ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[danbrotherston]

I found a usability issue with the card readers today. The RFID reader is mounted on top of the pedestal facing up, and the optical scanner is near the top facing forward. If someone shorter than the pedestal is trying to pay, they will naturally stand directly in front of it and reach past the optical scanner to tap the card. That means it will try to scan their coat sleeve as a QR code instead of scanning the card, and leads to frequent failed transfers.

I'd seen it happen before, but only realized what the problem was today.

You'd think since we chose such an experienced company they'd know not to do things like this.

That could be the cause of the problem I've seen, or it could be another problem, but I've on multiple occasions had the pedistal read my card successfully but fail to deduct a fare from it.

Frankly, at this point, I am concerned about getting charged for fare evasion, and frankly, that's unacceptable.

[Bob_McBob]

I still haven't gone for a ride, but the gangs of security guards at some stations really don't make the system look very inviting, especially knowing all the potential issues with payments.

[ijmorlan]

I still haven't gone for a ride, but the gangs of security guards at some stations really don't make the system look very inviting, especially knowing all the potential issues with payments.

Gangs? How many have you seen? When I see them they are operating in pairs.

[ZEBuilder]

I still haven't gone for a ride, but the gangs of security guards at some stations really don't make the system look very inviting, especially knowing all the potential issues with payments.

Gangs? How many have you seen? When I see them they are operating in pairs.

When Cameron heights gets out at the end of the day there are about 3 or 4 guards there because people try to skip the payment.

[ijmorlan]

Gangs? How many have you seen? When I see them they are operating in pairs.

When Cameron heights gets out at the end of the day there are about 3 or 4 guards there because people try to skip the payment.

Seems reasonable.

Not pointing the finger at anyone here, but I think there is a weird anti-enforcement vibe in our society which is not productive. Why do people think our stores are so inexpensive and easy to use? Because almost everybody understands that one cannot go into a store and just take stuff. If we lose that, then either prices have to go up (but only for the honest, note), or we have to go back to having everything behind the counter (which would also increase prices owing to the need to hire more staff). Poor people who really need the Dollarama should be strongly in favour of rigorous anti-shoplifting enforcement; rich people will always be able to pay for personalized service at high-end stores, but the less well-off really need our current efficient retail model.

A similar consideration applies to transit. If one believes that transit should be free, that is fine, a valid opinion; and the lack of a need for enforcement is a benefit of that. But given that we charge for transit, it’s absurd to be opposed to rigorous enforcement.

[danbrotherston]

When Cameron heights gets out at the end of the day there are about 3 or 4 guards there because people try to skip the payment.

Seems reasonable.

Not pointing the finger at anyone here, but I think there is a weird anti-enforcement vibe in our society which is not productive. Why do people think our stores are so inexpensive and easy to use? Because almost everybody understands that one cannot go into a store and just take stuff. If we lose that, then either prices have to go up (but only for the honest, note), or we have to go back to having everything behind the counter (which would also increase prices owing to the need to hire more staff). Poor people who really need the Dollarama should be strongly in favour of rigorous anti-shoplifting enforcement; rich people will always be able to pay for personalized service at high-end stores, but the less well-off really need our current efficient retail model.

A similar consideration applies to transit. If one believes that transit should be free, that is fine, a valid opinion; and the lack of a need for enforcement is a benefit of that. But given that we charge for transit, it’s absurd to be opposed to rigorous enforcement.

Leaving aside the VERY real possibility of abuse (plenty of places see poor and especially minorities targeted by enforcement, that absolutely could happen here--not saying it is now, but it could, and as pointed out, students ARE already being targeted) and the resulting effect on those groups who are now visibily targeted by police, and thus in the eyes of everyone are "criminals" and their own eyes (correctly) now feel persecuted, even when law abiding.

Having an aggressive police presence has very real costs, it makes the transit system look dangerous, and unpleasant, and frankly, it is unpleasant. Drivers do not suffer this level of enforcement, despite commiting vastly more crime, and causing vastly more harm as a result. Given the complete failure of our fare payment system, this is a substanial negative for the system. Do not discount the negative effects of enforcement like this.

As a side note on driving, I would very much like to see a cost analysis to see whether fare avoidance costs more than the direct and indirect costs of collisions involving the LRT.

[Rainrider22]

You fail to note that many people in society see it as a polar opposite. They see a security presence and a source of comfort, not everyone fears or looks at security or police as a state imposed enemy to the public . It is smart to have security there when the high school gets out because the first time something goes wrong and their is a fight a.d someone gets hurt, everyone will want to know what Transit was doing to prevent it. Youbare making assumptions without the information. Perhaps they have had an increase of incidents there monitored on the cameras and they made a decision to mitigate the risk before something happens. Not everything is about money

[ijmorlan]

Having an aggressive police presence has very real costs, it makes the transit system look dangerous, and unpleasant, and frankly, it is unpleasant. Drivers do not suffer this level of enforcement, despite commiting vastly more crime, and causing vastly more harm as a result. Given the complete failure of our fare payment system, this is a substanial negative for the system. Do not discount the negative effects of enforcement like this.

As a side note on driving, I would very much like to see a cost analysis to see whether fare avoidance costs more than the direct and indirect costs of collisions involving the LRT.

Four unarmed transit officers is not an “aggressive” police presence.

I missed the “complete failure” of our fare payment system. I understand it has problems, but “complete failure” feels like hyperbole to me. My impression is that transit enforcement is understanding of people having trouble with it; if anybody is aware of problems with their reaction I’m interested in hearing about it.

As to the costs of fare avoidance, it’s not about the cost of the current level of fare avoidance. Enforcement is about making it clear to everybody that the fare system is not an “only losers and chumps pay” policy, which is what a no-enforcement policy would be. I consider myself a pretty honest person, but if it became clear that transit enforcement was effectively non-existent, I fail to see why I should be the one to continue paying even if large portions of the population were getting away without paying.

I’ve heard that they have really intensive enforcement in some European cities. I’ll bet it costs way more than the cost of their fare avoidance, but they have judged that they need to maintain the appearance and actuality that everyone who rides contributes to the cost of running the service.

As to driver enforcement, totally agreed. I have been dismayed by recent articles which seem to be saying that the number of tickets issued in recent years is way down compared to the past. Everything I said about only chumps paying applies to traffic laws too, except that there are usually safety problems with violating traffic laws.

[MidTowner]

Four unarmed transit officers is not an “aggressive” police presence.

I missed the “complete failure” of our fare payment system. I understand it has problems, but “complete failure” feels like hyperbole to me. My impression is that transit enforcement is understanding of people having trouble with it; if anybody is aware of problems with their reaction I’m interested in hearing about it.

As to the costs of fare avoidance, it’s not about the cost of the current level of fare avoidance. Enforcement is about making it clear to everybody that the fare system is not an “only losers and chumps pay” policy, which is what a no-enforcement policy would be. I consider myself a pretty honest person, but if it became clear that transit enforcement was effectively non-existent, I fail to see why I should be the one to continue paying even if large portions of the population were getting away without paying.

I’ve heard that they have really intensive enforcement in some European cities. I’ll bet it costs way more than the cost of their fare avoidance, but they have judged that they need to maintain the appearance and actuality that everyone who rides contributes to the cost of running the service.

As to driver enforcement, totally agreed. I have been dismayed by recent articles which seem to be saying that the number of tickets issued in recent years is way down compared to the past. Everything I said about only chumps paying applies to traffic laws too, except that there are usually safety problems with violating traffic laws.

Well-put. And there doesn't seem to be enough enforcement, in my experience. I've only encountered it a handful of times, and I take the system nearly every day. It's a function of when I often take it (I work early and am typically on the train for my morning trip before 6:30), but that's too bad: I see fellow commuters at that hour stroll on to the platform without tapping, and it's obvious that, at that hour, I'd have practically zero chance of being caught evading the fare.

There should be extensive enforcement. It shouldn't be aggressive, and my limited experience with it is that it isn't. It is not discriminatory: every single rider is asked to present proof of payment. It has been friendly, at least in my experience: on principle, I greet the inspectors and wait for them to request proof of payment, instead of just holding it out. I've received courteous greetings in return, and polite requests.

If any of that were to change, their practices and maybe the whole system should be evaluated. It would be worth making it inescapably obvious to transit users that these are not police, and have extremely limited powers.

[danbrotherston]

I really don't think enforcement is the reason people would pay for transit. I personally wouldn't steal, even if I knew I could get away with it, I don't know about others here.

As for "complete failure", when I, a person who fully intends to pay for transit every time I ride, am in fear of accidentally failing to pay, I'd call that a complete failure...worse, I am not comfortable relying on the generosity and judgement of a security guard. Even worse than that, I would probably be fine for no other reason than I am a relatively respectable looking white male, which is just not the reason I don't want to be charged with fare evasion. I have the same issue with Presto...I twice failed to pay for my train ride to Union despite my good faith efforts to do so, if I had been inspected by a fare inspector then I would have been thrown off the train and received a large fine...that is unacceptable to me, and especially offensive in the face of the dozens of drivers I encounter daily who knowingly and intentionally endangering my life and others (a vastly more serious crime) who have little fear of any consequences.

And I can personally tell you that I feel less comfortable when I see security board the train, it negatively impacts my riding experience, even if you want to argue whether it qualifies as "aggressive" police presence.

I have previously been sympathetic to the upset of "chumps pay"...but I eventually got over it, I'm far more concerned with having a good service than ensuring everyone pays...I'm much angrier at wealthier people who avoid paying their fair share and wield excessive amounts of power as a result of wealth...at the end of the day, there is little I can do about assholes poor assholes and they've probably suffered enough anyway...I'm quite privileged.

Possibly some fare inspection is beneficial, but there is no need to have fare inspectors be uniformed security guards working in teams (the few bylaw officers we have don't act in teams), on every fourth train I take, it should be commensurate to the crime. I find the current situation entirely inappropriate.

@Rainrider22 As for how one interprets a security presence, yes, some may be comforted, but I am absolutely cognizent of the fact that others do not, and we are absolutely not at a position where a lack of security presence would be threatening to some in the way that a police presence is threatening to others. They are there for fare evasion, not to make you feel safe.

[Rainrider22]

You are wrong. They are there for safety and security too... Again youb speak as you are the authority and know all of everything . It is becoming very tiring seeing your constant rhetoric.

[plam]

I have previously been sympathetic to the upset of "chumps pay"...but I eventually got over it, I'm far more concerned with having a good service than ensuring everyone pays...I'm much angrier at wealthier people who avoid paying their fair share and wield excessive amounts of power as a result of wealth...at the end of the day, there is little I can do about assholes poor assholes and they've probably suffered enough anyway...I'm quite privileged.

Possibly some fare inspection is beneficial, but there is no need to have fare inspectors be uniformed security guards working in teams (the few bylaw officers we have don't act in teams), on every fourth train I take, it should be commensurate to the crime. I find the current situation entirely inappropriate.

I'm personally not in favour of free transit or of perceived-free-transit because I don't think that leads to the best societal support for transit. It's kind of that thing which I totally hate but seems to be a thing that humans do where only "deserving" people should be worthy (including of not being hit by a person driving a car). I wish that we didn't do that, but I also think that's where society is at.

In the context of fare inspection and penalties, it would seem like the rational level for the penalty would make the expected cost of not paying slightly more than the cost of paying. One could have exceptions for first-time non-payers etc.

There has also been the thing in society where we have more uniformed presence etc. UK border guards didn't used to be uniformed 20 years ago. Now they are.

[danbrotherston]

You are wrong. They are there for safety and security too...  Again youb speak as you are the authority and know all of everything .  It is becoming very tiring seeing your constant rhetoric.

Just because it is in their job description does not mean that's why they are there.

If there was no fare inspection requirement, they wouldn't be there, or in far lower numbers.  Even Charles Terminal only ever hard one or two visible security guards at any time, and it's far larger than one LRT station. I can count on one hand the number of times I saw a security guard outside of Charles Terminal before the LRT, and I see them almost every time I ride now.

[danbrotherston]

I have previously been sympathetic to the upset of "chumps pay"...but I eventually got over it, I'm far more concerned with having a good service than ensuring everyone pays...I'm much angrier at wealthier people who avoid paying their fair share and wield excessive amounts of power as a result of wealth...at the end of the day, there is little I can do about assholes poor assholes and they've probably suffered enough anyway...I'm quite privileged.

Possibly some fare inspection is beneficial, but there is no need to have fare inspectors be uniformed security guards working in teams (the few bylaw officers we have don't act in teams), on every fourth train I take, it should be commensurate to the crime. I find the current situation entirely inappropriate.

I'm personally not in favour of free transit or of perceived-free-transit because I don't think that leads to the best societal support for transit. It's kind of that thing which I totally hate but seems to be a thing that humans do where only "deserving" people should be worthy (including of not being hit by a person driving a car). I wish that we didn't do that, but I also think that's where society is at.

In the context of fare inspection and penalties, it would seem like the rational level for the penalty would make the expected cost of not paying slightly more than the cost of paying. One could have exceptions for first-time non-payers etc.

There has also been the thing in society where we have more uniformed presence etc. UK border guards didn't used to be uniformed 20 years ago. Now they are.

I am not in favour of free transit either. But I don't believe the current situation is positive at all, having a fare inspection can be done without the problems in the current system, and shouldn't be done until our payment system is reliable.  And yes, society has definitely become more militarized and more policed, I do not consider this a good thing, or something we should just accept.

[jeffster]

As to driver enforcement, totally agreed. I have been dismayed by recent articles which seem to be saying that the number of tickets issued in recent years is way down compared to the past. Everything I said about only chumps paying applies to traffic laws too, except that there are usually safety problems with violating traffic laws.

Yep. I seem to be one of the 'losers' or 'chumps' that try to obey traffic laws.

I got my daughter and myself something from Tim Hortons on Ottawa St S across from Fireside. Came out of the driveway towards Homer Watson and we got the red light. I was watching the cars to my right just blow through the red light to make a right turn without even slowing (as Strasburg Rd had not traffic going through, they were turning left onto Ottawa). I think there needs to be more enforcement as driving abilities continue to deteriorate in the region.