Fate of the SRT

[unimaginative2]

The three Ellesmere buses take different routes (Neilson, Ellesmere to the end, and Military Trail). Unless the LRT is branched, it wouldn't replace all of them.

That's of course true. It would replace them for only a segment. Some of the Neilson buses should anyway be routed on the 401.

The "Morningside" route should really be called "Eglinton - Kingston", that part isn't controversial. The UTSC to Kennedy using that route wouldn't be bad at all: about 8 km, 20 min at 22 km/h. The alternative route would be 10 min to STC plus about 7 min on subway to Kennedy. The saving is pretty small and the number of transfers is same (1).

That's true, but even giving the relatively small (3 minute) time savings you suggest, why wouldn't everybody take it? That's not to mention the added reliability of the shorter surface route.

The "absurdity" applies to the nothern part, where the line is scheduled to run through empty fields and then tilt back west. The trip from Malvern Town Centre to Kennedy via Morningside will take 10 or 15 min more than the trip via STC.

Exactly. And I think that's being very charitable.

 

[kEiThZ]

Can anybody speculate on the following cost issues:

1) Cost to extend the BD and replace the proposed SRT extension to Malvern Town Centre with LRT.

2) Cost to finish the Sheppard subway, and the savings from eliminating the LRT portion that would be along the subway route.

I suspect on the point 1, that it would likely be about half a billion more in the wash and that the TTC just could not justify to having that outlay on ridership, perhaps. That, or their planners were high when they did the math.

On the second, perhaps there is a similar argument. Though I don't know how the math works out.

Unimaginative2...thanks for your input. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to attend the next public consultation.

 

[Rainforest]

Rainforest

Can anybody speculate on the following cost issues:

1) Cost to extend the BD and replace the proposed SRT extension to Malvern Town Centre with LRT.

2) Cost to finish the Sheppard subway, and the savings from eliminating the LRT portion that would be along the subway route.

SRT upgrade plus extention to Sheppard / Markham Rd was quoted at 1.1 billion. Going further to Malvern TC, about 3 km at 80 m per km, means 1.35 billion.

BD extension to STC was quoted at 1.2 billion (Soberman's report), but that includes just two stations (Lawrence and STC). IMO, if the subway is extended at all, more stations should be build, so let's assume 1.3 billion. LRT from STC to Malvern, about 7 km at 40 m per km, brings it to 1.6 billion.

Conversion of SRT to LRT was quoted at 490 m (Soberman's report). Together with the Malvern LRT section, total 800 m.

Extending Sheppard subway to Agincourt would be about 1.2 billion (200 m per km), to STC 1.7 billion.

Sheppard LRT estimate now stands at 800 m. At least 300 m would be eliminated if it starts at Agincourt instead of Don Mills (but actually if the subway gets extended, the LRT route might have to be reconsidered, hence the cost may go up or down).

The above numbers are not precise (for one, the cost is not exactly proportional to the length), but should be reasonable estimates.

 

[nfitz]

Uh, nfitz, once again your eagerness to disagree betrays a misundestanding of the situation. First of all, you choose the most infamously extreme examples in history.

Uh, actually I simply chose the two most well known systems, and Montreal as I lived there long enough in the 1980s with the maps showing lines, some of which may be complete sometime in the 2020s. I believe I could have drawn examples from Paris as well

What about the vast numbers of lines built in a handful of years across Asia and Europe?

Apart from Madrid, I'm not sure using examples from totalitarian or recent totalitarian states really is comparable. Madrid is indeed quite the feat and kudos to TTC and Metrolinx for wanting to study it!

Not to mention our very own BD and Yonge lines, both built in five years.

In your eagerness to disagree you've forgotten that only the final construction time was 5 years (the actual construction time of the new Spadina extension is similiar). You conveniently forget the decades of argument that went before that on where to put the lines. Transit Toronto reports that the City of Toronto was discussing the Yonge line as early as 1909 "from Eglinton Avenue to Front Street", and it became a main part of the 1910 mayoral race. Also on the 1910 ballot was a referendum question "Are you in favour of the City of Toronto applying to the legislature for power to construct and operate a municipal system of subway and surface street railway, subject to the approval of qualified ratepayers." which passed. In 1911 the city tendered the construction of a subway from Front to St. Clair. After 1912 the issue died until 1941, with the existing Front to Eglinton plan coming about in 1942, eventually going to referendum in 1946. Council approved construction in 1946, but it didn't open until 1953. I really don't know how you get 5 years out of this, you've not included the design time, and the years of pre-design dithering. At best the Yonge subway took 12 years from conception to opening. At worst 42 years.

You bring up the Laval extension, which is yet another good example of inflated TTC costs. It cost $745 million, even after cost overruns, for a line with three stations and a major river crossing. There is no reason why a Toronto extension should cost $1.2 billion for a comparable length with only two tunnels and no complex terrain.

