|
|
|
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
i think others have addressed this but, really, no, it's not the opposite. (And don't call me Shirley.)
The TTC's move, as pointed out above, was to introduce untested technology, undermining a provincial system (flawed, sure) that was a vital part of regional fare integration. The TTC didn't care about introducing new tech and it didn't care about its role in the regional network. I don't think they cared about anything other than money. Money is important, no doubt, but I think it's really hard to spin the TTC's move as some forward-thinking genius that got reined in by others. The only Q is whether they were legitimately trying to undermine regional transit planning or just bluffing the whole way.
As for dates - Oyster was introduced in 2003, Octopus was in 1997 and NYC's Metrocard was in 1993. I'll leave it to other experts to talk about when other similar tech came online. What I do know is that, I believe it was in 2006, that the TTC realized they were getting killed with counterfeit tokens. Did they push for something like Oyster? Something like Metrocard? Did they try to reinvent the wheel by devising a groundbreaking open payment system? No - they came up with NEW TOKENS. In 2006. That's 3 years after NYC totally dispensed with tokens on its subway system.
And then, in 2010, with the province's regional system 1/2 integrated, they had a vision and decided to push open payment. Nah, it was a political game and I stand by my impression they were dragged kicking and screaming and if not for Presto and their need for the Crosstown money, they'd still be pushing tokens and tickets. And, salt in the wound, this is an organization that was a world leader in the 70s and maybe even the 80s. Now they are decades behind and funding is a big part of that, but so is their narrow thinking.
TOareaFan
Superstar
They have done events/limited time deals like this on lots of systems....there really is no "fine print". If you follow the rules you get a card without the $6 fee. In this case it is just pay them $20 for a card with $20 on it and away you go. When GO launched there was a deal where if you brought in a 10 ride ticket with any remaining rides on it they would waive the fee and transfer the unused rides (was as low as 1 ride remaining) onto the Presto card.
cplchanb
Senior Member
well said sir
W. K. Lis
Superstar
If Metrolink (Ontario government) is requiring PRESTO, then they should also increase their share of the subsidy to the TTC's operational budget as well.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Doesn't Presto reduce the operating expenses? I forget the number but there is a very, very, significant drop in the cash management expenses and it affords the ability to redeploy people from ticket booths to other customer service and operational positions.
nfitz
Superstar
It would, however the final deal with TTC for Presto is that reduction is taken out of Presto receipts that are given to TTC to fund Presto implentation until such time the Presto implementation costs are paid off.
TOareaFan
Superstar
So the deal found a way to finance the TTC implementation? So TTC is paying for it out of future savings and not requiring the TTC to write cheques? Sounds like a pretty good solution/plan.
In any event....there is no increase in TTC operating costs and, after the savings have paid for the implementation, there is actually a reduction?
nfitz
Superstar
It's an excellent plan. It's a shame that the province/Metrolinx took 5 years to agree to it. It's a good job that Miller and Giambrone put the screws to the province to force them to come to the table, or
In theory. Though in the short-term, there is extra cost because they still have to carry all the costs of tokens, tickets, and Metropasses during the Presto implementation. (though perhaps in those hundreds of pages of contract documents there is a clause that protects TTC on this until after full deployment).
TOareaFan
Superstar
I was not apportioning blame....was complimenting "whoever" on coming up with a sensible way of financing the implementation for the TTC.
It must have been very frustrating for the TTC to be looking at Presto....a system that would save them money...but being in a cash position that would make it very difficult (impossible?) to implement.
Be like a cash strapped homeowner looking to save money on heating by installing a new more efficient furnace ....but having no money to buy the new furnace.
Whoever came up with the idea of paying for the Presto implementation out of the savings that Presto creates deserves credit for creating a transit version of the no money down plan.
What I did not do (and should have) was thank you for pointing that out.....it is a positive and interesting detail that I had not seen anyone talk about before. I would guess many, like me, were wondering where the TTC was coming up with the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to install/implement Presto....the answer is, they are not....they are financing it out of the savings the system produces.
Personally I am looking forward to the day that Presto eliminates the "need" for one of my own pet peeves....the TTC having their own fleet of armoured vehicles for cash/token management.
nfitz
Superstar
They'll still have to find a way to deal with cash. The'll still have all those vending machines to empty, and cash sales for Presto, etc. How does Green P deal with parking meters and parking garages?
TOareaFan
Superstar
Even in the current environment.....I think the TTC could realize savings by using outside service providers for the pick up and delivery of their cash/near-cash. There has to be a reason that none of the banks have their own proprietary system for moving cash around from their branches.
Surely as the amount of cash the TTC handles they will look at the need for their own armoured vehicle service.
rbt
Senior Member
Banks are weird. I can only assume it is an insurance premium concern.
Independent ATMs, like the ones you see in bars and smaller convenience stores, make most of their profit by controlling cash delivery themselves versus using an 3rd party security service; just a random guy in a van. They do have much lower volume than a bank ATM. A 20 stop circuit is only about $500k in total, where a single CIBC stop might be $1M (3 to 4 machines). I assume the higher security service is to offset high insurance premiums over the theft of ~$10M.
A TTC employee taking the cash can simultaneously top-up any supplies needed at the booth (day passes, temporary signs, etc.). Paying to deliver the extras by armoured vehicle or send around TTC staff as a second trip adds to the price. TTC also has special constables who have some arresting rights (on TTC property, and ability to pursue to Toronto borders); a large boost in security over what staff in an armoured vehicle can provide.
Last edited:
TOareaFan
Superstar
It is an all over cost concern....insurance is part of the cost consideration not the totality of it. They have found it far most cost efficient to hire outside services to pick up and deliver cash to their ATMs and branches than establish their own.
Considering how many TTC stations are so close to bank branches it is a frustrating concern to me that the TTC ignores that and justifies their own service.....the number of times I see a ttc vehicle parked University avenue just north of King servicing the subway station while an armoured car is parked on King servicing the BMO at 200 king is amazing to me.....but I am sure it is because the TTC has such unique cash and near cash delivery issues ;(
But bank branches also get deliveries of supplies....and, somehow, they have been delivering returns of profit to their shareholders by, inexplicably, paying companies to deliver those and pay other companies to handle their cash.....surely they should be smart enough to realize that they could just start their own service and do those two things themselves and save a lot of money!
Anyway....I think we can disagree on this knowing that in the current environment it is not changing....but, surely, once the level of cash being used drops (and tokens are eliminated) after the full implementation of Presto that we can eliminate the armoured service....and save even more mone!
Last edited:
rbt
Senior Member
Yeah, it does seem like there should be efficiencies there.
Then again, my experience with private ATMs is that using an armoured car service in that industry would eat all the profit. It depends heavily on what values are being carried around.
Maybe. If society was cashless enough for the TTC to no longer accept cash, we no longer have a need for the bank of Presto either. My arguments against the bank of Presto are reduced since the auto top-up minimum was reduced.
Presto as a reader and backend are fine. A dedicated card/account holding a $ value is still silly versus just using the customers card as an identifier and bundling transactions in the backend to a reasonable $ value.
Last edited: