News   Jun 23, 2021
 986     3 
News   Jun 23, 2021
 295     0 
News   Jun 23, 2021
 680     1 

TTC: Sheppard Subway Extension (Proposed)

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
16,649
Reaction score
11,665
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth

Land Value​

The one thing that gets over looked when doing a comparison between BRT and LRT is land use and value up turn.

We have seen in various cities in the United States over the last 10 years where new LRT and BRT systems have been built to see what kinds of changes they bring to the area they are servicing.

In all cases, there has been greater demand and land changes where LRT lines have gone in compared to BRT. BRT lines have generated $4 for every $1 that was invested in the BRT while LRT are seeing $10 or more for that same $1. At the same time, development starts faster with LRT than BRT.

People are prepared to walk a little further to an LRT than a BRT.

Not only LRT bring development faster to the area, it helps to transform that area into a more pedestrian area in all ships and forms. People are willing to sit at a cafe with an LRT running by it than one where an BRT because of the buses exhaust, let alone traffic.

One thing that is starting to show up more, people want to live close to an LRT as well in a smaller complexes than a BRT. At the same time, people are willing to use LRT more in the off peak time frame, than a BRT. Phoenix, who only just open their 20 mile line at a Cost of $1.3 Billion dollars at the end of December 2009, have seen their ridership exceeded not only the 12,000 daily ridership by the end of 2010, but the 20,000 figure by 2020 in 2011 by 45,000 daily. At the same time, 62% of the ridership is off peak which totally against the norm for ridership of any type of system in service today.

Land value has seen a 5% increase in the short time frame which some people don't like as it increase their tax level. That increase in tax level is off set by having more people moving to the area or city to help to spread the cost level over more people, than just a few.
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
16,649
Reaction score
11,665
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
LRTs are a lot more expensive for not much benefit. With LRT you have to commit to A) Placing down track, B) Buying new rolling stock, and C) Installing new dedicated infrastructure like signaling and stops. BRTs completely avoid having to do Part A and B. Paving is MUCH cheaper than placing down track, you can reuse the same busses you used before, and you don't even have to build brand new giant MSFs. This also means that not only can they act as a development tool, there is also very little commitment to have them around as long as possible. With the Hurontario LRT, because they purchased new MSFs and brand new rolling stock, there will now be pressure to keep the line running for at least 30 years as part of the P3, even though ridership projects expect ridership to reach a level that would justify a subway in 10 years. If instead of the LRT they had instead painted dedicated bus lanes, they could have saved a ton of money, while still building up ridership on the corridor, and when ridership justified something higher order and more effective like a light metro. The Hurontario LRT costs 5 BILLION DOLLARS, half of the cost of the DRL, and around the projected cost of the entire Highway 413, which is absolutely insane, and now its going to be a line Mississauga is stuck with 30 years. I forget if it was Syn or W.K. Lis who pointed this out, but Transit City was supposed to be what the old streetcar was, temporary transit infrastructure that would be replaced by higher order transit when needed. With the skyrocketing price in LRTs, this is basically impossible. Now there is going to be pressure to keep these LRTs running for as long as possible since they do not have the benefit of using existing vehicles and infrastructure, and you better use those LRVs you spent a billion on for as much you can. Think of it this way. If the Don Mills LRT was built, the earliest we would've gotten a Relief Line North (something the city desperately needs) in 2050. With a BRT, we would've gotten it by 2035.


I find that hard to believe. You do know that a low floor LRVs cost around twice as much to maintain as a Subway train correct? LFLRVs are extremely prone to breaking down and needing urgent repairs compared to either busses or high floor trains. Maybe you're saving on not having to pay for gas, but with technologies like Battery Electric coming online, that is going to be less and less of an issue.
Clearly you don't understand P3 cost, don't think buses break down along the route and the list goes on. Someone has to pay the interest on the money that is needed to built X as well the cost to maintain it and to operate it over a 30 year timeframe as well make a profit doing so.

Hurontario is not your standard run of the mill for building an LRT line as there are things been done not normally found in building an BRT or LRT. The line over the 403 will be elevated at the request of MTO, a new road extension and bridge are to be built to remove a road requested by the city, MTO requirements for any ROW to go under the QEW as well the interchange, rebuilding Hurontario overpass over the 403 that has nothing to do with the LRT in the first place and the list goes on.

Hurontario will never justify a subway which has been pushed by others as well a few councilors. I have never seen the need for one since 2003 when I first recommended an LRT either on the surface or an elevated line. You would never get an elevated line in the downtown Brampton area at all.

As long you go to a single supplier for equipment and not the market, cost will be higher than normal which has been TTC way. TTC is finally seeing the need to go to the market starting with the E-buses and now the new fleet for Line 2 which should be Line 1 with Line 1 equipment moving to 2 like the past. Line 1 would get the 500' train it needs yesterday.

You need to compare apples to apples not the apple to orange to get correct comparison both cost wise and time wise. Trying to compare Hurontario to the OL does not come close starting with ridership. the route it will take.

Questions:
1; What is the privacy requirements for an elevated line when buildings are required to be 75' apart due privacy?
2: Is there any road in Toronto that is wide enough to support privacy requirements??
3: How many elevators are needed for an elevated station??
4: Are there more than one access to an elevated station??
5: Why is speed more important than than having a surface line speed:
6: Who is important that speed is needed over local use riders??
7: What should the stop spacing be and why??
8: What do you use the space for under an elevated line for??
9: What justify the extra cost to build an elevated line over a surface line as well take money away from investing in more transit service for everyone than a few??
 

north-of-anything

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
486
Reaction score
769
Location
Bradford
sheppeast.png


Threw together a quick diagram of what could be a good eastern extension alignment.

I think that Sheppard's two options are really to either retrofit the line as an LRT, or to just continue extending it as the existing heavy rail line. Don Mills is just not a good transfer point - Agincourt and Scarborough Centre are both much better for that, and the line should reach one of them - and I'm not convinced that a full BRT for Sheppard wouldn't become a permanent temporary solution. If we want more BRT lines in Toronto (which we should), it would be smarter to start with Lawrence, Kingston, Steeles, Dufferin, or Wilson/Albion.
 

Undead

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 3, 2020
Messages
1,169
Reaction score
2,265
@drum118 how did Pheonix keep the costs down for their LRT? $1.6 billion for 20 miles is roughly $40 million per kilometre. Does this include the same costs as for our Eglinton LRT? Or would that be an apples to oranges comparison. Also, is their system mostly surface running?
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
16,649
Reaction score
11,665
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
@drum118 how did Pheonix keep the costs down for their LRT? $1.6 billion for 20 miles is roughly $40 million per kilometre. Does this include the same costs as for our Eglinton LRT? Or would that be an apples to oranges comparison. Also, is their system mostly surface running?
Its an apple and oranges comparison as Phoenix stations are too far apart since it runs through very low density from what I saw first hand 2 years ago. I have no idea as to cost since I never follow it from day one until I came upon some info after the line opens. Service was every 15 minutes using 2 and 3 cars, but mostly 2.

From what I saw, everything was rebuilt with all Utilities were bury.

The one thing that is happening in the US is the cost per mile increasing to over $100 million a mile for LRT and BRT even for simple lines. A number of transit planner/consultations people I know in the US have no idea why cost is where it is.

I really question why some LRT systems were built when ridership did not come close to even having an BRT. Other than Minneapolis that offer 10 minute service, all new lines I have rode are 15-20 minute service using 66' car or 100'. Minneapolis runs 3 100' cars.
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
16,649
Reaction score
11,665
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
You can try this link to the BRT vs LRT spreadsheet.

Regardless if this is 11 years old and various changes to technology have taken place over that timeframe as well what coming down the road, BRT will still loose to LRT for moving riders at the end of the day.

