[steveintoronto]

^ A "rule" has to be in the By-Law to be one. As in "Rules and Regulations".

Otherwise where do you draw the line? "No whistling or overt happiness, because we say so". It's not a "rule". It's a "request".

2.6 When requested to do so by a proper authority, a person travelling on the transit system shall immediately surrender for inspection the fare media, an identification card or photo identification card under which the person is travelling.

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.

TTC By-law No 1

Regulates the use of the TTC local passenger transportation system

www.ttc.ca

'Proof of Payment' means you only have to show proof when asked. Btw: Best they update By-Law 1. It's so contradictory that anyone with half a legal sense could ask for a charge to be dismissed.

 

[steveintoronto]

In Waterloo and purchased their EasyGO farecard at Charles St. Term. Overall impression is much faster read and write speed than Presto.

The readers being used on ION are identical to the ones for the UP Express at Pearson.

Any further details or corroboration anyone can add to this? If proven the case, this is compelling. The network might have a faster bit rate, but I suspect that's not what Reece is seeing. Faster in network terms is usually only in milliseconds to the user.

I saw the statement today that (gist) "It now costs more for the TTC to collect fares with Presto than it did with paper tickets and tokens". Yikes...

 

[littlewill1166]

^ A "rule" has to be in the By-Law to be one. As in "Rules and Regulations".

Otherwise where do you draw the line? "No whistling or overt happiness, because we say so". It's not a "rule". It's a "request".

TTC By-law No 1

Regulates the use of the TTC local passenger transportation system

www.ttc.ca

'Proof of Payment' means you only have to show proof when asked. Btw: Best they update By-Law 1. It's so contradictory that anyone with half a legal sense could ask for a charge to be dismissed.

I think I said this earlier, but all they have to do is put up a sign saying that you have to tap (which they have in certain locations) and they can fine you under 3.13(a).

 

[nfitz]

Any further details or corroboration anyone can add to this? If proven the case, this is compelling. The network might have a faster bit rate, but I suspect that's not what Reece is seeing. Faster in network terms is usually only in milliseconds to the user.

It does seem unlikely to me that one can perceive such a speed-up. Presto seems near instananeous to me, with no problems me tapping successfully on a vehicle when the unit is still lit up from the previous person, while everyone is moving without stopping. When the physical constraints (walking speed, etc.) are the bottleneck, the technology is working fine.

I saw the statement today that (gist) "It now costs more for the TTC to collect fares with Presto than it did with paper tickets and tokens". Yikes...

That sounds odd, given the rate TTC is paying was set contractually years ago, and was supposedly set to the rate that TTC was paying with paper tickets and tokens. Something doesn't seem to quite ring true here. Is there more to it?

 

[steveintoronto]

I think I said this earlier, but all they have to do is put up a sign saying that you have to tap (which they have in certain locations) and they can fine you under 3.13(a).

Fare payment is explicitly covered under
2. Requirement to Pay Fare - Conditions of Use
I've already quoted the relevant sub-clauses, but no matter what is quoted from this By-Law, most of it is nonsensical legally and literally.

How do you fit your claim to these:

2.10 No person paying a fare using cash, ticket or token, shall be entitled to more than one transfer.

2.11 No person paying a fare using a form of fare media not mentioned in Section 2.10 shall be entitled to a transfer.

2.12 No person shall use, or attempt to use a transfer unless the transfer has been issued to that person upon payment of a fare media in accordance with Section 2.10.

TTC By-law No 1

Regulates the use of the TTC local passenger transportation system

www.ttc.ca

They've had ten years to update this. There's not one accommodation or mention of the two hour Presto (or even defined as electronic media) transfer.

Try using your argument with a JP to get a conviction. My question is if only the offending clause would be struck, (3.13) or if the whole by-law has been protected from being struck in entirety if a patron is found not-guilty and the crown appeals, only to lose again. (Unless a legal clause is included when a muni passes a Bylaw, the whole bylaw goes down when only one clause is found for be non-compliant to legislation) This is terribly written.

This alone could be considered by some to mean the two hour Presto transfer is illegal:

2.11 No person paying a fare using a form of fare media not mentioned in Section 2.10 shall be entitled to a transfer.

Here's a thought: The reason the public statements on what you 'should do' as opposed to what you 'must do' have softened is down to the legal department saying: "Whoa, don't push that, because we'd lose in court".

Addendum: Just reading through the clauses in the Bylaw. There's some real zingers.

Here's one:

2.6 When requested to do so by a proper authority, a person travelling on the transit system shall immediately surrender for inspection the fare media, an identification card or photo identification card under which the person is travelling.

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.

Consider the latter clause. The logic stated is that you don't have to identify yourself, or show proof of fare anywhere outside of a POP vehicle, unless you're travelling on a "fare media" which by definition, in this case, is a Presto Card or equivalent.

