Allandale25
Senior Member
^ Did you see the various presentation files to the City Manager to Exec Comm/Council on the structural challenges Toronto faces? It lays it out very clearly. Worth a read.
|
|
|
adys123
Active Member
The basis of the City's financial struggles is that while they are a centre of economic activity, the systems are not in place for the municipality to capture that equivalent increase in activity. And the other things that the City pays for that it shouldn't.
cplchanb
Senior Member
cplchanb
Senior Member
yes it is when the line is their creation via transit city and they agreed a couple years back to run the line. ML was there to facilitate the construction. so they designed their own line and now they cant afford to run it themselves?
not to mention they are also using FWLRT as a bargaining chip threat. if that isnt playing politics i dont know what is....
Allandale25
Senior Member
im no economics expert but i too wonder just where the money that is being collected in taxes and for the development fees of a record construction tempo are going to.
im chancing part of it goes to a word that begins with a C and ends with an N with 3 syllables...
Like I said above, if you haven't seen the City's Manager's presentation, I recommend it. It answers your question.
cplchanb
Senior Member
Link to said presentation please?
Allandale25
Senior Member
Jonny5
Senior Member
Damn you Cabbagetown!!!!im chancing part of it goes to a word that begins with a C and ends with an N with 3 syllables...
Rainforest
Senior Member
I thought, Finch LRT will be cheaper to operate than the bus it replaces. More riders per driver, fewer drivers needed, means lower cost.
Not so sure about Eglinton, underground stations cost more to operate. But even then, ECLRT almost fully replaces the busy Eg East bus #34, and shortens #32, 54, 56, and 100. The shortening affects the central, congested part of Eglinton from Mt Dennis to Don Mills, where the traffic is slow and a lot of buses are getting tied up today. That replacement should at least help with the cost balance, if not turn it outright profitable for the TTC.
Not so sure about Eglinton, underground stations cost more to operate. But even then, ECLRT almost fully replaces the busy Eg East bus #34, and shortens #32, 54, 56, and 100. The shortening affects the central, congested part of Eglinton from Mt Dennis to Don Mills, where the traffic is slow and a lot of buses are getting tied up today. That replacement should at least help with the cost balance, if not turn it outright profitable for the TTC.
smallspy
Senior Member
As we covered before, it's not so cut-and-dried.
In terms of direct operating costs - fuel, salaries, etc. - yes, LRT is cheaper once a certain ridership threshold is reached.
But if you factor in the indirect operating costs - maintenance being a major one - the metrics change quite a bit, as LRT has way more infrastructure directly attached to it (versus a bus that isn't paying its own way in terms of damage to the road). But it's not necessary completely skewed one way or the other, either.
Again, it's not so cut-and-dried. And maintenance is a big problem of it.
About 10 years ago, the TTC reported that it cost them on average $7mil per route/kilometer of tunnel per year. (This was taking into account the then 60-ish year old tunnels under Yonge St., the considerably newer ones under Sheppard, and before the TYSSE was opened.) That was for just the maintenance of the tunnel and everything inside of it except for the trains - signalling, power distribution, life safety, rails, waterproofing, the works. I'm sure that using that number you can figure out pretty easily what level of ridership needs to be achieved on a yearly basis just to cover that cost - and that's before you take into account staffing, rolling stock maintenance, traction power, etc.
Extrapolate that to Eglinton. Sure, the tunnels are newer, and they're not going to need that $7mil level of maintenance each year for a good, long while. But the level of maintenance that they will need will not be zero.
Dan
Johnny Au
Superstar
I knew it!im no economics expert but i too wonder just where the money that is being collected in taxes and for the development fees of a record construction tempo are going to.
im chancing part of it goes to a word that begins with a C and ends with an N with 3 syllables...
The money's going to build an elaborate paifang in Chinatown!
One large enough for two Flexity Outlook streetcars to pass underneath it side-by-side!
EnviroTO
Senior Member
The high cost of any transportation operation is staff and fuel. Am I supposed to believe that an electric transportation system, brand new and under warranty, with vehicles that are driven by a single employee that handle a much larger capacity, is somehow more expensive to run than the buses it replaces?? How?? I get that the system was more expensive to build, and that the vehicles are more expensive... but to operate?? How?? Where is the money going to go??
Steve X
Senior Member
Just because you see less vehicles and less operator doesn't mean it's cheaper to operate.
We don't know exactly what charges will ML request TTC to pay daily upkeep as it is in a secret operating agreement which they want to rip up now. Previously ML said they would only fund life cycle expenses. The extra costs could include:
Power distributions system
Railway wear and tear
Electricity cost for stations and signage
The cost of energy to move a LRV is more expensive than a bus
Daily LRV maintenance
Signal system maintenance
Tunnel maintenance
A bus would only cost fuel and maintenances. Roadway cost falls under the city while bus shelter maintenances is free in exchange of advertisement revenue.
It is be proven many times that a subway line cost more to maintain than the bus alternative. This is true for more recent expansions such as the TYSSE and Sheppard. As well as the streetcar network. TTC will also add services such as the 158 TRETHEWEY and 164 CASTLEFIELD routes as well as keeping the 34 EGLINTON parallel service. It is almost certain operating these LRT lines will cost more than the status quo.
The point of mass transit is to move mass amounts of people more efficiency. It is never about saving money unless it's Asia. Eventually the line will grew in ridership to get close to break even. Studies have found the Yonge Line does before COVID cause of the amount of riders. For a new line in North America, it'll never happen.
Last edited:
EnviroTO
Senior Member
All of that is the opposite of what the argument by the TTC against the province uploading the operating costs of the subway has been. The argument has often been that the subway subsidizes the surface routes operationally. The electricity cost for LRVs should not be more expensive than diesel fuel for buses. The LRTs have lower rolling resistance than buses and ask any electric vehicle owner... fuel to electricity costs are not comparable. Yes, there are buildings to maintain which is new, but most have low staffing requirements. Power distribution system = capital cost already purchased and under warranty. Railway wear and tear... sure that will become a cost but not immediately. Electricity costs for stations and signage = low (modern led lighting) unless they try to keep the stations at room temperature (heating could be more expensive). Daily LRV maintenance shouldn't be that much different than the three buses it replaces. Signal system maintenance = modoerate (new system so changes shouldn't be required but there will be some cost to run a control center). Tunnel maintenance... this is under warranty... there should be no immediate cost.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
According to the freedom of access report on the operating cost of the two lines, it was stated the costs were $106 million annually. Looking at a Finch West service plan that shows an average 22 buses operating, a route length of about 25km, and an average speed of 15km/h you can do some back of a knapkin math using the current diesel fuel cost and fuel consumption rate to see that whole cost is likely to be mostly covered by fuel savings if the buses replaced by the service are taken off the road.