[steveintoronto]

I'm not a software engineer, by any means. By I do design and build logic circuits in the equipment and I design and build, mostly for user interface to prevent conflicting commands. I'm a tech. Mostly hardware, mostly audio, and a lot of 'glass audio' with logic controlled channel switching. Worked in three nations on two continents with it. Nuff said on that...

Of course it's possible, but the effort required to do it is likely not worth it. As someone who works in software, I know that even minor changes can sometimes take a lot of effort to implement. They need to go through the whole software development life cycle which includes updating all sorts of documentation with the changes being made, doing the actual coding, and doing thorough testing before implementing the change.

C'mon. You mean to tell me that Presto's and the transfer issuing machines coding (most likely I2C or Python or upscaled equiv in the latter's case for most of its operation) aren't written with options to be enabled by simple 'yes' or 'no' tags attached?

Another issue with implementing 2 hour transfers on King immediately is that you'd no longer be able to measure success of the pilot accurately.

Huh? On what basis do you reach that conclusion? Are you inferring that the success is based on how transfers are honoured or not upon inspection?

How would you be able to know whether an increase in ridership was the result of the pilot, or the result of 2 hour transfers being implemented?

I suggest your 'reprogram' your thinking processing. Let me reduce the logic inherent in your process: "You can't do that".

Why?

Because.

 

[LNahid2000]

C'mon. You mean to tell me that Presto's and the transfer issuing machines coding (most likely I2C or Python or upscaled equiv in the latter's case for most of its operation) aren't written with options to be enabled by simple 'yes' or 'no' tags attached?

It's Presto, so it's probably a lot more complicated than that.

Huh? On what basis do you reach that conclusion? Are you inferring that the success is based on how transfers are honoured or not upon inspection?

No, I'm saying that an advertised 2 hour transfer on the 504/514 would likely cause more people to ride that route. I used the 512 a lot to run errands when it had a 2 hour transfer because I could go to 3 or 4 stores on one fare.

I suggest your 'reprogram' your thinking processing. Let me reduce the logic inherent in your process: "You can't do that".

Why?

Because.

No idea what you're saying here...

 

[steveintoronto]

You continue to overthink this. It's bog simple! If a rider is using a transfer issued when paying with Presto, token, or a rigid leprechaun, nothing needs to change in the system. It's *only when challenged* when *riding on the 504 or 514* by an inspector that showing a Presto Card or transfer with a time of payment less than two hours old, the grace offered on the King routes is honoured. Transferring onto other routes beyond that window incurs a new fare, as it now does.

I'm far from the only one to realize the gravitas of this:

By: Matt Elliott Metro Published on Sun Nov 19 2017
Before I wrote my column last week on the King Street transit pilot, I rode the King streetcar from Jarvis Street to Bathurst Street. I got off my streetcar to take a few photos, have a few laughs and watch a police officer yell at drivers. Then I got back on another streetcar and travelled back to Jarvis.

A short trip, but I paid two fares. Six bucks.

I paid twice because those are the rules, and I ain’t no transit scofflaw. But it was a clear illustration of the problem with the TTC’s current transfer system: there is no way to make a short transit trip without paying twice. And forget about running errands with multiple stops — unless you’re a Metropass holder, it will cost you a bundle.

But there’s some good news. Last week, Mayor John Tory wrote a letter to TTC CEO Andy Byford in support of instituting time-based transfers, to be considered as part of the TTC’s 2018 budget process. Under time-based transfer rules, riders would be allowed unlimited travel for a 90 minute or two-hour window on a single fare.

Even better news: the groundwork for instituting this change is already in place. In 2014, the TTC commissioned a report examining time-based transfers and the associated costs. So there is zero reason to study this issue at length again — the TTC can and should jump straight to implementation.

But what about those costs? The 2014 report pegged it at about $20 million per year in lost revenue, assuming the transfer window is set at two hours. Set it at 90 minutes and the cost drops to $12 million.

Not cheap, but the report notes that the TTC is unique amongst most local and international transit systems in not offering time-based transfers. And the TTC’s 12-year experiment with time-based transfers on the St. Clair streetcar route — which just ended in September — was a huge success, with businesses along the route saying the transfer system helped boost profits.

The report also says this: “With the exception of this revenue loss, all other aspects of a time-based transfer system would appear to be positive for both customers and employees.”

That’s one hell of an endorsement, and one that suggests cost should not stand as a barrier to implementation. The benefits of time-based transfers far outweigh the drawbacks of a modest residential property tax increase.

In fact, given that Tory suggests limiting time-based transfers to Presto card users — about 16 per cent of total TTC ridership — the cost of doing this in the near-term is very likely cheaper than the 2014 estimates.

That does underscore a potential pitfall of this change, however. If time-based transfer benefits are going to be exclusively tied to Presto, the fare card system needs to get better — no more technical snafus.

It is, of course, easy to be cynical about the timing of all of this. Though the benefits of time-based transfers have been clear for years, Tory’s support conveniently comes just as the city gears up for another mayoral election.

But good ideas are good ideas, even when they look politically motivated. So, sure, acknowledge the cynicism, but don’t let that stand in the way of a change that will benefit a whole lot of transit riders.

Politics aside, the time for timed transfers is now.

http://www.metronews.ca/views/toron...-time-based-ttc-transfers-is-now-elliott.html

The place to do it now is the very place begging for it before it becomes a crisis.

 

[LNahid2000]

You continue to overthink this. It's bog simple! If a rider is using a transfer issued when paying with Presto, token, or a rigid leprechaun, nothing needs to change in the system. It's *only when challenged* when *riding on the 504 or 514* by an inspector that showing a Presto Card or transfer with a time of payment less than two hours old, the grace offered on the King routes is honoured. Transferring onto other routes beyond that window incurs a new fare, as it now does.

You already said this, and I didn't disagree with you. I only mentioned that it would be not worth the effort to program with Presto because you wrote this.

The Presto Card might present a problem in needing an altered algorithm for the 504/514 to get a transfer issued for two hours when the fare is paid somewhere else, but if so, that violates the claim for the Presto capabilities even at its present level of (in)competence. And if so, the programming for the transfer machines on the 504 and 514 cars could be changed. (It appears as a simple over-ride on a logic input) One presumes that's possible, but it is easy to forget this is Toronto where Presto is code for Complications. *Something* can be worked out.

 

[DSC]

The two hour pass is everywhere from January 1.

You are spreading "Fake News" again. First, it has not yet made it into City Budget and thus into TTC budget (though that seems likely) and secondly Metrolinx said they could not cope with the programing until August. (This is clearly ridiculous as it is similar to other transit agencies and is undoubtedly simpler than the TTC's current transfer rules). It may be sooner than August but certainly not next week.

 

[MetroMan]

They’re replacing the “Taxis Excepted” signs with “Authorized Vehicles Excepted”. Either the city is removing the taxi exemption or they’re adding other vehicles to the exemption. The cynic in me tells me that it’s the latter.

I’ve seen city vehicles go through and police go through when not on emergency. At best it’s just meant to account for those. Worse, they might be adding other vehicles to the exemption.

Whatever the case, this does not bode well for a street designed for transit and pedestrians. If they’re going to have that many exemptions, they’re going to build a street that allows cars.

Worst still, they had to replace all those signs but left the existing signs in place. They’ve proven to be ineffective. They’re too small and they’re too dark at night. This would. Have been a good opportunity to replace the signs with larger ones or LED signs.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

They’re replacing the “Taxis Excepted” signs with “Authorized Vehicles Excepted”. Either the city is removing the taxi exemption or they’re adding other vehicles to the exemption. The cynic in me tells me that it’s the latter.

Do staff even have authority to change the exemptions without Council approval?

 

[DSC]

Do staff even have authority to change the exemptions without Council approval?

Yes, it was all part of the pilot setting up.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Yes, it was all part of the pilot setting up.

Just to clarify, I know Council added an exemption specifically for taxis. So you’re saying that Staff have the power to overrule that specific exemption without Council approval?

 

[MetroMan]

The King Street Pilot’s administration office has wide authority to adjust characteristics of the pilot but I don’t think they can undo council’s vote to exempt taxis.

Personally, I don’t think taxis will be permitted when the pilot goes to a final vote. After 10pm, King becomes congested with cabs. We just traded the situation where private vehicles clogged King and held back streetcars for all the cabs in the city trying to cash in on King Street and breaking the intention of the pilot.

When this goes to a vote, there’ll be additional downtown councillors that won’t be in the taxi lobby's pocket. Maybe we have a chance to get the right thing done here.

 

[lead82]

Maybe the simplest thing to do is to make TTC free on King from Bathurst to Jarvis. This costs nothing to implement and would just require fare inspectors not to check fares in that area. People could pay a fare to use the rest of the system. It would be a great PR campaign to support business.