They've really shot a foot off with that clause. Someone must have realized the shortcomings with 2.6 and tried to rectify it with 2.7, and opened a whole other can of worms. Going by those two clauses together, an inspector can't demand to see your proof-of-payment, no matter how or if you did or didn't pay anywhere but on a POP vehicle.

Ah! You might say, but you do if you used a Presto Card (or equiv)! Read it again, very carefully. How do they know to challenge you on that? You could just as easily have purportedly used "cash, ticket or token".

 

[littlewill1166]

Fare payment is explicitly covered under
2. Requirement to Pay Fare - Conditions of Use
I've already quoted the relevant sub-clauses, but no matter what is quoted from this By-Law, most of it is nonsensical legally and literally.

How do you fit your claim to these:

2.10 No person paying a fare using cash, ticket or token, shall be entitled to more than one transfer.

2.11 No person paying a fare using a form of fare media not mentioned in Section 2.10 shall be entitled to a transfer.

2.12 No person shall use, or attempt to use a transfer unless the transfer has been issued to that person upon payment of a fare media in accordance with Section 2.10.

TTC By-law No 1

Regulates the use of the TTC local passenger transportation system

www.ttc.ca

They've had ten years to update this. There's not one accommodation or mention of the two hour Presto (or even defined as electronic media) transfer.

Try using your argument with a JP to get a conviction. My question is if only the offending clause would be struck, (3.13) or if the whole by-law has been protected from being struck in entirety if a patron is found not-guilty and the crown appeals, only to lose again. (Unless a legal clause is included when a muni passes a Bylaw, the whole bylaw goes down when only one clause is found for be non-compliant to legislation) This is terribly written.

This alone could be considered by some to mean the two hour Presto transfer is illegal:

2.11 No person paying a fare using a form of fare media not mentioned in Section 2.10 shall be entitled to a transfer.

Here's a thought: The reason the public statements on what you 'should do' as opposed to what you 'must do' have softened is down to the legal department saying: "Whoa, don't push that, because we'd lose in court".

Addendum: Just reading through the clauses in the Bylaw. There's some real zingers.

Here's one:

2.6 When requested to do so by a proper authority, a person travelling on the transit system shall immediately surrender for inspection the fare media, an identification card or photo identification card under which the person is travelling.

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.

Consider the latter clause. The logic stated is that you don't have to identify yourself, or show proof of fare anywhere outside of a POP vehicle, unless you're travelling on a "fare media" which by definition, in this case, is a Presto Card or equivalent.

They've really shot a foot off with that clause. Someone must have realized the shortcomings with 2.6 and tried to rectify it with 2.7, and opened a whole other can of worms. Going by those two clauses together, an inspector can't demand to see your proof-of-payment, no matter how or if you did or didn't pay anywhere but on a POP vehicle.

Ah! You might say, but you do if you used a Presto Card (or equiv)! Read it again, very carefully. How do they know to challenge you on that? You could just as easily have purportedly used "cash, ticket or token".

Based on what I've seen, all fines issued by fare inspectors related to not having POP on streetcars have been issued under 3.13 (a). This is except for cases where an invalid transfer is presented, where fines are issued under 2.3 (a). If 3.13 was to be struck down, it probably would have been already.

 

[steveintoronto]

Based on what I've seen, all fines issued by fare inspectors related to not having POP on streetcars have been issued under 3.13 (a). This is except for cases where an invalid transfer is presented, where fines are issued under 2.3 (a). If 3.13 was to be struck down, it probably would have been already.

And how many of those were tested in court? I'd certainly love to, and thought I would be testing them myself, but every time my card was inspected, they only check for tap-on time, and thus passage still being within the transfer window.

I started realizing long ago with Presto on Metrolinx that tapping every time lends itself to more complications than it avoids by only tapping on the once. I have in fact been counselled by Metrolinx themselves when they were having problems with the UP on GO Presto tap to not tap on-tap off at Union but to tap on at the beginning of the journey by train, and tap-off at the destination. It resulted in cheaper, more accurate distance calculations for fare also. Metrolinx had quite a few complaints on that a few years back.

And so I've continued doing that on the TTC, and of the many times the card has been checked upon request, there's never been a problem.

By the way, Metrolinx term this state as being "an open ticket". It does cause UPX on-train staff to have to think sometimes when they check, but evidently more people are doing this, and it meets the terms of carriage.

And it saves having Presto charge you more than it should, which happens still far too often. KISS.

 

[Jonny5]

And how many of those were tested in court?

Probably almost none. If you are fined you are automatically granted an opportunity to first meet with the prosecutor before the court date and I have heard 95%+ of the cases go that way and the result is the fine being reduced to a nominal amount like $50 on condition it is paid immediately. The remainder of the cases that actually go to court are for multiple repeat offenders who are usually homeless or destitute and have no money to pay fines anyway.

