daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 21st, 2008, 06:27 PM   #621
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
Time to do some research before making your points.
Yeah, you being so smart and all that, you go ahead and prove my point for me (bravo!):

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
Fleet Sizes per 2006 TTC Annual Report
2006 - 1543 +50
2005 - 1491 -11
2004 - 1502 +13
2003 - 1489 +21
2002 - 1468 -12
2001 - 1480 +12
2000 - 1468

So your argument that the fleet size is actually going down is not valid at all. In fact, the trend points to an increasing direction, and as of 2006 there were more buses than ever before.
No, it did go down some years, and that was the point I was making, it means that they are losing more buses than they can replace. How many buses arrived for 2005? 249? So if they are keeping the old ones, how do they net lose 11 in the total fleet? Yeah, exactly, it is because you don't know what you're talking about, like we've been telling you. Same goes for 2002.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
Quite easy to understand how new orders are affecting the fleet size movements over the years. Hence. it is logically incorrect to blindly remove all the old buses from the aging analysis. There definitely is no 1:1 swap to retire the old fleet. The numbers tell that quite balatantly. Try to learn the concept of differences and ratios.
You can't do math, it is as simple as that. You do not simply add the number of vehicle years in the one year to the previous year, you are incompetent. You are completely neglecting the new orders that arrive replacing the old ones that retire, thus your numbers are totally useless, and as a bonus, you get to look like an idiot. See, in ratio, if you have 1502 buses in 2004 and then 1491 buses in 2005 when 249 new arrivals debut, how many buses retired? Yeah, that's right wise one, learn rate and ratio, it means 260 of the oldest in the fleet are gone and your numbers are total fabrications from your little fantasy land.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
I'm not at all surprised at this kind of reaction. Full of inconsistencies and weaknesses. I suggest learning more and researching from what the TTC has published to better understand how their fleet modernization is structured, and to learn some more math. This should be basic stuff.
Indeed it is basic stuff, it is amazing you screw it up with such a blantant oversight and incapacity to account for the concept of "replacements" that obviously do take place by the very fact that the fleet numbers go DOWN as new buses arrive. What more proof could you possibly need? Also, don't waste your time trying to act like you know anything about the TTC, we are Toronto natives and transit advocates too, we know far better than you'll ever know, there's just no comparison, you cannot possibly compete. The only weaknesses and inconsistencies are coming from you, as only your math has been proven wrong here... repeatedly I might add (you do remember "addition", don't you?).
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 22nd, 2008, 02:32 AM   #622
KGB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: TO
Posts: 5,767
Likes (Received): 48

Quote:
If you check the 2006 Annual Report, your argument falls apart immediately. The bus fleet actually increased from 1491 in 2005 to 1543 in 2006, and is different from the 2004 and 2003 figures as well. So if it was a buy and retire program strictly speaking, then there is no way the fleet size could've had that variability over the past few years when there were new deliveries year after year.

Well, first of all, I never said they did a syncronized 1-for-1 swap...it doesn't work that way.

But let's do some simple math shall we?

According to your numbers, in 2002 the fleet size was 1468, and in 2005, it was 1491, for a net increase of 23 vehicles.

We also know that 482 new Orion 7 Diesel Low Floors were added to the fleet from 2002-2005. The only way the fleet size could increase by only 23, is if 459 buses were retired from the fleet.

Same goes for 2006...fleet size is 1543, for a net increase of 52 buses over 2005. Yet we know that 150 Orion 7 Hybrid Low Floors and 80 Orion 7 Diesel Low Floors were added to the fleet in 2006. Again, this means that 178 were retired.

Same goes for 2007...same will go for 2008.

I'm afraid you've run out of old buses to give you your 15 year average age. Even if by the end of this year there are still a few "old" buses (as in more than 5 years old), they will be ones that were completely rebuilt in 2002, and not quite ready for retirement.

Why don't you just stop your tap-dancing and simply back up what you were called on. If you claim the average age of a TTC bus is 15 years, then give us all the buses...when they were built, and do the simple math to arrive at your claim.




