Sheppard Line 4 Subway Extension (Proposed)

[afransen]

Even if Sheppard subway is not able to be converted to lighter OL-style rolling stock that would be amenable to elevated guideway, what we would do is have OL extend to Sheppard/Don Mills Station and branch, with one branch heading east along Sheppard to connect with Line 2 (either at STC or McCowan), and another branch north toward Markham Centre. You could then offer service along the two branches (Markham to McCowan) without impacting capacity on OL, as well as single-seat rides from those branches as far as Ex station. That would be, IMO, a better use of funds than building an LRT on Sheppard, which would itself cost at least $1.5B in capital costs.

 

[sixrings]

I am anti LRT as an interim solution. LRT is very expensive, we can't think of it as interim. If it is something we expect ridership to outgrow in 20 or 30 years, I'd rather we build BRT now and metro (elevated) later when BRT capacity is exceeded. Subway is never going to happen. Finch W makes some sense to me, as I can't image us building metro on FInch, but maybe I am wrong.

The problem is that median LRT is not true rapid transit. It is not much better than BRT, other than in capacity or opex. But if the ridership is there to support LRT, elevated metro is a better long term choice as it doesn't cost that much more than median LRT, provides far more capacity, more reliability and higher speeds. Also, even lower opex because it can be automated.

I don't know how you can say someone is 'subways subways subways' when they are advocating for BRT? If anything, I am anti-subway, as in pointlessly underground rail transit in subways that can support elevated. I am pro-grade separation. It is insanity to spend billions to move people long distances in road medians with lots of conflicts with pedestrians and cars. LRT is great for shorter distances where buses can't support the volumes (streetcars downtown) and we are not able to build elevated rail.

I’m saying sometimes subway subway subway people advocate for brt because they know once a lrt goes in that likely it won’t be ripped up.

I always thought that they should just convert the subway to lrt or whatever so they could extend it but people did the math and it’s over a billion conversion. When people here the conversion number then they say just extend the subway. Sure to Victoria park. But that’s not exactly a network it’s one maybe two extra stops because we couldn’t afford to keep going and the linear transfer remains.

again I have no problem with above ground transit test project. But I think it’s going to cost more than we think and face a lot of public backlash from sheppard residents who will ask why they did to deserve an elevated train ruining their views.

 

[afransen]

again I have no problem with above ground transit test project. But I think it’s going to cost more than we think and face a lot of public backlash from sheppard residents who will ask why they did to deserve an elevated train ruining their views.

This isn't a good reason to spend billions on something that is only marginally better than BRT. If they don't want elevated metro, give them BRT. I don't know why they would be opposed to elevated metro, it would be very good for property values.

 

[sixrings]

This isn't a good reason to spend billions on something that is only marginally better than BRT. If they don't want elevated metro, give them BRT. I don't know why they would be opposed to elevated metro, it would be very good for property values.

I think a lot of people haven’t seen some of the better elevated transit. As a result they imagine scenes from nyc or Chicago movies where subways pass by and the whole apartment shakes.

I love the subway in nyc but in Astoria dit mars that above ground train really does kill the shopping vibe. I’d take it over nothing but others might see it differently especially how close they are to sheppard.

again the cost of lrt vs brt is in question over the lifetime of the system. Brt obviously is cheaper to get going but many experts believe lrt gets cheaper the further out we go.

 

[afransen]

I think a lot of people haven’t seen some of the better elevated transit. As a result they imagine scenes from nyc or Chicago movies where subways pass by and the whole apartment shakes.

I love the subway in nyc but in Astoria dit mars that above ground train really does kill the shopping vibe. I’d take it over nothing but others might see it differently especially how close they are to sheppard.

again the cost of lrt vs brt is in question over the lifetime of the system. Brt obviously is cheaper to get going but many experts believe lrt gets cheaper the further out we go.

We can't cater to subway or nothing people. I keep seeing the narrative of 'X got an underground rail line, why do they deserve it and not us? Are we second class citizens?' This is a recipe for no rail service because Toronto can't build subway for less than $1b/km. Then we get the compromise of the barely-better-bus LRT, which costs nearly as much as a metro should cost.

 

[sixrings]

We can't cater to subway or nothing people. I keep seeing the narrative of 'X got an underground rail line, why do they deserve it and not us? Are we second class citizens?' This is a recipe for no rail service because Toronto can't build subway for less than $1b/km. Then we get the compromise of the barely-better-bus LRT, which costs nearly as much as a metro should cost.

