--- In transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com, Mike Olivier <rapidtransitman@...>
wrote:
>
> Why pick on Lakeshore for bustitution? 501 service is already horrible enough
without inflicting riders with even more erratic replacement bus service.

I concur.  Also, the busses could be used on bus routes as well to maintain
and/or imporve services along those lines which would be better then using them
instead of the two PCCs.

Wotan

Spent the last few days trying to upload to YouTube, but it keep rejecting all
the file formats as it is broken. Even going the route as recommend had issue to
the point what I wrote and what did show up were almost 3 different things.

My comments are in the video's as well on site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7y-qMkijbs Dufferin-Downsview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18H7WdS81zo Dufferin to York

I gave up trying to film due to rough ride and will re-shoot at a later date.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv-xV_OkOk0

I thank the drivers for allowing me to shoot at the front and they like the
busway.

Dave

Dufferin Construction were to pour the sidewalk at the entrance to the loop
tonight and want 48 hours before buses can roll over it.

This is the only outstanding item to be done as the loop is 100% rebuilt.

The paving equipment is sitting on the street as it still need paving as well
over at the Bingo Hall. Not sure if the loop is going to be pave as there very
little height between the sidewalk and the loop itself now with the concrete
driveway.

#127 should be or could be back to Normal Routing Thursday or when TTC say OK.

Dave

How sure are you that they are laughing at us?

Ive been living in the developing world (5 years in Malaysia now) and I can
tell you that no one is "laughing" at Toronto.

The real questions that they are asking are:

    - why the federal government does not invest in public transport
    - why they dont allow competition in the public transport market

By the way, as far as I know Admiral Adam is speaking in Kuala Lumpur today
at the UITP (international association of public transport) Asia-Pacific
Seminar to discuss the role of a public transport authority....

*Role of an Authority in Creating an Environment for PT Development
**Adam GIAMBRONE, Chair, Toronto Transit Commission, Canada
*
Main page - http://www.uitp.org/events/2009/malaysia/en/
Programme - http://www.uitp.org/events/2009/malaysia/en/pdf/program.pdf
Regards, Moaz

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Mike Brooker <patria1818@...> wrote:


> Even Calcutta is moving to smart cards, apparently within the next eight
> months.
>
> http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091123/jsp/calcutta/story_11772284.jsp
>
> Not only is the TTC the laughing stock of the industralized world, but in
> the developing world, from Calcutta to Curitiba, they're laughing at us even
> harder.
>
> mb.
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> dowling_mark wrote:
> > ...There is no evidence they like smart cards since
> adoption will 
> > hang on making them attractive to riders (i.e. the TTC
> will "lose 
> > money" the way it "loses money" on metropass "free
> riding").
> >
> Steve Munro has long ridiculed this line of thinking on his
> blog, but 
> with the coming hike initially making a point of targeting
> Metropass 
> users, it's really getting stupid.

Even Calcutta is moving to smart cards, apparently within the next eight months.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091123/jsp/calcutta/story_11772284.jsp

Not only is the TTC the laughing stock of the industralized world, but in the
developing world, from Calcutta to Curitiba, they're laughing at us even harder.

mb.

Hey, the H4s have comfy seats.

Put those seats in a car with air conditioning and you've got yourself a winner
:)
---

Sent on the Tele-Mobile network with BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Treijs <ed.toronto@...>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:21:09
To: <transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: <Transit-Toronto> H-6s

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Robert <unknownfte@...> wrote:

> Actually, they were nothing but problems since before they even left the
plant! There were several instances of modifications and retrofits which held up
the cars leaving the plant. On the bright side though, since the H6s were so bad
it allowed the Gloucester cars to run for about fours years more than originally
expected.

Greenwood staff sure like the H4s though.

The H4s were "antiquated technology". The H6 were "modern, high-tech".

Ed (do I see a parallel with fare collections systems?) Treijs



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:23 +0000, "Robert" <unknownfte@...>
wrote:

> Actually, they were nothing but problems since before they even
> left the plant! There were several instances of modifications and
> retrofits which held up the cars leaving the plant.

Didn't realise these had been such lemons. I remember when they went
into service that they seemed like H5s, but with beefier A/C, and of
course that great door mechanism that teaches a lesson if you try to
push your luck. If only this had been kept for the "takes an eternity to
close down" T1s.

MW

I also like the H-4's in all their padded seat goodness

To: transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com
From: ed.toronto@...
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:21:09 -0500
Subject: Re: <Transit-Toronto> H-6s




























       On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Robert <unknownfte@...> wrote:



> Actually, they were nothing but problems since before they even left the
plant! There were several instances of modifications and retrofits which held up
the cars leaving the plant. On the bright side though, since the H6s were so bad
it allowed the Gloucester cars to run for about fours years more than originally
expected.



