vehicle is? A local transponder, with all the added complexities for software and hardware alike? Tell me, does your cell phone work down there? (Excepting the proprietary wi-fi now provided)
The positioning system (GPS or otherwise) is going to have to improve radically to become reliable for charging passengers. And who pays for that?
Last edited:
Voltz
Senior Member
What do you think I'm wrong on? I know what the TTC is planning to do here, not that I agree with all of it.
http://ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commiss...16/Reports/Presentation_Fare_Policy_final.pdf
Since there won't be fare gates between surface vehicles and the subway platform at fare paid terminals, tapping on a bus or streetcar at such a station will be the same thing as tapping out at a fare gate, while also tapping on to that bus or streetcar.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Do I have to define what "recommendations" means?
And even if approved, it makes clear the need to "tap out" from the subway: "For consistency, this functionality should be expanded to the entire subway system."
And while I have you on the line:
Attachments
Last edited:
Voltz
Senior Member
You have to be trolling, or deliberately trying to misunderstand,
Those recommendations were approved by the board. as shown here, item number 4 http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Com...on_meetings/2016/January_21/Minutes/index.jsp
And where is a rider supposed to tap out at a subway station if they are getting right onto a bus or streetcar in a fare paid terminal? They will not be installing fare gates between the surface vehicles and the subway platforms. So the logical conclusion is that tapping onto a bus or streetcar in a fare paid zone will also serve the same function as tapping out of the station at a fare gate.
Those recommendations were approved by the board. as shown here, item number 4 http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Com...on_meetings/2016/January_21/Minutes/index.jsp
And where is a rider supposed to tap out at a subway station if they are getting right onto a bus or streetcar in a fare paid terminal? They will not be installing fare gates between the surface vehicles and the subway platforms. So the logical conclusion is that tapping onto a bus or streetcar in a fare paid zone will also serve the same function as tapping out of the station at a fare gate.
steveintoronto
Superstar
"Trolling"? You misuse words. Fishing? Absolutely, and you bit the bait:
Previously I'd posted in answer to Paul:
crs1026 said: ↑
I answered:
Thank you for making it so clear, Voltz, albeit the proposed TTC fare changes are still full of holes, but if you are right, then GO has an awful lot of explaining to do about claiming their present need for tapping off before tapping on at transfer points is unavoidable.
My question still stands:
"If Metrolinx can't make the process any more seamless for their own system, how is the TTC going to be able?"
By your presented scenario, Voltz, it's clear that someone's not telling the truth...
crs1026
Senior Member
Easy, guys.
We all seem to agree that the tap-on-at-transfer-point tap can serve as the tap off for the previous leg of the route.
Why, then, would we demand a tap off at all, anywhere else? If I can skip tapping off the subway at Dundas West when I board the 505, why would I have to tap off the 45 Kipling bus when I transfer to the 32 Eglinton, at a transfer point way out in the burbs? If I don't subsequently tap on to Miway at Renforth, Presto ought to assume after a period of time that my ride has ended somewhere along Eglinton. If I do tap on Miway, Presto can assume that I am not riding the 32 any more. If I somehow tap onto say the BT 115 at Pearson, without tapping off the 32 or any TTC route, Presto can assume there was a missing leg that got missed (perhaps a nonworking reader somewhere) and use a zone chart to apply a fare increment if warranted.
Presto doesn't need an intimate knowledge of routes to do these calculations. All the fare calculation needs is a simple logic gate that asks, "Does customer appear to be continuing journey (y/n) " each time I tap. Tap twice on the same vehicle is assumed to mean I have ended my trip.....unless I then tap onto another vehicle within a 2 hour period.
'No tap off' is consistent with fare by distance, if you assume that the fare calculation for the final tap on is maximised for that route without a tap off. That's how GO works today.
They are making this whole thing more complicated than it need be, in defiance of the customer, IMHO.
- Paul
We all seem to agree that the tap-on-at-transfer-point tap can serve as the tap off for the previous leg of the route.
Why, then, would we demand a tap off at all, anywhere else? If I can skip tapping off the subway at Dundas West when I board the 505, why would I have to tap off the 45 Kipling bus when I transfer to the 32 Eglinton, at a transfer point way out in the burbs? If I don't subsequently tap on to Miway at Renforth, Presto ought to assume after a period of time that my ride has ended somewhere along Eglinton. If I do tap on Miway, Presto can assume that I am not riding the 32 any more. If I somehow tap onto say the BT 115 at Pearson, without tapping off the 32 or any TTC route, Presto can assume there was a missing leg that got missed (perhaps a nonworking reader somewhere) and use a zone chart to apply a fare increment if warranted.
Presto doesn't need an intimate knowledge of routes to do these calculations. All the fare calculation needs is a simple logic gate that asks, "Does customer appear to be continuing journey (y/n) " each time I tap. Tap twice on the same vehicle is assumed to mean I have ended my trip.....unless I then tap onto another vehicle within a 2 hour period.
