Metrolinx: Presto Fare Card

[WillTo]

Thanks. Second question: I was on my way to Exhibition last week. Took the Lawrence East bus, transferred to Line 1 and again to the 509 Harbourfront at Union. Again, the Presto reader wasn't working on the Lawrence East bus, so I hadn't paid a fare. I was getting a bit nervous as we reached Exhibition Station as I remembered I had not yet paid my fare. In that situation, I definitely could have gotten ticketed if we were inspected exiting the streetcar at Exhibition, correct?

If I did get ticketed, I suppose it would be partially my fault, since I could've paid on board the streetcar. But after 40 mins in transit, the $2.90 fare was the last thing on my mind. I expect that this is a fairly common situation; I don't believe most TTC riders have enough knowledge of our chaotic transfer rules to understand they they would've been expected to pay upon boarding the streetcar.

You could have taken a transfer at Eglinton station.
When I used to pay with tokens I would ride the bus 2 stops or so and not accept a transfer. Instead I'd get one at the subway if I was taking a streetcar later in my journey.
I know technically you're suppose to get it where you pay your fare but I think it is just easier for everyone if I get a subway transfer.

 

[nfitz]

In that case, I believe you could be ticketed, yes. In fact, the TTC technically asks people to always tap when boarding a vehicle, even within a fare paid area e.g. if you tapped your Presto card even at the turnstiles at Union, you're technically supposed to tap again a minute later as you board a 509. That's technically unenforceable, but in the situation you described I'm pretty sure a fare inspector would fine you.

I don't believe this is true.

This was published as a future policy in a commission report for post-Presto implementation at the same time you start tapping out of stations.

But I've never seen indication it's been implemented.

 

[steveintoronto]

Yes, I realize - but there are no comparative examples in law. And you went an ... interesting direction last time we had a discussion like this. I honestly don't have time to think about it to be honest right now.

Evidently the point is beyond you and some other posters. Huge surprise there.

Metrolinx to review Presto privacy policy
Provincial transit agency considers reform after Star story revealed police have accessed travel records without a warrant

By Ben SpurrTransportation Reporter
Mon., June 5, 2017
Metrolinx has launched a formal review of its privacy policies after the Star revealed the transit agency has been sharing Presto fare card users’ trip information with the police.

“Trust me, we are taking this very seriously,” said Mary Martin, Metrolinx’s general counsel and chief privacy officer, whose department is leading the review.

“We’re going to really look at the issue extremely thoroughly to make sure that we’ve got it right.”

So far this year Metrolinx, the provincial crown corporation in charge of the Presto system, has received 26 requests from law enforcement for fare card users’ travel records, which show the time and location that a customer tapped their Presto card as part of a trip.

The agency granted 12 of them — six related to missing persons’ cases and six related to criminal investigations connected to the transit system.

In only two of the cases did police present a warrant in order to access the personal data. Both instances were related to criminal probes.

Experts and advocates have criticized the practice as a potential violation of transit users’ privacy. In interviews with the Star they said that in order to improve public accountability Metrolinx should publish a policy explaining exactly under what conditions it will share customers’ travel data with the police.

They also recommended that Metrolinx commit to regularly publishing aggregate statistics about how many requests for travel records it receives from law enforcement and how often it complies.
[...]
Experts told the Star that not asking for a warrant in a suspected missing persons case is likely acceptable for safety reasons, but questioned why Metrolinx doesn’t always do so in criminal cases.

Ann Cavoukian, who served three terms as Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, welcomed Metrolinx’s review.She said she was “appalled” by the revelations in the Star story.

“If I was still commissioner, I would say they would have to get a court order,” she said in an interview.

“This is very sensitive information, and they shouldn’t be sharing it without a warrant.”

Cavoukian said it was vital that Metrolinx tighten its policies around disclosure before the TTC completes its migration to the Presto fare card system.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/06/05/metrolinx-to-review-presto-privacy-policy.html

 

[TransitBart]

PRESTO at its best! (From TTC page listing all bus routes)

PRESTO card customers require a paper transfer on the following routes. Transfers must be shown to station staff when entering Union or Royal York stations and to operators when boarding these buses. Please make sure you obtain a paper transfer at the start of your trip.

• 15 Evans
• 121 Fort York
• 72 Pape

• 48 Rathburn
• 73 Royal York
• 76 Royal York South

Clearly PRESTO cannot deal with the TTCs crazy transfer rules. There is a simple solution - timed transfers!

Why is Royal York so special? It has a bus loop in the fare paid area.

 

[TransitBart]

Evidently the point is beyond you and some other posters. Huge surprise there.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/06/05/metrolinx-to-review-presto-privacy-policy.html

I would expect any agency of any government to hand over data and records to police of any stripe. I don't mind if the cops go after the creeps.

 

[steveintoronto]

I would expect any agency of any government to hand over data and records to police of any stripe. I don't mind if the cops go after the creeps.

Yes, hang them first, then ask questions. I realize the concept of "due process of law" is a bit beyond some posters, but for some odd reason, we have a Constitution and various Bills of Rights.

I'm sure we're going to be hearing more on this in the news media, so I won't bother to dig any further at this time save to repeat that the US is far more pro-active in protecting privacy. Canada, amongst developed nations, is a laggard.

You want to catch "the creeps"? You follow the law. More cases are getting tossed than ever due to violation of rights.

There will be legal analyses in the better quality press, and reactions like yours in the Sun. Get a warrant. The police don't conduct law. The Judiciary do.

 

[nfitz]

Why is Royal York so special? It has a bus loop in the fare paid area.

Not it doesn't. It's closed. That's why you need to take a transfer temporarily during construction. It was the same at Coxwell when that bus loop was closed.

Union is temporary until they update the transfer rules the next time - which I thought happened on Sunday, so I'm not sure if that's still valid.

 

[DSC]

One would think that these blocks could be turned off at will, but that must not be possible. It speaks to just how much time and effort has been spent programming in the TTC transfer table, in an inflexible manner. I wonder whether the added cost of that, compared to a simple 2-hour timed transfer, might actually exceed the lost revenue from the second fare on broken trips.- Paul

Exactly! Timed transfers may not be perfect but they would be FAR simpler to deal with - for both the TTC and customers.

 

[ShonTron]

Not it doesn't. It's closed. That's why you need to take a transfer temporarily during construction. It was the same at Coxwell when that bus loop was closed.

Union is temporary until they update the transfer rules the next time - which I thought happened on Sunday, so I'm not sure if that's still valid.

The 72B and 121 have been operating with a connection to Union Station for over a year. There's no excuse.

 

[amnesiajune]

It IS the TTC's problem that it requires human validation, because the TTC is responsible for the TTC's transfer policy! If they can figure out their own policy, then they can provide it to Presto for implementation.

The TTC's problem is that they have a transfer policy that can't be automated. It can only be enforced by a human's judgement. The best they can do, and what they seem to have done, is to create a basic implementation of it in Presto that gets rid of nearly all false negatives (i.e. trips where a transfer isn't honoured, and note that i said "nearly all") without creating too many false positives (i.e. trips where a transfer is honoured but shouldn't be)

 

[steveintoronto]

TorStar editorial:
Metrolinx should tighten up its privacy policies and make them public: Editorial
That Metrolinx failed to apprise users of its privacy policies is a betrayal of the public trust.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/edi...-policies-and-make-them-public-editorial.html

There's more to come on this...

 

[steveintoronto]

The 72B and 121 have been operating with a connection to Union Station for over a year. There's no excuse.

It almost boggles the mind that the necessity to enter updates into the software registers was overlooked. Perhaps the ability is there? Anyone designing a system like this would have to have made it so. Perhaps TTC just don't know how to do it?

It's akin to a supermarket system for item prices for their check-out and shelf stickers not being able to be changed for specials or change in regular shelf price. Even the earliest DOS systems that some stupidmarkets still use allow that, some being done so by a cashier with access privilege.

But not the TTC.

Someone has some 'splaining to do.

 

[Leo_Chan]

The TTC's transfer policy can only be automated with mandatory tap on and tap offs at every vehicle/station. It may be able to be done with only tap ons, but then gates will have to be installed in "fare paid areas" between busses/streetcars and subways and vice versa.

We can only hope for the day that tapping/scanning will be a thing of the past and everyone is tracked using GPS/wireless from their phones (or chip implants).

 

[steveintoronto]

The TTC's transfer policy can only be automated with mandatory tap on and tap offs at every vehicle/station. It may be able to be done with only tap ons, but then gates will have to be installed in "fare paid areas" between busses/streetcars and subways and vice versa.

We can only hope for the day that tapping/scanning will be a thing of the past and everyone is tracked using GPS/wireless from their phones (or chip implants).

I think you've missed the crux of the problem. *Locations* can (should be!) be changed in the data-base to indicate where a transfer is allowed, and by what parameters. This should take less than a minute by an operator with an access code, either by toggling a setting for a known location to the system, or by entering new parameters to establish a 'transfer point'.

It's nothing to do with the cards, everything to do with *reading them* and assessing whether a transfer is non-charge or not. I know the excuse that's going to be used: "Oh, we can't do that except when we reload everything in a major batch update"...in which case, if true, then they're truly fugged...or the public is, to be more accurate.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Does anyone know how much data busses need to transfer over every night? Is it in the 100s of GBs or less? I wonder what kind of data connection it would take to update live.