Your obvious lack of ability to comprehend the geological differences between Laval and North York are terrifying. Montreal uses one tunnel, because of the narrow trains, and the tunnels being primarily constructed in bedrock. Toronto uses oversized vehicles, and the poor geologic conditions result in the need for two tunnels. You also forget that the Laval extension was so massively overbudget that the provincial government called an inquiry to look into it. This CBC article from 2000 notes that the budget was supposed to be $179 million, rather than the final $745 million - inflation would account for some of this, but most of it goes to the inept planning and budgeting. Also remember that much of the cost is stations, however there are 6 stations on the Spadina extension, and only 3 on the Laval extension (plus a new platform at Henri-Bourassa).

 

[unimaginative2]

Apart from Madrid, I'm not sure using examples from totalitarian or recent totalitarian states really is comparable. Madrid is indeed quite the feat and kudos to TTC and Metrolinx for wanting to study it!

So I guess pretty much every country in Europe or Asia is authoritarian or "recent-authoritarian"? Yup, authoritarian countries like Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, South Korea.

In your eagerness to disagree you've forgotten that only the final construction time was 5 years (the actual construction time of the new Spadina extension is similiar). You conveniently forget the decades of argument that went before that on where to put the lines. Transit Toronto reports that the City of Toronto was discussing the Yonge line as early as 1909 "from Eglinton Avenue to Front Street", and it became a main part of the 1910 mayoral race. Also on the 1910 ballot was a referendum question "Are you in favour of the City of Toronto applying to the legislature for power to construct and operate a municipal system of subway and surface street railway, subject to the approval of qualified ratepayers." which passed. In 1911 the city tendered the construction of a subway from Front to St. Clair. After 1912 the issue died until 1941, with the existing Front to Eglinton plan coming about in 1942, eventually going to referendum in 1946. Council approved construction in 1946, but it didn't open until 1953. I really don't know how you get 5 years out of this, you've not included the design time, and the years of pre-design dithering. At best the Yonge subway took 12 years from conception to opening. At worst 42 years.

Wow. Okay. That's exactly what I was saying. Construction time. Not arguing time. If we made the decision to build the Scarborough subway today, it would not take anywhere near 15 years. Since you appear to agree with me, I guess there's no point in arguing.

I'm also well aware that Montreal had massive cost overruns, as I mentioned before. The whole point is that even with massive cost overruns, it cost them two thirds less. We also have EPB tunnel boring devices these days that can easily compensate for non-bedrock conditions. Of course, since I mentioned that most of the extension could be reasonably built elevated, that's not so much of an issue!

 

[Dan416]

Can anybody speculate on the following cost issues:

1) Cost to extend the BD and replace the proposed SRT extension to Malvern Town Centre with LRT.

2) Cost to finish the Sheppard subway, and the savings from eliminating the LRT portion that would be along the subway route.

I suspect on the point 1, that it would likely be about half a billion more in the wash and that the TTC just could not justify to having that outlay on ridership, perhaps. That, or their planners were high when they did the math.

On the second, perhaps there is a similar argument. Though I don't know how the math works out.

Unimaginative2...thanks for your input. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to attend the next public consultation.

Regarding costing, I think the TTC will just choose whatever they want to do regardless of numbers based on what they want. Clearly a subway replacement would work best for the riders and wouldn't be prohibitively more expensive, even based on their own numbers, so there's another reason behind not going that route.

Same thing applies to Transit City.

 

[nfitz]

So I guess pretty much every country in Europe or Asia is authoritarian or "recent-authoritarian"? Yup, authoritarian countries like Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, South Korea.

I'm not aware of particularly fast advances in subways in Switzerland, Germany, or Sweden. I've very well aquainted with both the Busan and Seoul subways - and growth HAS been very fast. But this is EXACTLY which country I was thinking about when I referred to totalitarian states. It hasn't been that many years since the newspapers were regularily full of reports of the goverment suppressing pro-democracy demonstrations. Don't forget that the country was a military dictatorship until 1987, and even until the 1990s the military controlled the presidency. Although subway construction in Seoul is still massive compared to Toronto, construction starts have slowed considerably since the 1990s.

Wow. Okay. That's exactly what I was saying. Construction time. Not arguing time. If we made the decision to build the Scarborough subway today, it would not take anywhere near 15 years.

No, but you need design time, etc. 7-8 years total if you've got your act together.

I'm also well aware that Montreal had massive cost overruns, as I mentioned before. The whole point is that even with massive cost overruns, it cost them two thirds less.

$745 million is 2/3 less than $1.2 billion? It's $455 million less, which is a bit more than 1/3 less than $1.2 billion.

 

[unimaginative2]

I'm not aware of particularly fast advances in subways in Switzerland, Germany, or Sweden. I've very well aquainted with both the Busan and Seoul subways - and growth HAS been very fast. But this is EXACTLY which country I was thinking about when I referred to totalitarian states. It hasn't been that many years since the newspapers were regularily full of reports of the goverment suppressing pro-democracy demonstrations. Don't forget that the country was a military dictatorship until 1987, and even until the 1990s the military controlled the presidency. Although subway construction in Seoul is still massive compared to Toronto, construction starts have slowed considerably since the 1990s.

Oh. So because they were authoritarian two decades ago, it means faster subway construction today? The logic escapes me.

