07-25-2024, 01:36 AM
(07-24-2024, 07:08 PM)Bytor Wrote:(07-18-2024, 01:00 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: This is not a new statement, it's the one they've been using for years and year.
It is also complete and total bullshit.
"Presto could not be selected because they did not respond to a Request for Proposals, which is a Regional requirement."
The region created a requirement (Request for Proposals) that Presto would not fill....I won't say we did it to intentionally exclude Presto...but this is not a reason not to have Presto...but it is nothing more than an excuse, we could have chosen Presto, if we'd wanted, an RFP is no required by anyone but us.
Governments in most cases cannot engage a vendor without RFQ/RFP for large contracts. Doing so would be to establish a sole source/single source contract, which is generally not permitted and can only be done under certain circumstances outlined in the relevant laws & bylaws. Even if ${Company} is the best, if they didn't bid, if they didn't respond to RFQ or RFP, it doesn't matter.
This is obviously not true on face. Presto doesn't do RFPs. Other cities in Ontario have Presto. So it is trivial to demonstrate that it is not a legal requirement that we had to use an RFP process that excluded Presto. This is why I call this bullshit. It isn't a legal requirement. It was a choice we made to use a process that excluded Presto. Whether that was the purpose of the choice, I don't claim to say, but it is none the less the effect of a choice that WE (our city, our government) made, not one that was forced on us. If we'd wanted Presto, this would not have stopped us.
(07-24-2024, 07:08 PM)Bytor Wrote: This archived PDF of P&W meeting from 2013 has a lot of good in-depth explanations.
EasyGO came in at roughly $11M. How much do you think an MoU with Mextrolinx/Presto would have cost us, and based on the timeline issues mentioned in that PDF, how late do you think it would have been?
EasyGO was also very late.
As for cost, I have no idea, but I know what is most expensive...doing EasyGO, having a worse system, then sometime in the future, doing Presto anyway, because our shitty system is holding us back.
(07-24-2024, 07:08 PM)Bytor Wrote:(07-18-2024, 01:00 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: At the time, Presto was not capable of providing certain features GRT needed, such as handling a U-Pass program.
So? U-pass used to be handled by students showing their student card, the same thing could have continued.
Having our own system allows us to ensure our fare products meet our unique customer needs.
Bravado put it better than I could...we're not a special fucking flower, nothing about our transit system or it's users is in any way unique.
Oh horse puckey.
You need to tap student cards for more than just proof of payment. The taps provide valuable information to tell who transferred where, something you need when you have multiple routes stopping at a given place and you need to know which ones to prioritize synchronizing to each other and to provide the shortest delays for the most people.
But we weren't tapping student cards BEFORE Presto, and if we really wanted to get students to tap a card, we could have given them Presto cards.
(07-24-2024, 07:08 PM)Bytor Wrote: Also, Presto wouldn't do paper tickets or the Mobility Plus vehicles.
Calling not getting Presto "bullshit" requires ignoring a whole lot of information about the problems with it.
"Presto wouldn't do paper tickets"...neither does EasyGO...and yet it remains physically possible to pass a piece of paper to a transit vehicle driver, nothing about presto prevents this.
The point of calling all this "bullshit" is not that there isn't some nominal reason, but that none of these requirements are insurmountable or frankly even slightly difficult to overcome.
We have a worse system because of these excuses.