k10ery
Senior Member
When TTC is about $3 per passenger?
Hard to swallow. Perhaps Inneptis rather than Neptis.
How perfectly appropriate that you can't spell inept.
When TTC is about $3 per passenger?
Hard to swallow. Perhaps Inneptis rather than Neptis.
Uh ... it was a ... oh whatever ...How perfectly appropriate that you can't spell inept.
Regarding numbers: Lots of costs are left out in the Neptis report, but simultaneously, I can't find the $68-70M number in official Metrolinx documents yet, except as numerous copies of parroted quotes claiming to have come from Metrolinx -- so the door is open of misquotes in the media. Even so, the above would not explain the large gulf yet. If the $13.15M per year, Metrolinx will make a rather big profit off UPX right off the bat in the first year, even if projections fall short. That does not jive with estimates (this time, found in many Metrolinx documents) that it will take about 3 to 5 years before it makes a profit. Theoretically, at O&M of only 13.15M per year projected by Neptis, UPX $456M capital cost could become paid off in just 5 years if ridership projections are exceeded beginning in the first year (at slightly under two-thirds seats taken, or one empty train every two full trains), and even if that doesn't happen, capital costs would be paid off in less than a decade at current Metrolinx passenger projections. Such large profit lowballing don't normally happen with rail transit routes. So now something doesn't seem right.
Uh ... it was a ... oh whatever ...
Amortization.Last suggestion: that $68 million figure in the news articles is probably operating plus capital cost. Metrolinx is committed to covering operating plus capital cost from the farebox, so that's the number they would be using. Then somebody who does not know what "operating cost" means probably repeated it and labelled it incorrectly.
This makes sense: $500 million in capital and 11% amortization gets me to $68 million as annual total cost
I have to concede you might be right about amortization, but the operating cost is still almost definitely higher than Neptis estimate.
Operating costs have been reported. In last 35 years of GTA transit, I don't think any agency has ever included amortization of capital costs before. To suggest that Metrolinx have calculated costs, without any basis for doing so except for numbers that your pulling out of your imagination without any references is farcical.I spoonfed you the numbers. If you think they're wrong you have to say why. Your spidey sense just won't do.
Operating costs have been reported. In last 35 years of GTA transit, I don't think any agency has ever included amortization of capital costs before. To suggest that Metrolinx have calculated costs, without any basis for doing so except for numbers that your pulling out of your imagination without any references is farcical.
To seriously suggest that the Union Pearson train has a lower operating cost per passenger than a suburban bus route with similar ridership challenges does indeed leave one speechless on how anyone could possibly conclude that, given the order of magnitude different in costs and personal.
The substance of your calculations is beyond bizarre. And I cannot even begin to comprehend an intuition that can come close to conclude that a transit system run with diesel trains, station attendants, lots of operating staff, would cost the same amount per passenger than a suburban bus route that carries a similar ridership.You ignore the substance of my calculations and the strong intuition behind them. You resort to the passive voice, vague generalizations, and some gratuitous insults. nfitz trolling at its best.
And then double-down on bullying and name-calling. If someone makes a comment so astoundingly wrong and inconceivable that I find it speechless I should shut up? You know what else makes me speechless? People trying to claim that the USA blew up the World Trade Center towers themselves, using numbers. Should I shut up about that too? The numbers might look tempting, but the conclusion is not conceivable and defies intuition.I'm not surprised. From what I've seen, you're not very good with numbers, and you know absolutely nothing about finance or economics. But when you find yourself speechless, why not act accordingly, and just shut up?
This makes sense: $500 million in capital and 11% amortization gets me to $68 million as annual total cost.
There's nothing in post 799 - perhaps you mean post 798?My calculations are in post 799.
Please be civil. Just because everyone has pointed out the failings in your numbers doesn't entitle you to name-calling and bullying.So it turns out not only that you cannot add and you cannot spell, you also cannot read?