Automation: the answer to our prayers?

[kettal]

It seems to me a lot of complainers like to say the TTC's finances would be miraculously saved if only we had automated trains.

Is this a rational comment, or is it just scapegoating?

Consider this: all of Vancouver's skytrain network is fully automated, yet they have higher fares than TTC, and a greater operating loss than TTC.

 

[nfitz]

It seems to me a lot of complainers like to say the TTC's finances would be miraculously saved if only we had automated trains.

Is this a rational comment, or is it just scapegoating?

Consider this: all of Vancouver's skytrain network is fully automated, yet they have higher fares than TTC, and a greater operating loss than TTC.

Montreal has had ATC running on their Metro for almost 35 years ... and has a greater operating loss per rider.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's not the answer to all of our problems but it is the answer to some....namely if you want to improve reliability and capacity on some lines (like Yonge) automation has to be part of the answer.

When it comes to saving costs automation can help in some ways. For example, automating ticket vending could allow us to have automated stations.

 

[CodeMonkey]

Consider this: all of Vancouver's skytrain network is fully automated, yet they have higher fares than TTC, and a greater operating loss than TTC.

But its also a ICTS/ART which had many cost overruns than the automation.

 

[M II A II R II K]

What about the Union making every train have an Operator for an excuse to pay them while they have their bowl of soup though.

 

[CodeMonkey]

nfitz is right, one LRV driver in Transit City can replace about 5 bus drivers. Your conspiracy theory doesn't hold up, monkey.

I didn't say bus. I said subway. When did i say bus??

 

[kettal]

What about the Union making every train have an Operator for an excuse to pay them while they have their bowl of soup though.

I's not very professional for one to eat on the job, but there are legitimate reasons to keep an operator on board an automated train.

 

[kettal]

I didn't say bus. I said subway. When did i say bus??

You said Transit City is a scheme to get more union members more positions. Yet Transit City actually decreases the number of operators as they replace buses.

As for subways, they don't replace buses, at least when built in the style of Sheppard or North Yonge. A bus still has to run on Sheppard East all day.

 

[Darwinkgo]

^ What are the reasons? Vancouver seems to get away with it. The SRT shouldn't have had operators all these years, and once there is automatic train control you should at least go down to one operator per train, or more preferably a platform level station attendant (not really needed, but would help people accept it).

 

[Northern Light]

Atc

ATC has definite financial benefits to any transit operator.

Its important to note however that there are many variables.

Vancouver for instance, operates much smaller trains, which means its theoretical savings per rider is lower.

****

Aside from variation in capacity; there is variation in operation. That's not only service frequency/level and capacity utilization but the question of how many staff are used on a train before/after automation.

For instance, we current have the SRT on full ATC, but there is still 1 staff person per train.

Our Subways we currently have 2 staff per train (Driver and Guard)

Would you propose ATC eliminates the need for 1? Or both?

The very much affects the issue.

Also affected is how you accommodate ATC (or at what cost). For instance Vancouver does not use platform edge doors; making it much cheaper to operate ATC, though not completely eliminating suicide risks etc.

****

Full ATC, with zero staff on trains, should produce a 'fair' financial benefit, though not an enormous one, though I wonder what we would deduct for increased vandalism costs?

****

Now, something I favour is implementing an one-fare system (no age-based changes) so that you can fully automate the fare system in stations with full fare gates.

Again, of course, if you replace those staff w/security and/or tourism/info staff you many not see the full benefit.

But if you went essentially staff-less in both trains and stations, you would def. rack up NET savings in the tens of millions. Though there are obvious safety implications.

****

Now the best deal probably comes from the new LRTs which will increase passenger load per operator by a large margin. THOUGH, this is only true where you can extend headway w/o making service poor.

So largely, a rush-hour benefit. Though still worth several million per annum.

The biggest savings is the ratio when bus routes convert, but the new rolling stock will actually be a bit larger than the current CLRVs

*note* - new LRT routes not being grade-separated means no ATC option

Though this plays into the age-based fair question again, as there will be no on-board fare collection or age verification.

I wonder how many fare evasion officers we end up hiring?

 

[CodeMonkey]

You said Transit City is a scheme to get more union members more positions. Yet Transit City actually decreases the number of operators as they replace buses.

As for subways, they don't replace buses, at least when built in the style of Sheppard or North Yonge. A bus still has to run on Sheppard East all day.

No it keeps the current level. LRTs are a great idea, but having the crisscross the city to keep the former subway operators to have their obsolete job isn't really a cost savings to the system overall. Yes subways are expensive to build and LRTs are cheap to build. But is there really a savings when most of the TTC budget to run the mega-lrt(Transit City) network going to be tied into employee wages?

 

[CodeMonkey]

^ What are the reasons? Vancouver seems to get away with it. The SRT shouldn't have had operators all these years, and once there is automatic train control you should at least go down to one operator per train, or more preferably a platform level station attendant (not really needed, but would help people accept it).

There was two sides of this argument before the SRT went into service. The union said that the automated systems never worked during trials and TTC management said the union was ready to strike over it if their jobs where going to be replaced. But many ICTS have no operator in them (Skytrain/ Detroit People mover) and they have operated fine for years without a ATC problem.

 

[kettal]

No it keeps the current level. LRTs are a great idea, but having the crisscross the city to keep the former subway operators to have their obsolete job isn't really a cost savings to the system overall. Yes subways are expensive to build and LRTs are cheap to build. But is there really a savings when most of the TTC budget to run the mega-lrt(Transit City) network going to be tied into employee wages?

An operator would still be paid to drive the Sheppard East bus (or it's equivalent) in subway country, so what's your point?

 

[CodeMonkey]

An operator would still be paid to drive the Sheppard East bus (or it's equivalent) in subway country, so what's your point?

Trains can operate without a operator. I know that most transit options like buses still need drivers. But we should reduce the dependence on operators on rail lines like LRT and HRT. Right now we have the opportunity with half of the current TTC operator workforce planing to retire in the next couple of years we can replace their jobs with automated systems rather than hiring & training someone else.

 

[rbt]

Trains can operate without a operator. I know that most transit options like buses still need drivers. But we should reduce the dependence on operators on rail lines like LRT and HRT. Right now we have the opportunity with half of the current TTC operator workforce planing to retire in the next couple of years we can replace their jobs with automated systems rather than hiring & training someone else.

Has anyone done the math on this? Even at $150k per employee (salary, pension, HR, training, etc.) I still only come up with about $50M per year in operations costs to cover ALL subway drivers and fare collectors.

Maintenance, cleaning, etc. staff would all be required; possibly more maintenance staff than today due to increasing system complexity.

Cost to install ATC on Yonge is around $1B -- the resignal project has been ongoing for a long time (95?). Bloor would be about the same, and recent estimates put Presto at $500M.

All good things for reasons other than saving labour; but spending $2B in capital to achieve some part of a possible $50M return per year isn't a very good investment.


As stated earlier, there ARE good reasons to do these projects anyway; but reducing labour costs isn't one of them.