GO Transit

[danbrotherston]

Here is an article that lists the reasons why Presto was not chosen.

Thanks. So, one factor was the cost: Presto won't participate in an RFP, and would not provide operating or capital cost estimates, according to the article. That does make it difficult to determine whether Presto's cost is competitive or not.

And for the flexibility:

Presto would require the region to agree to certain terms universal to every transit system using it, including passenger classifications and future global fare policies, the region said. Any changes to the standardized system would require every service using Presto - about 12 - to agree.

As an example for this, the region would have needed to implement exactly the same affordable transit pass as the other Presto members, rather than being able to tailor it for our region (for example, our ATP provides discounted single fares, Presto does not).

Given the lack of flexibility and the lack of clarity about costs, I suspect that I would have chosen against Presto as well had I been making the decision. Metrolinx has chosen to provide a standardized service, as is their right, but that does mean it may not fit the requirements as well for any given region.

I find this a really uncompelling argument. We are not a special flower. I don't see anything about our region that necessitates some unique fare structure. We may WANT to do things differently, and that's entirely reasonable, but it is entirely based on preference. I don't see that there is anything local here that uniquely REQUIRES or JUSTIFIES us doing something differently.

As for the clarity about costs, I'm not a corporate accountant and I wasn't present for the negotiations. I'm not sure at what point Presto details would have become known, and I completely agree that we should not sign a blank cheque. But I also don't really believe that is the circumstance that would occur. Keep in mind, before the RFP no prices were known at all, we only knew what our estimates was. I am certain that a Presto number could have been known, if we had pursued it.

What is clear to me is that staff did not want presto, and neither did council. Regardless of whether it was for a good reason or bad, or whether long term it was a good decision or bad, it was made based on the wishes of council and staff, and they were not interested in public input on that decision.

[KingandWeber]

Thanks. So, one factor was the cost: Presto won't participate in an RFP, and would not provide operating or capital cost estimates, according to the article. That does make it difficult to determine whether Presto's cost is competitive or not.

And for the flexibility:

As an example for this, the region would have needed to implement exactly the same affordable transit pass as the other Presto members, rather than being able to tailor it for our region (for example, our ATP provides discounted single fares, Presto does not).

Given the lack of flexibility and the lack of clarity about costs, I suspect that I would have chosen against Presto as well had I been making the decision. Metrolinx has chosen to provide a standardized service, as is their right, but that does mean it may not fit the requirements as well for any given region.

I find this a really uncompelling argument. We are not a special flower. I don't see anything about our region that necessitates some unique fare structure. We may WANT to do things differently, and that's entirely reasonable, but it is entirely based on preference. I don't see that there is anything local here that uniquely REQUIRES or JUSTIFIES us doing something differently.

As for the clarity about costs, I'm not a corporate accountant and I wasn't present for the negotiations. I'm not sure at what point Presto details would have become known, and I completely agree that we should not sign a blank cheque. But I also don't really believe that is the circumstance that would occur. Keep in mind, before the RFP no prices were known at all, we only knew what our estimates was. I am certain that a Presto number could have been known, if we had pursued it.

What is clear to me is that staff did not want presto, and neither did council. Regardless of whether it was for a good reason or bad, or whether long term it was a good decision or bad, it was made based on the wishes of council and staff, and they were not interested in public input on that decision.

I might be wrong about this, but I thought the biggest issue was university passes. AFAIK, Presto would not support (and still does not support) any kind of u-pass system like the Region already had in place with the local universities (where there is a hugely discounted subscription, but it requires all students to have to mandatorily subscribe). Financially that would have been a big hit to them and would have required them to break their agreements with the universities. Obviously it could be done, but I suspect the Region was very worried ridership would crater without students having a mandatory pass. Presto also had a ton of bad press at the time as I recall with Toronto essentially allowing anyone to board free at a number of stations for months while issues were resolved (I remember being at such a station). With that all being said, I think we should be thinking about moving to Presto since I do think universality is such a big benefit. I really don't think the decision at the time was so black and white though as others have said.