KGB
KGB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 02:37 AM   #623
Top Gear
urbanator
 
Top Gear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 415
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by KGB View Post
most of the TTC's bus fleet is less than 5 years old

Hahaha very funny
__________________
New York City¯¯¯¯Seoul¯¯¯¯Tokyo¯¯¯¯Busan¯¯¯¯
Top Gear no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 05:17 AM   #624
Homer J. Simpson
Registered User
 
Homer J. Simpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sector 7-G
Posts: 2,465
Likes (Received): 18

I was under the impression that this was the Toronto Subway thread....... I must have made a mistake somewhere.
Homer J. Simpson no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 06:54 AM   #625
canadave87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 327
Likes (Received): 15

To say this thread meanders from topic to topic, only some of which are related to the subways in Toronto, is an understatement at best.
canadave87 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 09:24 AM   #626
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,925
Likes (Received): 18186

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
Yeah, you being so smart and all that, you go ahead and prove my point for me (bravo!):

No, it did go down some years, and that was the point I was making, it means that they are losing more buses than they can replace. How many buses arrived for 2005? 249? So if they are keeping the old ones, how do they net lose 11 in the total fleet? Yeah, exactly, it is because you don't know what you're talking about, like we've been telling you. Same goes for 2002.

You can't do math, it is as simple as that. You do not simply add the number of vehicle years in the one year to the previous year, you are incompetent. You are completely neglecting the new orders that arrive replacing the old ones that retire, thus your numbers are totally useless, and as a bonus, you get to look like an idiot. See, in ratio, if you have 1502 buses in 2004 and then 1491 buses in 2005 when 249 new arrivals debut, how many buses retired? Yeah, that's right wise one, learn rate and ratio, it means 260 of the oldest in the fleet are gone and your numbers are total fabrications from your little fantasy land.
New Order Deliveries (TTC Annual Reports)
2003 deliveries : 100
2004 deliveries : 119 + 17 = 136
2005 deliveries : 237 + 12 = 249
2006 deliveries : 150 + 80 = 230

Fleet Changes (TTC Annual Report)
2003 - 2004 net change : +13 buses
2004 - 2005 net change : -11 buses
2005 - 2006 net change : +52 buses

Notice for every year since 2003, when the large orders were starting to be filled, more buses came online than the net change, which means that there are some new buses that have not yet replaced an old bus, meaning some old buses remained on the fleet despite the new buses coming in. Exception is from 2004-2005, whereby there were 136 deliveries yet the fleet went down, meaning it was likely a 1:1 swap plus some more buses were retired without replacement.

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.

Here is a simple reconciliation to make the point come home even further, and how obvious a 1:1 swap is a logical error. Yet only a simple addition and subtraction can reveal it.

2005 year-end fleet size : 1491
2006 deliveries : 230
2006 removals : 178
2006 year-end fleet size : 1543

Simple subtraction. Don't understand how that is so difficult to comprehend. It's quite logical that a 1:1 swap is not even feasible or logical to begin with considering there was service expansion. Perhaps fantasy land has set in.

In fact, how would you subtract the retired buses' total age from the average computation when we don't know which buses were retired and how old they were? That has always been the caveat to my calculations and I made that very clear in an earlier post already in #455. Since you have forgotten already here it is again :

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline
In fact, my 15 includes keeping the old buses, as there is no evidence so far to suggest how much bus scrapping is taking place, hence it is logically flawed to assume the best case scenario without appropriate evidence. That mathematical computation is still correct.
So if you want to interpret my numbers again, then it would be a conservative figure assuming all the old buses were kept. Removing all the old buses is definitely out of the question. That's not a valid assumption to begin with. Unless we get fleet information, we cannot make that calculation. However, what is very clear is that the actual true number is not likely to be near 5 at all as first claimed by KGB. That was what my calculation referred to - to make it very clear how illogical that estimate is.

And I doubt you can come up with a better estimate given the data available either. I think this part we both agree.

I suggest you look into the context of my calculations and see what they're trying to achieve. This isn't an exercise of oh my number is the one true number in the universe, but rather a response to a very crude estimate from KGB that doesn't make much sense and cannot be backed up by a reasonable calculation. It doesn't take rocket science math to detect these major errors.

