[drum118]

I can see the TTC pushing back on this and winning. There is an exemption to be had regarding this given that blue is the universal standard for handicap accessibility.

This is why we cannot have nice things.

TTC is the only system I have seen to date with Blue Lights on the front of vehicles. If there are systems with Blue Lights on them, haven't seen them so far. Saw no issues with the Blue Light in the beginning as TTC was moving to low floor vehicles, but not today when all vehicles are low floor in the first place. It does help looking into the distance to see if an vehicle is coming or not. There is an extra cost for those lights as well.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The story of Toronto’s streetcar green “bull’s eyes”​

From link.

In 1891, the Toronto Railway Company (TRC) was created, taking over the city’s streetcar system from its predecessor, the Toronto Street Railway. The TRC quickly began electrifying Toronto’s transit network, operating fifteen routes across the city. Electric streetcars were faster than horse-drawn trams, and passengers had difficulties figuring out which streetcar was theirs at night.

This was a problem as many streetcar routes overlapped. For example, Dupont and Avenue Road streetcars operated on Yonge Street south of Bloor, and Belt Line and Yonge streetcars both ran on Front Street. While the TRC had metal signs on the top and sides of each streetcar to denote the route, they weren’t illuminated. With electric light still in its infancy — arc lamps were too intense while early incandescent lamps were too dull to adequately illuminate route signs — the TRC developed an ingenious solution: uniquely coloured glass bulbs mounted on the roof, lit by interior lights. These lights became known as “bull’s eyes.”

Under this scheme, the Yonge Streetcar could be identified by one blue light, while the Broadview Streetcar could be identified with red and green lights. This system required passengers to memorize their route’s colours, and as new routes were introduced, changed, or withdrawn, it became cumbersome. Eventually, lighting technology caught up: while back-lit destination signs were possible by 1910, the TRC became hesitant to spend any capital funds to modernize its fleet or expand the streetcar railway network. The City of Toronto was forced to start its own streetcar system, the Toronto Civic Railway, to serve outlying neighbourhoods.

Though the Ontario Railway Board (predecessor to the Ontario Municipal Board) refused to force the TRC to expand the street railway network beyond the 1891 boundaries, it ordered the TRC to install backlit route signs. These new signs were introduced in February 1913, and those unique coloured bulbs disappeared by 1915. Six years later, the TRC’s franchise was up, and the city-owned Toronto Transportation Commission came into being.

In 1935, the TTC re-introduced “bull’s eyes” to its streetcar fleet. Officially known as an advance light, a single roof-mounted light, which gave off a blue-green hue, was designed to let waiting passengers know a streetcar was on its way. At the same time, the TTC installed dash lights, which both illuminated advertising cards and provided additional lighting, a useful safety feature.

New PCC streetcars, which began arriving in 1938, were built with the advance lights already installed. By 1940, all streetcars, including the remaining wooden cars acquired from the Toronto Railway Company, were equipped with advance lights. After the Second World War, PCC streetcars purchased from cities such as Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Kansas City, were similarly fitted with the roof-mounted lamps.

Advance lights were introduced to TTC buses starting in the mid-1990s, as new wheelchair-accessible vehicles were added to the fleet, starting with high-floor Orion V and Nova RTS buses, and continuing with newer low-floor vehicles. Blue lights indicated that the bus was accessible. As a bonus, when combined with new digital orange LED destination signs, the bus advance lights served to further improve the visibility of approaching transit vehicles.

The new Bombardier Flexity streetcars are similarly equipped with new blue LED lights, as they too are fully accessible vehicles. While blue advance lights are unique to TTC buses, the new light rail vehicles for Waterloo Region’s ION LRT, also built by Bombardier, sport similar blue lights.

 

[W. K. Lis]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1608125081699352577

 

[W. K. Lis]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1608125166365691907

 

[Undead]

We are killing the planet to the point which evil resource is better than another to meet the over growth of population today as well tomorrow

Yes, it's nuclear, not renewable. And the real issue is over consumption per capita, not raw population numbers.

We cities blanketed in poor air qualify that has a huge impact on everyone including the Healthcare.

Air quality has already improved dramatically since the 70s thanks to catalytic converters, nonleaded fuel, fuel injection, etc. EVs merely displace pollution to other areas through mining. Yes, also a concern with nuclear because I mentioned it above.

We are depleting one resource after another by digging the earth up to find the resources and cutting mountains down for it

Mining lithium for EVs changes this how? Granted, also an issue with nuclear.