As for elevated lines, it will still be too costly to built and operate compare to BRT or LRT, but most of all some need to be full blown Metro to the point of being DD trains. Speed only effect ppl going long distance compare to local where we are try to move to an work/live/play/shop/entertain area than the current 4 areas by themselves. PPL can see what exist along the route they travel on the surface that may cause them to stop and visit a place at a later date they saw going by compare to elevated on the subway that cannot be seen.

Bottom line, elevated line will only happen if the road is wide enough to do so and that rules out most of Toronto streets. Sheppard is an road that could see an elevated line, but has a number of issues doing do like RR bridges.

As for cost to relocate underground service while building an LRT is the best thing that could happen as some are long over due to be replace as well needing upgrading to meet growth for the area or other areas.
 

Voltz

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,653
Reaction score
474
I think the lrt has to battle the image of a street car.

above ground transit has to battle those nyc movies images I talked about.

while the bus has to battle the image of a dirty greyhound or the vomit commit.

each have their own issues while subways are perceived as dependable, fast, hip even at their staggering costs.
Image only matters to transit fans and vote pandering politicians. if the service is good and suitable then the riders will come.
 

sixrings

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
4,704
Reaction score
1,929
Image only matters to transit fans and vote pandering politicians. if the service is good and suitable then the riders will come.
But vote pandering politicians are making the transit decisions. So although image maybe should not matter, it absolutely matters.
 

DirectionNorth

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
117
Reaction score
185
Location
Outside of the GTA
But vote pandering politicians are making the transit decisions. So although image maybe should not matter, it absolutely matters.
I see it as something that needs to be overcome once. If service on this mode is good, then all will be much easier afterwards. If it's a failure, then the public will no longer want it.
 

superelevation

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2020
Messages
227
Reaction score
494
Over a 30 year life cycle and depending on ridership growth, an LRT will save $90-$250 Million in operation cost as well replacement cost compare to an BRT. Upfront cost is mostly won by BRT over the LRT since many run on roads they don't have to pay to have them fix or replace unless its a true BRT in its own ROW away from traffic like Mississauga Transitway or Ottawa system.

The biggest cost is the person who is driving X. 40' to DD buses can carry only so many riders before you need to add another bus or so to meet the ridership needs while an LRT depending on the system can carry more than any type of bus in service legally in NA before increase its length or add an car or 2 to the one in service without adding another driver. In TTC case, it gone from a 50'-75' car to a 100' car that carries more so say TTC and may get away going to 130' before it needs to add another car to the line for extra riders. Never will see MU streetcar in Toronto like there was with the PCC unless they run on a line like the Crosstown Line.

Having a bus trunk line with many branch is a standard used in many places Worldwide as a cheap way of providing higher quality of service for the centre section of an line and does not provide the RT the the Scarborough Folks wants.

If you get down to numbers, Sheppard only justify an BRT with some interlining of service that does not provide the tools to increase density that range in the $3-$5 return on each dollar investment for it. An LRT sees $10-$12 return on investments with some seeing higher and a few less than $10. A subway is around $15-$20 return on investments and can be more or less depending where it place. Sheppard subway has mostly been flat from day one as a poor investment,