In fact, I'll bring a more hypothetical example to show how wrong that 5-year figure is.

From the year-end number and delivery reconciliation like I did for 2005-2006 above, I come up with the following fleet removals :
2005 : -260
2006 : -178

We know at the end of 2004 the average age is 14 years from the article. At the time the fleet size was 1502, so the total number of vehicle years = 21,028.
Assuming the very old buses were taken out of the system, like the 30 year-old ones you alluded to before, you will subtract 30 * (260+178) = 13,140 vehicle years (assuming that in 2005 all the buses taken out were 30 years old and the same in 2006 - big assumption, but it will be a conservative estimate).

End of 2004 : 21,028 - 13,140 = 7888 vehicle years
2005 vehicle years = 1491
2006 vehicle years = 1543
Total @ 06 year-end = 10,922
2006 # Fleet = 1543
Average = 7 years (this is likely the best case scenario)

Let's do a sensitivity analysis as I doubt there are 438 30-year old buses in the fleet even at the end of 2004.

If the average age of the bus taken out of the system is 20 years old :
Calculation becomes :
Total Vehicle Years : 21,028 - 438*20 + 1491 + 1543 = 15,302
2006 # Fleet = 1543
Average = 9.9 years

Even in the likely best case scenario, the estimate is 7, and I think the likely actual figure is around 10 as in the 2nd calculation.

I'll keep scanning the media and the TTC website for more recent fleet figures when they're available.

The point of all this is, you need to know exactly what you should take out (yes, you know this), but also how you should take that out (no, you don't know this, not after you claim it's a 1:1 swap).
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 09:54 AM   #627
city_thing
Put it in your mouth
 
city_thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne.
Posts: 7,128
Likes (Received): 883

ohhhhhhhhhhhhh my gaaaawd will you two quit yo bitchin'!

This thread is so dull as well! There's never any pictures or anything, only articles about how the system's underfunded. Can't you show us the cool things about the Subway, not just the depressing articles? You don't make this thread very exciting for outsiders, this thread might as well be in the Toronto section. Spice it up!
__________________
Calling occupants of interplanetary craft...
city_thing no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 10:13 AM   #628
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,925
Likes (Received): 18186

Feel free to add your photos in here as well. You're all welcome to do so.

Source : http://www.pbase.com/ssahmed/root











__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2008, 11:38 AM   #629
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
New Order Deliveries (TTC Annual Reports)
2003 deliveries : 100
2004 deliveries : 119 + 17 = 136
2005 deliveries : 237 + 12 = 249
2006 deliveries : 150 + 80 = 230

Fleet Changes (TTC Annual Report)
2003 - 2004 net change : +13 buses
2004 - 2005 net change : -11 buses
2005 - 2006 net change : +52 buses

Notice for every year since 2003, when the large orders were starting to be filled, more buses came online than the net change, which means that there are some new buses that have not yet replaced an old bus, meaning some old buses remained on the fleet despite the new buses coming in. Exception is from 2004-2005, whereby there were 136 deliveries yet the fleet went down, meaning it was likely a 1:1 swap plus some more buses were retired without replacement.
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
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.

