News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5K     0 

I've just boarded (at about 09:15) a 501 Westbound at Neville Park. All of the Presto readers are out of service. Two fare inspectors are on board. When I realised none of the readers were working, I indicated to one of the inspectors that I wanted to pay by Presto. He came over, and asked to me pay either by cash or token, saying that this is a TTC Bylaw: passengers must always carry an alternative means of paying their fare, in case the Presto readers are not functioning.

My astonishment at hearing this rendered me speechless, but I was able to ask if was jesting. No, this was no jest; this was the law, and by attempting to ride without paying I was committing an offence. He went on to say that as it was early on a Tuesday morning, and I'd attempted to pay, he wouldn't be issuing a ticket. But he did say I must always carry an alternative means of paying my fare.

If the fare inspector was correct, and I presume he was, this is a truly extraordinary state of affairs. And, in my experience of using public transport systems around the world, globally unique!

You've got to share this with Brad Ross on Twitter Not only is it incorrect, it's a total waste of manpower. They shouldn't even be on a car if both readers are not working as TTC policy is to allow presto users to tap at the next point of use/entry.
 
You've got to share this with Brad Ross on Twitter Not only is it incorrect, it's a total waste of manpower. They shouldn't even be on a car if both readers are not working as TTC policy is to allow presto users to tap at the next point of use/entry.

I don't see why they shouldn't be checking fares. They should just accept a Presto card like a metropass if the readers aren't working (or, if possible, be able to pay the Presto fare through their card readers)
 
I don't see why they shouldn't be checking fares. They should just accept a Presto card like a metropass if the readers aren't working (or, if possible, be able to pay the Presto fare through their card readers)
You can't pay a fare on the readers. I think you miss the legal absurdity of this situation, let alone the practical absurdity.
 
I've just boarded (at about 09:15) a 501 Westbound at Neville Park. All of the Presto readers are out of service. Two fare inspectors are on board. When I realised none of the readers were working, I indicated to one of the inspectors that I wanted to pay by Presto. He came over, and asked to me pay either by cash or token, saying that this is a TTC Bylaw: passengers must always carry an alternative means of paying their fare, in case the Presto readers are not functioning.

My astonishment at hearing this rendered me speechless, but I was able to ask if was jesting. No, this was no jest; this was the law, and by attempting to ride without paying I was committing an offence. He went on to say that as it was early on a Tuesday morning, and I'd attempted to pay, he wouldn't be issuing a ticket. But he did say I must always carry an alternative means of paying my fare.

If the fare inspector was correct, and I presume he was, this is a truly extraordinary state of affairs. And, in my experience of using public transport systems around the world, globally unique!
Perhaps I'm more confrontational than the average plebe, but I would have challenged him/her to charge me. "Please, go right ahead, I *want* you to ticket me, as this will make for stunning news in the media when it's heard by a Justice and tossed".

The real question is whether the Bylaw is written without the protecting phrase (I forget the term at this moment, basically it states that the entire Bylaw can't be struck, just the non-compliant section or clause) so that when it is tossed, the whole Bylaw doesn't go down with it.

Very interesting...I'll dig on the legality or not of this later. (Edit: A JP may not have this power, (striking a clause or section) it might have to be kicked up to Provincial Court to affect that, I'll check, procedures and powers of JPs may have changed in the last decade)
 
Perhaps I'm more confrontational than the average plebe, but I would have challenged him/her to charge me. "Please, go right ahead, I *want* you to ticket me, as this will make for stunning news in the media when it's heard by a Justice and tossed".

The real question is whether the Bylaw is written without the protecting phrase (I forget the term at this moment, basically it states that the entire Bylaw can't be struck, just the non-compliant section or clause) so that when it is tossed, the whole Bylaw doesn't go down with it.

Very interesting...I'll dig on the legality or not of this later. (Edit: A JP may not have this power, it might have to be kicked up to Provincial Court to affect that, I'll check, procedures and powers of JPs may have changed in the last decade)
The By-law about paying fares is at the start of By-law # 1.

http://www.ttc.ca/Riding_the_TTC/TTC_Bylaws/index.jsp
 
The By-law about paying fares is at the start of By-law # 1.

http://www.ttc.ca/Riding_the_TTC/TTC_Bylaws/index.jsp
I'm short on time here, off distance cycling while the Sun is still shining, can't find any reference to Presto Card, only "fare". I'd say the TTC is in trouble in a court hearing from the get-go as per, for example:
[2.7 Unless travelling on a Proof-of-Payment route, Section 2.6 does not apply to a person who has paid a fare using cash, ticket or token.]

Feel absolutely free to post the clause you feel is relevant to your stance.
 
The By-law about paying fares is at the start of By-law # 1.

http://www.ttc.ca/Riding_the_TTC/TTC_Bylaws/index.jsp

The By-Law is irrelevant and would be of no force or effect in court in a case like this.

Firstly, see http://www.ttc.ca/Fares_and_passes/PRESTO/FAQ.jsp under "PRESTO on TTC buses" (I don't think anybody at the TTC would suggest, nor any judge would accept, that it is any different on streetcars) where it says "What if the PRESTO card readers are out-of-service on a bus? If all PRESTO card readers are out-of-service, you will be allowed to board and asked to tap your PRESTO card on the next bus or at a subway station."

Secondly, Brad and TTChelps have tweeted multiple times, publicly, that this is the case.

When there is a By-Law, but the agency in charge makes multiple, extremely public informational posts and many official statements stating something, it is unlawful to charge passengers for following the official instructions they are given by the TTC website and senior TTC staff. That is called entrapment.
 