If you look at Line 1 & 2, they are a mix bag for various sections of the line from being flat to over $20 return on the investment. In some cases, Streetcars had a higher return before the subway came along for sections that are now flat or below the investment for it.
This logic only makes sense if you are a city / region which is not growing rapidly. Sheppard already has substantial population within bus distance of future stations, which drives substantial ridership on other parts of the city. We know that Sheppard currently underperforms because it is short and has weak network connectivity. Extending it fixes this and allows more riders to spend more of their trip on the subway speeding up trips. Toronto *is* growing rapidly and folks coming from the 905 will only further strain the subway network, there is substantial density already existing between Don Mills Stn and STC, and this will only increase with Agincourt Mall redevelopment etc. (though everyone here acts like density is much more important than it is). Connecting transit is what drivers ridership.
Questions:
1; What is the privacy requirements for an elevated line when buildings are required to be 75' apart due privacy?
2: Is there any road in Toronto that is wide enough to support privacy requirements??
3: How many elevators are needed for an elevated station??
4: Are there more than one access to an elevated station??
5: Why is speed more important than than having a surface line speed:
6: Who is important that speed is needed over local use riders??
7: What should the stop spacing be and why??
8: What do you use the space for under an elevated line for??
9: What justify the extra cost to build an elevated line over a surface line as well take money away from investing in more transit service for everyone than a few??
1) Vancouver / Montreal have solved many of these.
2) Local riders are a minority in the suburbs (and given everyone is suggesting density won't increase significantly it will be staying this way), the majority arrive by bus for obvious reasons. You are doing the majority of riders a disservice by adding stops, not the other way around.
3) If more people ride an elevated line than an LRT then was the extra money not worth it? Especially if the LRT needs expensive upgrades to match the capacity of a subway option in the future.
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
16,649
Reaction score
11,665
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
I will post this here as well cross post elsewhere as it has to do with elevated systems. This based on a report problems pertaining to Hawaii LRT which is a light metro that is years late and over budget that was just reported on.

Honolulu's rail project plagued with wheels too thin and tracks too wide

One also needs to look at Montreal REM issues as well.

The person lives in Vancouver and a transit advocate makes this comment.
Here we have the big problem with light metro. Unlike modern light rail, which is modular and interchangeable and flexible, light metro tends to be proprietary, as one company's light metro is not designed for another company's light metro.

Vancouver is a perfect example.

Currently we have three light metro lines, the Canada line, the Millennium Line and the Expo Line all with their own problems.

The Canada Line is a conventional railway, operating conventional EMU's and not compatible in operation with the proprietary Expo and Millennium Lines, due to the fact that kinematic envelope is much smaller for the E & M lines and they are also powered by Linear Induction Motors or (LIM's)

The Expo Line is that UTDC's proprietary ICTS/ALRT system, powered by LIM's and has tight curvatures and tight clearances.

The Millennium Line is Bombardier's rebuilt ICTS/ALRT/ALM system marketed as Advanced Rapid Transit (ART). Using an Innovia bodyshell, the ART cars are longer, a little wider and have larger wheels and trucks/bogies.

Now ALRT cars can operate on ART tracks and visa versa, they cannot operate with each other in coupled sets and as the ART cars have longer and larger trucks/bogies, they have great difficulty with the switches or points on the ALRT Expo Line; the cars must travel through the switches at a low speed and there is is much protest and flange squeal when they do.

Alstom now owns the proprietary light metro system now called Movia Automatic Light Metro and Translink is more than worried that they will dump the system altogether as no one else, except Vancouver wants the damn thing.

But the big problem facing the regional transit system is that the Expo and Millennium Lines, especially the Expo line, needs a mid life rehab before its capacity can expand beyond the current 15,000 pphpd and needs about $3 billion to complete it, including replacing all the switches with high speed switches.

The Canada Line needs a $1.5 to $2 billion rehab, just to increase its capacity beyond 9,000 pphpd and this must be done before any expansion of the line is considered.

TransLink is well aware of this but at this point they do not want to shock the taxpayers with bad news until their $4.6 billion, 12.8 km extensions of the Expo and Millennium Lines are well under way and i will add this, for $4.6 billion, not a car will be taken off the road.

I think the good Burghers of Honolulu are going to be in fincial shock one their light metro opens and under performs wonderfully.
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,594
Reaction score
2,309
^ The proprietary nature of the light metro systems adds some complexity. However, the design problems and the teething pains mentioned in the article, seem to be caused more by the poor management and oversight and less by the specific technology.

The fact that LRT is modular and interchangeable doesn't make it immune to delays and cost overruns. ECLRT is behind schedule, despite being as standard as it gets.

And the proprietary systems, generally speaking, can be replaced by another technology if the original maker discontinued the product line. The problem with replacing SRT isn't that it is proprietary; it is that the line was deliberately built with tight cleareneces and a very tight Midland - Ellesmere curve, and that could have been avoided if the city had more foresight back then.
 

Top