At the end of the day, battery power seems the way to go until x comes along to replace it. Starting 2026, we will see the phasing out of gas and diesel fuel vehicles and hopefully better air to breathe. The faster we make the changes starting with transit, the better we are off.

No, the most ecofriendly thing is to keep driving your car as long as possible without replacing it and driving less in general.

 

[T3G]

We are killing the planet to the point which evil resource is better than another to meet the over growth of population today as well tomorrow. We cities blanketed in poor air qualify that has a huge impact on everyone including the Healthcare.

We are depleting one resource after another by digging the earth up to find the resources and cutting mountains down for it

As I stated in an professional group before this posting:


At the end of the day, battery power seems the way to go until x comes along to replace it. Starting 2026, we will see the phasing out of gas and diesel fuel vehicles and hopefully better air to breathe. The faster we make the changes starting with transit, the better we are off.

I do find the concern about diesel buses to be somewhat misplaced. Even if our entire fleet were made up of GM New looks, never mind the more modern diesels we actually run, how many cars does that take off the road? There are so few buses compared to personal automobiles and trucks, it feels a little bit like the paper/plastic straw debate, the guilt is passed onto the consumer and all attention is focused on this microscopically small issue while the corporate world continues to exploit the planet en masse.

I am dubious about the widespread implementation of e-buses because none that have come out have adequately demonstrated their long term usefulness. If it is urgent to get zero emissions vehicles, we should instead look at restoring our trolley bus network.

 

[APTA-2048]

I am dubious about the widespread implementation of e-buses because none that have come out have adequately demonstrated their long term usefulness.

The TTC’s own reports even say as much. I prefer the TTC doesn’t rush into purchasing electric buses if the technology isn’t mature enough. Lest we end up with a large fleet of lemons like the Orion hybrids.

 

[Northern Light]

Yes, it's nuclear, not renewable.

Disagree, at this point in time; based on the form of nuclear tech in wide use. Simple reason, we have yet to figure out how to store the waste in the long term. We haven't yet invented vessels that will last as long as spent nuclear fuel rods. Never mind the risk-factors (consequential though they may be); Just think about the cost of maintaining spent fuel rod storage for literally 20,000 years + (up to 24,000 years)

I think that issue is resolvable based on future variation of nuclear tech; but we simply aren't there, nor will be will be in the next decade, so expansion of existing plants, based on existing tech performs poorly from a life cycle economic and risk factor basis.

And the real issue is over consumption per capita, not raw population numbers.

Yes; and No.

They are both issues. Sure, we can all agree those in the developed world, by and large, over consume. However the majority of the planet is still 'developing world', and even if you dropped consumption in the former by 25% per capita (not an easy achievement); the rest of the world rising to that new lower standard would still send current levels of consumption through the roof.

A significant reduction in global population would be useful. I would prefer a world of 4B humans to 8B. An adjustment made over several generations, through birth control, sex. ed, etc, is very achievable as seen by current birth rates
in the majority of the developed world.

Instead of fighting that, we need to spread it; and reap the benefits of ample, affordable housing, energy and food.

Air quality has already improved dramatically since the 70s thanks to catalytic converters, nonleaded fuel, fuel injection, etc. EVs merely displace pollution to other areas through mining.

Agreed.

*****

FWIW, I'm not a proponent of wholesale switching to E-buses at this time. I am for advancing the tech and seeing what we can do to improve reliability, lower cost, and reduce the need for rare earths in its components.

But I see no pressing reason, in most places, and certainly not in Toronto to move to wholesale fleet conversion.

 

[TRONto]

Why? Can grids handle an influx of EVs? Plus many grids aren't clean enough to justify charging EVs. And don't forget the highly polluting mining required for the batteries' lithium. I'm with Toyota's CEO when he says EVs are overhyped.

Can grids handle an influx of EVs?
I've asked an engineering buddy that works transmission about this. The answer was yes, there is plenty of transmission capacity.

many girds aren't clean enough to justify charging EVs
Even with the upcoming changes, the grid in Ontario is pretty clean. Off the top of my head, carbon burning electricity was around 7% in 2021.

And don't forget the highly polluting mining required for the batteries' lithium
To me, that statement implies that lithium mining is worse than all the pollution required to getting oil out of the ground and then the actual burning of gas which must be continuously done for each vehicle versus one and done for an EV. That is really hard to believe.

