Metrolinx: Presto Fare Card

[mdrejhon]

If the implementation with putting in new Presto turnstiles is a problem, put a Presto machine next to the fare collection booth so that people can tap right in front of the attendant before getting on.

One huge problem is the total lack of data connectivity into many TTC stations (wired/WiFi/3G/LTE). I heard that's why a bunch of stations are now getting expensive WiFi upgrades; so that those can also serve the Presto system too, amongst other electronic systems.

Once all TTC stations get data connectivity to all turnstiles, kiosks and booths, they can handle electronic transactions (credit card, Interac, Presto). And such systems can double as future backhaul for customer data connectivity (WiFi, picocells for cellular data, etc). About time to modernize TTC data for sure.

 

[ksun]

I'm sure there are many systems that dwarf the TTC, but unless you have dollar figures or a timeline for their smartcard implementation then we can't make a comparison. My impression is that the province went with Presto instead of a COTS solution in order to save money. It's their boondoggle, not the TTC's.

It would be useful to have some (inflation adjusted) figures to look at the cost of other contactless smartcard systems. The following would be a good start:
Chicago - Ventra - $454 million (2011 USD) - ??? years
Hong Kong - Octopus - ?????? million - 3 years
Montreal - Opus - $138 million (2008 USD) - 2 years
Thailand - Rabbit - ?????? million - ??? years
Melbourne - MYKI - ?????? million - ??? years
Singapore - EZ link - $134 million (2000 SGD) - ??? years

This is Hong Kong's case http://www.octopus.com.hk/about-us/corporate-profile/our-history/en/index.html

The city had fully automated payment system in 1979 (gosh, that makes our system even more antique than thought). The contactless card strategy was devised in 1993 and fully implemented in 1997.

This seems to show it cost $100 million and we all know HK has the best public transit in the world, high more service, more subways and higher ridership.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/outsmarted-victoria-pays-the-price-20100223-p0tw.html

As you show Montreal, and Singapore also saw $100-150 million implementation cost.
I don't know why Ventra is so expensive - definitely shouldn't serve as our benchmark. In any case, Presto has been extremely slow and extremely expensive.

 

[ksun]

I think it says nothing, except perhaps about those who think they know how to do it better than the professionals.

The estimate for TTC was $350 to $450 million for a system that carried 525 million people in 2013. A cost of about 66¢ to 86¢ a passenger.

You are probably one of those people who throw their full trust to those "professionals" assuming their will do the best job at the least cost. But in reality, when you compare it to other jurisdiction such as Hong Kong or Singapore, it is far from the truth. Those professional squander money, especially when the contract was not designed to shift sufficient risks to them. Those professional have little incentive to save money if the cost overrun doesn't fall on their back.

I work on power projects with "professional" for years in the public sector, and trust me, the word "professional" means little to me when it comes to cost control and accountability, especially when they are unionized with the sole goal of squeezing as much tax payers money as possible.

I don't know why you calculate the cost of a per passenger basis. It makes zero sense and is almost meaningless. Are you saying if the implementation cost is supposed to increase proportional to ridership? That would be absurd.

There is no point to compare with Vancouver. Vancouver is a much smaller city and I don't compare Toronto with Vancouver in anything. And if the cost is high because it takes credit/debit/phones payment, that's a huge waste of money. A rechargeable card like what they use in London is smart enough. There is absolutely no need for those fancy functions and it serves nothing but to incur a large budget and create more costly government entities.

 

[rbt]

I think the thing that frustrates me the most about the TTC Presto implementation is that the TTC managed to implement it at some subway stations, but stopped well short of implementing it at all stations.

You mean Metrolinx implemented Presto at some TTC stations, but didn't implement it at all stations.

TTC gave approval, they didn't stipulate which stations or (IIRC) pay for installation.

 

[salsa]

There is no point to compare with Vancouver. Vancouver is a much smaller city and I don't compare Toronto with Vancouver in anything.

Exactly. Just like Toronto is not comparable with NYC, Hong Kong, Singapore since they are much bigger than....oh wait you make those comparisons all the time. Never mind.

 

[ksun]

Exactly. Just like Toronto is not comparable with NYC, Hong Kong, Singapore since they are much bigger than....oh wait you make those comparisons all the time. Never mind.

How are Hong Kong and Singapore "much larger cities", similar to GTA's population?
Sure, let's compare with Madrid, Rome (similar city population), Munich and Vienna (half of Toronto's) and see how that goes.

If you really focus on city population, fine. Paris has 2.2 million people. Shall we start?

 

[Electrify]

How are Hong Kong and Singapore "much larger cities", similar to GTA's population?
Sure, let's compare with Madrid, Rome (similar city population), Munich and Vienna (half of Toronto's) and see how that goes.

If you really focus on city population, fine. Paris has 2.2 million people. Shall we start?

2.2 million, in an area not much larger than the old city of Toronto (current pop: 737K).

