Metrolinx: UK Madrid Tour Report

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the Star - it seems the TTC is stonewalling:

TTC subways twice as costly as Madrid's
Expanded service likely to push ridership to new high
Fifteen million more riders last year weren't enough to break the TTC's 1988 record of 463.5 million. But 2008 promises to be the year.Metrolinx report looks at cost discrepancy, public-private alliance

Jan 24, 2008 04:30 AM
Tess Kalinowski
Staff Reporter

Madrid built 150 kilometres of subway between 1995 and 2007 for about $90 million per kilometre.

The Sheppard subway, by comparison, is about 6 kilometres long, took eight years to build and cost $200 million per kilometre.

That's a difference worth exploring, says Metrolinx, the Toronto region's transportation planning agency, though it acknowledges that direct comparisons with European examples it studied aren't fair.

The TTC is sending its own engineers to look at the Madrid subway this year. But chair Adam Giambrone is already rejecting England's idea of using public-private partnerships to extend subways.

A partnership with the private sector could compromise quality and, in the long run, cost more, he warned. "Retrofitting subways is very expensive."

He said that if the TTC had to negotiate a private-public deal to build the Transit City light rail lines it could delay the start of those projects, slated for 2009 and 2010.

Giambrone is also opposed to any arrangement that would put TTC operations in the hands of a private company, citing the case of Montreal, where riders pay a surcharge to ride on the Metro extension. But, a design-build partnership is something the TTC may consider on projects such as refurbishing and extending the Scarborough RT.

Metrolinx's chief executive officer, Michael Fenn, chair Rob MacIsaac and York Region chair Bill Fisch, who sits on the Metrolinx board, travelled to England and Spain in November to look at their transit systems.


Their report on that trip, to go before the Metrolinx board tomorrow, isn't meant to be authoritative or suggest any particular direction for the region, Fenn said. "One of the things we need to look at in the evaluation of the projects is the best way to deliver them," he said.

The report notes Madrid has been building subways under different political and geographical conditions. The extensive project can rely on economies of scale, in everything from the purchase of equipment to engineering contracts. "The government is taking a long-term view. They plan out the building of infrastructure over a long period of time. They don't do them as a one-off. It has the effect of creating an industry that specializes in that kind of work," Fenn said.

A 2003 consultant's analysis shows that, all things being equal, the difference in cost between Madrid and Toronto is only about 10 to 20 per cent, said TTC chief general manager Gary Webster.

The Madrid subway is built deeper than Toronto's because the soil is easier to dig. That means the Madrid rails don't need to be laid on rubber pucks to reduce noise and vibration, as is done in Toronto. Madrid's ventilation and evacuation standards are also different, he said, adding that Spain also requires less time-consuming public consultation on such projects.

AoD

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

Perhaps we should be looking at ways to elimnate time consuming and irrelevant reports and consultations.

For example, why was there an EA required for the streetcar Waterfront West extensions?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Using the Sheppard line as a per/km standard isn't wise. In that 6km, there's two terminus stations, including a bus terminal and a triple platform, there's absurdly deep stations, a bridge-tunnel over the Don, there was the tricky construction job building it between the Yonge line and the surface (the whole thing was made needlessly trickier by keeping all the roads open the entire time), etc. Even building it just as far as Victoria Park would have lowered the per/km cost by several tens of millions.

 

[p5connex]

I am sorry, but there is no way that Spain requires less time consuming public consultations. I lived in Barcelona in 2003/04, when they were starting to construct and were in the process of constructing new subway lines and a LRT route and there were extensive meetings, as well as consultations being held. What is the point of going to these places to get insights into the way other cities build their subways, if they don't choose to:

A) act on their findings, and hopefully see the light and make changes
and
B) use the report as a basis to improving and making our system more extensive.

In the end the report is useless information, because in effect, all those who ultimately read it and who are in any position to act on its findings, either brush it off as mere utopian garbage, or refuse to see that Toronto's way of doing things is ass-backwards.

p5

 

[allabootmatt]

p5 makes an important point: if anything, consultation/study rules are considerably more onerous, not less, in an EU state such as Spain. Not to mention the fact that labour regulations and construction standards are all much tighter! The number and extent of European-level rules which apply for almost any public project is enormous. And yet they get done.

p5, were those consultations for the NE metro extension and the new tram line on Gran Via des whatevers in BCN?

 

[p5connex]

allabootmatt: p5, were those consultations for the NE metro extension and the new tram line on Gran Via des whatevers in BCN?

Yes, I believe it was the tram along Gran Via, but I am not sure- I remember something about the Diagonal. Nonetheless, this was the first tram built in over 4 or 5 decades and it meant a lot to a lot of people, both positively and negatively.

As for the Metro expansion, I remember it was expansion, but specifically to the NE or E I am no longer sure. I was interning at an Architecture office there, when this was happening and my Catalan/Spanish was pretty rough.

p5

 

[CDL.TO]

A partnership with the private sector could compromise quality and, in the long run, cost more, he warned. "Retrofitting subways is very expensive."

Huh?

Giambrone is also opposed to any arrangement that would put TTC operations in the hands of a private company, citing the case of Montreal, where riders pay a surcharge to ride on the Metro extension.

Wha?

There's a surcharge on the Montreal Metro extension because it crosses into another city, no different than TTC bus routes operating north of Steeles.

Seems to me like he's making up reasons as to why PPPs can't work.

 

[nfitz]

Perhaps someone more knowlegdeable about EAs could clarify that?

Currently, subways require an individual EA, that takes about 2-3 years ... or longer as it's completely at the goodwill of the MOE, that has to approve the EA at many stages - they've been delaying approving the second attempt at the Georgetown/Pearson EA now since 2006!

With the new class EA for transit, streetcar lines can be constructed under a class EA, which can be finished in less than a year - and the whole project is much more constrained, which allows design to be done concurrently with the EA process, meaning that the shovels can be in the ground in about a year - and the EA process doesn't add any time other than what was already being done for design and planning. So there's a time savings of about 2-3 years.

I suppose one could try and create a new class EA for subways - though as the Spadina extension, Sheppard Extension, first stage of the SRT extension, and perhaps even parts of the Yonge extension have already completed a class EA, then there isn't much time to be saved here, unless people start looking at other lines.

I haven't read the new class EA for transit. I'm not sure what is going to happen when TTC tries to build a full-scale subway down Eglinton to operate streetcars under the class EA. MOE still has to approve the end-product, and I wonder if they'd say it's too similiar to a subway and be bumped up to a individual EA - which I'm sure that citizen's groups may be complaining about.

 

[unimaginative2]

Using the Sheppard line as a per/km standard isn't wise. In that 6km, there's two terminus stations, including a bus terminal and a triple platform, there's absurdly deep stations, a bridge-tunnel over the Don, there was the tricky construction job building it between the Yonge line and the surface (the whole thing was made needlessly trickier by keeping all the roads open the entire time), etc. Even building it just as far as Victoria Park would have lowered the per/km cost by several tens of millions.

I agree, but remember that recent cost projections (since the anti-subway brigade came to power) have shown 50% or more increases in costs over Sheppard, even with less complicated interchange stations.

The difference between light rail and subway is that far fewer people will oppose subway projects. When people start to realize that Transit City will entail the lost of hundreds of lane-miles of road, thousands of trees, hundreds of front lawns, and hundreds of on-street parking spaces, I guarantee there will be rather spirited opposition. On the other hand, I've never met anyone in my life, other than transit "advocates," who opposes a bored subway.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

But you can't even gauge inflationary changes properly using Sheppard as an example. Not that we have a choice...there's been no other recent construction. Between the anti-subway brigade and Stubway's 'excesses,' per/km estimates are usually meaningless.

 

[officedweller]

Seems to me like he's making up reasons as to why PPPs can't work.

Agreed.
A P3 would work best for a separate line (i.e. operationally distinct) and fare systems can be integrated - it just depends on what you negotiate with the private partner. i.e. The Canada Line in Vancouver will be operated within Translink's existing fare structure and fares will be set by Translink (as opposed to the private partner setting tolls on the 407 Expressway) - it just depends on the framework established in the Request for Proposals.
Ultimately, it probably boils down to the TTC wanting to retain complete control (i.e. why isn't there fare integration with GO?)

 

[RedRocket191]

Agreed.
A P3 would work best for a separate line (i.e. operationally distinct) and fare systems can be integrated - it just depends on what you negotiate with the private partner. i.e. The Canada Line in Vancouver will be operated within Translink's existing fare structure and fares will be set by Translink (as opposed to the private partner setting tolls on the 407 Expressway) - it just depends on the framework established in the Request for Proposals.
Ultimately, it probably boils down to the TTC wanting to retain complete control (i.e. why isn't there fare integration with GO?)

Second that, but only for separate lines.

I think the problem with the federal government is that they are trying to establish one policy and have it apply to all cities and provinces in the country. It's just not possible to govern an entire country with one set of rules.

 

[isittimetomoveyet]

With the new class EA for transit, streetcar lines can be constructed under a class EA, which can be finished in less than a year - and the whole project is much more constrained, which allows design to be done concurrently with the EA process, meaning that the shovels can be in the ground in about a year - and the EA process doesn't add any time other than what was already being done for design and planning. So there's a time savings of about 2-3 years.

So subways are not covered under the new class EA for transit?

 

[nfitz]

So subways are not covered under the new class EA for transit?

I didn't think so - but I haven't read it, and may be wrong.

I just went searching for it ... it's the most horrific format:
http://www.municipalengineers.on.ca...docsetID=A523A5DA-6B61-4130-9DF4-3CB77514411B The section on Transit begins in http://www.municipalengineers.on.ca/classea/manual/manualSimple.asp?section={5CA3FD42-B1D0-41BC-96EF-8499063F1344}

Municipal Transit refers to public transportation services (and facilities) undertaken by a municipality for travel within a municipality or region, and can incorporate various technologies including bus, streetcar/light rail vehicle, Intermediate Capacity Transit Systems (ICTS), and heavy rail.. Though it then goes on to note that for the purposes of the class EA that new heavy rail lines and maintenance facilities, or extensions of existing heavy rail lines are not included in this transit chapter.

So it appears that subways are not covered ... though it does go on to say that constructing a new subway station on an existing line is covered.

So the class EA for the Eglinton LRT will be interesting. If they do design the tunnel to run subway trains in at some point, then I'd think that anyone opposing the thing, would have good grounds to ask the MOE to bump the study up to a full individual EA - delaying it by several years. I guess it will get into politics.

 

[JasonParis]

Their report on that trip, to go before the Metrolinx board tomorrow, isn't meant to be authoritative or suggest any particular direction for the region, Fenn said. "One of the things we need to look at in the evaluation of the projects is the best way to deliver them," he said.

Wow, that's typical for these parts. Send our so-called experts somewhere where they dared to be bold on infrastructure and immediately report "that this trip has nothing to do with suggesting a particular direction for the region." In other words, don't even dare to dream about the same thing happening here!

I am sorry, but there is no way that Spain requires less time consuming public consultations.

I'm no expert, but in general the bureaucratic layers in Europe are much thicker than here.

From the Star - it seems the TTC is stonewalling

It does. It sounds like Giambrone is freightened by the prospect that massive subway building still makes sense in many places in this day and age.