[danbrotherston]

I find this a really uncompelling argument. We are not a special flower. I don't see anything about our region that necessitates some unique fare structure. We may WANT to do things differently, and that's entirely reasonable, but it is entirely based on preference. I don't see that there is anything local here that uniquely REQUIRES or JUSTIFIES us doing something differently.

As for the clarity about costs, I'm not a corporate accountant and I wasn't present for the negotiations. I'm not sure at what point Presto details would have become known, and I completely agree that we should not sign a blank cheque. But I also don't really believe that is the circumstance that would occur. Keep in mind, before the RFP no prices were known at all, we only knew what our estimates was. I am certain that a Presto number could have been known, if we had pursued it.

What is clear to me is that staff did not want presto, and neither did council. Regardless of whether it was for a good reason or bad, or whether long term it was a good decision or bad, it was made based on the wishes of council and staff, and they were not interested in public input on that decision.

I might be wrong about this, but I thought the biggest issue was university passes. AFAIK, Presto would not support (and still does not support) any kind of u-pass system like the Region already had in place with the local universities (where there is a hugely discounted subscription, but it requires all students to have to mandatorily subscribe). Financially that would have been a big hit to them and would have required them to break their agreements with the universities. Obviously it could be done, but I suspect the Region was very worried ridership would crater without students having a mandatory pass. Presto also had a ton of bad press at the time as I recall with Toronto essentially allowing anyone to board free at a number of stations for months while issues were resolved (I remember being at such a station). With that all being said, I think we should be thinking about moving to Presto since I do think universality is such a big benefit. I really don't think the decision at the time was so black and white though as others have said.

Presto absolutely does support this kind of thing, most places which use Presto have universities, and many of them have subsidized passes, some with the same model as ours.

Fundamentally, there is no problem with that with Presto. I believe the only limiting factor is that students use their UW or Laurier student card AS their bus pass, and this wouldn't have been possible with Presto, students would need to have carried a Presto card in addition to their student card.

This is exactly the point, yeah, it's not exactly what we want, but it's hardly the insurmountable obstacle that it is made out to be.  And given that many students also use GO, it probably hardly matters at all.

[tomh009]

I find this a really uncompelling argument. We are not a special flower. I don't see anything about our region that necessitates some unique fare structure. We may WANT to do things differently, and that's entirely reasonable, but it is entirely based on preference. I don't see that there is anything local here that uniquely REQUIRES or JUSTIFIES us doing something differently.

Absolutely it was a choice. There were functions not available on Presto (at least at that time), and both the council and staff believed that those functions were important to the region.

It doesn't mean that this region is a "special flower", as you say, but it does mean that Presto's priorities did not align with our council's priorities. So, the council chose a different path. Whether it turned out the best path in retrospect or not, I do think it was perfectly reasonable grounds for the decision.

[ac3r]

We may WANT to do things differently, and that's entirely reasonable, but it is entirely based on preference.

Kinda like our lingering attachment to having to use a multitude of blue box bins to recycle. I laugh when GTA friends move here and then complain that we have no giant wheelie bin like they use in the GTA and instead have to obtain a bunch of individual bins and then they blow down the street with the slightest gust of wind (though, now that Miller or whoever took over from WM, they do at least stack them and place your green bin on the top, which helps. WM gave no fucks and would just chuck them as far as they could).

[nms]

In any case, it's a moot point now, we'll just have to wait 30 years for an integrated fare card. For me, I literally have nine fare cards in my travel bag now....three family members times GRT, Presto, and London. Where we will be by the end of the month, I expect to have 3 fare cards for the entire country including bike rentals.

To be fair, the size of the Netherlands is roughly comparable to the Golden Horseshoe if you stretch it London and up to Orangeville. But yes, we'll get there eventually.

[danbrotherston]

In any case, it's a moot point now, we'll just have to wait 30 years for an integrated fare card. For me, I literally have nine fare cards in my travel bag now....three family members times GRT, Presto, and London. Where we will be by the end of the month, I expect to have 3 fare cards for the entire country including bike rentals.