Greenwood staff sure like the H4s though.



The H4s were "antiquated technology". The H6 were "modern, high-tech".



Ed (do I see a parallel with fare collections systems?) Treijs
















_________________________________________________________________
Eligible CDN College & University students can upgrade to Windows 7 before Jan 3
for only $39.99. Upgrade now!
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9691819

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Robert <unknownfte@...> wrote:

> Actually, they were nothing but problems since before they even left the
plant! There were several instances of modifications and retrofits which held up
the cars leaving the plant. On the bright side though, since the H6s were so bad
it allowed the Gloucester cars to run for about fours years more than originally
expected.

Greenwood staff sure like the H4s though.

The H4s were "antiquated technology". The H6 were "modern, high-tech".

Ed (do I see a parallel with fare collections systems?) Treijs

> So just because local operators would presumably be indemnified against
> losses, that makes it better?  We'd all still end up paying.  Plus, because
> lots of operators would be accepting them, the scale would be larger!
> Doesn't sound good to me!

The card system is coming whether or not you like it, so the question
is not "should we be paying" through the province but rather, "how do
we ensure the system is secure" and "how do we ensure that the private
partner is responsible for security failures rather than the public".

It's impossible to argue that local operators should NOT be
indemnified against losses due to security breaches given that it is
not their system.

Yeah, we do but most don't.

Thanks,
Christian.
|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|
Christian Base

"When a train pulls into a great city I am reminded of the closing moments
of an overture." - Graham Greene



On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 00:30, lauwils <lauwils@...> wrote:

> You know the drill:
>
> If you are buying tickets from the fare collector, shove over so those with
> tickets can simply deposit and squeeze past you.
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So just because local operators would presumably be indemnified against
losses, that makes it better?  We'd all still end up paying.  Plus, because
lots of operators would be accepting them, the scale would be larger!
Doesn't sound good to me!

Thanks,
Christian.
|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|
Christian Base

"When a train pulls into a great city I am reminded of the closing moments
of an overture." - Graham Greene



On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 07:39, David Harrison <dwharrison@...> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Ed <eddrass65@...> wrote:
> > Smart cards can and have been hacked. What is the potential in losses to
> electronic fraud compared to token and ticket counterfeiting?
>
> This is just supposition, but as Presto is a provincial system, one
> would hope that local operators would be indemnified against losses.
>
> While the risk of attacks does exist, the skill level to do so is
> vastly greater than the skill level required to counterfit tickets.
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-- In transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com, Dan Garcia <smallspy_g@...> wrote:


> As for the H6's, the reason why the TTC is asking that they receive the
funding to replace them is because they have been nothing but problems since the
day they arrived ...

Actually, they were nothing but problems since before they even left the plant! 
There were several instances of modifications and retrofits which held up the
cars leaving the plant.  On the bright side though, since the H6s were so bad it
allowed the Gloucester cars to run for about fours years more than originally
expected.

Robert Lubinski

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Mike Olivier <rapidtransitman@...> wrote:
>
> What ware the observations of this 501 line trial split? I still saw bunched
streetcars on Lakeshore the last few days.

Purely anecdotally:

AM rush hour service was fine. But then it's pretty good under either
system, unless a bad operator makes a mess of things.

Saw more "bad operators" (mostly just slow, possibly new) in the
evenings. Evening service was a bit clumpy, but not as bad as it was a
few years ago. When waiting for a westbound Long Branch car downtown,
I tend to start walking east. Only once I got as far as Sherbourne;
mostly it was to Victoria (the Church stop being not in service due to
construction). A few years ago, I made it to Sherbourne or Parliament
once a week--and then I was starting from Spadina and not Yonge!
Granted there are differences in weather and time-of-use between my
experiences earlier, and during the trial.

One very nice feature of the split is that west-end cars have lots of
seats available when they come westbound through downtown, as most of
the crowds have been delivered by the east-end cars. Eastbound riders
may not have the same advantage as there are a lot more busy stops in
the Dufferin-Yonge section than there are in the Broadview-Yonge
section; so an eastbound east-end car may be pretty fully by the time
it gets to Yonge.

Often there was good alternation: HUMBER, SHAW, LONG BRANCH, SHAW,
HUMBER, SHAW .... If there were gaps westbound through downtown, it
was usually the SHAW cars missing in action.