With EVs, local air pollution reduction will be dramatic. Take a look at the UoT study for air pollution in Toronto from a few years ago. All terrible around the highways and worst at the junctions. What would that look like if 50% of vehicles were EVs? Or if the 20% of most polluting vehicles were changed over to EV?

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

A bit of a ridiculous recall that will affect the TTC.

Transport Canada Recall - 2022696 - NOVA BUS - Canada.ca

recalls-rappels.canada.ca

Issue:
Certain buses were equipped with front auxiliary lamps of a non-standard colour, such as blue lights next to the front destination sign. Canadian regulations provide requirements for the colours of vehicle lighting.

Safety Risk:
Auxiliary lamps of non-standard colour could distract or confuse other drivers and increase the risk of a crash.

Corrective Actions:
Nova Bus will notify owners by mail and provide you with directions for removing or replacing the non-standard colour auxiliary lamps with white ones.

Personally, I think if the blue lights on the TTC bus are enough to cause you to have an accident, you’re not qualified enough to be a motorist.

Also why this specifically mentions Nova Bus, I don’t know.

This is such a moronic decision. Clearly Transport Canada has too much time on their hands.

My only guess why it pertains to Nova Bus might be the hue of the blue which is almost similar to the blue snow maintenance vehicle utilize. From a qualitative observation the New Flyers have a less intense blue hue. But then again the Orion buses have a similar blue to the Nova Bus.

Would love to see a detail report on this. But I can almost bet that there was no report nor research conducted.

In the end, this is a dumb decision.

 

[T3G]

It is my understanding that the TTC buses were equipped with those lights because of an MTO variance that only covered Ontario.

Why TC was content to turn the other cheek up until this point though is a mystery. Some bureaucrat justifying their outrageously high salary?

 

[Bordercollie]

That's part of the equation, on some projects; though, really, when something is put out to tender, the price of the bid is not specified.

What should be specified is the completion date/project duration.

Ideally one would not micro-manage and specify how many people need to be on a job site at any given time; but that can be an obvious issue, as it is with some private sector projects too.

I spoke with a contractor on a TTC project which shall not be identified here..........and asked about the inordinate time involved. This is what I was told.

1) The TTC either doesn't set a time expectation, it sets a bloated expectation or it doesn't penalize a contractor for missing a deadline.........as such, Contractors give low-priority to TTC projects
and assign minimal crews, first staffing projects where an owner is clear, time is money. So, the TTC gets the staff not required by more important projects.

2) The TTC is often insufficiently prepared for a project, that is to say, any prepared drawings, or site condition reports are often wrong. This causes many delays, and triggers the need for change-orders on contracts.

** Side note on this, I saw TTC construction staff in a subway station recently and overheard a snippet of their chat.......this was in an open, customer-facing space, with no ceiling panels. The workers were clearly electricians and there
to do something in accordance w/their skills.........what did I hear? " We're supposed to run it from a junction box over here....(looking up at the ceiling).........but there's no box........." (they both mutter and double-check some drawings in a folder, then
" there's no #$@ box anywhere near here..........look (the one guy is pointing tracing back for his partner metre after meter and meter.....with no junction box); I could hear the audible sigh; along with the " We have to phone 'x' and see what he wants us to do" Remember, this is in-house work, by subject-matter experts, in a public-facing area, with no visual obstruction to what they need to work on, and they were sent with drawings that were wrong and instructions that could not be completed.

3) I was then told by the contractor that the process of getting a change order with the TTC was brutal. That they required the proposed change in writing, then an appointment had to be made with a TTC engineer to come to site, then even if a solution was agreed on, on-site, they had to wait for the change order in writing, signed off by someone in senior management, and that the delay from the moment of realizing a problem to being allowed to continue was measured in weeks.

Now, that experience may be the exception; and perhaps the contractors offered some self-serving bits.........but in light of the in-house example above......I'm inclined to take the majority as being fairly representative.

That's probably why project get started, remove the cladding, find a problem and then have to wait 6 weeks to get an answer and by then that crew has been assigned to another job and you need to wait until that job is finished for them to return to the first one. By then it could be 6 months.

Then after the work is complete there is a problem with putting the cladding back. Resulting in another 6 week delay and again that crew is assigned to another job so the cladding work won't be fixed today another 6 months. Hence why the concourse area at Finch Station has its ceiling cladding half finished for over a year.

Real deadlines and project managers need to be assigned to keep contractors accountable.

 

[drum118]

That's probably why project get started, remove the cladding, find a problem and then have to wait 6 weeks to get an answer and by then that crew has been assigned to another job and you need to wait until that job is finished for them to return to the first one. By then it could be 6 months.