I liked your comment. But the second part of the costs I think are debatable. A lot of lrt costs include widening the roads and that sort of thing. If we actually build brt the same way those expenses will add up the same way. In the end you can always convert a fully dedicated brt bus lane to lrt in the future. So I’m perfectly ok with a brt. But for many brt just means an express bus with jump lanes.

 

[syn]

I am anti LRT as an interim solution. LRT is very expensive, we can't think of it as interim. If it is something we expect ridership to outgrow in 20 or 30 years, I'd rather we build BRT now and metro (elevated) later when BRT capacity is exceeded.

An LRT along Sheppard will likely be able to handle the ridership on that corridor for several generations. It's not going to max out in a couple of decades.

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that an LRT is barely better than a bus. It's a lot better, and has far higher capacity. Implement proper signal priority and you have a fairly efficient ride.

 

[sixrings]

An LRT along Sheppard will likely be able to handle the ridership on that corridor for several generations. It's not going to max out in a couple of decades.

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that an LRT is barely better than a bus. It's a lot better, and has far higher capacity. Implement proper signal priority and you have a fairly efficient ride.

I think the lrt has to battle the image of a street car.

above ground transit has to battle those nyc movies images I talked about.

while the bus has to battle the image of a dirty greyhound or the vomit commit.

each have their own issues while subways are perceived as dependable, fast, hip even at their staggering costs.

 

[drum118]

This too long for a single post and need to look at the 4 posting for this.

Here is a rough copy of BRT vs LRT I did in 2010 and no idea where the spreadsheet is for it and this is long. It was based on real numbers for cost for a transit system at all levels they were paying for.

BRT vs LRT
Over the years there have been great debates as to what is the best type of system between BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) or LRT (light Rail Transit) better known as streetcars.

Both systems have their strong points was well weak points.

One thing that get noticed more than it should, is the up front cost to build a BRT system. There is more to font end cost that needs to be looked before deciding BRT is the way to go.

It is a provident factor that BRT up front cost will wins hands down when it come to cost to built either systems, but will it do the job overtime?

One thing that needs to be looked at is the labour cost of each system as Labour eats ups 80% of operation cost and will only increase more over time. Therefore we must look at ways have to save manpower/labour to meet this growing trend.

One has to be careful as how they class a BRT from express buses. Unless a BRT is in its own ROW (Right-of-Way) like LRT, it is an express bus making limited stops using priority traffic signalizes lights. This also applies to LRT in mix traffic.

The one thing that never taken into consideration for buses or express buses is the cost to build or maintain the roads they run on as an express bus. It is the same thing when you try to compare buses to streetcars that run in mix traffic. Streetcars have to factor in the cost to build and maintain the tracks they run on even though all type of traffic use it also.

The operation cost is where LRT comes out ahead cost wise as you need less manpower to carry the same number of riders as a bus. Also, people prefer to ride steel wheels than rubber wheel, as steel wheels provide a smother ride in the first place.

Below, I have done an analyze between BRT and LRT based on a 30 year cycle starting at 2010 to 2040. I have used 60 foot articulated and 40 foot buses for BRT while use a 30m off the shelf LRT for comparison. The price is based on the current cost for the buses been received this year by Mississauga Transit.

I have also used rider standard of 70 for articulated buses, 52 for 40 foot bus and 125 for LRT. I have used single LRT to 3 car units to help to arrive at the number of vehicles needed to carry various ridership from a single point as well the headway they will run at for the point load.

I have used 3% as a yearly cost increase as to wages and 1% for the cost to purchase vehicles.

I have not taken into consideration the cost of extra employees need to be added as you add more vehicles to the fleet as it various from systems to system as well the rate of pay. You need to add a cleaner, body worker, mechanic, route supervisor and office personal to cover these extra vehicles.

I have used a hour rate for peak time based on a 40 hour week and 52 weeks for the year. I have not allow for holidays or cut in service during the summer months. I have not allow a cost to cover all the extra employees that will be need to put the vehicles on the road.

If a driver earns $60,000 that includes all benefits and holiday pay today, by 2040 they will be earning $145,636 a year, based on a yearly 3% increase. They will have earn a total of $3,000,161 over those 30 years.