Here is a simple reconciliation to make the point come home even further, and how obvious a 1:1 swap is a logical error. Yet only a simple addition and subtraction can reveal it..
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
Simple subtraction. Don't understand how that is so difficult to comprehend. It's quite logical that a 1:1 swap is not even feasible or logical to begin with considering there was service expansion. Perhaps fantasy land has set in.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
In fact, how would you subtract the retired buses' total age from the average computation when we don't know which buses were retired and how old they were?
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
So if you want to interpret my numbers again, then it would be a conservative figure assuming all the old buses were kept. Removing all the old buses is definitely out of the question. That's not a valid assumption to begin with. Unless we get fleet information, we cannot make that calculation. However, what is very clear is that the actual true number is not likely to be near 5 at all as first claimed by KGB. That was what my calculation referred to - to make it very clear how illogical that estimate is.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
And I doubt you can come up with a better estimate given the data available either. I think this part we both agree.
No, we don't, you're assuming incorrectly that the TTC for some inexplicable reason would defy all logic and keep the oldest buses instead of not-so-old ones when doing replacements. That's fantasy land there, you must be high or something to have ideas that far out there and non-sensical. Get mental help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
I suggest you look into the context of my calculations and see what they're trying to achieve. This isn't an exercise of oh my number is the one true number in the universe, but rather a response to a very crude estimate from KGB that doesn't make much sense and cannot be backed up by a reasonable calculation. It doesn't take rocket science math to detect these major errors.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
We know at the end of 2004 the average age is 14 years from the article.
So how come you said the average was over 15 years as new arrivals come in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
End of 2004 : 21,028 - 13,140 = 7888 vehicle years
2005 vehicle years = 1491
2006 vehicle years = 1543
Total @ 06 year-end = 10,922
2006 # Fleet = 1543
Average = 7 years (this is likely the best case scenario)
This also the most realistic since the oldest are the ones that get replaced. This is also close enough to 5 years just like KGB said... DUH! Go away now, you're done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
Let's do a sensitivity analysis as I doubt there are 438 30-year old buses in the fleet even at the end of 2004.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
Even in the likely best case scenario, the estimate is 7, and I think the likely actual figure is around 10 as in the 2nd calculation.
Like I kept saying the whole time, 13 is the worst case possible - that assumes all 500 or so old ones are 30 years old. That is unlikely. 10, sure, I'll believe that, my bone has been with the over 15 years average age uninformed comment you made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
The point of all this is, you need to know exactly what you should take out (yes, you know this), but also how you should take that out (no, you don't know this, not after you claim it's a 1:1 swap).
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.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek

Last edited by TRZ; February 22nd, 2008 at 11:45 AM.
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2008, 01:25 AM   #630
Skybean
天豆
 
Skybean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,937
Likes (Received): 271

Quote:
Originally Posted by city_thing View Post
Can't you show us the cool things about the Subway, not just the depressing articles?
Honestly, there is nothing exciting about Toronto subways.
__________________
My Photos」 ● Hong Kong 1|2|3 ● Macau 1 ● London 1 ● New York City 1
Photo Threads」 ● Flying Over Hong KongCity Life Series」 ● Hong KongShanghaiSeoulTokyo
Skybean no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2008, 04:45 AM   #631
KGB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: TO
Posts: 5,767
Likes (Received): 48

Quote:
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.

Holy shit...what part of plain english do you not understand?

Every new bus ordered is to replace a bus that is scheduled to be retired...it's that simple.

Once all replacements have been made for every bus that is scheduled to be retired, they will have an extra 100 new buses on top of that.

This does not mean that scheduled retirement of every bus coincides with the excact moment a new one arrives. TRZ's 1:1 ratio is absolutely correct...it just doesn't mean it happens simultaineously in real time.

Need to hear it from the horses mouth? Here's a couple of paragraphs from The Coupler (TTC newsletter)

Quote:
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.



KGB
KGB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2008, 05:23 AM   #632
city_thing
Put it in your mouth
 
city_thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne.
Posts: 7,128
Likes (Received): 883

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
Feel free to add your photos in here as well. You're all welcome to do so.

Source : http://www.pbase.com/ssahmed/root











Thanks HK, you've made this thread worth visiting. I would post my own photos, but unfortunately I've never been to Toronto, so I don't have any.
__________________
Calling occupants of interplanetary craft...
city_thing no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2008, 08:36 PM   #633
cementationfurnace
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down at Fraggle Rock
Posts: 381
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by city_thing View Post
ohhhhhhhhhhhhh my gaaaawd will you two quit yo bitchin'!

