Transit City Plan

[Dan416]

The only project that's on the books which must go forward is the replacement of the SRT. Unfortunately it's the one we've gotten the least amount of information on. I firmly believe it should be replaced with subway, for the sanity of all Scarberians.

 

[lafard]

Frankly, my money for SRT is on them doing nothing. In 2014 when it hits the fan they'll fall back on the old fallback plan of bumming old cars off Vancouver, which has Mark I cars that are as new as 1996 in its fleet.

As a plus, Toronto will probably get a really good deal on the things as the largest component of Vancouvers' Mark I fleet will be retiring in the next few years and the 30-ish newer cars become kind of orphanish.

Pretty much, it defers things for a decade, for a tiny fraction of the cost of either a subway or an improved SRT/LRT line. In the longer term they'll also have enough vehicles to try and refurbish them and cobble things along for another 10 years.

Not that I really think it's the best idea, but it's such a TTC thing to do.

 

[Electrify]

Frankly, my money for SRT is on them doing nothing. In 2014 when it hits the fan they'll fall back on the old fallback plan of bumming old cars off Vancouver, which has Mark I cars that are as new as 1996 in its fleet.

As a plus, Toronto will probably get a really good deal on the things as the largest component of Vancouvers' Mark I fleet will be retiring in the next few years and the 30-ish newer cars become kind of orphanish.

Pretty much, it defers things for a decade, for a tiny fraction of the cost of either a subway or an improved SRT/LRT line. In the longer term they'll also have enough vehicles to try and refurbish them and cobble things along for another 10 years.

Not that I really think it's the best idea, but it's such a TTC thing to do.

I'll see your buying refurbs off of Vancouver and say that the TTC simply rebuilds their current rolling stock so they can run them for another 10+ years. I mean, buses aren't supposed to last much longer than 10-15 years, meanwhile thanks to their rebuilding program we have GM buses approaching 40 years of age still running!

 

[nfitz]

buses aren't supposed to last much longer than 10-15 years, meanwhile thanks to their rebuilding program we have GM buses approaching 40 years of age still running!

The oldest buses were acquired in the 1980s. They are just hitting 30, not 40, and scheduled for retirement within a year or two.

Still impressive - but nothing like what has be achieved with rail. For example the over 75-years that Montreal kept the same trains in service on the Deux-Montagnes line.

 

[Justin10000]

STM's oldest metro cars will be nearly 50 years old by the time the new rolling stock arrives.

 

[gweed123]

STM's oldest metro cars will be nearly 50 years old by the time the new rolling stock arrives.

The few H4s still in service aren't much behind that. They'll be nearly 40 by the time they're retired (built between 1974 and 1975).

 

[GraphicMatt]

A new Pembina report on Ford's transit plan pegs the cost of a BRT on Finch at 400m, versus 900m for the LRT.

Also, they think the new plan sucks basically: http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/toronto-transit-analysis-march-11.pdf

 

[gweed123]

A new Pembina report on Ford's transit plan pegs the cost of a BRT on Finch at 400m, versus 900m for the LRT.

Also, they think the new plan sucks basically: http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/toronto-transit-analysis-march-11.pdf

Interesting analysis. I'm glad to see that they considered BRT a viable option for Finch (at under half the cost of the LRT). I'm surprised though that they didn't consider the same rationale for Sheppard, given that their peak period and off-peak demands are pretty similar. They recommend going underground from Don Mills to around Pharmacy, so why not do a subway + BRT combo as an option?

It seems to me like if you can write a rationale to support BRT on the one, the same rationale can be easily applied to the other: build BRT now because it's under half the cost, can handle the demands for the foreseeable future, and can be upgraded to LRT when and if the money arises.

 

[Dan416]

Gotta object to the classification of Transit City lines as "rapid transit".

 

[nfitz]

Gotta object to the classification of Transit City lines as "rapid transit".

They are likely faster than the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines you've suggested may be more appropriate. You' have a problem calling and LRT line rapid transit, but a slightly slower BRT isn't? That seems inconsistent to me.

 

[lafard]

Well, if you don't like the current proposals, we could always wait for a subway on Finch. It has a remote chance of being built while our grandchildren are still alive, thus the current proposals are a waste. Hold out for the big one.

I'm curious as to how they costed out the BRT line. Once again, a huge cost inherent - and the biggest source of the cost difference in the LRT lines vs BRT lines is yards and rolling stock - BRT proposals assume no new yards or vehicles are required even though this is not a realistic assumption as the longer term fleet plans contained significant attrition. Fleet costs - and the need for another yard much sooner than expected - are hidden costs in general capital expenditures but still present and still in the hundreds of millions of dollars range.

 

[gweed123]

Well, if you don't like the current proposals, we could always wait for a subway on Finch. It has a remote chance of being built while our grandchildren are still alive, thus the current proposals are a waste. Hold out for the big one.

I'm curious as to how they costed out the BRT line. Once again, a huge cost inherent - and the biggest source of the cost difference in the LRT lines vs BRT lines is yards and rolling stock - BRT proposals assume no new yards or vehicles are required even though this is not a realistic assumption as the longer term fleet plans contained significant attrition. Fleet costs - and the need for another yard much sooner than expected - are hidden costs in general capital expenditures but still present and still in the hundreds of millions of dollars range.

We've gone through this before. I've cited numerous different BRT proposals that consistently show that the cost of building BRT is less than half the cost of building LRT. You say one thing. The studies show something different.

Either all those studies are wrong, or the costs you think are associated with BRT are not as big of a deal as you make them out to be. I tend to go with the studies, especially since I've been watching several BRT projects in Ottawa come in on-time and on-budget.

 

[Rainforest]

A couple of undeniable problems with BRT: they don't cut the diesel-price dependency of the TTC; and in the Toronto reality, once a BRT is built somewhere, it will never get upgraded to LRT even if seriously overcrowded as BRT. There is never enough money, and a host of competing priorities.

 

[gweed123]

A couple of undeniable problems with BRT: they don't cut the diesel-price dependency of the TTC; and in the Toronto reality, once a BRT is built somewhere, it will never get upgraded to LRT even if seriously overcrowded as BRT. There is never enough money, and a host of competing priorities.

So we shouldn't built BRT because it'll be really popular and a lot of people may use it? Wow, that's a pretty interesting argument against it...

And if overcrowding becomes an issue, an option that you may not have considered is to build another BRT on a nearly parallel corridor, in order to alleviate some of the traffic.

 

[Dan416]

LRT could be rapid transit. Eglinton is, more or less, as much as Bloor-Danforth is. The TC SELRT? Definitely not. Finch West? I'm not familiar enough with the stop spacing to say.

I'd definitely call the Hurontario LRT rapid transit because it would actually speed up transit on the Hurontario corridor. You know, actual time savings which the TTC doesn't seem to consider to be important.