Talk:Toronto Transit Commission fares/Archive 1

Revert
An anonymous editor reverted my recent edits ont he basis of "repetitiveness and grammatical errors". I found one minor grammatical error. The anonymous editor restored several violations of the Manual of Style that I had corrected. For example, the manual asks that the title of the article be used in the first paragraph of the article, be written in bold type, and that there not be links in the phrase. This is why there was some repetition and why there continues to be in the version that I have just proposed. Perhaps the anon editor can find another way of including a link to the Toronto Transit Commission article without putting the link in the bold part. I also removed much of the excessive use of bolding, which also violates the style manual guidelines, and made numerous other changes that were reverted without explanation. This is contrary to Wikiquette. Please makes changes that you feel are necessary to the edits that I've made, instead of just reverting the whole thing. And by all means, explain your changes here so that we can work out what the best approach is together. Ground Zero | t 00:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That was me. I'll answer the points in order.

First, I didn't say "grammatical errors", I said "grammar/repetitiveness problems". Indeed, there was only the one grammatical error. But the lead sentence had "Toronto Transit Commission" twice and Toronto again, and "fare" or "fares" twice. If there is an article on "small dogs", we wouldn't begin it by saying "A small dog is a dog that is small; breeds include..." The sentence I changed wasn't that bad, but it seemed to me to have the same flavor, and so does the version now in place.

It's true that the Manual of Style asks for the title to appear verbatim in the first sentence, which I did not appreciate. But where it says "As a general rule, do not put links in ... the bold reiteration of the title in the article's lead sentence", please note the words "as a general rule". It may sometimes be better to say "Breeds of small dog include..." after all. And if slavishly following the general rule produces a sentence where "Toronto Transit Commission" has to be spelled out twice in full, then I think what it means is that this is a case where the rule should not be followed.

It occurs to me that since this is basically a sub-article off the main TTC article, it doesn't need direct links to Toronto and to the main article within the lead at all; they can be lower down. I'll edit it that way now.

As to the boldfacing of various terms, I would be happy if that was removed from the article altogether. But if there is going to be any boldfacing, I think it needs to be done consistently, by bolding the first reference to each fare medium. ("Papal Visit" is a fare medium because there was a Papal Visit Transit Pass, although the full term is not used in the article.) That's why I reverted the changes that affected only some of them. I'll leave the bolding as it is for now, but I think a change one way or the other is needed.

On the matter of a.m./AM, I apologize for being unaware of that part of the Manual of Style. Of the four forms commonly used, I consider that AM is obviously the best one in this medium because it avoids any confusion with the word "am" or the end of a sentence. I assumed the edit to use "a.m." was just based on someone else's preference at the expense of readability, and I viewed its reversion as a minor fix. But an established style trumps all such matters; a.m. it is. (It would have been helpful to me if the earlier edit to use a.m. had mentioned that this was to conform to the manual.)

I don't know why anyone would think "subway and RT" should not be a link; it seems obvious to me that it should, and that change I'm reverting again. For consistency I'm also adding links to the Toronto bus and streetcar system articles.

Yours in a spirit of cooperation, 66.96.28.244 08:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait a minute, I got confused there as to which version of the page was which. I myself was the one who made "subway and RT" not a link! That must just have been an accident due to working from an old version of the page. I've left it alone and added the other two links anyway. 66.96.28.244 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Token Pictures
I just found an old 1954 token at home and just bought the new token. So I was wondering if there would be a problem if photos of the three types of token (from 3 eras) were placed in the article?Canadian popcan 02:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fare hike
Should there be something reflecting the fare hike that goes into effect in November? http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/new_fare_schedule.pdf 74.100.209.232 19:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. 207.176.159.90 00:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I think it's obvious that the Metropass article should be merged into Toronto Transit Commission fares. Any objections? 207.176.159.90 05:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of overlap between the two articles. I agree. Ground Zero | t 10:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree, however a picture of a metropass could also be helpful. Blackjays 01:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Metropass page has one now, which can be merged into here. Blurry, though; a good picture would be better. And one of a current token, perhaps. 207.176.159.90 00:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Metropass article has been merged. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 17:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Chock Full of Errors
I'm sure these ttc articles are full of errors. Crazy people who just arrived, or are too young too remember any details on past history. The information of the student and senior metro pass is totally wrong. Dont know where these people are getting this information from. The TTC only recently (2008/9) started issuing student metro passes, and I'm I still think its only for post secondary student. Dont even know if they went ahead wuth the seniors metro. This person is probably confusing a metro pass with a {ttc student/ seniors id card) and fare. The card was only used to prove that you are student/senior when paying those pares.

"A lower-price Metropass for seniors was added in 1984, and for students in 1991 (originally at a slightly higher rate than seniors). The magnetic stripe was added to the pass in 1990, allowing it to operate automatic turnstiles, even though this meant that the user's ID would then not normally be checked."

History of zone fares is also a disaster that's hard to understand.Starbwoy (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Brass tokens
Now that we're going into details of token types, we need to mention the brass tokens that circulated 30 years ago. From memory, these were introduced to commemorate the 1968 extension of the subway into Etobicoke and Scarborough; there was one design for each of the two boroughs (as they were then). They circulated alongside the aluminum ones and the turnstiles took either, although if you bought some, you got all one kind or all the other. But I have no idea as to when they were withdrawn, and I don't remember seeing anything in writing about them (or at least not since that time), so I can't put this in the article. 207.176.159.90 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do remember these, but I do not remember the pattern. Geo Swan (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Dubious
I added a dubious tag to the assertion that when crossing a zone boundary drivers would stop to collect an additional fare from each passenger. From my experience drivers would turn off the rear doors after crossing the TTC's usual fare boundary, and passengers were expected to deposit their additional fare when they exited from the front doors. Geo Swan (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That was exactly what happened. Do you remember 2 zone tickets? They were cheaper than single zone tickets and when you got on the bus you deposited them both in the fare box and were given a transfer for the second zone, depending on which way you were travelling. You could also use two regular tickets. At the zone boundary transfers were checked by the driver and passengers without one were required to pay for the next zone. A little bit like POP today. Those 2 zone tickets also had a stripe which could be read by the turnstyles at subway stations located ouside the City of Torono zone. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I do remember the 2 zone tickets. But I was still a student when they were in use, and rarey used them.  I think I was sixteen when the zone system was abandoned.  The TTC changed how student cards worked that year -- maybe when they abandoned the zone-1/zone-2 boundary.  Up until 1972/73 student cards were only valid until 5pm, and were only valid for student who were under 18.  Two years later, when I was 18, there were drivers who would not allow me to use student fare, when I had my birth certificate opposite my student card, because they hadn't gotten the memo that full time students of any age were entitled to use student fare.


 * My experience of paying the additional fare when exiting dates back to around 1985, when I had a job about 1 mile north of Steeles in Markham.


 * Perhaps your memory is from a different time?


 * Shall I change the dubious to a cn? Geo Swan (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Fares through history?
I would be interested, and I think other readers would be interested, in the fares at various points in history. In the early 1970s, when I was a student, student tickets were 10 for $1.50, and adult fares cost exactly double. IIRC a strip of zone 1/zone 2 tickets SecondaryWaltz mentioned above were discounted, costing 90 percent the cost of regular adult tickets. Geo Swan (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Old memories are probably not valid references. ;-) Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I edited the part of the history of fares that takes about the value of a metropass vs. tokens. The article mistakenly referred to the transit credit as an hst transit credit. TTC fares are exempt from HST, this is just an additional tax credit that has nothing to do with HST. As a tax credit it works out to 15% of the metropass cost (which is the lowest tax bracket currently). Also, the cost of a metropass is currently 133.75 and a token is $2.70. The math mistakenly stated that you would be better off buying a metropass at 49 trips, but in fact you would have to take 50 trips to be better off. (2.7 × 49 = 132.30). The tax credit is worth 15% so the total cost of the pass would be $113.69. 113.69 / 2.7 = 42.1074. So You would have to take 43 trips to be better off with the metropass. I don't have time now, but the cost of trips could also be compared to the Metropass Discount Plan (MDP) at 122.50 = 46 trips and with the tax credit 104.13 / 2.7 = 38.56 would be 39 trips. It may be worth mentioning that most months are worth it to get a metropass if you travel to and from work on every work day in the month. For example July 2014 has 23 workdays so 46 trips would be worth it. June 2014 though had only 21 trips so at 42 you would be better off with tokens unless on the MDP. This also should probably be in a different section then the history of fares, but rather current prices. Regards, Gabe --Gabe17 (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Presto tickets
Source material for Presto tickets (not the same as Presto cards) introduced April 5, 2019: TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * TTC extends sales of PRESTO Tickets to 10 stations
 * PRESTO Fare System
 * PRESTO Tickets
 * PRESTO Frequently Asked Questions

Proposed changes
Please comment on Presto tickets. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, Presto tickets belong in the TTC fares article rather than in the Presto card article, as the former is oriented to multiple fare types and also because Presto tickets are valid only for TTC services. I suggest the following changes to the TTC fares article:
 * Wherever the word "Presto" is used as an abbreviation for "Presto card", that it be replaced by "Presto card" unless it is something like "Presto vending machine" which handles both.
 * Wherever the word "ticket" is used as an abbreviation for "senior/student" ticket, that it be replaced by "senior/student ticket" to avoid confusion with "Presto ticket".
 * Replace the fare table with a list like in the Wikivoyage article as Presto tickets have 3 varieties: 1-ride, 2-ride and day pass.
 * The Presto day pass has different rules from the TTC day pass printed on a scratch card. Thus, text may need to be reworded to distinguish the two.

Comments are welcome. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi... most of this sounds reasonable. We should avoid whenever possible (especially in prose, as opposed to tables) the construction "senior/student", though, as per MOS:SLASH. We can either say "senior or student" or "senior and student" depending on the context.


 * I'm not convinced we should take out Presto tickets from the Presto article though... because they are branded "Presto" and they are read/scanned by Presto readers. We should be able to just mention the restrictions and, if necessary, use to point to a larger description in "TTC fares". Actually... really we should probably rework Presto card into Presto (TTC) (and, now that I think of it, Compass Card (TransLink)—which really should be Compass card (TransLink)—into Compass (TransLink)) since while the cards were the first and probably still remain the primary ways these electronic fare systems are employed, really they are both fare payment  (as their leads clearly indicate) that include cards, tickets, and (at least for Compass) 3rd-party tap-to-pay stuff. But that may be a larger discussion; for now I'd advise leaving some mention of the tickets in Presto card, even if it's a brief blurb with a point to the TTC fares article. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There are already 5 occurrences of either "Senior/student" or "Senior/student/youth" already in the article. Personally, I think that using "senior/student" causes no ambiguity as suggested by MOS:SLASH. And I would have dropped "/youth" from the description. I find omitting the slash leads to awkward wording. If you feel strongly about removing the slash, could you please change the 5 occurrences to provide an example to follow?


 * The Presto card article has only one paragraph about Presto tickets. I intended to give that article a simple overview of the Presto tickets, linking to TTC fares. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with much of the changes. It makes things easier to understand. We can also clarify the Fair Pass program.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I deviated from my original plan: I put the details about the Presto ticket in the Presto card, and a summary in TTC fares. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going to refer to cash, tokens, senior/student tickets and POP tickets as "legacy fare media". "Legacy tickets" will include senior/student tickets and POP tickets. POP tickets are tickets purchased from vending machines on Flexity streetcars and route 509/510 streetcar platforms. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Presto (Ontario)

 * I briefly mentioned last year that Compass Card (TransLink) could potentially be moved to Compass (Metro Vancouver) due to single-use Compass tickets, and the ability to use contactless credit cards as well as mobile payment systems such as Apple and Google Pay with Compass readers. I suggest the dab of "Metro Vancouver" as it is more recognizable than "TransLink" as similarly discussed at WP:CANSTATION. With respect to the Presto system — shouldn't your suggested dab for Presto card instead be Presto (Ontario) since the fare system is not exclusive to the TTC? —Northwest (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the article name Presto (Ontario). After all, approximately a dozen transit agencies across Ontario use Presto.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 00:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this a proposal to rename Presto card to Presto (Ontario)? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * there's a consensus for that, I don't have a problem with it. Admittedly, I prefer a natural dab where possible. —Northwest (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Presto (Ontario) works for me— we decide to move it. I think if we move the Compass article, Compass (Metro Vancouver) is problematic as "Metro Vancouver" is a relatively new term and is very likely to be relatively unknown outside the province. I'd go with "Compass (British Columbia)" since while Compass isn't for the whole province, it is for things beyond just one city in that province. It would also have the benefit of matching with TransLink (British Columbia) and, if we move it, Presto (Ontario). —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think "Metro Vancouver" is as problematic as you make it out to be; however, given that TransLink is setup to expand beyond just Metro Vancouver (and technically one station is already located outside the MVRD), I don't have an issue with Compass (British Columbia). —Northwest (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the move to Compass (British Columbia) for the Compass article to be consistent with the proposal to move the Presto article to Presto (Ontario). Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 00:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)