I'm short on time here, off distance cycling while the Sun is still shining, can't find any reference to Presto Card, only "fare". I'd say the TTC is in trouble in a court hearing from the get-go as per, for example:
[2.7 Unless travelling on a Proof-of-Payment route, Section 2.6 does not apply to a person who has paid a fare using cash, ticket or token.]

Feel absolutely free to post the clause you feel is relevant to your stance.
I do not have a 'stance' on this; I was simply posting a link to the TTC By-Law on Fares; you may be right that it does not cover this situation. In fact, I have no particular opinion on it but it seems ridiculous for the TTC to demand people carry cash if they have a PRESTO card and are on what is supposed to be a PRESTO equipped route.
 
I wonder whether TTC has an internal 'knowledge management' system for documenting these unusual what-if's as they come up and issuing clarifications/experience sharing to their staff generally.

Arguing with petty authority (security guards, parking enforcement officers, fare inspectors, and sometimes even police officers) is just asking for trouble. They rarely back down, but they are happy to call for backup, at your expense. Taking minor issues to court is generally ineffective at changing the institutional viewpoint, even if you win.

Going back thru Brad is probably a lot more effective at actually getting the point addressed in the TTC's training/knowledge base.

- Paul
 
Going back thru Brad is probably a lot more effective at actually getting the point addressed in the TTC's training/knowledge base.

This and other similar issues have been brought up to him dozens and dozens of times, often with the vehicle number of a bus or streetcar to identify the driver refusing to let passengers board, and it is still a constant issue. Brad is great but 99% of bottom-line TTC employees (operators and inspectors) have zero interest in doing their job properly and don't care about passengers, they're just in it to get paid and they have their union to protect them, so they don't care to do their jobs remotely well, or listen to instructions from management.
 
This and other similar issues have been brought up to him dozens and dozens of times, often with the vehicle number of a bus or streetcar to identify the driver refusing to let passengers board, and it is still a constant issue. Brad is great but 99% of bottom-line TTC employees (operators and inspectors) have zero interest in doing their job properly and don't care about passengers, they're just in it to get paid and they have their union to protect them, so they don't care to do their jobs remotely well, or listen to instructions from management.

Or maybe management sucks at passing down this kind of information?
 
I wonder whether TTC has an internal 'knowledge management' system for documenting these unusual what-if's as they come up and issuing clarifications/experience sharing to their staff generally.
That's a very good question, to which I can only answer: "They used to". But the days of accountability seem to be receding, not progressing.

On the other hand, some staff excel at taking the initiative to 'make things right'. Case in point, GO obviously has some issues, not always theirs directly, as in the case of Onion Station, which as I've made clear in another forum, is a freakin mess downstairs, far worse than it needs to be.

There was some dispute with another poster on the legality of using the steps from the Union GO bus terminal up to the northernmost platform, and across west to a doorway which 'magically' deposits you on the Skywalk right in line to catch the UPX.

So passing there a few hours back, I asked one of the service agents in the bus station. (gist) "By all means that's legal, and you don't need to have a ticket to use it if you aren't loitering, and we now *recommend* that you use that path, because (wait for it) downstairs over in Union it's a chaotic nightmare". I told her about the difference of opinion in this forum, and she laughed. (gist) "One of our supervisors was trying to tell us that too, but then the word came from on high that we were to promote it. Go over and see the notice we had them put up at the base of the stairs" (the next building over on the bus platform). Sometimes...*often* it takes the intervention of those on the front line to know what's best, and indeed, the arrows and directions to UPX are large and plain to see now at Onion Bust Despot.

Taking minor issues to court is generally ineffective at changing the institutional viewpoint, even if you win.
It gets even worse than that, once the legal op handling the cases gets wind that you're going to argue the wording of the Bylaw, they pull the case, usually just before you go into court. Be prepared for that, and to let them know: "I was half expecting that, that's why I'm posting what happened and how to argue it on the web, for all the others to see." And watch their reaction. Priceless...

Or maybe management sucks at passing down this kind of information?
The detour mess at Onion appears to be exactly that. The GO staff I've talked to are pulling their hair out, it's the City's call, and the City is doing dick to assist the hapless contractor who evidently hasn't a clue on how to post *legible and understandable* directions for the public.

Someone, somewhere, has to realize that directions are a language, and if you're not good at it, hire in a professional who is. If the City is falling down on their contractual obligations, (and apparently they are) then GO, the TTC and VIA should collectively hire in a professional team for the job, and bill the City.
 
I used Presto on the TTC for the first time ever yesterday, on 124 Sunnybrook bus. When I saw the Presto readers, I almost couldn't believe it, I wasn't sure if they were in service or not. Maybe I should paid more attention to this thread and TTC website.

They are different than ones for Mississauga. I have put the card in a specific place, which was confusing at first. There's a card reader at the back of the bus too, I have no idea why. Again, I should probably pay more attention.
 
I used Presto on the TTC for the first time ever yesterday, on 124 Sunnybrook bus. When I saw the Presto readers, I almost couldn't believe it, I wasn't sure if they were in service or not. Maybe I should paid more attention to this thread and TTC website.
TTC buses are having presto added to them by division (bus garages) they do about 10 each night. Once the readers are added to the buss they go live. Unlike when they added them to the older streetcars they waited until all of them had them before turning them on. The new Streetcars have them equipped as son as the TTC takes possession of them.

They are different than ones for Mississauga. I have put the card in a specific place, which was confusing at first. There's a card reader at the back of the bus too, I have no idea why. Again, I should probably pay more attention.

The readers at the back of TTC buses are for when they are in asstion and have all the doors open. Eventually once Preto is installed across all stations and buses you will need to tap onto a bus or streetcar before boarding it in section. The new fare gates being installed will eventually require atp out to open when exiting as well. Paper transfers on the TTC will also be going the way of the Dodo.
 

Back
Top