Subway Map
http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/schedules/subway/images/subway_rt.gif
Sheppard-Yonge Station
Don Mills Station
Davisville Depot
Track & Depot near Wilson Station
Yorkdale Station
Downsview Terminus
Honestly, there is nothing exciting about Toronto subways.Can't you show us the cool things about the Subway, not just the depressing articles?
However, looking at the 2005 and 2006 stats as well, it's very clear that when 249 new buses were delivered in 2005 yet the fleet went up by 52 buses only, that some of the old stuff remained.
Thus, your belief that it was a 1:1 swap and hence a 1:1 subtraction of the old buses' age totals from the average calculation is not only incompetent, it's reckless and wrong.
262 new buses arriving
in 2005
The TTC has started accepting 262 new buses this year. The new, low-floor, 40-footers are arriving from Orion Bus Industries at a rate of six to eight per week. A total of 37 new vehicles were already operating out of Arrow Road Division at the beginning of February.
Although the TTC is receiving more than 260 new buses, the Orion VIIs do not represent additional buses. They are replacement buses to take over from the nearly identical allotment of older models that are due – or overdue – for retirement.
If this is the case, then no words can express how stupid the TTC and city management is. I'm all for unions, but if they don't do their jobs and shut down the system with an illegal strike, then the TTC should have gone all Reagan on their asses and fired the entire lot!A reader who asked not to be named said he worked as a TTC janitor for two summers, and "there is a culture of apathy and laziness," among cleaning staff.
"Sleeping, playing Frisbee across the tracks, two-hour-long smoke breaks, all of these are not uncommon. Heck, I've seen afternoon shift employees go watch movies at Cineplex in the middle of their shifts."
TRZ said:Reposting the numbers is useless since I posted those very recently, but still proves my point, but you are oh-so-conveniently leaving out 2002 when the was a net change of -12, this is done on purpose to try to prop your argument up. The point is that in 2002 and 2005, the swap was virtually 1:1, just like we told you but you are refusing to accept this clear and obvious fact.
2002 saw very negligible deliveries. Factoring the 2002 deliveries will not change the fact that the bulk of the deliveries from 2003-6 was not 1:1, unless you tell me 1 delivery does make a difference. In fact, every year we see significant difference from deliveries to fleet growth. Looking at the fleet growth figures, to make your argument the swap was virtually 1:1 would mean the growth would be close to 0 every year. That is clearly not the case.TTC 2002 Annual Report said:In 2001, the Commission entered into an agreement to purchase 220 low-floor Orion diesel buses ... at December 31, 2002, 1 vehicle has been received.
Without knowing what is the average of the buses being taken out of service, it is impossible to calculate an accurate new average age. Simple mathematics can determine how many buses were removed from service, but the question is how many vehicle years do you remove from the total for the retired buses? As that question cannot be answered, the prudent thing is to be conservative, as we know not all deliveries were matched with removals. Unless you have a reasonable estimate of the average age of the vehicles removed, there is nothing wrong with calculating an upper bound.TRZ said:Sure, by 2006 over 1000 of the buses in the fleet are relatively new, so the oldest clonkers have already been disposed of, that's why they could afford to keep some of the buses and actually increase the fleet size and service levels, since those buses are not on their dying breath. However, 197 buses were still used for a 1:1 swap, and that is about 4:5s of the order used for 1:1. Thus, for an average, there is nothing incompetenet, reckless, or wrong in the average calculation through doing a 1:1, because the overwhelming majority does indeed have that happening, meaning the numbers would be within an acceptable margin of error if one does it that way. Your adding the vehicle years consequetively in the previous post is what is reckless and wrong and incompetent because that takes the existing old clonkers that have in fact been retired and keeps them in the average, giving you a figure that is way outside any acceptable margin of error, but you fail to recognize this obvious flaw in your calculations and logic, but that's because you know nothing about this subject.
A rebuild does not reset the age. A 20-year-old bus that has been overhauled is still 20 years old. Would a 60-year-old who had a few organ transplants and a new hip all of a sudden be reset to 35 years old?TRZ said:Over 1000 of the buses have already been replaced by this point, this means that the old buses, actually are not that old, and may also be rebuilds. The overwhelming majority of the 1000 new arrivals over the last few years have gone towards a 1:1 swap, this is very obvious from the math and in all practical contexts/perspectives and applications, that is exactly what is happening, the order coming in 2008 is further proof.
If you took a look at my sensitivity analysis, you will see that the average age of the remaining fleet moves significantly even if a moderate change in assumptions of the average age of what is taken out.TRZ said:OK, you're so smart, why would the TTC retire anything other than the oldest in the fleet, as you are clearly implying that the TTC is retiring newer buses instead of old ones?
