ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Printable Version +- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com) +-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14) +--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25) +--- Thread: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit (/showthread.php?tid=14) Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
|
RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 06-22-2020 (06-22-2020, 08:01 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote:(06-22-2020, 07:32 PM)KevinL Wrote: Isn't that down to the equipment vendor? Why would the Region have to be the one to order spare parts? It sounds like we are indeed paying for these spares...basically throwing good money after bad. It's not that we are buying replacement units, we are buying additional spares because the failure rate is so astronomically high, that we don't have enough spares to cover the repair work. Can I get paid for delivering garbage to the region too? Then get paid more when they realize I've delivered garbage? RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 06-22-2020 (06-22-2020, 07:51 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Which leads to the second part...it is completely insane that we are inspecing 11% of fares. That's absurdly high. That is probably, I dunno, between five and seven orders of magnitude (that's 10,000 and 1,000,000 times) as high a frequency as we inspect drivers. That’s an interesting framing I hadn’t heard before. Especially given the reduction in recent years in traffic enforcement, it stands out that fare enforcement is the one thing that is being done thoroughly. As to the charges, when did Tom Galloway say that? My impression is they started with warnings and eventually moved to charging (which is the right way to go anyway). Depending on how they handle problems with the machines, this could be perfectly reasonable. The fact that some machines are broken isn’t a legitimate reason for all riders to have not paid — only those who were unable to pay. I have no idea what the procedures are however — it’s entirely possible that people who tried to pay have been charged; but it’s also possible that hasn’t happened. One suggestion I would make if you do make a presentation to Regional Council: try to make it clear that you aren’t saying that fare enforcement shouldn’t happen, just that it needs to be done fairly and that it’s being overdone compared to other important enforcement priorities. The way some people talk, one wonders if they believe in enforcement at all. With no enforcement at all, there is no rule. Which may be fine; I think the notion of making GRT free (or sometimes free) has a lot of merit. But anybody who wants that should advocate for it straightforwardly. Another thought just occurred to me: I wonder how enforcement varies between time periods. It’s very hard to properly enforce fares on a packed-to-the-rafters vehicle, yet that is when the enforcement is in some senses most important: a non-paying rider actually is occupying a spot that could have been used by a paying rider, rather than a spot that would have gone empty. By contrast if there are 5 people on the train, it’s easy to inspect them all, and even if 20% haven’t paid a ticket can be issued. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 06-22-2020 (06-22-2020, 08:07 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(06-22-2020, 08:01 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: It's unclear who is paying for the additional units since they just put it under Transit Services. I agree with Bob -- it's not clear. The wording says they have been "ordered", not "purchased", so the vendor may be providing them at full price, for free or at a discount. We don't know. (If I were the vendor, I would provide spares free of charge until the reliability is where it should be.) RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 06-22-2020 (06-22-2020, 09:43 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(06-22-2020, 08:07 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: It sounds like we are indeed paying for these spares...basically throwing good money after bad. I mean, it's possible...but a vendor wouldn't provide free units (these are outside of the contract, so if we aren't paying, they are freee) out of the "goodness of their heart"...they would only provide them in an attempt to avoid punative measures we could take under the contract, but that would be optimistic on their part. Frankly, I'd be surprised if this was the case. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - KevinL - 06-23-2020 There has to be an in-service guarantee for a device like this - a failure to operate less than a year after installation, on so many units in an order, can't be pinned on the customer. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Coke6pk - 06-23-2020 (06-22-2020, 08:04 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(06-22-2020, 08:01 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: It's unclear who is paying for the additional units since they just put it under Transit Services. You are assuming that all of those charged attempted to pay. I would likely disagree. If you went to court and said you had a valid payment card, and attempted to validate it but it didn't read, and there was known issues with the validator's, you would be found not guilty. Perhaps those charged made ZERO attempt to pay. Maybe they admitted it. Maybe there was CCTV footage, I don't know, I don't work there. I know if I put a pack of gum on the grocery belt and the cashier doesn't scan it and I walk out without paying for it, I won't be charged for theft. If I put the gum in my pocket before I get to cash, then I would be guilty. I would like to think our fare enforcement uses similar guidelines. That being said, I don't know enough to comment on their level of enforcement. Coke RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 09:37 AM)KevinL Wrote: There has to be an in-service guarantee for a device like this - a failure to operate less than a year after installation, on so many units in an order, can't be pinned on the customer. I'm sure there is, and I am sure that the contractor is in breach of contract for it, and I very much hope we are seeking damages, but that doesn't mean that the contract would include free units if they fail. We could seek free units as damages, but that would be at a minimum a negotiation. The contractor could choose to give us free units under the belief that doing so would mitigate our damages and thus weaken any legal claim we would have to damages. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 06-23-2020 (06-22-2020, 10:17 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(06-22-2020, 09:43 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I agree with Bob -- it's not clear. The wording says they have been "ordered", not "purchased", so the vendor may be providing them at full price, for free or at a discount. We don't know. (If I were the vendor, I would provide spares free of charge until the reliability is where it should be.) As I said, if I were the vendor, I would provide them free (as loaners) to salvage the relationship. It absolutely happens in business, I have done it in the past, and I have had vendors do it for us. That said, I don't know whether it's the case here. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 09:51 AM)tomh009 Wrote:(06-22-2020, 10:17 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, it's possible...but a vendor wouldn't provide free units (these are outside of the contract, so if we aren't paying, they are freee) out of the "goodness of their heart"...they would only provide them in an attempt to avoid punative measures we could take under the contract, but that would be optimistic on their part. Frankly, I'd be surprised if this was the case. That's fair. That being said, I may be biased, I don't want this relationship "salvaged"...there's nothing of value I see here. Very disappointed that this has happened. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 10:04 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: That being said, I may be biased, I don't want this relationship "salvaged"...there's nothing of value I see here. Very disappointed that this has happened. The problem is that switching to another supplier at this point is not likely to be easy, quick or inexpensive. I don't know anything about the root causes of the problems we are seeing but it may be quicker to address those than to start over again. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - bgb_ca - 06-23-2020 (06-22-2020, 05:16 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: Also I was looking at the latest council report on ION and there are a few interesting points. I wonder if the 3% includes expired fares. I will admit I did get caught the other day with a transfer that expired about 2 minutes before the fare inspector boarded. I tapped on at Conestoga, which still had 10 mins left on my card, and the LRV lingered for a few minutes like it usually does, and the fare inspectors got on at Northfield. When he mentioned the fare expired two minutes earlier, he just asked if I tapped at Conestoga or not, and then went on to the next person. I used to get the monthly pass, but where my ridership dropped significantly due to me working from home, its no longer feasible for me to get one until the office reopens. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 11:12 AM)tomh009 Wrote:(06-23-2020, 10:04 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: That being said, I may be biased, I don't want this relationship "salvaged"...there's nothing of value I see here. Very disappointed that this has happened. Fixing things is relative, given my experience with the software, "fixing" things won't ever result in a good user experience...the company simply isn't capable of it...even the things which work, are bad... I suspect the regional staff see it the same as you do, but I am not looking to using this trash indefinitely. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 12:21 PM)bgb_ca Wrote:(06-22-2020, 05:16 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: Also I was looking at the latest council report on ION and there are a few interesting points. We were (eventually) told that this is an acceptable use of the system, and that it wouldn't be considered non-payment of fares, so it shouldn't be included in the 3%...although it absolutely could be, because they often don't seem to be on the same page. Of course, it's on the honour system anyway....so I'll ask again, why are we inspecting 10% of fares...that is absolutely nuts. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 01:46 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(06-23-2020, 11:12 AM)tomh009 Wrote: The problem is that switching to another supplier at this point is not likely to be easy, quick or inexpensive. I don't know anything about the root causes of the problems we are seeing but it may be quicker to address those than to start over again. Forever is a rather long time, and I do expect we'll see something new yet. But this type of system is not plug-and-play, so, even if contracts allow, I don't think we could do a switch to a different supplier quickly. But I really don't know the internals of this. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - trainspotter139 - 06-23-2020 (06-23-2020, 03:22 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(06-23-2020, 01:46 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Fixing things is relative, given my experience with the software, "fixing" things won't ever result in a good user experience...the company simply isn't capable of it...even the things which work, are bad... User Experience can be updated to be more cohesive. Definitely should have started the system with the cardholders, and the platform fair validators definitely should have been more reliable. But overall the system is working fairly well. It certainly isn't having as many issues as the TTC has had with Presto. |