The cost of the vehicles will be varies from system to system due to the size of the order and type of equipment been spec.

Carrying capacity​

Ridership or carrying capacity of a vehicle is base on a square of 19 inches per rider and this become an major issue between planners and riders. This square would be correct if we live in a world where everyone is the same size, wear the same cloths and carry nothing onto the vehicle, but that not the case.

We live in different parts of North America where some require of us have to wear heavy coats during the winter months while other wear light jackets.

We all carry something from packsack to computers along with our goods, food, drinks onto the vehicles.

It has been claimed that 60 foot articulated buses have a crush load capacity of 125, yet based on my experience of riding them, the maximum number has been 105 during the summer month and that was very rare to see. You are lucky to see 100 riders at crush load. During the winter months, you are lucky to get 90 riders on it. Then, crush load is not the way to attract people to use a transit system in the first place and we must set ridership numbers per vehicle to make it more easy to get off or on to attract them in the first place.

As for 40 foot buses, 100 is the claim number for crush load, yet the most I have seen is 85 where people were sitting on riders laps.

I have said that the peak load of an articulated bus at Peak time is 70 at the highest loading area or point of a route, allow room if something happens along the route not plan for. This mean 55 riders will have a seat leaving 15 people to stand. The peak load for a 40 foot bus is 52 allowing 38 rider to sit and 14 to stand.

For off peak service, the carrying capacity of an articulated bus is 45 and 30 for a 40 foot bus.

Where these numbers can go out the window is when you are carrying an accessibility person, a person with a walker or strollers. Strollers are a major issue as they come in all sizes and shapes. It not bad when you have one on the bus, but anymore than one causes all kinds of problems and eat up that spare room.

Therefore for this analyze, I am using 3,000 riders from a single point. I have other data up to 10,000 riders from a single point and that information can be found in a spreadsheet Here.

Ridership​

Even though I am using 3,000 from a single point for my analyze, we need to adjust that number over time as more people use the system. I will use 2% year increase to see what the numbers will be by 2040. There is no guarantee that this will happen as some routes reach a certain number and will remain the same year after year, but lets take a look what 2% increase will do anyway.

Starting with 3,000 in 2010 and using the yearly increase of 2%, we will see 5,434 riders by 2040. That will have a higher impact to the final cost than the 3,000 figure I am using for this analyze.

 

[drum118]

Number of vehicles require​

Since we know the load factor is 3,000 as well the carrying capacity of each vehicle, we can determine the number of vehicles require base on their size. The number of vehicles will also tell us the number of driver that will be require to move these vehicles. The number say we will need 43 articulated buses or 58 40 foot buses and 24 single LRT or 12 2 car unites.

Headway between vehicles​

Now we know the type of vehicles as well the number of them, we can now determine the headway between vehicles. The headway for 43 articulated bus is 84 seconds or 1.84 minutes. 58 40 buses will be 62 seconds or 1.05 minutes. For 24 single LRT, headway is 150 seconds or 2.5 minutes. If we run these single LRT as a pair, headway becomes 300 seconds or 5 minutes.

One thing we have to look at when it comes to headway is the amount of dwell time to off load and load these vehicles. The more you have off loading and loading, the longer the dwell time will be and how long it will take for that vehicle to move so the next one can get into the spot. The shorter the headway becomes, the greater the changes you will start to see vehicles bunch up at stop and create the convoy effect.

Riders themselves play a large part in this backup by not having their fare ready to board the vehicle. This cause a backup for riders trying to get on the vehicle and increase the dwell time. Going to a POP (Proof of Payment) system will allow faster loading time as you can use all the doors of the vehicle.

Cost of vehicles​

I am using this year 2010 order of vehicles by Mississauga Transit as my base cost factor starting point and will use 1% yearly increase to arrive at the final cost for a 30 year life cycle for them. This can only be a guide as the cost of the vehicles over the 30 year cycle depend on many thing as to who the system is, how many been order, what the market is like at the time of order and etc.

To date, both Mississauga Transit and OC Transpo in Ottawa, Ontario, the 2 largest system of articulated buses in Canada have not been getting the 12 years of service with their low floor models. They are only getting 10 years of service out of them and this has an effect on the final out come cost wise based on when they are order.

$717,525.13 is the current cost of an articulated bus and at 1% yearly increase of cost, it will cost $967,115 by 2040. Using the 10 year life cycle, buses will have to be replace in 2020 and 2030. Therefore, it will cost $101,903,235 for the 30 year life cycle or $104,447,868 if the buses make their 12 year cycle for the years of 2022 and 2034.

Using a straight 40' bus starting at $525,425.15 today and replace every 12 years, it will cost $708,904 come 2040. Since we need 58, we are looking at a total cost of $152,784,185 for the 30 year life cycle.

If we go with 40' hybrid buses in place of standard buses, we are looking at today cost of $779,688.70 each and will cost $1,050,903 by 2040. The cost of 58 hybrid for the 30 year life cycle is $141,871,029. We now must add the cost of the battery that have to be replace every 5 years. Using a cost of $65,000 for today pack, it will cost $87,610 come 2040. It will cost $371,449.07 per bus to replace the battery over the 30 year cycle for a total cost of $19,899,057. This make the total cost of the hybrid bus at $174,213,939.

Base on a today price of $4,000,000, an LRT will cost $5,391,396 by 2040 at 1% yearly increase in price. It will cost $96,000,000 for 24 LRT plus an extra $4,2000,000 for mid life overhaul for a total price of $100,200,000. for a 30 year life cycle

Driver cost to drive the various type of vehicles​

We know it cost $3,000,161 for a driver over the 30 year life cycle using a 3% yearly increase. The driver cost is based on peak time only service for a 40 hour week and 52 weeks for the year.

Again, various systems have different hours that drivers work a week and you may need more than one driver for that peak service and I have taken that into consideration using the 40 hour week.

At the same time, various systems have different length of peak service time and decided to use 4 hours in the morning and afternoon for this analyze.

It will cost $383,420,707.19 to cover the cost of drivers to drive 43 articulated buses.

It will cost $479,275,877.73 to cover the cost of drivers to drive 58 buses.

It will cost $292,793,990.76 to cover the cost of drivers to drive 24 LRT.

It will cost $146,396,995.38 to cover the cost of drivers to drive 12 pair of LRT.

Total Cost​

BRT Articulated bus​

43 Driver cost: $383,420,707.19

43 buses: $104,447,868

Final cost $487,868,575.19

BRT 40' bus​

58 Driver cost: $479,275,877.73

58 buses: $102,959,878

Final cost $582,235,755.73

BRT 40' Hybrid bus​

58 Driver cost: $479,275,877.73

58 buses: $174,213,939

Final cost $773,489,816.73

Single LRT​

24 Driver cost: $292,793,990.76

24 LRT: $100,200,000

Final cost $392,993,990.76

12 Double LRT​

12 Driver cost: $146,396,995.38

24 LRT: $100,200,000

Final cost $246,596,995.38

Summary​

If we look at using 24 single LRT vs. 43 Articulated BRT, there is a cost saving of $487,868,575.19 minus $392,993,990.76 for a total saving of $94,874,584.43 going LRT.

If we look at using 12 double LRT vs. 43 Articulated BRT, there is a cost saving of $487,868,575.19 minus $246,596,995.38 for a total saving of $241,271,579.81 going LRT.

If we look at using 24 single LRT vs. 58 BRT, there is a cost saving of $582,235,755.73 minus $392,993,990.76 for a total saving of $189,241,764.97 going LRT.

If we look at using 12 double LRT vs. 58 BRT, there is a cost saving of $582,235,755.73 minus $246,596,995.38 for a total saving of $335,638,760.35 going LRT.

If we look at using 24 single LRT vs. 58 Hybrid BRT, there is a cost saving of $773,489,816.73 minus $392,993,990.76 for a total saving of $380,495,825.97 going LRT.

If we look at using 12 double LRT vs. 58 Hybrid BRT, there is a cost saving of $773,489,816.73 minus $246,596,995.38 for a total saving of $526,892,821.35 going LRT.

 

[drum118]

Hourly Rate​

We can look at the cost of LRT vs. BRT by looking at the hourly rate to put a vehicle on the road. This cost cover all personnel and equipment to put a vehicle on the road in the first place. At present time, I am using $110 per hour for buses as this is the current rate. To put an LRT on the road, we are looking at about $150 per hour. Using .15% yearly increase in hour rate over the 30 year cycle, the hour rate for buses will be $171.94 while LRT will be $236.46 come 2040.