This thread is so dull as well! There's never any pictures or anything, only articles about how the system's underfunded. Can't you show us the cool things about the Subway, not just the depressing articles? You don't make this thread very exciting for outsiders, this thread might as well be in the Toronto section. Spice it up!
Personal testimonial time: I took to subway in Toronto on Friday. I arrived where I wanted to with a minimum of excitement but with great efficiency.
cementationfurnace no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 29th, 2008, 02:47 AM   #634
smokiboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,010
Likes (Received): 149

Can anyone tell me if there is thread dedicated to the Toronto airport transit link?
Thanks
smokiboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2008, 07:17 PM   #635
Skybean
天豆
 
Skybean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,937
Likes (Received): 271

Sick transit: TTC dirty, leaky, decaying
JACK LAKEY/TORONTO STAR



A bucket placed inside the entrance to the Donlands subway station catches water leaking from the roof. Unresolved leaks are a common complaint.

'War zone' stations appall subway users
Mar 08, 2008 04:30 AM
Jack Lakey
Staff Reporter

Dingy, decaying, depressing, and definitely not The Better Way.

That's the verdict of readers about the condition of TTC stations, and the reason we're launching a full week of stories about it.

We recently asked for comments and examples of problems to do with cleanliness, maintenance and overall appearance of TTC stations, which touched a painful nerve with its customers.

About 200 calls and emails – the largest response we've ever had – poured in from riders appalled by grimy, litter-strewn floors, leaky roofs, stalled escalators, abominable washrooms, abandoned repairs and a dispiriting deterioration in the appearance of stations that conveys indifference and neglect.

Of the hundreds of thousands of people who use the system daily, most will end up in one of the 69 stations, often as their point of entry. The importance of a good first impression seems lost on the TTC, based on readers' responses.

Many recall when the stations were spotless and set the standard for North American public transit. People took pride in that reputation. Their memories may have grown rosier over time, but it makes the current state of affairs even harder for them to fathom.

"Go to any station and you will see a thick black coating of grime on the platforms," emailed Leo Gonzalez. "I still remember when those terrazzo floors used to shine, and I'm only in my 30s."

"Shabby is an understatement," wrote Jeff Harvey. "The bus depot (at Eglinton station) is dark, dingy and dirty – a dungeon. Donlands station appears out of a war zone, with a leaky roof and ripped-open ceiling that's been like this for years. It is usually carpeted with litter."

"The roof has leaked for a long time, but (lately) it has been an indoor rainstorm," wrote Sara Lipson of Kipling station. "The problem is so widespread that the temporary fixes do little to stop raindrops from falling on our heads."

"If I was a city health inspector, I would close down the washrooms," wrote Andrew Murphy. "They are absolutely disgusting. At least I can stand up. I wouldn't want to sit on any toilet seat."

One reader complained the inside bus platforms at Kipling are cleaned, "but not the outside ones. Vomit from the weekend is still there Tuesday or Wednesday."

Shawn McCabe, a TTC janitor, called to say "you're taking a shot at us, as usual, and it's a one-sided affair. But the public has to take some responsibility. Sometimes they sit on a bench next to a garbage can and just dump garbage on the floor. The public has to take pride in the stations."

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."


Comments from readers were so vivid we totalled up some of the descriptions. "Filthy" came up 23 times and "disgusting" 15 times.

Dirt was the most frequently raised problem at 76 times, followed by 47 garbage complaints, 15 of which mentioned the need for more litter receptacles. There were 28 complaints about escalators, elevators and doors, 24 about station repairs, 25 about service and staff, 18 about leaky roofs and water, 14 about snow, 11 about free newspapers, eight about unfinished construction, eight about washrooms and seven about signage.

Councillor Adam Giambrone, who chairs the TTC, says the people who've complained about deteriorating conditions are wrong, and that the stations are cleaner than they were a couple of years ago, according to system audits.

"It takes a while to move people's perceptions," said Giambrone. "You can't reverse the trend overnight. People do see cleaner stations (but) they don't register it.

"People are coming in and saying they do see a difference because there used to be more paper on the tracks. Is it as clean as they'd like? No. But the fact is, things are getting better. It's measurable."

TTC managers are understandably touchy about the criticism.

"Sure, we know the washrooms are bad," says Gary Shortt, the TTC's superintendent of plant maintenance, stressing that a program to replace old plumbing fixtures with automated ones in the system's 10 washrooms is nearing completion. Customer complaints about washrooms have since dropped by 36 per cent, he said.