 

[salsa]

How are Hong Kong and Singapore "much larger cities", similar to GTA's population?
Sure, let's compare with Madrid, Rome (similar city population), Munich and Vienna (half of Toronto's) and see how that goes.

If you really focus on city population, fine. Paris has 2.2 million people. Shall we start?

Tokyo: 37,800,000
Shanghai: 24,750,000
NYC: 19,949,502
London: 13,614,409
Los Angeles: 13,131,431
Paris: 11,978,363
Hong Hong: 7,234,800
Toronto: 5,959,505
Singapore: 5,312,000

Just saying. Although I thought Hong Kong was much bigger than that, and I misread Singapore as Shanghai so my bad. Not that we are similar to them in any other way, especially in density. But I included Shanghai anyway as well as Tokyo, LA and London since you've tried to used them before as a valid comparison. Also, I don't like to use city population. Just because we amalgamated, we pretend that Toronto is now bigger than Chicago even though they are around 9.5 million people when you include the metro area.

 

[ksun]

NYC: 19,949,502
Paris: 11,978,363
Hong Hong: 7,234,800
Toronto: 5,959,505
Singapore: 5,312,000

Just saying. Although I thought Hong Kong was much bigger than that, and I misread Singapore as Shanghai so my bad. Not that we are similar to them in any other way, especially in density. Also, I don't like to use city population. Just because we amalgamated, we pretend that Toronto is now bigger than Chicago even though they are around 9.5 million people when you include the metro area.

yep, that's the real number.

It depends on what you compare, city or metro.
City wise, we are similar to Paris, Chicago, Rome, Madrid. Berlin;
Metro wise, we are similar to Chicago, Singapore, Madrid, Barcelona and possibly Hong Kong (yes, HK is not that big).

Yes, Chicago metro has 9.7 million, but it is not comparable to GTA, because GTA is geographically a much restricted and smaller region. To compare apple to apple, metro Toronto would include the entire Golden Horseshoe which has close to 9 million people. So we are smaller than Chicagoland, but not that much smaller.

 

[salsa]

Yes, Chicago metro has 9.7 million, but it is not comparable to GTA, because GTA is geographically a much restricted and smaller region. To compare apple to apple, metro Toronto would include the entire Golden Horseshoe which has close to 9 million people. So we are smaller than Chicagoland, but not that much smaller.

I'm aware that Chicago metro area (and that of US cities in general) are measured differently than here. But when the media says we are bigger than them, that we are now the 4th largest city in NA, it's because they use city proper as the measuring stick. How about we de-amalgamate, and then see what these people will say. City hall will be more functional, but boo ho ho Toronto will be so small even though we aren't.

P.S My previous post was edited while you were typing.

 

[ksun]

I'm aware that Chicago metro area (and that of US cities in general) are measured differently than here. But when the media says we are bigger than them, that we are now the 4th largest city in NA, it's because they use city proper as the measuring stick. How about we de-amalgamate, and then see what these people will say. City hall will be more functional, but boo ho ho Toronto will be so small even though we aren't.

P.S My previous post was edited while you were typing.

I actually supported de-amalgamation in another thread, although many thing it is silly.
I agree with you being big on paper means little. If Scarborough, Etobicoke and North York always prefer a completely different leadership and completely different lifestyle, Toronto will be better off being smaller.

Old Toronto combined with East York will have about 800k people, a much denser and more urban city, the size of San Francisco (land size and population). I don't see why that can't function well.

By the way, the government got bigger since amalgamation, instead of cost being saved due to positions reduced, which was one big reason for the amalgamation. So many years later, the city is still extremely divided judging from each election results, so it is safe to say amalgamation is a failure. I for one don't want my property tax to go to some dubious subway in Scarborough where density obviously doesn't justify, while commuters on King and Queen have to suffer horrible crowding.

 

[nfitz]

This seems to show it cost $100 million ...

Isn't that just the cost, in 1997$, for the then 58-station subway system and the streetcar system, which only had 70 vehicles back then? 70 vehicles and 58 stations should be a lot cheaper than the 2,600 vehicles and 76 stations that TTC needs to install on.

By the time you escalate that $100 million to current dollars and deal with the vastly larger installation, TTC might even be cheaper than Hong Kong!

and we all know HK has the best public transit in the world, high more service, more subways and higher ridership.

Do we? That might be your opinion, but I'm not sure that a universal opinion. Though even if it was true, it's rather apples and oranges isn't it? I don't think there's much value in comparing a non-democratic city-state controlled by a corrupt tyrannical communist military dictatorship to Toronto.

As you show Montreal, and Singapore also saw $100-150 million implementation cost.

Montreal's Opus is a much more limited system though than Presto or Octopus. No credit/debit. No phones. No stored value on the card. You either have to prepurchase tickets or passes. If you do so, and then you try and use it on a neighbouring system, then you are out of luck, unless you also prepurchase tickets on that system. After you hit 3 different systems, your card can't handle any more. So if your daily travel takes you from Laval to Longeuil (just two subway trains), and you also use connecting buses, then you'd be out of luck, if you want to use AMT one day, on the same card. And there's no ability to add tickets on the Internet. You have to go to a machine or ticket booth - with long line ups. I don't really know how you can compare this to Octopus, Oyster, and Presto. It's an earlier generation of system.