'No tap off' is consistent with fare by distance, if you assume that the fare calculation for the final tap on is maximised for that route without a tap off. That's how GO works today.
They are making this whole thing more complicated than it need be, in defiance of the customer, IMHO.
- Paul
Voltz
Senior Member
GO and TTC have different fare rules, GO has fare by distance and the TTC does not.
While Presto arguably should be able to figure out on GO where the first leg of a trip has ended if you tapped on to a second train station or GO bus, GO has decided to require taping out for each leg of the trip.
On the TTC, all this tapping is really just how they have decided to make their transfer system work with Presto, Presto should be able to work on the TTC without having to tap off or tap onto surface vehicles in fare paid areas, but that is not how they have decided to set it up. And as many people have said a time based transfer should be implemented regardless of Presto.
While Presto arguably should be able to figure out on GO where the first leg of a trip has ended if you tapped on to a second train station or GO bus, GO has decided to require taping out for each leg of the trip.
On the TTC, all this tapping is really just how they have decided to make their transfer system work with Presto, Presto should be able to work on the TTC without having to tap off or tap onto surface vehicles in fare paid areas, but that is not how they have decided to set it up. And as many people have said a time based transfer should be implemented regardless of Presto.
Last edited:
amnesiajune
Senior Member
Or if you look at it from the non-TTC perspective, Toronto is remarkably complicated in its transfer system. Most cities use time-based transfers, time-based transfers without backtracking (Go Transit has this) or only allow a single out-of-system transfer (New York City, for example). Toronto's bizarre system is as many transfers as you want, but only if you're taking the most direct route to your destination, except for one streetcar route that uses time-based transfers.
steveintoronto
Superstar
In all fairness to every side of this topic, information on vehicle positioning methods for both TTC and GO is very difficult to find. Without accurate GPS information (and it can be highly accurate, but far from 100% of the time with the satellite positioning systems both GO and TTC use), basing fare calculation on it alone is going to be unreliable.
Also the engineering rationale for either of GO's or the TTC's Preto fare calculation parameters is also not showing on successive Google searches. It may be proprietary...which raises some curious legal questions. It might yet come up in a fare dispute in court, and perhaps either agency will pull the case rather than divulge methodology. GO's geographic environment is not going to be as challenging as the TTC's as per tall large buildings and underground tunnels.
Just found tag words to get Google results:
I'm now getting Google results in general on bus/transit GPS accuracy, still nothing specific to TTC or GO, albeit as many posters have noted tracking the latest streetcars, they can appear in the middle of Lake Ontario or north of Timmins. And that's using a readout from the same transponder that Presto does. One wonders if the "vibration issue" TTC was having initially for Presto readers was a GPS one, which is why both readers would be down?
There must be reports on the matter by Presto and others. lol...the public probably won't ever see them.
Edit to Add: Finding a slew of information now, much of it a few years dated, so I'm reluctant to quote it, but be aware of the what the TTC posts in relation to their system:
[The TTC takes reasonable care to provide accurate vehicle arrival information. However, no vehicle arrival time is guaranteed. The TTC accepts no responsibility for any transit service adjustments, errors or omissions.]
https://www.ttc.ca/Customer_Service...ves/Next_vehicle_information_system/index.jsp
They don't delineate how much of that conditionality is due to GPS error.
Also the engineering rationale for either of GO's or the TTC's Preto fare calculation parameters is also not showing on successive Google searches. It may be proprietary...which raises some curious legal questions. It might yet come up in a fare dispute in court, and perhaps either agency will pull the case rather than divulge methodology. GO's geographic environment is not going to be as challenging as the TTC's as per tall large buildings and underground tunnels.
Just found tag words to get Google results:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=ve3fgfNa85wC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=bus+gps+accuracy&source=bl&ots=EpdTAIN9ZQ&sig=PHJT0Mk9rj3lvZzoVB5POX9DTW4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin2qnT8tPRAhUn4oMKHT_wCNIQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&q=bus gps accuracy&f=false
I'm now getting Google results in general on bus/transit GPS accuracy, still nothing specific to TTC or GO, albeit as many posters have noted tracking the latest streetcars, they can appear in the middle of Lake Ontario or north of Timmins. And that's using a readout from the same transponder that Presto does. One wonders if the "vibration issue" TTC was having initially for Presto readers was a GPS one, which is why both readers would be down?
There must be reports on the matter by Presto and others. lol...the public probably won't ever see them.
Edit to Add: Finding a slew of information now, much of it a few years dated, so I'm reluctant to quote it, but be aware of the what the TTC posts in relation to their system:
[The TTC takes reasonable care to provide accurate vehicle arrival information. However, no vehicle arrival time is guaranteed. The TTC accepts no responsibility for any transit service adjustments, errors or omissions.]
https://www.ttc.ca/Customer_Service...ves/Next_vehicle_information_system/index.jsp
They don't delineate how much of that conditionality is due to GPS error.
Attachments
Last edited: