Sunday, June 17, 2018Light Snow -5°C
News

Morning Brew: January 27, 2010

Posted by Andrés / January 27, 2010

20100127_morningbrew.jpgFresh brewed opinion for Wednesday, January 27.

STM doldrums. Since last Fall, inspectors have been blocking the exits to various metros around the city to individually check the validity of our OPUS cards. Not to sound overly paranoid, but one would think the inclusion of trackable RFID chips into our transit cards would have been enough. Now our transport system is starting to feel a little bit too much like a police state. Of course, the STM has our best interests at heart.

By posting STM inspectors at random metros and times, the STM hopes to provide a 'visible deterrent' to those abusing the system. These abuses amount to jumping turnstyles. This begs the question: why are they not posting inspectors at random turnstyles rather than stopping everyone at the bottom of escalators or staircases? It is the majority of users who suffer for a few jumpers. I don't so much blame the jumpers for the slowdown in traffic, but rather the questionable method in which the STM has decided to tackle the matter. Were I a turnstyle-jumper and saw STM inspectors from afar, I could turn around, head right back in the metro, and find another way to my destination.

Worse than a few minutes lost during rush hour is the effect these random stops have on the public transport experience. As someone who chooses to ride buses and subways as opposed to purchasing a car, it's important that the experience be as smooth and stress-free as possible. When I start to feel like I'm guilty until proven innocent by forced inspections, this atmosphere starts to degrade. And worse is the STM's claim that they are attempting to reduce costs doing this - right after a $2 hike in 2010 on bus passes. I'll believe it when they bring that back down in 2011.

In actual news, the STM is also at the center of a lawsuit involving Chinese firm Zhu Zhu Electric Locomotive. The STM has been planning a new line of trains for the metro and went through a bidding process. Zhu Zhu claims the bidding process was not as open as it seemed, and gave an unfair advantage to competitors such as Bombardier.

Image courtesy the STM.

Discussion

17 Comments

Jeff Scott / January 27, 2010 at 08:23 am
user-pic
Great post, Andrés. If there are any lawyers reading this blog, I'd love to hear whether this kind of warrantless search is legal. Did I agree to have my OPUS card verified on demand when I purchased it? What if I claim I don't have an OPUS card but rather opted to purchase a ticket - and discarded it before exiting the station? Can they scan me to see if I have any RFID tags on me? I really question the legality and benefit of this draconian tactic.

Your points about public transportation to help reduced pollution coupled with the so-called cost reduction benefits should make the STM ashamed of themselves. (This is me not even getting into the abuses of power committed by the metro security forces I've witnessed first-hand. I'll rant about those some other time.)

Again, thanks for bringing light to this issue.

@jeffscott
Josh Horner / January 27, 2010 at 09:10 am
user-pic
Jeff -

"Did I agree to have my OPUS card verified on demand when I purchased it?"

Actually, yes, you did.

"What if I claim I don't have an OPUS card but rather opted to purchase a ticket - and discarded it before exiting the station?"

Then technically you will have to re-pay full fare for the mode of transportation you were taking at the time. Those tickets count as your proof of payment, and are not to be discarded until (1) they expire or (2) your journey is complete.

from the STM website:

"Starting September 1, you must keep your valid transit fare with you throughout your trip, whether it is on a magnetic card or on an OPUS card. A valid transit fare serves as your proof of payment.

From then on, once you pass the turnstiles, and are within station corridors, along métro platforms, inside métro cars or aboard buses, STM inspectors will be checking that you have a valid transit fare by using a portable electronic card scanner. Without proof of fare payment, clients are subject to fines of up to $500, excluding fees."

All of this aside, however, Andrés makes a very good point: no smart turn-style jumper will enter a station, see fare-checkers, and still try to get in. I'd also venture to wager that nearly none of them are doing it at 8:30 in the morning.

That being said, their little trick DOES work, if they're checking people as they exit, since the jumper most likely entered the system at a different station, and once they're off the train, it's too late. (unless they do notice, and get right back on the metro in the same direction, exiting elsewhere)

So I still think that there is no way in hell they're recovering any money at all from this system. In fact, all they're doing is losing what little rider support they have from valid system users, wasting money paying people to check cards, and giving the feeling of a police state.

If they REALLY didn't want fare jumpers, they should have just spent the money up front for person-sized "gate style" turnstyles. (the ones that open like doors, instead of having dinky little rotating metal bars) e.g. like some of the ones in the TfL Tube system or the Paris Metro.
Jeff Scott / January 27, 2010 at 09:17 am
user-pic
Hey Josh,

I don't disagree with you. My question about entering a shrink-wrap agreement (because that's effectively what buying the an OPUS card amounts to) was sincere - I didn't read the regulations, etc. before I bought it. And you summed up what I really object to very well:

"So I still think that there is no way in hell they're recovering any money at all from this system. In fact, all they're doing is losing what little rider support they have from valid system users, wasting money paying people to check cards, and giving the feeling of a police state."

Top off their disingenuous talk with too many significant abuses of power, and I can't help but conclude there are massive problem within the STM.

I don't have - and generally don't need - a car in Montreal thanks to the public transportation infrastructure, but guilty-until-you-prove-yourself-innocent tactics do not sit well with me.

