|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
steveintoronto
Superstar
Not at all. "To your destination" clearly indicates not making a "return fare". The TTC regs have mentioned "no stopovers" for decades, and yet they provide the facilities for doing exactly that.
The issue is discussed in much greater detail and example here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/askTO/comments/8ievgc/im_new_and_extremely_confused_by_the_ttc/
Not mentioned though from my reading it so far is a Bylaw quote.
Last edited:
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Moderator UI leaked.
Richard White
Senior Member
If you cannot argue with yourself who can you argue with? I mean... that's what the voices are telling me....
steveintoronto
Superstar
The real problem comes when you don't like the answers you give yourself. Just make sure you take it as "one continuous journey" to satisfy the TTC Bylaw rules and regulations.
Except where it isn't:
Walking Transfers
In some cases, two routes operate near each other but do not serve the same intersection and do not have any stops in common. In these cases, where specifically identified, customers can use paper transfers to transfer between routes at the walking transfer locations.
Addendum: Just scrolling through a number of the TTC postings, the Bylaw is from 2009, and the notices based on it are occasionally updated (although in a court, it's the actual Bylaw that's published that any rulings will be based upon), but here's a doozy of a notice:
They had an intent to write something that they clearly didn't with the wording used.
What exactly does "for any length of time" mean in a legal sense?
Last edited:
TransitBart
Senior Member
You, my friend, are why we have lawyers. I think the previous statement is clear and reasonable. But you are correct. Not precise. Nonetheless, this line of thinking is what is ruining common law and forcing us to a Napoleanic/Roman system where all is codified. That is unwieldy and inferior. But this debate belongs elsewhere and as @nfitz said, we ought be done here.
If I wanted to hang out in a forum of lawyers, I’d probably have to get drunk first.
If I wanted to hang out in a forum of lawyers, I’d probably have to get drunk first.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Except we're "not done here". I continue to be charged for transfers on Presto that I shouldn't be charged for. And so are others. And thus I'm forced to avoid the pitfalls.
The issue will be "done" when TTC gets it right, and a good part of that is to publish an up-to-date Tariff and Bylaw where the details are published *for all to see* as Metrolinx does, and all systems in Ontario are required to do. The TTC used to do this on every vehicle just inside the boarding vestibule of streetcars and buses and at every subway station.
It doesn't take a "lawyer" to write concise and unambiguous regulations....but it certainly might help.
And I note that not one poster is able to show where in the Bylaw that the TTC posts does it require a tap-on for every POP vehicle. If you have paid your fare, are within the two hour window (which the TTC used to state was necessary, then obfuscated on it, then decided to claim it as policy again) and are travelling to your destination, then just as with a Metropass, it shouldn't be necessary to tap on. Someone has decided to make it so arbitrarily. The Bylaw doesn't make that a legal requirement.
You can do as you wish, it doesn't change the fact that no-one is able to provide a legal basis that requires a tap-on on every POP vehicle. Doing so renders myself and others at risk of being incorrectly charged again for a trip already paid for. It's happened to me and others, and will happen again.
I can fully understand the need to show payment of fare if requested to do so, and I've gladly complied when asked. That's in the Bylaw and part of the agreement of carriage.
Here's what the TTC publishes as the present Bylaw:
https://www.ttc.ca/Riding_the_TTC/TTC_Bylaws/index.jsp
And again, aside from whether one is travelling within the time allowed for one fare or not:
[...]
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.
[...]
You don't have to be a lawyer, drunken or not, to realize the massive legal over-reach claimed in that. And a very dangerous one. Carding on your Card.
As a comparison, here's from the considerably smaller (in total fares carried) Metrolinx published and updated Bylaw 2:
https://www.gotransit.com/en/policies/policiesandlegal
It's a starkly different approach to the TTC, and one that bends over backwards to protect privacy (at least in principle, and Metrolinx has addressed the latest controversies over that) makes no demands like the TTC does in the clause I quoted above, because it would be illegal to do so.
It's time for the TTC...it's *past time* for the TTC to revisit their 2009 Bylaw and get it to comply with Provincial and Federal law.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
As an interesting aside to the TTC POP string, found a number of oddities in
METROLINX (the “Corporation”) Tariff of Fares (Effective September 2, 2017)
https://www.gotransit.com/static_files/gotransit/assets/pdf/Policies/By-Law_No2A.pdf
This one especially so, and possibly this apparent glitch is a result of merging the GO Tariffs and Fares within the greater Metrolinx structure, which of course includes UPX. Note the use of the term "Corporation":
That indicates that taking a GO bus from say, Brampton to the airport, and then transferring to UPX to continue to ride to Union and out to say, Pickering, the premium fare UPX charge for the Weston to Airport segment is not applicable.
