Transit City Plan

[nfitz]

But as a company, who's main goal is profits, I ask again, why wouldn't they want to showcase their Mark II ICTS technology, if given the choice?

I can think of many reasons. One big one would be that their are already several showcases for this technology, so what do they have to gain. Another reason I can think of is that given TTC's poor history of skimping on basic maintenance, the more likely outcome is that it wouldn't work well in the winter and that they would in reality only be showcasing that it won't run in the snow. A third reason would be that it would fail to demonstrate the automatic operation that can be seen in other cities.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Is Bombardier having trouble selling their Mark II ICTS technology? I just don't see a huge upside.

The trouble with PPPs is that people pretend like they're magic, but the reality tends to be that they just hide the upfront cost. Bombardier isn't going to sign on to build or operate anything unless there's a proven profit margin in it for them.

 

[Asterix]

But as a company, who's main goal is profits, I ask again, why wouldn't they want to showcase their Mark II ICTS technology, if given the choice? If they could trade a multi-million dollar contract for a multi-billion dollar one, why wouldn't they? Why would they say 'no' to more money?

So if the TTC were to cancel a multi-million dollar order for LRT vehicles from BBD, they would be replacing it with a multi-billion dollar order for Mark II ICTS from BBD? And to cover operations on a line only half as long? I'm pretty sure you know that is not the case.

You are making suppositions or imaginings as to what BBD's marketing goals are and presenting them as definitive facts. That really distorts the argument.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The only reason transit came up in the mayoral debate is because a few candidates (ex: Thompson) chose to make it an important part of their platform. I believe with her, her transit plan was released within days of her announcing her candidacy. This put transit on the radar for the election, and thus the other main candidates drafted their own plans (Smitherman's came a month or so after formally announcing his candidacy, Ford's only came with a month or two left). Thompson drafted a plan because she thought it was an important issue, the others drafted theirs because they didn't want to be seen as not caring about transit.

And yes, I believe that Eglinton will remain, there's no way the TTC or Metrolinx is going to lie that die on the table. Same with a connection to STC replacing the SRT (in whatever form it ends up in). The rest of it however, is very much up in the air.

Transit was an omnipresent 'issue' for the entire campaign. CP24, for instance, talked about it almost daily. But did anyone vote based on transit issues? No, not really. Maybe it factored decisively into ten thousand votes. It would have become more of a real vote-affecting issue had Giambrone stayed in the race.

SRT questions are interesting because the plans for Kennedy station have become rather comical, with 4 lines converging underground. The Rob Ford-friendly option of rebuilding the Kennedy subway platform to permit running the subway up the existing corridor is actually becoming less crazy as other options bloat in scope and cost. That doesn't solve all the problems of using the RT corridor, though. I hope someone close to Rob Ford has told him that "converting" the RT corridor into a subway extension is impossible without some serious creativity and reconstruction. Not in a memo, not while he's napping, but sat him down and talked it through. Running up through Midland & Lawrence would be ideal, but as far as I know the city has only ever looked at an alignment with 1 station at Brimley & Lawrence.

That leaves 2.33 billion dollars as a gap. You could save a bit by chopping some of the Eglinton surface section, but surface rail on Eglinton isn't costing you 2 billion dollars.

This is all based on this briefing document prepared by the TTC, by the way: http://stevemunro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/201012TTCBriefing.pdf

$13.27 billion includes "up to" $1 billion of new subway yard. Part of that billion plus Eglinton's surface sections does fill some of the $2.33 billion gap, not that the money can be moved around like that (though it is unspent provincial dollars that have not yet been earned or extracted from the tax base, so flexibility does exist).

We're not seeing cost breakdowns for any of these lines, so we're forced to take all of these figures at face value. The Spadina extension included about 25% contingency, much of which is being eaten up by bloated station costs. Was 25% added to the Danforth extension to STC (or any of these subway/LRT lines?)? The tunneled projects all have roughly 1 station per kilometre, but Danforth-STC has 1 station per almost 3km. With underground stations being so expensive, having 66% less of them should impact the cost and cost/km more than shown. Maybe there's some complicated changes planned for STC itself, but such costs would be shared with Sheppard and would be off-set by a cheaper Kennedy station reno. "The money is there" vs "The money isn't there" might come down to such details.

 

[gweed123]

I can't really see how Bombardier wouldn't want to build an ICTS line, if given the option, especially if it was a P3, because then Bombardier could potentially have a say in the maintenance of the line (to avoid the disrepair seen with the SRT), and they would also have a say in how it's run.

I never said there would be a substantial upside for the TTC, I just said it would make financial sense for Bombardier to do it. Nfitz you mentioned that "they already have several showcases for this technology". Does that mean they aren't interested in getting new projects built using that technology? "No thanks, we already have enough ICTS around the world, we don't need to make more money by building another one". What company on earth DOESN'T want an increase in marketshare? And with the snow thing, there are very few ICTS lines that operate in a city that is snow-covered for half the year. If Bombardier can show that their new designs CAN in fact operate in the snow, how much more business do you think that would generate for them? The knock of "oh, ICTS doesn't do well in snow" would be thrown out the window. They have a lot to gain by doing that.

Bombardier has the upper hand in this scenario. They can choose to either stick with their LRT contract, or they can push Metrolinx to build it as ICTS (which Metrolinx has stated in the past that they wanted Eglinton to be). Either way, they get a really good contract out of it. All I'm saying is that it makes business sense for Bombardier to try and push to have the line built as ICTS, because it means a much bigger contract for them, and if it's a P3, much more control over how the line is built and maintained.

 

[Asterix]

I can't really see how Bombardier wouldn't want to build an ICTS line, if given the option, especially if it was a P3, because then Bombardier could potentially have a say in the maintenance of the line (to avoid the disrepair seen with the SRT), and they would also have a say in how it's run.

Has there been any mention from Ford, the TTC, Metrolinx or BBD that they are pushing for a P3 for Eglinton or is this more of wishful thinking disguised as supposed corporate insight?

All I'm saying is that it makes business sense for Bombardier to try and push to have the line built as ICTS, because it means a much bigger contract for them

If that's the case, then that is all the more reason for cost-sensitive Ford NOT to go with ICTS. Why should Metrolinx give BBD a much bigger contract to supply the vehicles for an Eglinton line which will be only half the LRT distance? You've already stated how you'd be willing to sacrifice much of the surface running of Eglinton so as to redirect the funds elsewhere.

It also makes business sense for BBD to push for Metrolinx/Toronto to follow through on their legal contract for LRT vehicles and not waste everyone's time and money on more lawyers and managers to re-draft those existing documents. I'm sure they'd much rather provide vehicles for lines that will be completed between 2015 and 2020 as opposed to lines completed sometime after 2020.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I apologize for starting this speculation. It is a bottomless pit of hypotheticals.

 

[gweed123]

I apologize for starting this speculation. It is a bottomless pit of hypotheticals.

At this point, no one has said anything recently about being for or against it. Ford wants it underground, TTC wants LRT, Metrolinx used to want ICTS. I just made a guess, based on those views, about what the end result could potentially be. Until the official answer is out, no one is right, no one is wrong. There haven't been any official statements released saying "yes" to any of this, but there also haven't been any official statements out saying "no" to this, or "yes" to anything else. We'll find out when we find out.

 

[Asterix]

Probably beating the horse just a little past death, but...

I just made a guess, based on those views, about what the end result could potentially be.

I have no problem with guesses, provided they are expressed as such. But saying "Considering that Bombardier would love to use that line as a showcase for Mark II" was presenting it as a definitive fact when for all we know, they might love to use it as a showcase for the product they actually sold.

Just asking for some honesty in the debate.

 

[rbt]

How much work the unionized TTC employees are actually doing on revamping the project vs how much time they're logging for it is a different story though.

Unionized employees doing design? You've got the wrong department. There are no new buses, streetcars, or subways to clean during the designing process.

Design is engineering, accounting, and project management. They're not unionized; in fact, they're much better paid.

 

[rbt]

My one thought is that they'll start getting creative and float Eglinton as a Public-Private Partnership with Bombardier building and operating the line.

This doesn't change the cost though. It's still going to be on the books as a debt whether through a PPP or built directly. Liberals brought in new accounting rules that make it impossible to hide debt that way.

 

[accura407]

In response to the question about how commuters will pay/if they have to pay another p3 fare...