In fact, is Opus any cheaper for Montreal than Presto is for TTC? It's been estimated that Presto costs $300 to $400 million to install for TTC. However the cost to TTC is in the $100 to $150 million range, just like Montreal. The rest is recovered through per trip charges. How do we know that Montreal isn't still paying the vendor (rather than Metrolinx) a per/trip cost?

In any case, Presto has been extremely slow and extremely expensive.

Is it? The cost of Presto to TTC is similar to what's been quoted for the earlier-generation Montreal card to STM. Your not looking at the complete financing cost, just the upfront charge to STM, and comparing it to the complete install cost for TTC. And when you look at Hong Kong's initial cost, it was for a much smaller system than Toronto.

You are probably one of those people who throw their full trust to those "professionals" assuming their will do the best job at the least cost.

No, I just believe the professionals know a lot better than you. When we take you "facts" and dig into them, we keep finding that when you actually do an apples to apples comparison, Presto isn't any more expensive than Hong Kong, or Vancouver. And perhaps even Montreal. Despite being a more advanced system.

There is no point to compare with Vancouver. Vancouver is a much smaller city and I don't compare Toronto with Vancouver in anything.

And yet you keep comparing to a non-demoncratic backwater like Hong Kong?!? Vancouver's system is quite comparable to TTC. A similar number of rapid transit stations., and about 50% of the bus ridership. It's a far better comparison than a foreign communist-controlled dictatorship.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'm aware that Chicago metro area (and that of US cities in general) are measured differently than here. But when the media says we are bigger than them, that we are now the 4th largest city in NA, it's because they use city proper as the measuring stick. How about we de-amalgamate, and then see what these people will say. City hall will be more functional, but boo ho ho Toronto will be so small even though we aren't.

P.S My previous post was edited while you were typing.

This amalgamation argument is completely ridiculous. Post amalgamation Toronto is more comparable to Chicago than pre amalgamation Toronto. If this were 1995, the proper comparison would be Metro Toronto to Chicago proper

If you want to use the argument that pre amalgamation Toronto is a better comparison, what makes that a superior comparison to Toronto's 1882 borders, or the 1950 borders?

For the record, I'm not sure if you sincerely believe that comparing post amalgamation Toronto to Chicago proper is a fair comparison, as you may have just been using it as an example for your argument

 

[the lemur]

I don't think there's much value in comparing a non-democratic city-state controlled by a corrupt tyrannical communist military dictatorship to Toronto.

...

And yet you keep comparing to a non-demoncratic backwater like Hong Kong?!? ... [Vancouver is] a far better comparison than a foreign communist-controlled dictatorship.

Oh god, not this again.

You do realize, don't you, that most of HK's transit system predates the handover to the PRC, right? And that the MTR is run like a capitalist business with real-estate deals and everything? If you want to see a transit system that is actually connected to (historical) communism you could always look to the wildly different examples of Moscow, Prague, Beijing, Pyongyang ...

HK is not a backwater; it remains one of Asia's, and the world's, major financial centres.

Singapore's transit system is also often cited as a paragon of excellence ... and yet during a major service disruption not too long ago it was found that not only were staff not properly trained to deal with the technical aspects of evacuating the vehicles, ensuring passenger safety, providing replacement bus service, etc., management essentially suggested that employees that they should consider providing an improvised taxi service with their own cars, because hey, extra money.

Is that kind of callous, unethical approach characteristic of communist dictatorships? Sometimes, but Singapore is pretty much a benevolent paternalistic capitalist dictatorship that brooks little to no dissent. It's essentially a one-party state with something of a family dynasty in charge for the past 50-odd years. If you're too critical of the government you can be sued for libel until you are broke, at which point you will not be able to leave the country and the island is effectively your debtor's prison.

 

[nfitz]

You do realize, don't you, that most of HK's transit system predates the handover to the PRC, right?

I hadn't realised that Hong Kong's transit system was still mostly only the 58-some stations and 70 streetcars that Octopus used back in 1997. In which case, the comparison has no validity in the first place, other than an example of a system that was more expensive than Presto.

Is that kind of callous, unethical approach characteristic of communist dictatorships? Sometimes, but Singapore is pretty much a benevolent paternalistic capitalist dictatorship that brooks little to no dissent. It's essentially a one-party state with something of a family dynasty in charge for the past 50-odd years. If you're too critical of the government you can be sued for libel until you are broke, at which point you will not be able to leave the country and the island is effectively your debtor's prison.

I haven't commented on Singapore's transit system. Though past history has shown us that right-wing dictators do often provide good rail and transit service. Nothing new there. Is it a model we want to follow? I don't think so ...