The schedule for west-end cars has too much padding, especially in the
early AM (6-7:30). Despite servicing most of the stops on the route,
eastbound cars from Long Branch still tend to lay over for a few
minutes at Humber loop, and sometimes they lollygag approaching
downtown. Despite this, I've seen +07 on CIS, and I'm pretty sure they
left Long Branch loop on time, and haven't been running like maniacs
either.

Evening schedules don't seem to be so padded, and I also hit a goodly
number of slow/new/nervous operators. I don't know why this would be
the case, but Queen West is no place for faint-hearted operation.

> Also, anyone know the ridership on the 145 Humber Bay Express Premium Fare
buses?

I glimpsed the bus west of Islington this morning. Just a
three-quarters rear view, but I didn't see anyone aboard. It had
pulled over at the Tenth St. stop, but everyone waiting there got
aboard the streetcar instead.

Ed (Gardiner/Lake Shore traffic, yum!) Treijs

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Mike Watson <mike.watson@...> wrote:

> Modernising fare collection would immediately kill the market for
> bogus fare media, while providing the TTC with fine-grained data on
> ridership that they to-date have never been able to obtain. No more
> paper transfers and fare disputes for surface operators; while it may
> be easy to dupe a human, the machine knows you only put a piece of
> foil in the box. The current booth attendants could be upgraded to
> full CSRs and could work "outside the box" like in NYC. Although it
> might be a tough sell at first, I suspect their safety would be
> improved because there would be no reason to rob them. And the
> overall customer service level would simply have to rise, as it's a
> lot tougher to be a jerk when you're not secured in a bunker!

There are obvious problems with swipe cards (line-ups being one of
them). RFID has a whole other set of problems (trivially solved, of
course, by implanting chips in everyone, and just reading those and
billing back accordingly--no need to fool around with fare media when
you are your own RFID card!)

As for fine-grained data, that's a whole other level of information
gathering and storing. Do other systems like Opus or Oyster actually
do this? The descriptions I've heard don't make this clear. Of course,
making an information system to handle all this in real-time is a
great opportunity for boondoggling. Remember the long-gun registry was
supposed to cost a few tens of millions of dollars, and it didn't have
to try to track hundreds of thousands of rides in real time, day in
and day out.

Overall, I am a little puzzled by all the advocacy for smart fare
systems. While they have advantages, they also have disadvantages:
cost being the most obvious one. Change for the sake of improvements
is one thing, but when the improvement is simply to "get out of old
technology" I have to wonder about that. Remember, the ICTS was the
answer to outmoded traction technology, and look where that got us.
Not all improvements stand up to the test of time.

I am also puzzled by the token hoarders and the TTC's response.

First of all, if I hoard almost three hundred tokens (as seen in the
Star's story at
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/ttc/article/729394--hoarders-foiled-as-ttc-halts\
-token-sales
), I have spent about $675. My expected savings next year will be
about $75. Okay, not too bad, but it's going to take at least half a
year to use up all these tokens. If I use them any quicker, then I
should get a Metropass. If I'm hoarding for many people, well, I hope
they will buy me a beer for my troubles!

Anyway, hoarded tokens are as likely to ensure a wealthy retirement as
are all those Beanie Babies you picked up in 1998. (Too bad, as I have
seven or eight tokens lying aroudn that I won't be using any time
soon.)

The TTC's response to the hoarding should have been to open up the
reserves and let people buy as many as they want. And for heaven's
sake don't count the entire price of a token in 2010 as the "loss" due
to it being purchased in 2009. That's just
accounting-irregularity-style math.

Ed (off to Ebay to sell my Maple for $10,000 and five tokens for $2,000) Treijs

Jonathan White wrote:
> Richard White wrote:
>> They are going to run them in revenue service I think to cover the shortfall
in the fleet.
>
> I would think it much easier and cost-effective, if the TTC is so short
> on streetcars, to temporarily (hopefully) bustitute a portion of a route
> in order to free up some cars rather than return the two remaining PCCs
> to regular revenue service, which would be of slight benefit anyway.
> Replacing streetcars with buses say, between Kipling Loop and Long
> Branch, during the rush hours would probably be equivalent to adding the
> PCCs back to the fleet. There's gotta be something else going on there
> in regard to future plans with the PCCs...

Using the PCCs has the advantage over using buses is that it doesn't
pull buses from other places where they are needed. I don't think the
TTC has an excess of buses anyway.

Putting the PCCs into service would only require a bit of money for
maintainance, while using buses in the long term would require buying 3
new buses (PCCs can hold more passengers then buses).

It would also leave the PCCs better off because they would get the same
priority for maintenance as the CLRVs, rather then being at the bottom
of the barrel.