Thanks, though, for doing the legwork on the stm.info. :)

Cheers!
@jeffscott / January 27, 2010 at 09:31 am
user-pic
A Gazette piece about the STM highlights another problem with them: their "contract" with us (the OPUS card for STM service) really only goes one way: http://bit.ly/bmSt93
bill / January 27, 2010 at 09:39 am
user-pic

You will accept your barcode and be tracked! You will surrender your freedom of movement. You are inventory and you are to be done with as the police state decides. Soon you will have this RFID chip under your skin. If you do not cooperate, you will be effectively turned off!
You are now scanned with facial recognition software on CCTV. Montreal metro surveilance is done out of country by the same surveilance firm that held the contracts for the WTC and CCTV London for the 7/7 bombings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTvsbFvjYVs

Watch for the next false flag attack to justify the end of more of your civil liberties. The jail has been turned inside-out!
Andrew / January 27, 2010 at 01:08 pm
user-pic
Rather than this being a huge NWO styled conspiracy, I really think this just amounts to a cashgrab in fines. It's really no different then setting up a speed trap to catch people abusing the traffic system. Sure, it's a little heavy handed, but all they are asking for is verification that you paid for the service that you use. The metro has never been a right, after all, it is simply a service offered.
Andres / January 27, 2010 at 10:37 pm
user-pic
Andrew,

Despite my described feelings of 'police state', I tend not to believe there is some Machiavellian purpose behind these checks and agree with you that the STM wants to verify their passengers have valid passes (and that it is probably just a cash grab, considering there are many better and less expensive ways they can do these checks... see above posts).

And yes, the metros and buses are technically private property and they have the right to do these checks, making the term 'public' transportation sort of a misnomer. Despite this, I highly doubt anyone would take kindly to inspection agents next to your car outside a grocery store or Walmart and verifying that everything you are carrying was purchased in the store. Consumers' trust and feelings about such companies would begin to erode. I fear the STM, by introducing these measures, is at risk of this.

Frankly it pisses me off. If you offer a service and people pay for it, at increasing rates yearly, and then insult those same users by double-checking their validity with forced inspections, it may no longer be a service people want to use.
Pat / January 27, 2010 at 11:10 pm
user-pic
I agree...

Frankly it pisses me off. If you offer a service and people pay for it, at increasing rates yearly, [under the ruse of a major overhaul promising an improved transit service only to move the seats around and throw in a cheap three pronged metal pole] and then insult those same users by double-checking their validity with forced inspections, it may no longer be a service people want to use.
Aluminum / January 28, 2010 at 09:42 am
user-pic
I agree, it has left a bad taste in my mouth.
there are much easier ways to ensure payment. Having "security" block the exit is borderline disrespectful to the STMs clients. I have also noticed that many of these "security agents" are rude, and gloat a sense of "do what we say" mentality.
I have seen a few accounts of disorderly people disrupting the public, harassing commuters, etc. but where are the agents? standing visably at the entrance/exit wasting resources.

AH / January 30, 2010 at 09:47 pm
user-pic
This argument makes no sense. Of course nobody is going to jump a tunstyle in plain site of an STM employee. But the whole point of the OPUS system is to save money which they won't do by paying guards to watch over every entrance 24-7. The deterrent is the risk that one could get caught illegally riding the metro without paying and face a fine.

They aren't "searching you without a warrant", they are asking to see the ticket that you purchased for the service that you're using. Sounds kind of reasonable. Admittedly bad attitude on the part of the inspectors is not acceptable (though by the sounds of these comments, they probably get a lot of bad attitude directed at them.)

Anyways, the STM is a public service that a lot of us pretty much depend on and that frankly has trouble making ends meet every year. Its not a police state.
Merlin / January 1, 2014 at 07:05 pm
user-pic
I create a comment whenever I like a post on a website or if I
have something to valuable to contribute to the discussion.
It is a result of the passion communicated in the article I read.
And after this article Morning Brew: January 27, 2010.
I was actually excited enough to post a comment :-P I do have a couple of questions for you if it's okay.
Could it be only me or do some of these responses look
like they are left by brain dead individuals? :-P And, if you are posting on additional
online social sites, I'd like to keep up with you. Would you list the complete urls of all your community pages like your Facebook page,
twitter feed, or linkedin profile?
Maigrir naturellement / August 18, 2014 at 09:54 pm
user-pic
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about Morning Brew. Regards
Marcos / February 4, 2015 at 09:16 am
user-pic
Actually, it's less about the pushing out of the mildde class by wealthier folks and more that the mildde class can't afford anything and overextends itself. It's not like wealthier people have moved in, although there was a problem with young couples not having been able to afford to move in to places like Shorewood before the housing bubble burst (which caused a huge problem for the school district, as you might imagine). The real issue is that the mildde class can't afford the homes they already have!!! Many people took out second mortgages with teaser rates because they already had equity in the homes they owned and are now finding that those rates have changed dramatically and they can't pay the mortgages back those people lose their homes, and that sucks. It's not that neighborhoods have become more exclusive per se it's that the people that already live there can't afford to stay there, and so houses end up on the market, and, right now, empty, since no one can/will buy them As for the mall, I presume you mean Bayshore yeah, that's pretty amazing, but according to my mom (you decide what volume of salt you need to take this with), the reason for that is apparently that they wanted an outdoor mall so that gangs, teenagers, and hoodlums wouldn't loiter there. Sounds like a load of bullcrap to me Bayshore had been heading downhill for years but eh, I don't live there, so who knows. And 50% of Bayshore's shops were *always* too expensive to shop at, or at least they were for me and mine we just never went inside them
iphone se wallpaper / March 27, 2016 at 07:19 am
user-pic
Nice blog here! Also your site a lot up fast!
What host are you using? Can I am getting your affiliate link on your
host? I desire my site loaded up as fast as yours lol
http://iqfinance.ru// / May 19, 2018 at 05:46 am
user-pic
???? ?? ????????? ????? ?????? - ??
4 ???????.

Add a Comment

Other Cities: Toronto