Janitorial staff is stretched thin, with a total of 248 cleaners to cover the entire system. The total number of dayshift cleaners during the week is just 38. To make matters worse, 2008 TTC budget documents show a daily absentee rate of 12 per cent among cleaners.

There's a lot more to cleaning a subway station than it might seem, said Shortt. For example, the black grime coating so many surfaces is a fine dust created when the brakes on trains are applied as they slow while pulling into stations.

Over time, brake dust builds up on everything and special equipment is needed to remove it in some areas, he said.

"People notice that the tiles on the wall across from the platform are covered with it, but we can't just send a janitor over there," with a brush and a bucket of soapy water said Shortt.

Cleaning staff are not allowed to work at track level due to the electrified third rail in the tracks, which means a flatbed rail car is needed, which can only be used late at night, when the subway has stopped running.

When a flatbed car is available, the cleaning must be done by maintenance workers instead of janitorial staff, which further complicates the job because the first priority for maintenance staff is usually track repairs, which must also be done when the subway isn't running, he said.

Despite the cash squeeze, the TTC has substantial plans for improvements, which will be the subject of a feature article next Saturday.

We're not doing this just to dump on the TTC or proffer outrageous quotes. We're hoping it will compel the TTC and the city councillors who oversee it to take the problem more seriously and move it much higher up on the list of priorities.

And we'll be asking each commissioner what they personally intend to do to fix the problem.


Voices

"I use the Finch terminus on a regular basis and it's filthy. You should take a look at the stairs leading from the main level to the bus terminal. The dust and dirt on these stairs is absolutely appalling and the ceiling has been open for months. It's a disgrace!"
__________________
My Photos」 ● Hong Kong 1|2|3 ● Macau 1 ● London 1 ● New York City 1
Photo Threads」 ● Flying Over Hong KongCity Life Series」 ● Hong KongShanghaiSeoulTokyo
Skybean no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2008, 04:54 AM   #636
UD2
A very cool person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,294
Likes (Received): 31

Quote:
Originally Posted by Top Gear View Post
Hahaha very funny
that is actually the case. A very large portion of the TTC's fleet is less than 5 years old. The other large portion have been in service since around 1996.
__________________
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed" - President Eisenhower
UD2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2008, 08:58 PM   #637
LordMandeep
Registered User
 
LordMandeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Brampton(outside Toronto)
Posts: 1,916
Likes (Received): 12

its simple privatize the cleaning staff.

They are over paid and clearly not doing their job.
__________________
Live in Suburbia. Save me!!!
LordMandeep no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2008, 10:24 PM   #638
Electrify
Registered User
 
Electrify's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Markham (Thornhill), Ontario
Posts: 1,684
Likes (Received): 5

Especially if this part is true...

Quote:
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."
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!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by OEincorparated View Post
You are genius too Electrify, never would have thought of this if not for your thread.
Electrify no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2008, 10:36 PM   #639
UD2
A very cool person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,294
Likes (Received): 31

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordMandeep View Post
its simple privatize the cleaning staff.

They are over paid and clearly not doing their job.
privatization doesn't work. Take OPG as a grand example, the province is paying more now for the privatized sector of OPG than when it was still public.

You add in the profit factor that a private company needs to make, the ineffeciency of a public institution will seem cheap.

There is a reason why no large institutions privatize or contract out their cleaning staff.

TTC hires students during he summer as cleaning crews, which explains the lack of work dedication. It's understandable because nobody really gives a damn about their summer job anyways. These guys are probably also underpaid for the job that they are asked to do, so simply economics will consititute poor porformance.
__________________
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed" - President Eisenhower
UD2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2008, 02:32 AM   #640
LordMandeep
Registered User
 
LordMandeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Brampton(outside Toronto)
Posts: 1,916
Likes (Received): 12

However there is a problem of laziness.

I was waiting for a bus at a a subway stop and a full grown man,took 15 mins (taking breaks and such) to pick up 3 garbage bags and to put new ones...

Clearly the problem is that they are not doing the work and prehaps scarring some of them with outsourcing could work.
__________________
Live in Suburbia. Save me!!!
LordMandeep no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
canada, ontario, toronto

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium