Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[waterloowarrior]

For all to enjoy:

http://www.metrolinx.com/Docs/general/Yonge-North_FINAL_Executive_Summary.pdf

Interim BCA from Metrolinx on the extension.

Metrolinx Action and Next Steps
At the closed session of the Metrolinx Board of Directors meeting of July 13, 2009, the Board
received for information the Yonge North BCA, presented as an interim high-level project
appraisal.

This interim BCA appraisal of the project raised a number of key network related considerations.

Considering this, Metrolinx, in close collaboration with the City of Toronto, TTC and York
Region, will undertake additional analysis to more comprehensively understand these matters
and how they impact the network and project scope. The analysis will include:

• Possible adjustments in project scope, timing or phasing;
• Consideration of the extent to which improved service levels on the parallel GO
Richmond Hill rail corridor to off-load some of the demand on Yonge Subway corridor
(existing and proposed extension); and
• The cost impacts of the various options on the subway yards strategy, Yonge-Bloor
subway station improvements; and a future Downtown Relief Line to bypass the Yonge-
Bloor congestion pinchpoint.

The BCA process for this project has identified a range of development and congestion
pressures along the Yonge Subway corridor. In partnership with York Region, TTC and the City
of Toronto, Metrolinx will be carrying out the work above and report back to the Metrolinx Board
on the resolution of key project issues in late 2009.

 

[lead82]

I sure hope that the subway yards review concludes that the best option for the city is to extend Sheppard west to connect at Downsview and expand the Wilson yard.

 

[Whoaccio]

Maybe it's just me, but the BRT system seems to come off much better than either subway option. I mean, it is the only option that turns up a benefit/cost ratio greater than one (2.76), despite the cop out that "full cost of the GO Rail improvements and the disbenefits of un-serviced demand have not been included" (curiously omitted is the required cost to expand Y/Bloor from options 1-2), which should count for something. BRT costs per pphpd in peak hours works out to roughly 73k, versus about 183k or 177k per pphpd for the subway options. Metrolinx then pulls some mental ninjitsu by listing high cost of construction as a good thing for its "stimulative" effects.

Even the development costs are pretty negative. Option 1 implies between 2 dollars spent per dollar of benefit to 5 dollars spent per dollar of development while Option 2 implies between and 2.3$ and 5.7$ of dollar spent per dollar of development. Even in the best case scenario, we would be better off just giving money to developers. In all fairness the BRT options ratios are even worse, but justifying transit projects on development benefits is nothing short of a ponzi scheme.

EDIT: I am also skeptical of the BRT capacity projections. The Metrolinx BCA claims peak demand for a BRT corridor would reach approximately 5000 pphpd on a system designed to carry 3000 pphpd. Calgary's analysis of BRT capacity found that "BRT services using standard buses operating with headways of less than one minute, and limited stops, can carry upwards of 7,000 passengers in the peakhour / direction." while using larger articulated buses could boos that figure to ten to fifteen thousand pphpd. I guess it is always a bit of a crapshoot, but BRTs are fairly commonly cited as having capacity to accommodate upwards of 5k pphpd.

 

[lead82]

I beg to differ. A brt system would be a colossal waste of money since demand is already at subway levels between finch and steeles!

 

[lead82]

Yonge already has an unofficial brt during rush hours simply due to numbers of buses heading to and from Finch station.

 

[lead82]

The only way to fix the current congestion on Yonge is to extend the subway to highway 7.

 

[Chuck]

There are 3 flaws with the report:

1) They should not be comparing the project to an option that is unfeasible due to lack of capacity. This also skews the numbers because BRT costs much less than the cheapest real alternative, which is surface LRT. The report should be comparing the subway to surface LRT, as a minimum.

2) Improvements to Yonge and Bloor should not be factored into the cost of the Yonge extension. Frankly, this is needed no matter what happens farther north, therefore the Yonge extension simply puts a time line on these improvements (or alternatively DRL construction).

3) The GO line and the subway don't entirely serve the same market, therefore it's not a case of one or the other. Improvements to GO could potentially take many North York trips off the subway, but Yonge between Finch and 7 still needs a subway - or some form of high order transit - to handle local trips and to sustain redevelopment. In other words, the GO train should be improved regardless of what local transit is built along Yonge.

 

[EnviroTO]

BRT is excluded because the capacity improvements wouldn't cover the requirements. Obviously building anything which is near capacity on opening is going to have a better benefit/cost ratio. What is also missing is operational costs since BRT uses more employees and fuel than subway.