Don't forget the numerous people talking to themselves.

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Richard White wrote:

>
> Sounds like a normal day on the Queen Streetcar
>
> To: transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com
> From: eallen@...
> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:41:41 +0000
> Subject: <Transit-Toronto> Conversations on the 501 Queen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      If the TTC's new by-law revisions can punish you for putting your feet up
on a seat or not giving your seat up to an elderly patron, why can't there be a
clause about appropriate conversation topics on the transit system?
>
>
>
> Today while riding the 501 I was subjected to no less than 3 conversations of
a questionable nature.
>
>
>
> The first, two gentlemen in their 20's discussing the merits of battery
operated versus non battery operated sex toys (amongst other bedroom related
discussions) in more details than I need to trouble you with here (the
conversation lasted 15 minutes until they got off the car - much to the horror
of a mother who was with her 5-8 year old daughter).
>
>
>
> The Second was a woman in nursing scrubs talking on the telephone about an
autopsy she had witnessed at work and going into some rather graphic details
about the procedure.
>
>
>
> The third was 3 teens talking about female hygiene issues and "that time of
the month" type things.
>
>
>
> Seriously, people should be a bit more considerate to those traveling who just
want to enjoy the ride/get where they are going. Which brings me back to my
initial statement, if the TTC can *try* to legislate against some courtesy's why
cant they *try* and incorporate issues such as inappropriate conversation into
the by-law.
>
>
>
> I personally was not really offended by any of the conversations I was
subjected to, but for the mothers of small children, the little old grannies and
grandpas some of the topics I heard over a 1/2 ride were probably a bit too much
for them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail
you.
> http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9691817
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> Transit Toronto Website:  http://transit.toronto.on.ca
> To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank e-mail to:
>  mailto:transit-toronto-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Ed <eddrass65@...> wrote:
> Smart cards can and have been hacked. What is the potential in losses to
electronic fraud compared to token and ticket counterfeiting?

This is just supposition, but as Presto is a provincial system, one
would hope that local operators would be indemnified against losses.

While the risk of attacks does exist, the skill level to do so is
vastly greater than the skill level required to counterfit tickets.

You know the drill:

If you are buying tickets from the fare collector, shove over so those with
tickets can simply deposit and squeeze past you.

--- In transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com, "Ed" <eddrass65@...> wrote:
>
> ed: I was already planning to write in Monday's column about coping with the
token shortage. This was just released by TTC, and I'll have to ask them about
plans for extra crash gates, etc., since tickets ain't likely to fit in token
turnstiles...
>
> -- --

On 22-Nov-09, at 2:35 PM, dowling_mark wrote:
> ...There is no evidence they like smart cards since adoption will
> hang on making them attractive to riders (i.e. the TTC will "lose
> money" the way it "loses money" on metropass "free riding").
>
Steve Munro has long ridiculed this line of thinking on his blog, but
with the coming hike initially making a point of targeting Metropass
users, it's really getting stupid. Pass users are typically the
system's most loyal customers, and have to have the lowest fare
collection costs of any fare media: money is collected up front, all
at once with essentially no "work" on the TTC's part in accepting
fares for the remainder of the month. As an eight year MDPer, I have
no use at all for fare booths or the enormous & expensive ticket/
token/transfer ecosystem, and the TTC spends close to $0 collecting
my fare. Easier & cheaper for both sides, except somehow all of us
pass users are cutting into revenue. Guess I'm just lucky that my
renewal month is December.

MW

Tokyo Metro has a nice monthly courtesy poster campaign...how about printing
them out in a smaller size and handing them out with a smile.

http://www.tokyometro.jp/anshin/kaiteki/poster/index.html

Cheers, Moaz

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM, <subway7552@...> wrote:

>   Its a matter of free speech, you walk a fine line with it, because
> anyone could be offended by anything, I might offended hearing someone
> talking politics, or religion, or even a lousy sports team, even though you
> might think its ok to talk about it. Whats inappropriate to one, may not be
> to all and vice versa. You do have the right to ask them to change the
> subject, or embarass them into doing it...
>
> you could have said to those two young men "would you want your little
> sister or mother to hear something like that?" or even a lean in and say "do
> you know that everyone can hear you?" - most people dont even notice whats
> going on around them when they are engaged in conversation.
>
> You have a voice - when you dont use it, no one can hear you.
>
> (and Im not putting anyone one down - this is just common sense and
> reason).
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well regarding the two men ... there was a bit more to the conversation ...
inappropriate language regarding body parts etc. and the one did appear to be
slightly self concious at first as he was looking out the window ... but then
the other one started getting cuddly and asked him "am i embarasing you" to
which he replied "not really" and so the conversation continued getting more and
more ______(heated/inappropriate/suggestive/sexual-insert almost any descriptor)
by the minute.