As UPX is further absorbed into the GO Transit operations, more of these anomalies will likely show, not least the allowance to have (gist) 'up to two dogs out of cages but on leash' on GO trains as well as UPX.
On further scrutiny, this is the real find:
"If there is more than one transit service available between the passenger’s point of departure and the City of Toronto".
METROLINX (the “Corporation”) Tariff of Fares (Effective September 2, 2017)
https://www.gotransit.com/static_files/gotransit/assets/pdf/Policies/By-Law_No2A.pdf
This one especially so, and possibly this apparent glitch is a result of merging the GO Tariffs and Fares within the greater Metrolinx structure, which of course includes UPX. Note the use of the term "Corporation":
That indicates that taking a GO bus from say, Brampton to the airport, and then transferring to UPX to continue to ride to Union and out to say, Pickering, the premium fare UPX charge for the Weston to Airport segment is not applicable.
As UPX is further absorbed into the GO Transit operations, more of these anomalies will likely show, not least the allowance to have (gist) 'up to two dogs out of cages but on leash' on GO trains as well as UPX.
On further scrutiny, this is the real find:
"If there is more than one transit service available between the passenger’s point of departure and the City of Toronto".
drum118
Superstar
Come Monday, The car folks are going to be happy using Dundas St E crossing Broadway as it will be open then. TTC crews doing last finish work on the new tracks and everything is done.
Crews will start doing the track work from Dundas to Gerard and once completed, the intersection.
A lot of areas south of Dundas on Broadview need concrete work.
Never noticed it before until today, the overhead between Dundas and Queen needs to be replace and looks like some work has started as the lines have been pull to the sides with new cross wire and connections being install. .
Saw 2 enforcers on my westbound 504 car, with one standing by each fare machine.
Crews will start doing the track work from Dundas to Gerard and once completed, the intersection.
A lot of areas south of Dundas on Broadview need concrete work.
Never noticed it before until today, the overhead between Dundas and Queen needs to be replace and looks like some work has started as the lines have been pull to the sides with new cross wire and connections being install. .
Saw 2 enforcers on my westbound 504 car, with one standing by each fare machine.
nfitz
Superstar
I have no idea what this sentence says. Nor am I sure why you are quoting yourself, and then disagreeing with yourself - again. Forgive me if I don't respond further.
This is starting to feel like when one starts to argue with those "lawyers" who claim that income tax is illegal!
Interestin! I don't think I've ever seen them at the weekend, outside of standing at a subway station! But most of my 504 trips are weekdays. Mind you, many are in the evening, and I don't see them then either.
Neutrino
Senior Member
What's the approximate average mileage TTC buses cover per year?
steveintoronto
Superstar
I'm sure it must for you. It comes with the voices.
In fact, after posting that, I read the entire string, and there is no mention of the Bylaw.
drum118
Superstar
Can't recall when I have seen an ALRV out on a Sunday, but there wasn't 1 out today, but 3 of them on 501. Caught 2 at Humber to the point I shot a video from one of them departing the loop to King St of the new rebuilt Queensway. In fact there was a 4th sitting at the Roncy carhouse with an CLRV.
Been looking for 4001-4005 for sometime, to only catch 3 of them in second on 501 and couldn't get a shot of them.
511 was all Flexity from what I saw, including 4484 that went into service 2 days ago.
Noticed an overhead sign at Queen for Southbound 510 saying this is the location you convert from pan to pole. Haven't noticed one going north at King for northbound 510, but could be some other place.
Been looking for 4001-4005 for sometime, to only catch 3 of them in second on 501 and couldn't get a shot of them.
511 was all Flexity from what I saw, including 4484 that went into service 2 days ago.
Noticed an overhead sign at Queen for Southbound 510 saying this is the location you convert from pan to pole. Haven't noticed one going north at King for northbound 510, but could be some other place.
Richard White
Senior Member
I believe 4001 was scrapped.. may be wrong though. I know one of the 4001-4005 cars has been
drum118
Superstar
4000 was scrap