Amare
Senior Member
They may not have control over everything that you outlined, but the TTC damn well has the control over the idiotic speed restrictions that have been instituted. That's something well within their domain to address.
|
|
|
A 6264
Active Member
Regardless of who's right, testing went on for some 3 years, and then after it opened, everyone seemed to realize there was a problem for the first time. If the TTC or Metrolinx had no power to control traffic signals, it's not like they didn't have the right to raise issues and ask for help. Some want to blame City Hall, but City Hall did not do the testing, and as far as I can tell, they were not informed of the problem nor were requests for changes presented to them, until after Line 6 opened, and suddenly requests for change came in for both Lines 6 and 5, at which time Chow (and Ford) vowed to take immediate action. How this is City Hall's fault, is beyond me.
Obsidian
Active Member
It was known for a long time that the lines would not have TSP and advocates have been complaining and campaigning to have TSP for as long as soon as it was know that the lines wouldn't have them. So City officials were well aware of the issue before the lines opened.
Thaboss
Active Member
I don't know if you both are new to the conversation but during the roll-out of line 6, a couple things became very clear..
Metrolinx was VERY opaque about anything until TTC got their hands on the line.
TTC is very risk adverse in every way
P3s places responsibilities in the hands of three parties such that no one really understood exactly who was responsible for allowing what. Including the parties in the P3.
The public understandably couldn't advocate for something that is not well understood until they could see it for themselves.
City hall never asked the right questions until it became a political necessity.
Tldr. Issues with surface speeds and their solutions are nuanced and in many ways several parties are partially responsible. In the end, it was political pressure that has made tsp possible and it will be up to the public to show they care by...
1. Riding the line when its fast
2. Heaping more political pressure if things are not resolved by the summer
3. Voting someone to city hall who cares and understands the issue of transit.
Last edited:
smallspy
Senior Member
In most cases, no, they don't.
The 55km/h speed limit in the tunnels was not created by the TTC. The 35-ish km/h speed limit entering platforms was not created by the TTC. The 57 km/h speed limit on the eastern section of the line was not created by the TTC.
If the TTC had their way, they would be operating it more like a subway than a streetcar, and just have each train run at full speed from stop-to-stop. Many of the limits have been instituted by Crosslinx for vehicle maintenance reasons, and Metrolinx for covering-their-ass reasons.
Dan
Amare
Senior Member
The 35km/h speed limit upon entering platforms not being within the TTC's realm is news to me, from what I understood initially that was something that could have been adjusted by them.
Here's yet another case of Metrolinx not being able to write contracts properly, and letting the P3 firm get away with things...again.
jmi22
Active Member
Yea, it's unbelievable the contract with Mosaic hasn't been ripped up already considering Line 6 is non-operable for vast swaths of scheduled revenue service, and just can't handle snow. Can't guess if MX is just too scared to piss off the mafia of construction firms that build every single on of their projects, or the contract is so weak they genuinely don't have a case.
PL1
Senior Member
Or perhaps a contract is a legal document that one party cannot just rip up.
jmi22
Active Member
Termination clauses that assume one party fails to fulfill their obligations (i.e delivering a regularly functional transit line) is one of the most basic functions of a contract.
Are you being sarcastic or have you genuinely never heard of a contracted being terminated for cause before?
PL1
Senior Member
Of course there is usually a framework for termination, but it is rarely as simple as "ripping it up". These contracts have been (as far as I understand) kept far from the public eye, so we don't know *any* wording. If MX wants to terminate, I'm sure there will be a negotiation or legal proceedings via a court
crs1026
Superstar
There’s likely not much “cause” in the behaviour of the contractor. If they have good language, they have a deal. . Breaking the contract would entitle them to damages.
Maybe people have forgotten how much pain TTC went thru to get cellular service in the subway…. Thanks to a contract they signed in an earlier age when having a single dedicated contractor seemed a good deal.
We can fire whoever wrote and signed the Line 5 contract, but it won’t change whatever leverage TTC does or doesn’t have to change things. The solution is to swallow hard, negotiate changes, and pay whatever the new deal requires.
- Paul
Maybe people have forgotten how much pain TTC went thru to get cellular service in the subway…. Thanks to a contract they signed in an earlier age when having a single dedicated contractor seemed a good deal.
We can fire whoever wrote and signed the Line 5 contract, but it won’t change whatever leverage TTC does or doesn’t have to change things. The solution is to swallow hard, negotiate changes, and pay whatever the new deal requires.
- Paul
jmi22
Active Member
adys123
Active Member
That's not the story I heard from folks in early design team meetings, but I sense it may have been one of those things that came around and went around. Do you know if anyone is working on resolving it?
smallspy
Senior Member
Where in the subway do they operate like that? Hell, where in the streetcar system do they operate like that? They simply don't.
Metrolinx seems to have an long-standing and ongoing issue with platform safety, and this is just one of the new ways that it seems to have manifested. Think about the 10mph limit through Union Station, or the 10mph limit that UPX has at all high-level platforms. Good thing that the Ontario Line has platform screen doors.....
Well, it's not like we didn't already know that they weren't great at it.
Crosslinx chimed up in the summer, when the news broke about all of the cars needing their brakes redone. That's when the hard speed limits were instituted in the tunnels and open-cut areas.
Since then, the TTC has complained quite loudly about it being a nothingburger - brake maintenance is a regular occurrence on the subway due to the speeds involved there. Metrolinx has seemingly put their thumbs in their ears and pretended that nothing is wrong, and let the two hash it out.
Dan
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
Instead of installing platform doors on Line 5, it was decided to "save money" by slowing the trains down as they enter the stations instead. Same reason for not installing transit signal priority of the surface portions of both Line 5 and Line 6, to "save money".
They could have used the delays in the opening dates of Line 5 and Line 6 to install platform doors, but that would would mean spending money. Collateral damage is acceptable instead.
They could have used the delays in the opening dates of Line 5 and Line 6 to install platform doors, but that would would mean spending money. Collateral damage is acceptable instead.