Don't get me wrong I'm not singling out them for any issues regarding their
sexual orientation or anything ... I just don't think that talking about
genitalia size, personal hygiene issues, and sex toys is really that appropriate
for ANYONE (man, woman, child) to talk about in public.



--- In transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com, subway7552@... wrote:
>
>
> Its a matter of free speech, you walk a fine line with it, because anyone
could be offended by anything, I might offended hearing someone talking
politics, or religion, or even a lousy sports team, even though you might think
its ok to talk about it. Whats inappropriate to one, may not be to all and vice
versa. You do have the right to ask them to change the subject, or embarass them
into doing it...
>
> you could have said to those two young men "would you want your little sister
or mother to hear something like that?" or even a lean in and say "do you know
that everyone can hear you?" - most people dont even notice whats going on
around them when they are engaged in conversation.
>
> You have a voice - when you dont use it, no one can hear you.
>
> (and Im not putting anyone one down - this is just common sense and reason).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eallen110 <eallen@...>
> To: transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, Nov 22, 2009 10:41 pm
> Subject: <Transit-Toronto> Conversations on the 501 Queen
>
>
>
>
> If the TTC's new by-law revisions can punish you for putting your feet up on a
seat or not giving your seat up to an elderly patron, why can't there be a
clause about appropriate conversation topics on the transit system?
>
> Today while riding the 501 I was subjected to no less than 3 conversations of
a questionable nature.
>
> The first, two gentlemen in their 20's discussing the merits of battery
operated versus non battery operated sex toys (amongst other bedroom related
discussions) in more details than I need to trouble you with here (the
conversation lasted 15 minutes until they got off the car - much to the horror
of a mother who was with her 5-8 year old daughter).
>
> The Second was a woman in nursing scrubs talking on the telephone about an
autopsy she had witnessed at work and going into some rather graphic details
about the procedure.
>
> The third was 3 teens talking about female hygiene issues and "that time of
the month" type things.
>
> Seriously, people should be a bit more considerate to those traveling who just
want to enjoy the ride/get where they are going. Which brings me back to my
initial statement, if the TTC can *try* to legislate against some courtesy's why
cant they *try* and incorporate issues such as inappropriate conversation into
the by-law.
>
> I personally was not really offended by any of the conversations I was
subjected to, but for the mothers of small children, the little old grannies and
grandpas some of the topics I heard over a 1/2 ride were probably a bit too much
for them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Its a matter of free speech, you walk a fine line with it, because anyone could
be offended by anything, I might offended hearing someone talking politics, or
religion, or even a lousy sports team, even though you might think its ok to
talk about it. Whats inappropriate to one, may not be to all and vice versa. You
do have the right to ask them to change the subject, or embarass them into doing
it...

you could have said to those two young men "would you want your little sister or
mother to hear something like that?" or even a lean in and say "do you know that
everyone can hear you?" - most people dont even notice whats going on around
them when they are engaged in conversation.

You have a voice - when you dont use it, no one can hear you.

(and Im not putting anyone one down - this is just common sense and reason).








-----Original Message-----
From: eallen110 <eallen@...>
To: transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 22, 2009 10:41 pm
Subject: <Transit-Toronto> Conversations on the 501 Queen




If the TTC's new by-law revisions can punish you for putting your feet up on a
seat or not giving your seat up to an elderly patron, why can't there be a
clause about appropriate conversation topics on the transit system?

Today while riding the 501 I was subjected to no less than 3 conversations of a
questionable nature.

The first, two gentlemen in their 20's discussing the merits of battery operated
versus non battery operated sex toys (amongst other bedroom related discussions)
in more details than I need to trouble you with here (the conversation lasted 15
minutes until they got off the car - much to the horror of a mother who was with
her 5-8 year old daughter).

The Second was a woman in nursing scrubs talking on the telephone about an
autopsy she had witnessed at work and going into some rather graphic details
about the procedure.

The third was 3 teens talking about female hygiene issues and "that time of the
month" type things.

Seriously, people should be a bit more considerate to those traveling who just
want to enjoy the ride/get where they are going. Which brings me back to my
initial statement, if the TTC can *try* to legislate against some courtesy's why
cant they *try* and incorporate issues such as inappropriate conversation into
the by-law.

I personally was not really offended by any of the conversations I was subjected
to, but for the mothers of small children, the little old grannies and grandpas
some of the topics I heard over a 1/2 ride were probably a bit too much for
them.