 

[micheal_can]

Maybe the simplest thing to do is to make TTC free on King from Bathurst to Jarvis. This costs nothing to implement and would just require fare inspectors not to check fares in that area. People could pay a fare to use the rest of the system. It would be a great PR campaign to support business.

Many other cities have something similar. Halifax has FRED - Free rides Everywhere Downtown.

 

[steveintoronto]

Personally, I don’t think taxis will be permitted when the pilot goes to a final vote.

You may claim to be a 'cynic', but you're more optimistic than I am on this. I just hope you're right, because I agree with your cynical view on things going backwards.

The only thing that would convince me that Council is serious on making things work is an announcement on a sizable investment in an intelligent traffic/streetcar signal/control system. It's badly needed *no matter what street configuration is decided on*. The knee-jerk retort will be "we can't afford such things for a one year pilot" whereas it's needed no matter what.

Maybe the simplest thing to do is to make TTC free on King from Bathurst to Jarvis. This costs nothing to implement and would just require fare inspectors not to check fares in that area. People could pay a fare to use the rest of the system. It would be a great PR campaign to support business.

I agree, for many reasons, not least in that it immediately squelches the the squeaky wheels of commerce complaining (perhaps justifiably to some extent) that "business is way down".

Council has to decide if they want this to succeed or not. And if they do, they better be prepared to pay the piper.

Meantime, Melbourne, which Council loves to compare Toronto to, not only has free transit on the various transit malls in the CBD (Bourke Street included) they have the whole downtown core as fare free!

https://static.ptv.vic.gov.au/siteassets/PDFs/Maps/Network-maps/PTV-Free-Tram-Zone-Map.pdf

And take special note of this:

 

[crs1026]

Do staff even have authority to change the exemptions without Council approval?

Interesting bit of trivia on this. The only exception recognized in the HTO regs is the 'Buses Excepted' sign. All the rest are copycat signs, not legitimised by statute.

It's a bit of a workaround. In essence the sign says "Go ahead, taxi, what you are doing is prohibited by the HTO-blessed sign immediately above this exception sign, but the cops aren't gonna enforce it, so feel free. Enjoy!".

So yeah, I guess Transportation and/or the Police could just agree on these workarounds. I don't know whether Council would care. If anything, they would like the blame to be elsewhere so they can come to the rescue when people complain.

- Paul

 

[W. K. Lis]

Doug Ford wrote (allegedly) an editorial in the Sunday Sun, at this link, on the
FORD: John Tory's King Street pilot project a disaster

BY DOUG FORD

The car exclusion zone on King Street has now been in place for a couple of months.

What I have heard and seen from small business owners is that sales have sunk to an all-time low, traffic has been driven away from the area and the neighbourhood has become less vibrant.

Gridlock has become unbearable on neighboring streets, businesses are suffering devastating consequences and drivers are getting fined during the holidays.

I am as shocked as I am amazed that John Tory continues to stand by this streetcar disaster that no one desired.

Where did Tory think the millions of motorists were supposed to go? How did he think that businesses could survive a 50% decrease in revenues? Why did he think it would be fair to hand out Tory Tickets of $110 and two demerit points? Is all of this worth a couple of minutes saved on the streetcar?

It seems that John Tory just doesn’t care.

We all want our city to be the best place to live, work and raise a family. But John Tory’s car exclusion zone is hurting the economic prosperity of King Street businesses, the hundreds of jobs, and commuters that need to get to and from work.

Tory rolled the dice in a politically motivated move, hoping to score cheap political points while commuters, businesses, economic development and tourism all be damned. Allowing political schemes to drive city policies shows Tory’s weak leadership.

The city is reviewing the project, but one of my biggest concerns is that the facts will be glossed over. To say that businesses aren’t hurting, or that travel times on neighbouring streets have only increased marginally is scandalous.

A City Hall journalist conducted a test drive and results showed travel times on adjacent streets more than doubled — and that was outside of rush hour.

While I know John Tory will not admit to failure and cancel the project, I am urging him to at the very least limit the pilot project to the end of January 2018. The city must then bring in a third-party, arm’s-length organization to consult with businesses and stakeholders, study the changes to streetcar and vehicular travel times so that Council can review the project and vote on it immediately.

This change needs to be done today – not next week or the next month.

If congestion on neighbouring streets does not go down, and if business revenues are still sagging, and if the streetcar travel times do not decrease beyond a couple of minutes, then Tory needs to wake up, stop using commuters as pawns and scrap this ridiculous King car and business exclusion zone.