[DSC]

Two hour transfers, as mentioned above, are also conspicuously absent. That alone is one aspect of the service improvement recommendations from last year which would've made the TTC infinitely more useful for a huge number of trips and potential riders, and they've maintained the current antiquated system for at least the near future. Have to shake my head on that one.

As timed transfers are really essential when PRESTO arrives and the TTC are pressing hard to get PRESTO into all the system in 2016 I think this was probably left off todays (generally very sensible) announcement to slightly reduce costs - it will come pretty soon.

 

[nfitz]

As timed transfers are really essential when PRESTO arrives and the TTC are pressing hard to get PRESTO into all the system in 2016 I think this was probably left off todays (generally very sensible) announcement to slightly reduce costs - it will come pretty soon.

They aren't essential. Metrolinx has promised to support the existing TTC transfer system.

In the hundreds of pages of the Master Agreement between TTC and Metrolinx is a requirement for Presto to support the existing TTC transfer system, including the frequent update of transfer tables.

Presumably if Presto is unable to fulfill the contractual requirements, forcing TTC to change their transfer system, then TTC would have the right to seek payment from Metrolinx to cover the operational cost of switching from the current transfer system, to a 2-hour transfer.

Therefore there's no point finding $20 million a year to pay to change the system now - when you risk losing that payment from Metrolinx in the future (assuming that it's as impossible to implement as everyone claims).

 

[W. K. Lis]

I can imagine some fare inspector, in the future, asking some 10 to 16 year old:

Can you prove you're eleven? Can I see your bicycle drivers license or your Sugary Drinks Control Board of Ontario Identification Card, please?
​

​

​

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I can't wait to deal with the TTC drivers who seem to think that children are several years older than they really are.

 

[CDL.TO]

Presumably if Presto is unable to fulfill the contractual requirements, forcing TTC to change their transfer system, then TTC would have the right to seek payment from Metrolinx to cover the operational cost of switching from the current transfer system, to a 2-hour transfer.

Interesting point. We'll sell if that's how it ends up panning out.

 

[PinkLucy]

They are the ones who like to make high school and university students pull out their ID cards when there's a line up to get in the streetcar

 

[wopchop]

I can't wait to deal with the TTC drivers who seem to think that children are several years older than they really are.

Papers, please!

Such is life in Glorious Arstotzka!

 

[DSC]

They aren't essential. Metrolinx has promised to support the existing TTC transfer system.

I stand corrected but the transfer Rules are very complicated so getting them right (and updated) will be a nightmare.

 

[nfitz]

I can imagine some fare inspector, in the future, asking some 10 to 16 year old:

Yes, it will be interesting, given there is no TTC photo ID until your 16.

Still - not once did I ever get asked for ID when carting around a very large 1.9 year old ... I've even completely forgot to pay for a 6-year old once, and nothing was said (sent the 6-year old back to pay a couple of minutes later when I realized what happened).

They are the ones who like to make high school and university students pull out their ID cards when there's a line up to get in the streetcar

Why don't they just flash it every time - that's what I did when I was a student. Heck, that's what everyone did ...

I stand corrected but the transfer Rules are very complicated so getting them right (and updated) will be a nightmare.

100% agree. Even if they can put in the entire transfer table. What do they do when buses are off route? If the 504 King ends up on Queen for a single run, can I not tap into Queen station? What if GPS isn't accurately reporting location? There's umpteem off-route buses every day, landing at stations and stops that weren't planned in the morning. It will be a nightmare.

Still, if I wanted to save $20 million, I'd be forcing Metrolinx to fulfill the contract.

 

[rbt]

I stand corrected but the transfer Rules are very complicated so getting them right (and updated) will be a nightmare.

The written rules are complicated but the actual implementation as enforced by drivers is actually pretty straight forward. Drivers really only worry about linked transfer points; to use a transfer you must board at a stop with an intersecting route within a reasonable amount of time.

I can see how they might implement the written rules by giving each stop and calculating the number of cardinal directions the user moved through for their trip (you get freedom of movement in 3 directions, the moment you use the 4th or double-back it's a new fare).

 

[CDL.TO]

to use a transfer you must board at a stop with an intersecting route within a reasonable amount of time.

"Reasonable" is hard to program.

Doubling back is sometimes necessary and most logical.

 

[DSC]

The written rules are complicated but the actual implementation as enforced by drivers is actually pretty straight forward. Drivers really only worry about linked transfer points; to use a transfer you must board at a stop with an intersecting route within a reasonable amount of time.

I can see how they might implement the written rules by giving each stop and calculating the number of cardinal directions the user moved through for their trip (you get freedom of movement in 3 directions, the moment you use the 4th or double-back it's a new fare).

If you are going to start fiddling with the rules (or rather how they are implemented) why not just bite the bullet and go for time. It's clear and arguments about a valid/invalid transfer will almost end - it's far harder to argue about the time. The cost of programming the current rules would be huge.