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mark, you forgot the cateogry of the 'the groomers' and subsets 'the clippers'
who think its ok to trim their nails in public, 'the brushers' who think that i
want the hair thats falling off their hair brush on my lap, and 'the pickers'
who think no ones watching as they pick their nose and then wipe it on the seat
...

(nooo I'm not bitter or disgusted ... not one bit!)





--- In transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com, "Mark W. Walton" <mark.walton@...>
wrote:
>
> Try this comeback the next time you hear "Holy s**t": "Not here, you want to
> holy s**t, go to your church toilet!"
>
> Ottawa bus drivers claim not to have the power to compel people to give up
> priority seats to those who need them; Col. Sherman T. Potter of M*A*S*H:
> "Horse hockey!" The transit bylaw gives them ample power; the set fine is
> for failing or refusing to surrender a front bench seat for someone entitled
> to priority seating is $125.00; I have yet to see or hear of our Transit Law
> Enforcement Special Constables dishing out any fines, something that would
> do my heart a power of good!
>
> Do TTC riders tend towards the following behaviors I've often noticed on
> Ottawa buses:
>
> - Door-chargers, who try to board before people can get out.
>
> - One of my pet peeves: People who stand around in exit doors, or the narrow
> space between the front wheels on low-floor buses when seats are available.
> I've seen people miss, or almost miss, their stops, no thanks to clods like
> that.
>
> - People who won't move back when a bus driver ask them to, because "we're
> trying to talk". Fine, continue your conversation later, when a bus driver
> tells you to move, you move, or people get left behind!
>
> - Seat hogs and "long-legged cushion planters" (GO-speak, ca. 1980s; the
> bellows area of our articulated buses is their favorite habitat!).
>
> - The usual loud iPod and cellphone-yakker crowd. To the latter, show a keen
> interest in everything they're saying; they may or may not get the message!
>
> - Window openers on air-conditioned buses while the air is going.
>
> - Drivers who condone the foregoing. If they're afraid even to try to put a
> stop to it, what are they doing in the job? Where is their union to back
> them up when they need it?
>
> Mark Walton
> mark.walton@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of eallen110
> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:42 PM
> To: transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: <Transit-Toronto> Conversations on the 501 Queen
>
> If the TTC's new by-law revisions can punish you for putting your feet up on
> a seat or not giving your seat up to an elderly patron, why can't there be a
> clause about appropriate conversation topics on the transit system?
>
> Today while riding the 501 I was subjected to no less than 3 conversations
> of a questionable nature.
>
> The first, two gentlemen in their 20's discussing the merits of battery
> operated versus non battery operated sex toys (amongst other bedroom related
> discussions) in more details than I need to trouble you with here (the
> conversation lasted 15 minutes until they got off the car - much to the
> horror of a mother who was with her 5-8 year old daughter).
>
> The Second was a woman in nursing scrubs talking on the telephone about an
> autopsy she had witnessed at work and going into some rather graphic details
> about the procedure.
>
> The third was 3 teens talking about female hygiene issues and "that time of
> the month" type things.
>
> Seriously, people should be a bit more considerate to those traveling who
> just want to enjoy the ride/get where they are going. Which brings me back
> to my initial statement, if the TTC can *try* to legislate against some
> courtesy's why cant they *try* and incorporate issues such as inappropriate
> conversation into the by-law.
>
> I personally was not really offended by any of the conversations I was
> subjected to, but for the mothers of small children, the little old grannies
> and grandpas some of the topics I heard over a 1/2 ride were probably a bit
> too much for them.
>

Try this comeback the next time you hear "Holy s**t": "Not here, you want to
holy s**t, go to your church toilet!"

Ottawa bus drivers claim not to have the power to compel people to give up
priority seats to those who need them; Col. Sherman T. Potter of M*A*S*H:
"Horse hockey!" The transit bylaw gives them ample power; the set fine is
for failing or refusing to surrender a front bench seat for someone entitled
to priority seating is $125.00; I have yet to see or hear of our Transit Law
Enforcement Special Constables dishing out any fines, something that would
do my heart a power of good!

Do TTC riders tend towards the following behaviors I've often noticed on
Ottawa buses:

- Door-chargers, who try to board before people can get out.

- One of my pet peeves: People who stand around in exit doors, or the narrow
space between the front wheels on low-floor buses when seats are available.
I've seen people miss, or almost miss, their stops, no thanks to clods like
that.

- People who won't move back when a bus driver ask them to, because "we're
trying to talk". Fine, continue your conversation later, when a bus driver
tells you to move, you move, or people get left behind!

