Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[snowystar]

The cost of the SRT extension is $2.3B! This to refurbish a 6.5km line and a 3.5km extension. That is $230M/km for a line that is already mostly built. I always thought the total cost of this was $1.4B. It looks like the numbers are fudged to make the subway work out almost equal to the LRT.

I thought the cost was always 2.3B since the update in 2010? At least its shown here that escalated dollar for SRT replacement is 2.465B, not including the cost of the shared yard. This would be about 2.2B if you convert to 2011 dollars. Add in part of the yard, then 2.3B is about right...

Not sure where the 1.4B come from... was that the "original" cost?

I sure as shit don't get. I'm for retrofitting and extending anything elevated...but the costs are mind-boggling.

Looking at the construction plan, seems like the entire guideway will be rebuilt, save for the bottom half of each support column. So the actual cost is more like:

+ demolishing cost (of old system)
+ construction cost (of new system)
+ cost to speed up construction
- land cost

... instead of just land and construction normally.

 

[nfitz]

Why does Metrolinx want to own the lines anyways? What benefit does having two agencies responsible for the line provide transit riders. Just seems to complicate things.

It's all the accountants fault.

To put it simply, if they own the asset, the books of the province look better, and it improves the credit rating of the province, and lowers borrowing costs.

 

[rbt]

It's all the accountants fault.

To put it simply, if they own the asset, the books of the province look better, and it improves the credit rating of the province, and lowers borrowing costs.

Secured debt versus unsecured debt.

If the province defaults they can be forced to sell the asset.

 

[nfitz]

Secured debt versus unsecured debt.

If the province defaults they can be forced to sell the asset.

Though as city's merely function and exist at the grace of the province, surely a province can be forced to seize anything any city has.

Neither scenario is realistic, really. Do you see Greece selling assets?

It, and a lot of other issues we have in society, are being driven by mindless accounting principles, that really aren't based on common sense.

Still, that's the reason why the province is insisting.

 

[rbt]

Though as city's merely function and exist at the grace of the province, surely a province can be forced to seize anything any city has.

Yeah, I wondered about that but I guess it would directly impact the ability of Toronto to borrow if the province claimed the cities assets under their accounts.

Neither scenario is realistic, really. Do you see Greece selling assets?

Funny you should ask that. It appears they were being pressured to unload $71B worth of assets in order to receive additional loans:
http://www.businessinsider.com/greek-assets-sale-2011-5?op=1

It basically stalled when there were no buyers willing to pick them up as quickly as necessary:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/28/greeces-fire-sale-shunned

In short, Greece tried and failed to have a large asset sale.


New York also rapidly leased? off assets to avoid a default in the 70's. The bonds issued were on future revenues from certain assets. Ownership didn't change but the city basically gave away all revenues for a period of time.

Ultimately, a loan backed by assets is more likely to be paid back than one which is not; and as a result has a lower rate.

It, and a lot of other issues we have in society, are being driven by mindless accounting principles, that really aren't based on common sense.

Still, that's the reason why the province is insisting.

I don't disagree that it's silly but ultimately as the borrower you play by the rules that lenders demand. There are almost always more people wanting money than people lending it and to get it you need to present a better business case than your competitors.

 

[ssiguy2]

Let me get this straight.

Toronto is contemplating spending $3 billion and when it's all said and done they won't have extended their subway system one foot?

As for this "upgrade" to LRT it is none of the sort. It is a downgrad as the ICTS has higher capacity with the same size stations and is faster. This is not even to mention that it would save hundreds of millions, not require any down time and wouldn't require the building of a completely new maintenance, garage, and control centre. Have I got this right so far?

This all because Torontonians are completely traumatized because they have to cross the street to make a transfer. These are the same people who supported "Transfer City" which was so disjointed that it was nothing but a series of transfers.
What government {least of all a broke one} would even contemplate funding such an obscene waste of money?

Her's a radical idea...........just replace the old trains with the new ones. I know that may not result in the ribbon-cutting ceremony that the politicians and TTC manderines may look forward to but it would save a "little" money. Just getting new trains and heating and fixing the sharp corner turns would also not require a shutting down of the system for years. That would be a great relief to the long-suffering TTC patrons but since when has that ever been a concern at the TTC.

This lunacy of a report doesn't also mention that the money saved by just getting better trains would result in it being interlined with the Eglinton Line by elevating the DM to Kennedy corridor to say nothing of extending the BD further east using, wait for it, the current rail ROW. This would actually serve people that don't have transit and would save the TTC a small fortune in operating costs as an interline Eglinton/STC SkyTrain could be automated.

I know, I know, some may think automation may not save any money because the TTC will demand someone be on the train at $40/hr to make sure the doors close. I guess the people at the TTC have never been on an elevator.

I find it remarkable that the TC LRT lovers look to Steve Munro as proof that TC is great and best option but Stevie has nothing but praise for the Vancouver SkyTrain system and holds it up as example of how a city can turn what was once considered a lemon when first opened to lemonaid. He uses the SkyTrain vs SRT as an example of how the TTC has allowed the SRT to rot and Vancouver's SkyTrain to be a fast, efficient, comfortable, reliable, and very safe system............none of which the SRT can boast about.