To be fair, the size of the Netherlands is roughly comparable to the Golden Horseshoe if you stretch it London and up to Orangeville. But yes, we'll get there eventually.

It's actually 2-3 times that size, but even if it was, how is that relevant? It has a number of people and cities that is much larger than that.

And Presto operates over a much larger area, since it is also supported in Ottawa.

[danbrotherston]

I find this a really uncompelling argument. We are not a special flower. I don't see anything about our region that necessitates some unique fare structure. We may WANT to do things differently, and that's entirely reasonable, but it is entirely based on preference. I don't see that there is anything local here that uniquely REQUIRES or JUSTIFIES us doing something differently.

Absolutely it was a choice. There were functions not available on Presto (at least at that time), and both the council and staff believed that those functions were important to the region.

It doesn't mean that this region is a "special flower", as you say, but it does mean that Presto's priorities did not align with our council's priorities. So, the council chose a different path. Whether it turned out the best path in retrospect or not, I do think it was perfectly reasonable grounds for the decision.

I agree that it was a choice, although I disagree with their decisions. Again, I feel that they didn't value fare card integration as much as they should have, and I believe that personal beliefs on the part of staff and council played a role (and keep in mind, I sympathise fully with not trusting the province).

But as I've said, what really ticks me off is folks in Government (both staff and council) telling me that Presto "wasn't an option".

[jamincan]

At work, if I approach a vendor and request a quote and they just shrug their shoulders and point to other businesses that use their services and tell me they have a policy of not providing quotes, that "option" is going to end up in the trash. I would have made the same decision as the Region did at that time. It looks to me like Presto took themselves out of the running. I know you cynically believe there was some sort of anti-Presto conspiracy among staff at the Region, Dan, but I have yet to see a shred of evidence to that effect.

[danbrotherston]

At work, if I approach a vendor and request a quote and they just shrug their shoulders and point to other businesses that use their services and tell me they have a policy of not providing quotes, that "option" is going to end up in the trash. I would have made the same decision as the Region did at that time. It looks to me like Presto took themselves out of the running. I know you cynically believe there was some sort of anti-Presto conspiracy among staff at the Region, Dan, but I have yet to see a shred of evidence to that effect.

Presto is not just any an interchangeable vendor. They are the ONLY source for integrated transit fare cards.

And our government is not a business and should not be run like a business (I get tired of saying this) But even if we were a business, if your customers were telling you "You MUST have X for a good customer experience." Then even if the sole vendor of X isn't willing to follow YOUR process, you should probably pursue a relationship with them anyway.

I'm not suggesting there is an anti-presto conspiracy, where have I called it a conspiracy? A conspiracy would be if esolutions paid council or staff under the table to take Presto out of the running. I never suggested anything remotely like that, so don't accuse me of such things.

I simply believe our council and staff had a personal preference not to use presto. Nothing about that is a conspiracy, in fact, it's literally the thing we elect people for, to have a preference, even if we use processes like RFPs to pretend otherwise sometimes. 

In any case, Presto is the ONLY vendor that can provide an integrated fare card solution in the region. So council and staff had to decide from the outset, do we want an integrated fare card, and what are we willing to give up for it.

They pretty much decided no, they didn't want that, and wouldn't pursue such an option.

But blaming an RFP process for that decision is dishonest.

Frankly, I think it was a mistake (both at the time, and now). It was not a user centric decision (as few decisions at GRT are) and was not a future looking decision, and so it will only become an increasingly big issue as our intercity transit improves.

[taylortbb]

Presto absolutely does support [u-pass], most places which use Presto have universities, and many of them have subsidized passes, some with the same model as ours.

Presto supports this now. It did not support it when the decision was being made, and at that time Presto would not commit to ever supporting it.

Could GRT have run two parallel fare systems? Presto and a custom one for u-pass, mobility plus, etc? Definitely. Would that have had costs associated? Very much so.

There's plenty of reasons we should have gone with Presto, but there's also lots of pretty valid reasons we didn't. You do your argument no favours by making points that are only knowable in hindsight.