- Seat hogs and "long-legged cushion planters" (GO-speak, ca. 1980s; the
bellows area of our articulated buses is their favorite habitat!).

- The usual loud iPod and cellphone-yakker crowd. To the latter, show a keen
interest in everything they're saying; they may or may not get the message!

- Window openers on air-conditioned buses while the air is going.

- Drivers who condone the foregoing. If they're afraid even to try to put a
stop to it, what are they doing in the job? Where is their union to back
them up when they need it?

Mark Walton
mark.walton@...

-----Original Message-----
From: transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of eallen110
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:42 PM
To: transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: <Transit-Toronto> Conversations on the 501 Queen

If the TTC's new by-law revisions can punish you for putting your feet up on
a seat or not giving your seat up to an elderly patron, why can't there be a
clause about appropriate conversation topics on the transit system?

Today while riding the 501 I was subjected to no less than 3 conversations
of a questionable nature.

The first, two gentlemen in their 20's discussing the merits of battery
operated versus non battery operated sex toys (amongst other bedroom related
discussions) in more details than I need to trouble you with here (the
conversation lasted 15 minutes until they got off the car - much to the
horror of a mother who was with her 5-8 year old daughter).

The Second was a woman in nursing scrubs talking on the telephone about an
autopsy she had witnessed at work and going into some rather graphic details
about the procedure.

The third was 3 teens talking about female hygiene issues and "that time of
the month" type things.

Seriously, people should be a bit more considerate to those traveling who
just want to enjoy the ride/get where they are going. Which brings me back
to my initial statement, if the TTC can *try* to legislate against some
courtesy's why cant they *try* and incorporate issues such as inappropriate
conversation into the by-law.

I personally was not really offended by any of the conversations I was
subjected to, but for the mothers of small children, the little old grannies
and grandpas some of the topics I heard over a 1/2 ride were probably a bit
too much for them.

Sounds like a normal day on the Queen Streetcar

To: transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com
From: eallen@...
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:41:41 +0000
Subject: <Transit-Toronto> Conversations on the 501 Queen




























       If the TTC's new by-law revisions can punish you for putting your feet up
on a seat or not giving your seat up to an elderly patron, why can't there be a
clause about appropriate conversation topics on the transit system?



Today while riding the 501 I was subjected to no less than 3 conversations of a
questionable nature.



The first, two gentlemen in their 20's discussing the merits of battery operated
versus non battery operated sex toys (amongst other bedroom related discussions)
in more details than I need to trouble you with here (the conversation lasted 15
minutes until they got off the car - much to the horror of a mother who was with
her 5-8 year old daughter).



The Second was a woman in nursing scrubs talking on the telephone about an
autopsy she had witnessed at work and going into some rather graphic details
about the procedure.



The third was 3 teens talking about female hygiene issues and "that time of the
month" type things.



Seriously, people should be a bit more considerate to those traveling who just
want to enjoy the ride/get where they are going. Which brings me back to my
initial statement, if the TTC can *try* to legislate against some courtesy's why
cant they *try* and incorporate issues such as inappropriate conversation into
the by-law.



I personally was not really offended by any of the conversations I was subjected
to, but for the mothers of small children, the little old grannies and grandpas
some of the topics I heard over a 1/2 ride were probably a bit too much for
them.


















_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail
you.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9691817

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

If the TTC's new by-law revisions can punish you for putting your feet up on a
seat or not giving your seat up to an elderly patron, why can't there be a
clause about appropriate conversation topics on the transit system?

Today while riding the 501 I was subjected to no less than 3 conversations of a
questionable nature.

The first, two gentlemen in their 20's discussing the merits of battery operated
versus non battery operated sex toys (amongst other bedroom related discussions)
in more details than I need to trouble you with here (the conversation lasted 15
minutes until they got off the car - much to the horror of a mother who was with
her 5-8 year old daughter).

The Second was a woman in nursing scrubs talking on the telephone about an
autopsy she had witnessed at work and going into some rather graphic details
about the procedure.

The third was 3 teens talking about female hygiene issues and "that time of the
month" type things.

Seriously, people should be a bit more considerate to those traveling who just
want to enjoy the ride/get where they are going. Which brings me back to my
initial statement, if the TTC can *try* to legislate against some courtesy's why
cant they *try* and incorporate issues such as inappropriate conversation into
the by-law.

I personally was not really offended by any of the conversations I was subjected
to, but for the mothers of small children, the little old grannies and grandpas
some of the topics I heard over a 1/2 ride were probably a bit too much for
them.

The climate in San Francisco may be more temperate, but the salty air must have
some effect on the rate of rusting, or near equalize the rate to that of up
here?