No, but you need design time, etc. 7-8 years total if you've got your act together.

Wow. Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Fine. 7 years, not 5. But I still think that timeline's absurd.

$745 million is 2/3 less than $1.2 billion? It's $455 million less, which is a bit more than 1/3 less than $1.2 billion.

Forgive me. Sometimes I type too quickly. 2/3 of, not 2/3 less.

 

[CDL.TO]

As mayor, John Sewell made serious proposals for suburban light rail when he was mayor in 1978-80. Plans were drawn up and studied as part of the Scarborough LRT line in the 1980s for on-street LRT extensions from Scarborough Centre.

Toss in a few years for construction, and (by nfitz's standards) it will have taken in excess of 30 years to build Transit City! Apparently LRT construction isn't any faster than subway construction.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Keithz: The city government has to govern for all areas including Scarborough, yes, but it's failing to govern for all areas of Scarborough, which explains why over $3 billion worth of transit projects to Malvern have been proposed...perhaps they're aiming high and assuming one or two projects will be killed, but they could easily aim lower and achieve infinitely better results with a Danforth extension to STC and assorted LRT branches.

Even if a subway extension plus a streetcar from STC to Malvern were to cost one or two hundred million more than a rebuilt/extended RT, so what? Transit projects aren't funded by taking X million and divying it up, nor should they be. Comparing projects solely by cost ignores what you get for the money, and we'll get *far* more with a subway extension...many more riders will benefit, more development, faster travel.

The thing is, a subway extension was purportedly rejected based on cost, but the alternative presented costs the same. Everyone knows how ridiculously stupid the decision is to keep the RT, so they've gone to great lengths to justify it (keith mentions some of the points). My favourite is the "loss" of service at Midland and Ellesmere station...I've written about them before, but I'll note now that neither has more than about 200 walk-in riders per day, and even if the stations were eliminated, these 200 people could get on a Midland bus to Kennedy station, a bus that's very often faster than the RT itself.

Also, unless people are actually riding along a loop/arc like YUS downtown, what real purpose do they have other than looking "complete" on maps? If Sheppard and Danforth were both built to STC, I wouldn't have them become one line...such long lines become unmanageable, mask low ridership, prevent extensions, etc.

 

[kEiThZ]

Everyone keeps saying that the BD extension and LRT to Malvern, in lieu of the refurbishment of the SRT would cost the same, could anybody please venture a guess on this point? I would say that it would at least cost a half billion more. While I support the idea, maybe that just a half billion too much for the TTC.

I agree with Scarberian's points, but I am still left baffled by the Commission's logic. :-(

 

[nfitz]

Everyone keeps saying that the BD extension and LRT to Malvern, in lieu of the refurbishment of the SRT would cost the same...

No, many of us were pointing out months ago that it would be quite different - we are just tired of having to repeat ourselves, and defend how much a subway costs. Those who seem to think it is the same, seem to do so by costing subway construction using 10-year old dollars, and lower costs, using the justification that it must cost less than the TTC says it does. The latest trick seems to be to cost the subway as an EL - as if that's going to happen.

 

[unimaginative2]

Sigh... First of all, the $1.2 billion figure that all of us are using for comparison are the TTC's own figures, from their report that they used to evaluate the various options. As for potential cost savings through different alignments, you can be damned sure that I (and many others on the forum) will point out places where the TTC can save money on subway construction. There are invariably many, many of those places.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Everyone keeps saying that the BD extension and LRT to Malvern, in lieu of the refurbishment of the SRT would cost the same, could anybody please venture a guess on this point? I would say that it would at least cost a half billion more. While I support the idea, maybe that just a half billion too much for the TTC.

I agree with Scarberian's points, but I am still left baffled by the Commission's logic. :-(

That's because the decision isn't logical.

We don't know what the final price tag of the RT renovation plus the extension to Malvern Town Centre will be...at a recent open house a city official told me it'll end up being at least $1.5B. The TTC guessed the cost of a subway extension at $1.2B (edit - this could reach $1.5B if this figure hasn't been preadjusted for inflation or if the TTC decides to add hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contingency like Spadina).

The point that nfitz seems incapable of appreciating is that whether a subway extension (plus LRT to Malvern) costs $10M more or even $400M more than just the RT extension does not matter in the grand scheme of things (particularly in a MoveOntario/Metrolinx era); this comparison completely ignores what we get for the money. It is absolutely indisputable that more people benefit from a subway extension that replaces the RT than from an extended RT. People preoccupied with splitting hairs over the cost of transit projects are generally not concerned with the experiences of real transit riders or city building, just budgets and technologies and maps.

 

[nfitz]

It is absolutely indisputable that more people benefit from a subway extension that replaces the RT than from an extended RT.

Well I suppose if you mean speeding up the trip for some of those that already have RT, at the expense of many who don't - and even some who already do, given that you'll be ditching 3 RT stops en-route.

However, your point, rightly or wrongly, has been made - why you haven't stopped highjacking threads left, right, centre, and green on this I don't know. It's not like your opinion will change the outcome of what happens.