You are hopeless.
Again, why would anything but the oldest buses be retired? You are clearly insane to be posing this question. We know which buses were retired, the oldest ones were retired because some at the time were past their lifespan! The point is that you keeping the old buses in your calculation is a blatantly flawed process and completely inaccurate. It is not only valid, it is OBVIOUS that the oldest buses get retired as the new ones arrive to replace them, that's just simple common sense and not an assumption. I agree that the number isn't necessarily 5, my number posted has consistently been 13 worst case, likely less, depends how old the remaining 500 are (13 years assumed 25-30 years old, those have likely been long since retired), something closer to 10 is more realistic, your figure of over 15 is absurd in the reality of the new deliveries in recent years.
Not at the end of 2006 when I ran the numbers. As at end of 2006, only roughly half the fleet has been replaced. I can't forsee how the average age can drop so drastically to 5 as KGB first noted. But then, the deliveries from past years age as well so I don't forsee the actual number to be anywhere near 5 any time soon.TRZ said:The major error is your statement of over 15 years old. That isn't rocket science either when 2/3rds of the fleet is about 5 years old or less. You are out to lunch, your calculations don't have any realistic context, you're trying to achieve bullshit, and waste everyone's time with your overblown ego.
This I buy since not so many years ago they were publishing average bus age as being 18 years. The fishbowls were still around well past Y2K and those vehicles must've been rebuilt many times over to still run on the streets. However, to apply an average age of 30 across all the hundreds of fleet removals seems a bit far-stretched. We know the TTC did have a lot of very old buses, but that many?TRZ said:The TTC had some REALLY old buses throughout their fleet before the vehicle replacement program kicked in. The TTC has been putting this off for 10-15 years or so, at which point many buses were already well over 10 years old, but being screwed by the conservatives and the recession before then, they had to stretch the life of the fleet, meaning many MANY 25-30 year old buses in the fleet at the end of the 90s.
Although the intention of the program is fleet renewal, the reality is a 1:1 swap is highly unlikely for practical reasons. Fleet renewal isn't the same as 1 bus in, 1 bus out. Given all the political bickering the TTC had to go through over the years and even today, getting a few orders in and having the cash to pay for it is enough of a challenge, and I doubt the funding is enough for them to sustain and grow service to demand. Hence, I doubt their planners are stupid enough to budget so tightly since the next order might disappear with a change in government or a change in government policy. Under these uncertain circumstances, I find it hard to believe they'll stick religiously to a 1:1 swap, and from the fleet movements year-over-year, it's quite evident the practical reality has overruled idealism.TRZ said:You don't know how to trace the differences, that much is obvious. You don't understand cause and effect either, because if you take that into consideration, you really become the laughing stock. The purpose of the program is a 1:1 swap, service expansion if possible, but primarily a 1:1 swap first and foremost, and the overwhelming majority prior to 2006, during which service expansion actually started to kick in, the replacments were indeed going 1:1, only 23 out of several hundred were not in a 1:1 swap between 2001 and 2005, which means to argue otherwise is pointless and absurd. 23 is a negligible remainder given the volume, it's like not even 5% of the orders that came in over the 5-year time period in question. Give up, you're toast. What a crock.
The only the B-D line is a "rhythm of colours" is if you are high on acid."The Bloor-Danforth line is a rhythm of colours...
It speaks to an era when public transit's future goal was to be a service for the very poor, and anyone slightly over the poverty line would own two cars....that has a set pattern and it's designed as a piece and it speaks to an era gone by," Mr. Vaughan said.
:lol:The only the B-D line is a "rhythm of colours" is if you are high on acid.
This isn't the suburbs, genius, Toronto has been a transit-oriented city for over a century - streetcar service is almost 150 years old (2011 marks the anniversary).It speaks to an era when public transit's future goal was to be a service for the very poor, and anyone slightly over the poverty line would own two cars.
B-D subway has about 10 years seniority over those highways.It was done in an era when the Spadina Expressway, Crosstown Expressway, Christie Expressway, Scarborough Expressway, etc. were planning to be built. It was also planned that most everyone would be moving out to the suburbs and only the people who couldn't afford to would be staying in the city.
Naw...all bitch'n aside, there's no way the TTC's state-of-good-repair would be allowed to even approach being that bad. That's even after considering that the City of new York is not even responsible for funding its subway...it's run by a state "authority".I am surprised to see that the Toronto subway is as badly maintained as the New York subway.