[danbrotherston]

Presto absolutely does support [u-pass], most places which use Presto have universities, and many of them have subsidized passes, some with the same model as ours.

Presto supports this now. It did not support it when the decision was being made, and at that time Presto would not commit to ever supporting it.

Could GRT have run two parallel fare systems? Presto and a custom one for u-pass, mobility plus, etc? Definitely. Would that have had costs associated? Very much so.

There's plenty of reasons we should have gone with Presto, but there's also lots of pretty valid reasons we didn't. You do your argument no favours by making points that are only knowable in hindsight.

Yes it did.

It involved giving all students a Presto card with a monthly pass loaded onto it in addition to their student pass. This was done in other cities with universities.

Mobility plus riders are still using ticket strips AFAIK.

I'm not sure what was not "knowable" before...we KNEW we were advocating for better transit connections to Toronto. It is knowable from other systems around the world that fare card integration is a significant benefit.

[tomh009]

I'm not sure what was not "knowable" before...we KNEW we were advocating for better transit connections to Toronto. It is knowable from other systems around the world that fare card integration is a significant benefit.

And yet the percentage of transit riders that regularly use both GRT and a Presto-based system is tiny (we can see this from the GO ridership data). So, arguably, being able to provide better solutions for university/college students and for low-income residents could be viewed as more important than Presto integration.

Metrolinx's stance on Presto really reminds me of the old Lily Tomlin skits ... "we don't care, we are the phone company, we don't have to!"

Integration would be nice but I really don't see it as a disaster at this point in time.

[danbrotherston]

I'm not sure what was not "knowable" before...we KNEW we were advocating for better transit connections to Toronto. It is knowable from other systems around the world that fare card integration is a significant benefit.

And yet the percentage of transit riders that regularly use both GRT and a Presto-based system is tiny (we can see this from the GO ridership data). So, arguably, being able to provide better solutions for university/college students and for low-income residents could be viewed as more important than Presto integration.

Metrolinx's stance on Presto really reminds me of the old Lily Tomlin skits ... "we don't care, we are the phone company, we don't have to!"

Integration would be nice but I really don't see it as a disaster at this point in time.

This is a fair argument (although lack of an integrated fare card does decrease combined transit riders), but I'd argue this is partly to do with the failure to invest in intercity transit.

If I was running things at Metrolinx, we'd already have a real plan for 2WAD GO to Toronto, Cambridge GO, plus investing into intercity regional transit (Guelph, Elora, Paris, Brantford, Hamilton and beyond, Stratford, St. Marys, London, and beyond).

That would significantly increase the ridership benefitting from a unified fare card.

But that's the other argument that is a pretty good argument that Presto isn't a big deal, which is that our province will let us down. But that's sadly rather cynical.

[taylortbb]

Yes it did.

It involved giving all students a Presto card with a monthly pass loaded onto it in addition to their student pass. This was done in other cities with universities.

That system didn't exist when we chose EasyGo. Even now it barely exists, UoIT's u-pass works only via the Presto e-tickets app, and is impossible to load onto a Presto card (see https://registrar.ontariotechu.ca/fees-a.../index.php ). As far as I can tell, McMaster is the only university that lets you load a u-pass onto a physical Presto card.

I'm not sure what was not "knowable" before...we KNEW we were advocating for better transit connections to Toronto. It is knowable from other systems around the world that fare card integration is a significant benefit.

You're comparing Presto today to EasyGo, that's what I mean by knowable at the time. At the time, Presto wouldn't commit to rolling out GRT before ION opened. That left a risk that ION would be ready to go, except there would be no fare system for it (as using the legacy fare system doesn't work with proof-of-payment). You can argue we could have just made ION free until Presto was ready to go, but that would certainly have significant cost, and would be politically problematic for the region. In the end ION got delayed, but again, that wasn't known at the time.

I'm not opposed to the argument we should be on Presto, but you present it like there was an obvious choice and the region was a bunch of idiots. The reality is it that there were significant trade-offs with either option, and not clear winner.