Based on the hourly rate over 30 years for 40 hour a week and 52 weeks for the year, 43 articulated buses will cost $383,420,702.19 and LRT will cost $292,793,990.76. Again we still see a saving of $90,626,711.43 using LRT.

If we look at 58 buses vs. LRT, we get a cost of $516,143,252.94 and a saving of $223,349,262.18 using LRT.

Fuel Cost​

Today no one knows what the cost of fuel is going to be over this 30 year cycle and that will have a great impact on the type of vehicles that will be on the road during this time.

Diesel fuel is running about $.89 a liter today while hydro is about $.06 a kw. A diesel bus get about 7km per liter of fuel and there is no real data what the Hybrid are getting. An LRT use about 240 kw per hour or about $14.40/hr. Therefore we know that 24 LRT will cost $718,848.00 a year based on today price.

Manpower​

Each system has their own method how they add personal to their staff as they add more vehicles to the fleet and this another cost that needs to be taken into consideration for a comparison between BRT and LRT. Each system has their own wage standards and that becomes an issue to arrive at a cost. Using LRT system, you require extra personnel to look after the overhead system as well doing minor track work.

ROW​

Again, BRT ROW (Right of Way) is cheaper to build than and LRT and to find the cost to build, one we need to know a number of thing. How long is it?: are there tunnels and bridges to be built?: what about traffic?: lights; does land have to be purchase?: how far apart are the stations?; how big does the garage and storage are have to be? and the list goes on.

The rule of thumb is a BRT will cost between $15-$20 million per mile with very little in the ways of bridges or tunnels. This includes station. An LRT will cost about $35 Million per mile like the BRT and will require substation every few miles.

You can run both BRT and LRT without an ROW, but you are now dealing with traffic that will slow service down as well requiring more equipment to maintain the quality of service.

Doing a comparison in mix traffic for both system becomes an unfair evaluation between both system as BRT cost for roads is never taken into consideration while LRT has to cover the cost of building the tracks in the first place as well maintaining them.

To do an apple to apple comparison, we will only look at a true ROW.

Lets say the route is 12 miles, what is the cost of the 2 systems? BRT will be 12mi x $20m for a sub total of $240 million plus $200 million for a garage for a total of $450 Million. An LRT will cost 12mi x $35m for a sub total of $420 million plus $250 million for the carhouse for a total price of $670 Million. We can see there is an saving of $220 million going with BRT.

 

[drum118]

Land Value​

The one thing that gets over looked when doing a comparison between BRT and LRT is land use and value up turn.

We have seen in various cities in the United States over the last 10 years where new LRT and BRT systems have been built to see what kinds of changes they bring to the area they are servicing.

In all cases, there has been greater demand and land changes where LRT lines have gone in compared to BRT. BRT lines have generated $4 for every $1 that was invested in the BRT while LRT are seeing $10 or more for that same $1. At the same time, development starts faster with LRT than BRT.

People are prepared to walk a little further to an LRT than a BRT.

Not only LRT bring development faster to the area, it helps to transform that area into a more pedestrian area in all ships and forms. People are willing to sit at a cafe with an LRT running by it than one where an BRT because of the buses exhaust, let alone traffic.

One thing that is starting to show up more, people want to live close to an LRT as well in a smaller complexes than a BRT. At the same time, people are willing to use LRT more in the off peak time frame, than a BRT. Phoenix, who only just open their 20 mile line at a Cost of $1.3 Billion dollars at the end of December 2009, have seen their ridership exceeded not only the 12,000 daily ridership by the end of 2010, but the 20,000 figure by 2020 in 2011 by 45,000 daily. At the same time, 62% of the ridership is off peak which totally against the norm for ridership of any type of system in service today.

Land value has seen a 5% increase in the short time frame which some people don't like as it increase their tax level. That increase in tax level is off set by having more people moving to the area or city to help to spread the cost level over more people, than just a few.