Of course this little report is all contingent on "funding" which is a the TTC's way of saying "everyone else in Ontario" should pay for it.

All this said I think Toronto is serious about a higher sales tax to fund it's never-to-be-built transit fantasy lines. The only problem with that is that it will be a hard sell at Queen's Park when Toronto informs them that the sales tax would apply across the province EXCEPT in the City of Toronto because even the notion of Toronto having to pay for it's own infrastructure is not only obscene but downright insulting. No doubt Toronto will be beside itself when the people of Welland, Windsor, and Wawa don't share their entusiasm at the unique opportunity, dare I say honour, of paying to serve their illustrious provincial capitol.

 

[k10ery]

Secured debt versus unsecured debt.

If the province defaults they can be forced to sell the asset.

I have to go with nfitz on this one. The debt for Metrolinx/IO projects is sovereign debt, not secured by anything. This is for the accountants: If they own the assets, then the borrowing has no impact the provincial deficit. If TTC owns the assets then they have to write it all off in the year it is transferred.

 

[nfitz]

Let me get this straight.

You haven't got it straight. You are so factually wrong in so many places, that's it's a mammoth task to point out all your mistakes. To put it simply if you stated something as fact, the odds are it's incorrect.

For the same of convenience (mine) I'll simply address the ICTS is faster. The current operating speed of the line is 28.5 km/hr, and this has dropped from the 34.9 km/hr previously scheduled, before they adjusted service because of the age of the system. The replacement is scheduled for 36 km/hr. The LRT is essentially the same speed (probably picks up a bit of average speed because of the slight increase in average station spacing).

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It's all the accountants fault.

To put it simply, if they own the asset, the books of the province look better, and it improves the credit rating of the province, and lowers borrowing costs.

I see. Makes sense.

Does anybody know if the TTC is free to manage the line however they want or do they need to go to Metrolinx when they want to change something.

 

[ssiguy2]

When I sssaid faster, I meant with the MK111 trains, which have faster pick-up then subway, LRT, or monorail. As for stations stops that has nothing to do with technology.

Not that any of this matters. The TTC will use LRT regardless of how little sense it makes so it can result in "great city building". Here's an idea...........instead of creating all these make-work projects for transit planners why don't they figure out how much they can afford first suchas with the DRL?

 

[nfitz]

When I sssaid faster, I meant with the MK111 trains, which have faster pick-up then subway, LRT, or monorail.

As Bombardier has yet to put a Mark III vehicle into operation, how can you assume it's faster? Like many of your facts, I think you are just making this stuff up. Or perhaps you can provide a link to show that it has higher acceleration and/or velocity? No, I didn't think so ....

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

No, I didn't think so ....

Do you have to be so rude?

 

[BurlOak]

I thought the cost was always 2.3B since the update in 2010? At least its shown here that escalated dollar for SRT replacement is 2.465B, not including the cost of the shared yard. This would be about 2.2B if you convert to 2011 dollars. Add in part of the yard, then 2.3B is about right...

Not sure where the 1.4B come from... was that the "original" cost?

I found the $1.4B cost in the 2009 Metrolinx "Scarborough Rapid Transit Benefits Case". Either inflation is about 60% for two years, or the numbers in that 2009 study greatly underestimated the amount of work (and cost) needed to convert the line to LRT - either deliberately or accidentaly. This means that the entire Benefit Cost study that concluded that LRT is the preferred option is completely out to lunch. Maybe this decision could be re-visited with this new information.

 

[nfitz]

Do you have to be so rude?

Hey, if they can find a link to support their claim that a yet to be built vehicle is going to be faster than the current Mark Is or IIs then I'll apologize to them. But my firm belief is that they are making up "facts" to support their argument.

 

[nfitz]

I found the $1.4B cost in the 2009 Metrolinx "Scarborough Rapid Transit Benefits Case". Either inflation is about 60% for two years, or the numbers in that 2009 study greatly underestimated the amount of work (and cost) needed to convert the line to LRT - either deliberately or accidentaly. This means that the entire Benefit Cost study that concluded that LRT is the preferred option is completely out to lunch. Maybe this decision could be re-visited with this new information.

Read the link that was provided - http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20100519/Five_in_Ten_Board_web.pdf - it provides both the $1.4 billion number in 2008 dollars, and the escalated number, in the year of spending at $2.465 billion. If you look at the cash flows, it's not two years of spending - the spending peaks in 2019/2020 ... that's 12 years of inflation, not 2 (for the peak spending year).

If you go run the numbers, you'll see that the document uses a construction price index of 4% (which is pretty typical). So then you can calculate the actual 2008$ of the $2.465 based on year of spending, and you get about $1.7 billion. So the price seems to have gone up from about $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion. At the same time though Finch seems to have dropped from $1.2 billion to $0.9 billion.

So if the escalated cost has now dropped to $2.3 billion, then the cost in 2008$ must now be less than $1.7 billion ... somewhere in $1.5 to $1.6 billion I'd guess. Or the money is being spent earlier (which isn't how these projects normally work )