 

[steveintoronto]

Good reply. On one hand, the court system, already underfunded at this time (at least the Provincial Courts) is relieved of the burden of backed up cases, ostensibly the TTC uses their own legal department to prosecute and administers a sense of fairness, knowing on one hand the catacomb Bylaw 1 is, but on the other, not wanting to condone fare cheaters.

I'll dig later on the Google database to see what more I can find, but it might take a legal database to know if any have been tested, and the outcome. I'll check with friends.

In all fairness to the TTC, Ontario munis are ripe with very poorly written Bylaws. Many retain outside legal counsel, and yet somehow still throw them together like leftover soup.

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

Fare payment is explicitly covered under
2. Requirement to Pay Fare - Conditions of Use
I've already quoted the relevant sub-clauses, but no matter what is quoted from this By-Law, most of it is nonsensical legally and literally.

How do you fit your claim to these:

2.10 No person paying a fare using cash, ticket or token, shall be entitled to more than one transfer.

2.11 No person paying a fare using a form of fare media not mentioned in Section 2.10 shall be entitled to a transfer.

2.12 No person shall use, or attempt to use a transfer unless the transfer has been issued to that person upon payment of a fare media in accordance with Section 2.10.

TTC By-law No 1

Regulates the use of the TTC local passenger transportation system

www.ttc.ca

They've had ten years to update this. There's not one accommodation or mention of the two hour Presto (or even defined as electronic media) transfer.

Try using your argument with a JP to get a conviction. My question is if only the offending clause would be struck, (3.13) or if the whole by-law has been protected from being struck in entirety if a patron is found not-guilty and the crown appeals, only to lose again. (Unless a legal clause is included when a muni passes a Bylaw, the whole bylaw goes down when only one clause is found for be non-compliant to legislation) This is terribly written.

This alone could be considered by some to mean the two hour Presto transfer is illegal:

2.11 No person paying a fare using a form of fare media not mentioned in Section 2.10 shall be entitled to a transfer.

Here's a thought: The reason the public statements on what you 'should do' as opposed to what you 'must do' have softened is down to the legal department saying: "Whoa, don't push that, because we'd lose in court".

Addendum: Just reading through the clauses in the Bylaw. There's some real zingers.

Here's one:

2.6 When requested to do so by a proper authority, a person travelling on the transit system shall immediately surrender for inspection the fare media, an identification card or photo identification card under which the person is travelling.

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.

Consider the latter clause. The logic stated is that you don't have to identify yourself, or show proof of fare anywhere outside of a POP vehicle, unless you're travelling on a "fare media" which by definition, in this case, is a Presto Card or equivalent.

They've really shot a foot off with that clause. Someone must have realized the shortcomings with 2.6 and tried to rectify it with 2.7, and opened a whole other can of worms. Going by those two clauses together, an inspector can't demand to see your proof-of-payment, no matter how or if you did or didn't pay anywhere but on a POP vehicle.

Ah! You might say, but you do if you used a Presto Card (or equiv)! Read it again, very carefully. How do they know to challenge you on that? You could just as easily have purportedly used "cash, ticket or token".

As I said, and will say it again, not only does no one tap when getting on a bus/streetcar at the subway ( which means we're all criminals ), but also the fare inspectors don't inspect. Last time I saw them a week ago, they literally weren't inspecting. Just on their phones

 

[TheKingEast]

I do not tap on connecting routes.

 

[steveintoronto]

As I said, and will say it again, not only does no one tap when getting on a bus/streetcars ( which means we're all criminals ), but also the fare inspectors don't inspect. Last time I saw them a week ago, they literally weren't inspecting. Just on their phones

Are you being sarcastic or serious? I tap on for each 'two hour session' and tap on my last leg if it will run past the two hour window, so I have proof of payment for that leg.

And I've been inspected many times by fare checkers. Just as on the UP Express, all they're looking for is 'an open ticket' (Metrolinx) or 'a tap on to start the two hour window' (TTC).

 

[steveintoronto]

I do not tap on connecting routes.

Although beware on your last leg that you've tapped on if your two hour transfer window will expire before reaching your destination. If checked on that leg, and you haven't tapped on, and you're past the window, there's no way to prove you boarded before the window expired. But agreed with trips well within the window. It's a freakin' hassle with hands full, dog in tow, idiots crowding around the rear doors and Presto machine, and...just fff it. 'I paid, check my card if you wish'. And every time I have been checked, all they look for is the initial tap-on time.

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

Are you being sarcastic or serious? I tap on for each 'two hour session' and tap on my last leg if it will run past the two hour window, so I have proof of payment for that leg.

And I've been inspected many times by fare checkers. Just as on the UP Express, all they're looking for is 'an open ticket' (Metrolinx) or 'a tap on to start the two hour window' (TTC).

I was talking about at the stations!

 

[littlewill1166]

AG released a report on the TTC's Revenue Operations http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Com...Report_Review_of_TTC's_Revenue_Operations.pdf