> Then again, San Francisco has a much more temperate climate than Toronto, so
> the PCC's would probably survive better there.
>
> Mark Walton
> mark.walton@...

That sounds like the way TTC did in their trolley bus system - let it run
down to the point it was no longer worth saving at budget-crunch time. That
process was basically repeated in Hamilton, where HSR has always aped TTC to
some degree (not surprising, considering who's the big kid on the GTA
transit block), and most recently in "Deadmonton" ("DeadMoronTon"), where
more than a few ex-TTC types were involved. Now, believe it or not, it seems
Edmonton is playing around with the idea of an on-street LRT system - in
other words, streetcars!

Mark Walton
mark.walton@...

-----Original Message-----
From: transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan White
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 9:17 PM
To: transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: <Transit-Toronto> PCC 's in the news

Disclaimer - I'm not from Toronto. I'm from a city that has a history of
letting streetcar routes fall to temporary, and eventually permanent,
bus operation due to "lack of equipment". So pardon my cynicism. But
I've been to Toronto a great many times and I fear I'm beginning to see
the same kind of thing setting itself up there - maintenance of existing
equipment is beginning to slip because it's getting damned old and
everyone thinks new equipment is imminent (in reality I'm sure it
isn't), and with the return of some routes after months (or years) of
bustitution, all of a sudden TTC realizes that oops, there are too many
cars out of service long term to run the full system. What to do now?
Bustitute, and hopefully do so in places that impact the least number of
patrons. That's why I suggested the way outer reaches of Lakeshore. But
maybe that's not the line to pick on... okay, cool, like I say I don't
live there.

--- In transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com, "dowling_mark" <markdowling@...> wrote:
>
> --- In transit-toronto@yahoogroups.com, Dan Garcia <smallspy_g@> wrote:
> >
> > Wow, overreact much?
> >
> > We have no idea what is in fact happening with the PCC's, although I've read
on another forum from someone who actually works at Russell that the PCC's are
being moved either this weekend or the next to Hillcrest for winter storage.
Perhaps that's the news - that the TTC is going to start taking better care of
them (rather than letting them languish as the Russell pet project).
>
> If that counts as news worthy of an "announcement" the TTC needs to find a
better supplier of news.
>
> As for my reaction - I have been following Steve Munro's posts on fleet
headcount for some time now with an increasing amount of fury - if 33pc of the
bus or subway fleet was unavailable on a given day heads *would* roll and the
necessity for coexistence between the Flexities and *LRVs for the next decade
behooves some increased prioritisation of their state of repair.
>
> Re: the H6 numbers - I was going from memory and should not have, thank you
for correcting the record.  I was not aware of the types' troubles previously.
>
> Mark D.
>

First off, I should not have post the posting if I knew this was going to happen
as it totally wrong what been said so far to date.

I agree TTC needs to look at what going on with the PCC as they should be out on
the rail during the summer and store better during the winter. They are part of
TTC past.

What is TTC going to do with the current fleet when it has to be retired?? I say
we keep 4000, 4001, 4011, 4012, 4200, 4201 as show pieces with spare parts. We
should also be done for a few GM buses as well as few others buses too. Part of
TTC History past.

15% of the fleets needs to be spares to cover overhaul, maintenance, repairs
etc.

196 CLRV's cars would equal about 30 cars. (One car in the scrap yard)

52 ALRV's cars would equal about 8 cars.

This leaves you 209 cars for service

If you have only 166 CLRV's cars for service and you need 188 CLRV's cars, you
need to order more cars as only having 7 spare cars not going to cut it.

When you don't maintain the cars in the first place that cannot be part of the
spare ratio, you have a major problem.

Considering TTC as well the City have known since the 90's that future
streetcars had to be low floor, they bury their heads in the sand hoping
streetcars would fade away or be on someone else shift to make the hard choice
to place an order with big $$ that was done this year.

Even with the current order, TTC has not accounted for the 15% spare ratio since
they think they are new and it will be years before they have to look at spare
ratio. So how wrong are they.

If we are to maintain current headway as claim, 182 cars from 204 will leave 22
cars for spare. Considering we need more service on some routes and expanded the
current system not including TC, we are down to 7 cars for spares.

It will only take a small issue to have all spares been used up along with a few
others to not having enough cars for service like we have today. Not taking the
existing fleet into consideration as it will not be around.

Considering TTC claimed they will be 72 CLRV's short by 2018 some years ago, the
2 for 3 ratio works out to be about another 50 LRT's is needed to be other on
top of the 204.

The PCC are not going anywhere.

Dave