(11-24-2019, 05:50 PM)jwilliamson Wrote: 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.

(11-24-2019, 09:42 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: 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.

(11-24-2019, 11:50 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(11-24-2019, 09:42 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: 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.

(11-25-2019, 07:23 AM)ZEBuilder Wrote:

(11-24-2019, 11:50 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: 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.

(11-25-2019, 08:20 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(11-25-2019, 07:23 AM)ZEBuilder Wrote: 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.

(11-25-2019, 08:37 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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.

(11-25-2019, 11:07 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: 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.

(11-25-2019, 03:23 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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.

(11-25-2019, 03:44 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: 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.

(11-25-2019, 03:44 PM)plam Wrote:

(11-25-2019, 03:23 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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.

(11-25-2019, 11:07 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: 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.