Dan416
Senior Member
Hear hear
|
|
|
- Thread starter goodboys
- Start date
Justin10000
Banned
LRT, signal priority, automation in metros, and fare cards are not innovations. It is tried and proven technology, is it not? LRT has been around over one hundred years, automation since the 60's. Innovation MAY mean a solution to a problem, but can also lead to costly fixes in future, the SRT being a perfect example. Skytrain works in Vancouver because Vancouver took on the project themselves, due to UTDC's incompetence. Vancouver is pretty much stuck with the technology now, and using the Canada Line as an example, are willing to move away from ICTS. Unfortunately, the premier has the final say in BC. and he wants to stick with ICTS, and seeing as Translink is having a funding problem, it's unlikely the next extensions of Skytrain will be built anytime soon.
The technology also has nothing to do with the speed of construction. It was politics that slowed the expansion of transit in Toronto, not technology. The Network 2011 plan, and the Transit City plan would have more than doubled Toronto's rapid transit network, and politcs got in the way.
You do realize there are ways to make OCS look "invisible". The technology is already available to reduce the presence of OCS in an area. Toronto needs a quality transit system that works, not a system with a few "cool" toys. How many innovative ideas were presented that got nowhere in Toronto? Maglev in the 70's, ICTS, which used some ideas from the Maglev debacle, Cable-cars, Hydrogen Trains?
I do not see ground level power collection as a solution. New trams will be required, and specialized skills to maintain the system. Not to mention, only 2 companies are offering the tech, and neither are compatible with each other. Another problem with "innovative" products. You are stuck with one provider.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Adopting an existing technology is not innovation. The TTC doesn't need innovation, it needs to adopt proven technologies that have been around for years. Presto is innovation... it is creating something new from scratch and who knows when the costs will stop growing and when the issues will end. The SRT was innovation but adopting an additional mode of transportation not compatible with the 4 they already had (bus, trolleybus, streetcar, subway) was dumb. There are examples of proven technology around the world working for transit systems already... they don't need to be innovative. Innovative is building a TTC trip planner when Google does it for free.
junctionist
Senior Member
There isn't always a 100 year old off-the-shelf product for every problem. The city's residents miss out on a better transit system when certain transit innovations are not implemented like train automation, transit priority signals, electronic fare payments, LRT. Some of these items clearly aren't innovations anymore. They have became normal components of transit systems and users of these systems have reaped the rewards for a long time. The online trip planner is yet another example. Both an in-house solution and Google's products are varieties of the same innovative idea.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
It doesn't need to be 100 years old to no longer be innovative. If the TTC didn't come up with it then it isn't their innovation. All the items mentioned exist and have had their bugs worked out and the only way the TTC would be innovative in delivering those existing solutions would be to use the existing technology in a way not previously conceived or reinventing the wheel which only has benefits if you come up with a better or cheaper wheel. I don't see in this case how innovation will add value. They need to simply find a way to have the money they require (perhaps that requires some innovation) and implement existing technologies.
It was an innovative idea when first envisioned. The TTC was not the first to have a trip planner so their innovation in creating one where solutions already existed only makes sense if they somehow delivered it cheaper. Considering both Google and their in-house version were implemented I fail to see the benefit of their innovation.
junctionist
Senior Member
I understand there to be a subtle change in rhetoric here, from the usefulness of adopting innovations to the usefulness of the TTC's own innovations. But I think you see the benefit of the innovation that is Google's trip planner.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I see the benefit of Google's innovation. Google is an innovative company and they are good at what they do. The TTC isn't innovating by using it. The TTC doesn't need to be the first to do something in order to be a well run transit system, they simply need to adopt what is already existing in an intelligent way.
Justin10000
Banned
Google can afford to be innovative. The TTC cannot.
jn_12
Senior Member
There's a big difference between innovation and improvement. We don't need to be innovative to make improvements.
MetroMan
Senior Member
Pardon my being new to this thread. When are we due to receive the new streetcars and on which routes will they go?
nfitz
Superstar
Given we just voted in a mayor that's promised to cancel them.
Sometime after the next election.
MetroMan
Senior Member
It's not gonna happen. It was campaign rhetoric like many of the undeliverable promises he made. Essentially, he'll stick to his message of not wasting money and breaking the contract on this order would be wasting money. When are they scheduled to arrive?
nfitz
Superstar
That would make him a liar ... oh hang on, Rob Ford is one of the biggest liars ever ... you may have a point.
Prototypes constructed in Europe in late 2011, with operational vehicles in 2013.
allabootmatt
Senior Member
Globe's Kelly Grant says Ford intends to replace one line with buses as a 'pilot project' this year:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ord-and-the-future-of-toronto/article1772911/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ord-and-the-future-of-toronto/article1772911/
Tulse
Senior Member
And so it begins...