Then after the work is complete there is a problem with putting the cladding back. Resulting in another 6 week delay and again that crew is assigned to another job so the cladding work won't be fixed today another 6 months. Hence why the concourse area at Finch Station has its ceiling cladding half finished for over a year.

Real deadlines and project managers need to be assigned to keep contractors accountable.

The lack of time line and penalizing contractor was something that jump out at me when I first stated to attend TTC meetings and still is well over a decade when I first heard it.

I have recommended a number of times that the the ceiling strips and panels be removed 100% due to the amount of time to removed them, store them, clean them before reinstalling them to the point its a mesh mash matching ceiling that still collect break dust. TTC found out very quickly that the ceiling strips and panels had to go when the first TR started to test the system with break dust flying all over the place once it enter the station.

It been stated at TTC meetings a number of times about the look of the ceiling where a section has been removed as it never matched what was there after being reinstalled as well being damaged while being transfer to/from the storage area as well in the storage area.

TTC has stated in the past if x contractor is removed from a project or has preformed badly, they are not allow to bid on any project for 3-5 year along with no back charge. Not the real work of contracting where if you screw up, you are back charges to the point you are not allow to bid on any projects for X company or contractor again.

TTC is very sloppy in writing contracts with teeth in them and only have to look the the Flexity mess to see it. Even the TR issues were a slap on the hand.

Even when work is preformed by TTC own personal, it delayed by lack of scheduling to moving personal from one project to another due to lack of personal or the project is a low level one in the first place.

 

[Undead]

Disagree, at this point in time; based on the form of nuclear tech in wide use. Simple reason, we have yet to figure out how to store the waste in the long term. We haven't yet invented vessels that will last as long as spent nuclear fuel rods. Never mind the risk-factors (consequential though they may be); Just think about the cost of maintaining spent fuel rod storage for literally 20,000 years + (up to 24,000 years)

I think that issue is resolvable based on future variation of nuclear tech; but we simply aren't there, nor will be will be in the next decade, so expansion of existing plants, based on existing tech performs poorly from a life cycle economic and risk factor basis.

The storage issue isn't that serious. If I recall correctly from a friend in the industry, the entirety of Britain's nuclear waste occupies only one Olympic size pool. And here in Ontario, nuclear safety standards are extreme. Something like Pickering being able to withstand a 911 style attack without leaking radiation and storage containers for waste built to withstand a 1 in 10,000 year weather/geological event.

 

[Northern Light]

The storage issue isn't that serious. If I recall correctly from a friend in the industry, the entirety of Britain's nuclear waste occupies only one Olympic size pool. And here in Ontario, nuclear safety standards are extreme. Something like Pickering being able to withstand a 911 style attack without leaking radiation and storage containers for waste built to withstand a 1 in 10,000 year weather/geological event.

Ummmm:

Currently, the Pickering Nuclear Station has two “dry storage” facilities for the storage of spent nuclear fuel (and other radioactive wastes). These facilities currently store more than 340,000 highly radioactive spent fuel assemblies loaded in containers that each hold 384 assemblies. Radioactive assemblies more recently removed from reactors are stored in open water-filled pools. Roughly 400,000 spent fuel assemblies —more than half of Pickering’s current waste — are currently stored in these pools. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is planning to add three additional radioactive waste storage buildings to the Pickering site, which would bring the total storage capacity up to 1,152,768 spent fuel assemblies, which is enough storage to continue to operate all six of Pickering’s operational reactors for a decade or more beyond 2024, which is when OPG currently says it plans to stop operating all of the plant’s reactors.


This is a very significant amount of waste. As of the end of 2017, this waste included roughly 56,000 kg. of plutonium. If the plant continues to operate until it reaches its maximum licensed waste storage capacity, this amount would grow to about 88,000 kg. of plutonium — more than can be found in all operational nuclear warheads worldwide today.

From: https://www.cleanairalliance.org/pickerings-big-and-growing-waste-problem/

Now, consider that this is the smallest reactor complex we have.

Darlington is larger; and Bruce is the largest plant in the world.

Then consider, all the other nuclear plants globally of which Ontario's are but a minute number.

All with a 24,000 year operational storage requirement.

Think about that.

All of 'recorded' human history, dates back only ~5,500 years. So we're talking a period more than 4x longer than all of the written history of humanity. (I am being specific and not discussing human history or global history etc.)