The best example of P3 in Canada is in Vancouver: Canada Line.

Commuters there pay one fare and travel on the Public Skytrain or Private Canada Line...no difference to the user.

If Bombardier operated a P3 line, it would be 100% Automated and well maintained by them in order to showcase their product.

A P3 Line would also remove the many highly overpaid station collectors along the route and my guess is that it will be quite profitable during rush hours at the very least, if not weekdays.

It would also be highly competitive to the southern Bloor-Danforth Line and would be a lot longer in length.

Again...to all naysayers of P3, please explain Vancouver's Canada Line (which I have personally ridden) and tell me what's wrong with it?

 

[Asterix]

Commuters there pay one fare and travel on the Public Skytrain or Private Canada Line...no difference to the user.

How does the private company split that single fare with the public transit commission? Who gets what share?

If it will be highly competitive with the B-D line, what compensation should there be to the TTC for siphoning off their subway passengers (compensation that would ultimately be paid by the riders)?

What happens when there is a problem on the private line and there is a need to run shuttle buses. Who pays?

What if the private company decided to find 'efficiencies' and reduce service and hours of availability? What if they felt they needed more money in order to be profitable?

Do you know for a fact what BBD's commitment would be to be fully automated and kept spic and span clean or are you just hypothesizing?

Has BBD ever expressed an interest in actually operating a transit line and not just providing the vehicles to run on it?

Just some of the many issues that arise when you start mixing public and private.

 

[accura407]

How does the private company split that single fare with the public transit commission? Who gets what share?

If it will be highly competitive with the B-D line, what compensation should there be to the TTC for siphoning off their subway passengers (compensation that would ultimately be paid by the riders)?

What happens when there is a problem on the private line and there is a need to run shuttle buses. Who pays?

What if the private company decided to find 'efficiencies' and reduce service and hours of availability? What if they felt they needed more money in order to be profitable?

Do you know for a fact what BBD's commitment would be to be fully automated and kept spic and span clean or are you just hypothesizing?

Has BBD ever expressed an interest in actually operating a transit line and not just providing the vehicles to run on it?

Just some of the many issues that arise when you start mixing public and private.

Short Answer: See Vancouver Canada Line.
Long Answer:

A) I do not know how the fare revenue is split with Translink in Vancouver but I can personally assure you, it is one system.

B) Why should the TTC be Compensated another company for being successful in having a good ridership when it did its part in providing funds for building the line in the first place?
Thats like saying that GO Transit should be compensating the TTC for riders that used Bloor Station (Georgetown Line) to go Downtown instead of using the Bloor-Danforth Subway.

C) I think the private company should be responsible for that. Maybe they would compensate the TTC for having to put extra buses but yes i think it should be their responsibility.

D) I think there should be service guidelines in place. Example, the private operator for Canada Line made a minimum threshold that should be met and if it went below that level, the TTC has to compensate for it. I think on an extensive corridor such as Eglinton that would stretch from Pearson Airport to Malvern Town Centre should do just fine. Does the subway have to run every 5-6 minutes at 1am? I think no it does not (maybe weekends). Ultimately, when talking about an automated system, i think the difference in frequencies makes a lesser impact on operating costs.

E) This is all speculation/hypothesis/ideas. Nobody is coming on this forum and making an RFP...its a forum. relax.

F) Bombardier was one of the bidders for the Canada Line project but they lost out to ROTEM...which built the line.

What ultimately needs to be explained here is...how can Translink build an entire rapid transit line with 2 brances for only $2.4 Billion Dollars?
This means Underground from City Centre to Marine Drive. A New transit only cable stayed bridge over Fraser River, and the remainder elevated with a branch to the airport and terminus at Richmond.

Then looking at operating costs. Subway stations have zero employees. Trains are automated.

Platform lengths are shorter than what we are used to in Toronto but if we are building a suburban line, do we need the standard 6-car length?
An automated line + short frequencies can more than make up for the large captial costs of building enormous 6-car platforms.

I Understand if we were comparing transit systems between countries but toronto and vancouver is fair game and someone has to answer why toronto's figures are always bloated!

 

[Dan416]

I would have no problem with Eglinton being done as a P3. Not a fan of it being ALRT/Mk II though...