 

[drum118]

LRTs are a lot more expensive for not much benefit. With LRT you have to commit to A) Placing down track, B) Buying new rolling stock, and C) Installing new dedicated infrastructure like signaling and stops. BRTs completely avoid having to do Part A and B. Paving is MUCH cheaper than placing down track, you can reuse the same busses you used before, and you don't even have to build brand new giant MSFs. This also means that not only can they act as a development tool, there is also very little commitment to have them around as long as possible. With the Hurontario LRT, because they purchased new MSFs and brand new rolling stock, there will now be pressure to keep the line running for at least 30 years as part of the P3, even though ridership projects expect ridership to reach a level that would justify a subway in 10 years. If instead of the LRT they had instead painted dedicated bus lanes, they could have saved a ton of money, while still building up ridership on the corridor, and when ridership justified something higher order and more effective like a light metro. The Hurontario LRT costs 5 BILLION DOLLARS, half of the cost of the DRL, and around the projected cost of the entire Highway 413, which is absolutely insane, and now its going to be a line Mississauga is stuck with 30 years. I forget if it was Syn or W.K. Lis who pointed this out, but Transit City was supposed to be what the old streetcar was, temporary transit infrastructure that would be replaced by higher order transit when needed. With the skyrocketing price in LRTs, this is basically impossible. Now there is going to be pressure to keep these LRTs running for as long as possible since they do not have the benefit of using existing vehicles and infrastructure, and you better use those LRVs you spent a billion on for as much you can. Think of it this way. If the Don Mills LRT was built, the earliest we would've gotten a Relief Line North (something the city desperately needs) in 2050. With a BRT, we would've gotten it by 2035.


I find that hard to believe. You do know that a low floor LRVs cost around twice as much to maintain as a Subway train correct? LFLRVs are extremely prone to breaking down and needing urgent repairs compared to either busses or high floor trains. Maybe you're saving on not having to pay for gas, but with technologies like Battery Electric coming online, that is going to be less and less of an issue.

Clearly you don't understand P3 cost, don't think buses break down along the route and the list goes on. Someone has to pay the interest on the money that is needed to built X as well the cost to maintain it and to operate it over a 30 year timeframe as well make a profit doing so.

Hurontario is not your standard run of the mill for building an LRT line as there are things been done not normally found in building an BRT or LRT. The line over the 403 will be elevated at the request of MTO, a new road extension and bridge are to be built to remove a road requested by the city, MTO requirements for any ROW to go under the QEW as well the interchange, rebuilding Hurontario overpass over the 403 that has nothing to do with the LRT in the first place and the list goes on.

Hurontario will never justify a subway which has been pushed by others as well a few councilors. I have never seen the need for one since 2003 when I first recommended an LRT either on the surface or an elevated line. You would never get an elevated line in the downtown Brampton area at all.

As long you go to a single supplier for equipment and not the market, cost will be higher than normal which has been TTC way. TTC is finally seeing the need to go to the market starting with the E-buses and now the new fleet for Line 2 which should be Line 1 with Line 1 equipment moving to 2 like the past. Line 1 would get the 500' train it needs yesterday.

You need to compare apples to apples not the apple to orange to get correct comparison both cost wise and time wise. Trying to compare Hurontario to the OL does not come close starting with ridership. the route it will take.

Questions:
1; What is the privacy requirements for an elevated line when buildings are required to be 75' apart due privacy?
2: Is there any road in Toronto that is wide enough to support privacy requirements??
3: How many elevators are needed for an elevated station??
4: Are there more than one access to an elevated station??
5: Why is speed more important than than having a surface line speed:
6: Who is important that speed is needed over local use riders??
7: What should the stop spacing be and why??
8: What do you use the space for under an elevated line for??
9: What justify the extra cost to build an elevated line over a surface line as well take money away from investing in more transit service for everyone than a few??

 

[north-of-anything]

Threw together a quick diagram of what could be a good eastern extension alignment.

I think that Sheppard's two options are really to either retrofit the line as an LRT, or to just continue extending it as the existing heavy rail line. Don Mills is just not a good transfer point - Agincourt and Scarborough Centre are both much better for that, and the line should reach one of them - and I'm not convinced that a full BRT for Sheppard wouldn't become a permanent temporary solution. If we want more BRT lines in Toronto (which we should), it would be smarter to start with Lawrence, Kingston, Steeles, Dufferin, or Wilson/Albion.

 

[Undead]

@drum118 how did Pheonix keep the costs down for their LRT? $1.6 billion for 20 miles is roughly $40 million per kilometre. Does this include the same costs as for our Eglinton LRT? Or would that be an apples to oranges comparison. Also, is their system mostly surface running?