 

[drum118]

The only way to fix the current congestion on Yonge is to extend the subway to highway 7.

No it will not. With or without a subway, congestion will be the same. Once gas gets to $1.5 to $2.5 a liter, traffic will drop

A subway to move less than 1,000 riders today at peak time is a waste of money.

Opening day numbers for a subway at RHC will be about 1,200-1,300 well below the 10,000 numbers for a subway.

The subway is 100% warranted to Steeles years ago.

LRT is only needed north of Steeles without taking the RH line into consideration.

 

[BMO]

No it will not. With or without a subway, congestion will be the same. Once gas gets to $1.5 to $2.5 a liter, traffic will drop

A subway to move less than 1,000 riders today at peak time is a waste of money.

Opening day numbers for a subway at RHC will be about 1,200-1,300 well below the 10,000 numbers for a subway.

The subway is 100% warranted to Steeles years ago.

LRT is only needed north of Steeles without taking the RH line into consideration.

Right...and then the same jog down south towards a subway station at steeles would continue...sometimes building improved transit isn't to build it at capacity, but to improve on the commute, and provide for the future.

 

[Whoaccio]

I beg to differ. A brt system would be a colossal waste of money since demand is already at subway levels between finch and steeles!

Well, you can read Metrolinx's report and they clearly show that even by 2021 peak theoretical demand doesn't even top 10k. That's not awful, but it isn't really indisputably subway necessitating either.

1) They should not be comparing the project to an option that is unfeasible due to lack of capacity. This also skews the numbers because BRT costs much less than the cheapest real alternative, which is surface LRT. The report should be comparing the subway to surface LRT, as a minimum.

Though it is entirely possible that BRT could meet Metrolinx's theoretical 5k/pphpd demand level. I'm not sure, but don't surface routes like King or Finch already beat this? Besides, if we just dropped the headways from 3 minutes to 1.5m practical capacity should at least match the theoretical 5k/pphpd demand level.

Anyways, that BRT doesn't meet theoretical demand for an hour or two a day isn't a good reason to disqualify. Most goods are provided at a level that doesn't meet peak demands (i.e. try finding a Wii around Xmas) because it requires creating an overcapacity the rest of the time. The more important measures are costs per unit and other such measures which show a relationship between cost and benefit, in which BRT apparently far outperforms subway.

2) Improvements to Yonge and Bloor should not be factored into the cost of the Yonge extension. Frankly, this is needed no matter what happens farther north, therefore the Yonge extension simply puts a time line on these improvements (or alternatively DRL construction).

They didn't include those costs, see note 5 on page four.

BRT is excluded because the capacity improvements wouldn't cover the requirements. Obviously building anything which is near capacity on opening is going to have a better benefit/cost ratio. What is also missing is operational costs since BRT uses more employees and fuel than subway.

Even if the figures of 3k pphpd are to be believed, it doesn't make sense that BRT be excluded because it doesn't meet a certain "requirement." Mainly as there are no such requirements. Theoretical demand exceeding capacity doesn't have any significant ill effects. The only implication is a lack of potential revenues. In this case, the cost to actually realize those revenues doesn't come close to the benefits, so why bother?

Your logic on operating costs is simplistic. The difference in capital costs between BRT and HRT options is about 2 billion dollars. At a 4% interest rate, you are looking at a cost of 80m per year just to meet the interest. The 504 King car has daily expenditures of about 85k (as of '05-'06). So, roughly speaking, the annual interest costs of a subway here alone would equal about 933 days of our single most expensive route.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Stopping the extension wherever a computer model, using numbers plugged in by some guy, says it'll drop below 10K/hr makes zero sense as a good place to terminate the line. The *only* good reason to stop at Steeles is the fare boundary, which could change. There's nowhere good to stop between Steeles and Hwy 7. Clark could have been a decent place to stop if the rail corridor had been slated for E/W passenger travel, but it's not (while the 7/407 corridor is), meaning Hwy 7 is the first place to stop north of Steeles. Citing ridership figures for the RHC-Longbridge stretch accomplishes and proves nothing...the cumulative projections north of Steeles are the only relevant numbers.

Though it is entirely possible that BRT could meet Metrolinx's theoretical 5k/pphpd demand level. I'm not sure, but don't surface routes like King or Finch already beat this? Besides, if we just dropped the headways from 3 minutes to 1.5m practical capacity should at least match the theoretical 5k/pphpd demand level.

What currently exists north of Finch is practically a BRT and it fails.

