News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6.8K     0 
Are these line 2 trains 100% going to be metal cattle cars again or could we get fully painted bodies like the rest of the civilized world? (And Montreal)
Apparently the tried painting the H5's but changed their minds
Of all the things to complain about with respect to the TTC, the colour/finish of the subway trains seems pretty minor?
As "minor" as it seems go to Japan and each station has it's own door closing chime (that you can stitch together into a song!)

It's very rare in my life a service or company that cares about "minor" things doesn't also do an amazing job at the "core" issues.
 
Or maybe they're playing a sick game of musical chairs with Rick Leary going to Metrolinx, and Verster going to the TTC.

Nothing would surprise me in the mess of a system that we have.

(To be clear i'm joking about the above, Verster would never take a step down to the TTC. Leary on the other hand...)
 
Not your mistake at all. Freeland herself said they will be built in ThunderBay which was odd since the tender is still out. Other bidders could technically sue for unfair tender practices (already decided Alstom without going thru the proper channels).
TTC CEO Greg Percy says there are 4 bidders for subway cars replacement. But Freeland says cars being built in ThunderBay (Alstom). Hmmmmmm
 
TTC CEO Greg Percy says there are 4 bidders for subway cars replacement. But Freeland says cars being built in ThunderBay (Alstom). Hmmmmmm
Either a politician is clueless, or the tender will be written in such a way as to give the illusion of a fair competition but will actually exclude all other bidders but Alstom from getting it.

Both seem like reasonable assumptions.
 
What's the chance of one or more of the bidders suing TTC to force a contract with TTC as some kind of compensation? Where TTC might get two suppliers as a result of this predetermined decision?

With politicians saying that Alstom is getting the contract without it being a sole sourced process. I would assume that opens TTC up for some kind of legal action? But then again, it's not TTC saying their getting Alstom.

We've seen a similar situation in Montreal were Alstom sued STM and forced their way to be involved in that order.

Mind you, I'm kinda dreaming, but kinda seriously asking as well.
 
Paywall free: https://archive.is/XdBGx

The claim of undue harm to racialized gig workers was ridiculous. People of all races deserve to be safe. If Uber, Skip, etc. want to use the TTC as part of their business model, well too bad.
Yes, one would have thought that the safety issue should always have been foremost. If an e-bike is likely to self-ignite (which appears to happen, occasionally) it hardly matters to others in the vicinity or on the train if it belongs to a white millionaire or an immigrant gig worker.
 
Paywall free: https://archive.is/XdBGx

The claim of undue harm to racialized gig workers was ridiculous. People of all races deserve to be safe. If Uber, Skip, etc. want to use the TTC as part of their business model, well too bad.
As an ebiker. Thats just wrong.

If youre worried about safety then only say higher quality batteries are allowed like MX does.
If you dont want to see ebikes on the transit system straight up. ban ebikes entirely.
Simple as that.
 
There were also two motions, one that would adopt the Metrolinx policy, and another that would shorten the ban from Dec 15 to March 15 (instead of Nov 15 to April 15). Both failed, the first 4-6 and the second on a tie 5-5.

Chair Myers also remarked "From my understanding we still haven't decided who is going to be enforcing the ban"

At the October meeting Cllr Saxe -- an e-bike user -- pointed out (in opposition to the policy) that the purported elevated risk in the winter due to salt, moisture, and cold, doesn't suddenly disappear on April 16th when the ban gets lifted because who knows what condition the battery was exposed to during the winter.

Goofy policy with no reality of it being enforced imo
 
There were also two motions, one that would adopt the Metrolinx policy, and another that would shorten the ban from Dec 15 to March 15 (instead of Nov 15 to April 15). Both failed, the first 4-6 and the second on a tie 5-5.

Chair Myers also remarked "From my understanding we still haven't decided who is going to be enforcing the ban"

At the October meeting Cllr Saxe -- an e-bike user -- pointed out (in opposition to the policy) that the purported elevated risk in the winter due to salt, moisture, and cold, doesn't suddenly disappear on April 16th when the ban gets lifted because who knows what condition the battery was exposed to during the winter.

Goofy policy with no reality of it being enforced imo
both those motions are fine lol.
 
There were also two motions, one that would adopt the Metrolinx policy, and another that would shorten the ban from Dec 15 to March 15 (instead of Nov 15 to April 15). Both failed, the first 4-6 and the second on a tie 5-5.

Chair Myers also remarked "From my understanding we still haven't decided who is going to be enforcing the ban"

At the October meeting Cllr Saxe -- an e-bike user -- pointed out (in opposition to the policy) that the purported elevated risk in the winter due to salt, moisture, and cold, doesn't suddenly disappear on April 16th when the ban gets lifted because who knows what condition the battery was exposed to during the winter.

Goofy policy with no reality of it being enforced imo
Council (and others) passing laws (or by-laws) and then not having them enforced is all too common. Allows people to say 'see we dealt with the problem".
 
If you dont want to see ebikes on the transit system straight up. ban ebikes entirely.
Isn’t that what we just did? Asking overworked staff to check the certifications of ebike batteries is unworkable. And besides, you can buy fraudulent batteries on Aliexpress with false ETL/CSA/UL marks. In short, if the battery comes from China, it cannot be trusted. Full stop.
 
There was a guy with a huge bike on a Line 2 train at 5:20 today. The train was full enough that people couldn't get on it, and he was taking up the space of 5-6 people.

And if nobody is enforcing the rush hour rule, when it actually matters, what are the chances anyone will enforce this.
 
What's the chance of one or more of the bidders suing TTC to force a contract with TTC as some kind of compensation
It's always a possibility on any contract. Though the TTC would have had to screwed something up to end up in that hole (I'm not sure where STM went wrong).

I think the outcome of a challenge wouldn't be two companies being contracted or working together. It would either be the award being changed, or the entire RFP cancelled - and perhaps rebid. Again, I don't know what STM was thinking.
 

Back
Top