 

[nfitz]

I can see how they might implement the written rules by giving each stop and calculating the number of cardinal directions the user moved through for their trip (you get freedom of movement in 3 directions, the moment you use the 4th or double-back it's a new fare).

It's not difficult to find a valid routing using the TTC Trip Planner where you do use 4 directions - http://www.ttc.ca/Trip_planner/index.jsp

For example, a 4:31 afternoon trip from Broadview and Wolfrey to Roncesvalles and Grenadier. TTC says take 504 north to Broadview, BD line west to Dundas West, and then 504 south to Grenadier. At only 38 minutes, surely much faster than taking 504 all the way through the city in rush hour!

Another example is from Gerrard and Norwood to Dundas and Howard Park at 5 pm. You end up moving east twice - in this example on a 506 and then a 505, but late at night, it could be on two 506s.

Now, with only having to tap on at the first stop, this wouldn't get caught. But surely there's other examples.

Good grief, and what happens when you tap on eastbound on 506, and the next tap is northbound 51 at York Mills. I've done that to get to Leslie/Lesmill from Gerrard/Woodbine. 506, BD, Yonge Subway, 122 Graydon (or York Mills), and then a 51. I was going to take the 122 up to Lesmill/Duncan Mills and walk ... but at Leslie I realized there was a 51 coming at a transfer point.

It's going to be a nightmare if they don't adopt time-based transfer. But getting Metrolinx to pay for it as a penalty would be the cheapest way to do it.

If you are going to start fiddling with the rules (or rather how they are implemented) why not just bite the bullet and go for time. It's clear and arguments about a valid/invalid transfer will almost end - it's far harder to argue about the time. The cost of programming the current rules would be huge.

The cost doesn't matter. Metrolinx is paying for that. 2-hour transfers will cost $20 million. If Metrolinx can't pull it off, then Metrolinx pays $20 million - for a long time. If you assume 40 years of annual payments of $20 million at a discount rate of 5%, that's a $340 million penalty payment from Metrolinx.

 

[rbt]

"Reasonable" is hard to program.

Hard to define, trivial to program. Very few drivers will reject a transfer unless it is very old; reasonable in today's implementation seems to mean several hours. You could get fancy and say 2x the normal frequency of the service provided or simple and say 1 hour to transfer.

The written rules are not what is actually done today. Mimicking today's actual enforcement is pretty easy.

Doubling back is sometimes necessary and most logical.

Doubling back in 1 direction makes sense (south to high frequency route, east to another station, then north to destination; 3 directions of freedom), but trips requiring 4 directions of freedom and require a transfer to be verified for each component, are exceedingly rare. Anything close to reasonable that I could figure out went through a subway transfer point which doesn't verify the transfer.

I think you'll find most drivers will reject a 401 Queen transfer if you are trying to board a bus heading toward Queen street. There have been cases where walking a few blocks was also necessary and logical (flooding in street) but it still caused a double payment (for me).

 

[nfitz]

Doubling back in 1 direction makes sense (south to high frequency route, east to another station, then north to destination; 3 directions of freedom), but trips requiring 4 directions of freedom and require a transfer to be verified for each component, are exceedingly rare. Anything close to reasonable that I could figure out went through a subway transfer point which doesn't verify the transfer.

Rare but it happens. My worst was 6 transfers between 7 vehicles.

It was torrenting with rain, so on other days, I might have walked some.

Typically I take 504 and 506 to get home from Downtown to near Gerrard/Woodbine.

Occasionally I take 504/72/506 - when the only 504 coming is a 504 Greenwood instead of a 504 Broadview Station.

Worked fine, until the 506 got stuck because of a traffic accident at Greenwood. I got out, and was thinking of hoofing it in the bucketing rain, when a 31 Greenwood came along - so I took that to Greenwood station, the subway 1 stop to Coxwell (I'd have just missed the 92 Woodbine that goes every 20 minutes, and the walk is a bit shorter from Coxwell/Gerrard than Woodbine station), the Coxwell bus to Upper Gerrard. And then to my surprise I could see a 506 streetcar heading north towards me (it had detoured around Broadview/Queen/Coxwell). So I got on. All valid transfers. And not a particularly long commute, as I was never stopped anywhere for more than a minute.

It's going to be very difficult for an automatic transfer table system to deal with this kind of situation. Fortunately I had the Metropass that day, though only the Greenwood bus driver might challenge it - looked normal to everyone else - and the Greenwood driver could see the accident and stuck bus.

(Irony 1 - if I was aware of the accident on Gerrard, I could have simply caught an earlier 506 from Queen/Carlaw instead of a 72 Pape).

(Irony 2 - the 506 that got stuck at Greenwood was the replacement bus! But the operator had no idea what to do when he got to the closure at Greenwood. Instead of doing the obvious (go down to Dundas, and back up at the first opportunity - probably Coxwell with the narrow streets), he insisted that he had to talk to transit control. When they didn't answer, he decided to walk 2 blocks down to the scene instead ... which is when I bailed. This buses can get past things that streetcars can't, isn't always true).