King and Finch do not beat this...they're probably more like 2000/hr. King might be a bit higher because of the extremely condensed 9-5 rushes, and Finch is a bit harder to guess because the high frequency means even a 5 person difference in bus loads translates into hundreds of people per hour. Finch is also dependent on the subway to drop people off to reach its maxes (assuming it peaks in the afternoon).

If we want ridership to grow, to the costs of the BRT on Yonge we'd need to add improvements in other places. Either that or people will continue to drive or continue to move to Milton, since not building the subway means severely limited development - less development in areas already slated for it will materialize, and no incentive to designate additional areas for development will exist, either.

 

[EnviroTO]

Even if the figures of 3k pphpd are to be believed, it doesn't make sense that BRT be excluded because it doesn't meet a certain "requirement."

A study to find a way to handle an increase in traffic should not exclude those which do not meet the target increase?? The study exists for the purpose of increased capacity, not some profitability goal. If the goal of the study is not relevant then the study itself is not relevant and therefore nothing should occur. Existing needs are handled because people adapt to less than ideal situations. The goal is to improve the service levels to a level which handles forecast conditions with forecasts based on target growth, land use intesification and modal split. Not meeting the target means the goals of sprawl reduction, congestion reduction, etc will also not have been met.

 

[Whoaccio]

A study to find a way to handle an increase in traffic should not exclude those which do not meet the target increase?? The study exists for the purpose of increased capacity, not some profitability goal.

Right, the focus is on "increased capacity", not meeting some arbitrary requirement for capacity. Given that BRT does increase capacity at a lower cost then HRT options, it should at least be considered. It has nothing to do with profitability per se, it is about cost-benefit. Yea, fine, a subway would have higher absolute benefits, but it would only achieve that by diverting investment from somewhere else that could benefit more.

Anyways, the actual capacity demanded is relative. We could spend billions and end up with 9k pphpd of actual demand (on something designed to handle like 30k...). We could spend much much less and end up with 3k pphpd of actual demand. The limiting factor in the first example would be demand whereas the limiting factor in the later would be capacity, but the end result is that both would have a mismatch between what they are capable of providing and what they would indeed provide. The focus should be on who actually benefits. If 3x as many people benefit from a subway option, but it costs 10x as much how are we ahead?

What currently exists north of Finch is practically a BRT and it fails..

You might as well say the Queen streetcar is LRT. If a route doesn't have exclusive lanes and intersection priority it isn't really "rapid" anything.

If we want ridership to grow, to the costs of the BRT on Yonge we'd need to add improvements in other places. Either that or people will continue to drive or continue to move to Milton, since not building the subway means severely limited development - less development in areas already slated for it will materialize, and no incentive to designate additional areas for development will exist, either.

You can look at Metrolinx's numbers and they quite clearly show that building rapid transit on the basis of promoting development is idiotic. You are looking at a best case scenario of getting a dollar of benefit for roughly every three dollars spent and a worst case scenario of six dollars spent per dollar of benefit. It is idiotic. It is a ponzi scheme to shuffle public money into private developers in what could quite possibly be the most inefficient manner possible. That doesn't even take into account that development could simply be relocating from locations already served by a subway, like North York center. There are no shortage of rapid transit stations throughout the City with low surrounding densities that could be redeveloped to credibly argue that we are running out of space.

 

[Whoaccio]

I'm not really against extending the Yonge line, but this BCA is pretty damning of it. In concept it is probably a good idea, but there is no way this is worth an additional two odd billion in capital costs unless you start with the funky assumptions that spending a lot of money for "stimulative" purposes is a positive or that getting a few hundred million dollars of development justifies spending billions. Even the time savings aren't major (3-5 minutes) and disappear if you consider the 3 minute difference in vehicle frequency in favor of BRT. What actual benefit metric do you want to use? Cost per new passenger is stratospheric. The cost-benefit ratio is awful. They quite clearly state that the costs of a subway exceed the benefits in all cases. Even the "qualitative user benefits", measured as 1-3 checkmarks, are way more efficient for BRT (196m per "check" for BRT versus between 590-630m per check for subway options) and the same goes for all the other qualitative categories (land use shaping, environmental benefits, community ect...). None of this even includes the costs of paying for this with debt or the lost opportunity cost and it is still a bad idea according to the numbers.

The important thing to remember is that this money would be coming directly from somewhere else. There is no free lunch after all, and if we are going to feed this project it implies we are starving something else. So it is meaningless to state absolute benefits of one project without considering the costs of those benefits and what could be achieved elsewhere. We are either deferring other capital projects (take your choice), raising taxes or taking on new debt (in effect borrowing future resources).