MoveOntario 2020: GO Transit Electrification

[gweed123]

Well, if someone gave me free capital and I could invest it in different ways, I think I would care a lot about how many customers each option created.....sure, I would also care about operating costs and the net benefit each of those new customers brought me.....but if one option did not produce any new customers (extreme example) it makes the calc very easy

Creating a new line that adds capacity to the network where it needs it most is the most efficient way of generating ridership. The upsteam portions of the system that are not yet at capacity cannot reach their full potential until the areas downstream have enough capacity to be able to handle the increased load. Expanding the suburban system means very little in terms of overall system capacity benefits if the capacity of the network leading into a single point (or area) are congested and unable to handle the increased demand. The overall capacity of a linear system is determined by the most congested point. Increase the capacity at the most congested point, and the entire system will flow more efficiently. (And yes, I know that the subway system is not a linear system, but in the peak hour, it functions very much like a linear system. Morning = in, afternoon = out).

 

[gweed123]

Finch West was #17 for the peak hour with 11,300 (and #22 for the peak point at 4,500). Sheppard East LRT is so far down I don't know how it ranks ... 6,800 for peak hour which is below #25 ... and 3,100 for peak point which is somewhere around #24 - the same as VIVA Highway 7.

Thank you nfitz. It would be interesting to see what the projected ridership numbers are vs the current bus ridership. I can look that up later though, I don't have the time right now, haha. I wonder what would be classified as a 'successful increase in ridership' vs the current bus? 30%? 40%?

 

[SlickFranky]

Well, if someone gave me free capital and I could invest it in different ways, I think I would care a lot about how many customers each option created.....sure, I would also care about operating costs and the net benefit each of those new customers brought me.....but if one option did not produce any new customers (extreme example) it makes the calc very easy

You would, as more customers in the private sector means more income and more profit. For the TTC those "customers" may bring in revenue, but each "customer" they gain actually costs them more money. The only way they directly benefit from more riders is when the cost-per-rider goes down. Operating efficiency is the name of the game. That's why Sheppard is considered a failure by many, despite the sizable ridership gains.

 

[Northern Magus]

Insufficient funds, or just a misallocation of funds?

And Transit City as a whole may benefit more people, but break any of those projects down on ridership per dollar, and the DRL would come out on top. A $5B DRL with a daily ridership of 57,100 works out to $87,565/passenger, while the top TC project (Eglinton) works out to $4.6 billion for 30,700, which equals $149,837/passenger.

Quick response, ignoring the accusation of impropriety in your first sentence.

Your costs for the DCL are pretty laughable insofar as neither a firm route nor projected costs are even on the table at this time -- yet the unstated basis of your assertion is the specious assumption that they are.

Remember: extending Sheppard by six stops will cost approximately $3 billion ($2.1 billion in 2003 dollar estimates). And that's for a line that's way up on Sheppard, that wouldn't face the challenges of going under and around several of the Financial District's office towers, and that wouldn't have to go underneath and connect with four existing subway stations.

The DCL will probably have some very expensive engineering challenges ahead of it: proffering fatuous lowball estimates to try and artificially inflate its priority just isn't the same as comparing concrete figures.

 

[k10ery]

But are you factoring in the fact that those 'existing' passengers have just opened up spots on the YUS and BD lines? The amount of latent demand that the Yonge line has especially is pretty substantial. How many people COULD take the subway but don't because it's "too damn crowded"? How many of those optional riders would perhaps be drawn to transit because of the fact that the Yonge trains are no longer crammed like sardine cans? It's difficult to quantify, I will acknowledge that, but it still exists.

...

And why are 'new riders' more valuable than existing riders? Does their opinion/view/happiness matter more because they're fickle and will only take transit if it's rapid transit at their doorstep?

New riders really are worth more than happier existing riders, but GTA transportation planning really seems skewed to valuing only new riders (or is it 905 voters).

Suppose that every rider on a DRL was an existing rider, and that on average they saved 3 minutes travel time compared to their old route. If we value their time at $20/hr (before taxes) then the DRL is worth $1 per rider in time saved benefits. But if a new rider is attracted to the system, we know the benefit is at least as high as the $2.50 he or she pays to ride instead of driving. These numbers are rough but about right: we should value transit improvements for existing riders at only about 30-40% per rider of how we value improvements that attract new riders.

But the TTC only seems to value increased capacity and increased ridership, not riders' experience. Naturally. With such high fare box recovery on the operating budget, the TTC has every incentive to act like a private business - increasing market share and increasing operating profit.

Exhibit A is "DRL: No thanks". Exhibit B is the bus service cuts.

 

[gweed123]

Quick response, ignoring the accusation of impropriety in your first sentence.

Your costs for the DCL are pretty laughable insofar as neither a firm route nor projected costs are even on the table at this time -- yet the unstated basis of your assertion is the specious assumption that they are.

Remember: extending Sheppard by six stops will cost approximately $3 billion ($2.1 billion in 2003 dollar estimates). And that's for a line that's way up on Sheppard, that wouldn't face the challenges of going under and around several of the Financial District's office towers, and that wouldn't have to go underneath and connect with four existing subway stations.

The DCL will probably have some very expensive engineering challenges ahead of it: proffering fatuous lowball estimates to try and artificially inflate its priority just isn't the same as comparing concrete figures.

The route from Pape-Danforth to Union is roughly 5.5km (the route that most people have assumed that it will take, and say what you want, it will not vary significantly from that). I used $5B because it was a very very generous estimate (in order for the line to be $5B, it would need to be around $900M/km!). Say what you want, but I did anything but low-ball that. Find all the engineering challenges you want, I did not lowball that number.

In fact, adjusting that cost estimate down to $3 billion only furthers my point that it's the most worthwhile project from a dollars per passenger perspective.

ADD: Oh, and by the way, I measured what it would be for the full DRL (Pape-Union-Dundas West). At roughly 12.8km, $5 billion would still work out to $390 million/km. So again, far from a lowball.

 

[gweed123]

New riders really are worth more than happier existing riders, but GTA transportation planning really seems skewed to valuing only new riders (or is it 905 voters).

Suppose that every rider on a DRL was an existing rider, and that on average they saved 3 minutes travel time compared to their old route. If we value their time at $20/hr (before taxes) then the DRL is worth $1 per rider in time saved benefits. But if a new rider is attracted to the system, we know the benefit is at least as high as the $2.50 he or she pays to ride instead of driving. These numbers are rough but about right: we should value transit improvements for existing riders at only about 30-40% per rider of how we value improvements that attract new riders.

But the TTC only seems to value increased capacity and increased ridership, not riders' experience. Naturally. With such high fare box recovery on the operating budget, the TTC has every incentive to act like a private business - increasing market share and increasing operating profit.

Exhibit A is "DRL: No thanks". Exhibit B is the bus service cuts.

Interesting analysis. I hadn't quite thought of it in a dollars pespective in that sense. But, using your model, what if nearly every spot that those $1 people give up on the Yonge line leads to a $2.50 taking their place? Isn't a net gain of $3.50 better than a net gain of $2.50? Again, I go back to this 'latent demand' concept. It's very hard to quantify how many people AREN'T taking the TTC using the Yonge line currently for the sole reason that it's overcrowded. If the congestion on the Yonge line were to decrease by 17,500 people during peak hour, how many people would currently drive would choose to take the Yonge line instead?

 

[TOareaFan]

Interesting analysis. I hadn't quite thought of it in a dollars pespective in that sense. But, using your model, what if nearly every spot that those $1 people give up on the Yonge line leads to a $2.50 taking their place? Isn't a net gain of $3.50 better than a net gain of $2.50? Again, I go back to this 'latent demand' concept. It's very hard to quantify how many people AREN'T taking the TTC using the Yonge line currently for the sole reason that it's overcrowded. If the congestion on the Yonge line were to decrease by 17,500 people during peak hour, how many people would currently drive would choose to take the Yonge line instead?

Some, I am sure.....but who knows how many. Within my very small circle of friends/co-workers that drive even though they live within easy reach of the subway, when I ask them why they drive the answer (honestly) is never "the subway is too crowded" but it is often "because I like to and I can"......the answer to your first question is yes....and anyone (I think) who would judge line expenditure on a "new customer yield" basis would hopefully view it on a "net new" customer and take into account gains made elsewhere in the system that can be reasonably attributed to the expenditure/new line.

 

[nfitz]

The route from Pape-Danforth to Union is roughly 5.5km (the route that most people have assumed that it will take, and say what you want, it will not vary significantly from that).

Most people? Metrolinx assumed Queen. Former TTC Chair assumed Queen. Who is most people this side of the 1980s? (transit geeks don't count)

 

[gweed123]

Most people? Metrolinx assumed Queen. Former TTC Chair assumed Queen. Who is most people this side of the 1980s? (transit geeks don't count)

If it's Queen, then the line will be even shorter that if it was going down to Union. But yes, you are right, the Metrolinx RTP does show it going down Queen, but none of the written documentation (as far as I've read) have specifically mentioned Queen St.

 

[nfitz]

But yes, you are right, the Metrolinx RTP does show it going down Queen, but none of the written documentation (as far as I've read) have specifically mentioned Queen St.

The September 30 2010 TTC Status report on the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study does specifically mention Queen. Though it also explicitly mentions Front in the same sentance. Not necessarily Queen or Front, and it's clear that route isn't determined, and it isn't pre-ordained that it is going through Union.

Exact wording is "... Downtown Rapid Transit (DRT) line which is envisioned to operate from the Pape Station area on the Bloor-Danforth Subway, travelling south and west, into the downtown (between Queen Street and Front Street) and proceed westerly to Parkdale and, ultimately, to Dundas West Station;"

 

[rbt]

But are you factoring in the fact that those 'existing' passengers have just opened up spots on the YUS and BD lines?

Of course. The last line made quite clear I meant new riders to the system and not to the specific line in question.

A rider shifted from Bloor and replaced by a new rider, is good. A rider shifted from Bloor and not replaced does very little but result in higher operating costs after a large capital expenditure.

This equation of low operating subsidy makes it extremely important to get new riders with large increases in operating costs. If DRL-East adds $1 to the cost of your ride from Keele Station to York University, would it be worth it? Sheppard added about 15 cents; which it has since recovered through new ridership -- DRL will be much more expensive to operate.

One of the main reasons TTC is pushing Yonge line improvements is that they have minimal impact to operating costs. Expanding Bloor/Yonge station might cost $2B but the additional maintenance costs are minimal. $2B in new subway route, particularly a new line, adds significantly to operating costs and therefore fares or annual subsidy.

 

[gweed123]

The September 30 2010 TTC Status report on the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study does specifically mention Queen. Though it also explicitly mentions Front in the same sentance. Not necessarily Queen or Front, and it's clear that route isn't determined, and it isn't pre-ordained that it is going through Union.

Exact wording is "... Downtown Rapid Transit (DRT) line which is envisioned to operate from the Pape Station area on the Bloor-Danforth Subway, travelling south and west, into the downtown (between Queen Street and Front Street) and proceed westerly to Parkdale and, ultimately, to Dundas West Station;"

Thanks for posting that, I was not aware of that. And it's good that they haven't yet committed to an alignment without the results of the DRTES. I was incorrect earlier when I stated the whole Union thing, however, another reason for me choosing that was that that would be the longest possible practical alignment. And if my analysis held up with that number, it would hold up even better with a shorter alignment (and therefore a smaller cost, presumably). Better to overshoot than to undershoot, haha.

 

[k10ery]

But, using your model, what if nearly every spot that those $1 people give up on the Yonge line leads to a $2.50 taking their place? Isn't a net gain of $3.50 better than a net gain of $2.50?

I think you're absolutely right to include that as a benefit of DRL. But TTC is saying it would rather get the YUS capacity improvement by spending a billion plus on platform edge doors instead. PEDs wouldn't increase value for existing downtown riders one bit, but they won't add much to operating costs. So, in the TTC's bottom-line logic, PEDs it is.

Put it another way. If we funded the capital cost of DRL and looked for private firms to run it and pay 100% of operating costs out of revenues *at the TTC's fares* I'm sure we'd have SNC and others lining up to bid. Make this offer to the TTC and they say no. Of course they do. A monopolist never wants to introduce a new product that's going to cannibalize its existing business lines, after all. In this case, that's the BD and the YU loop.

 

[Rainforest]

One of the main reasons TTC is pushing Yonge line improvements is that they have minimal impact to operating costs. Expanding Bloor/Yonge station might cost $2B but the additional maintenance costs are minimal. $2B in new subway route, particularly a new line, adds significantly to operating costs and therefore fares or annual subsidy.

PEDs wouldn't increase value for existing downtown riders one bit, but they won't add much to operating costs. So, in the TTC's bottom-line logic, PEDs it is.

Let's not forget that more trains would have to run on Yonge to achieve higher capacity, in addition to the Bloor/Yonge expansion and the PED installation. More trains mean an increase in operating costs.

Moreover, DRL would allow less frequent peak-time service on the King streetcar. That's a reduction in operating costs, which won't happen if they choose Yonge capacity hike instead of DRL.

When all factors - extra trains for Yonge; effect of DRL on surface routes; and the fact that DRL is likely to bring at least some new riders - are accounted for, it is not obvious that Yonge capacity hike will come a winner, even in terms of the revenue / operating cost balance.