Sheppard Line 4 Subway Extension (Proposed)

[drum118]

@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?

Its an apple and oranges comparison as Phoenix stations are too far apart since it runs through very low density from what I saw first hand 2 years ago. I have no idea as to cost since I never follow it from day one until I came upon some info after the line opens. Service was every 15 minutes using 2 and 3 cars, but mostly 2.

From what I saw, everything was rebuilt with all Utilities were bury.

The one thing that is happening in the US is the cost per mile increasing to over $100 million a mile for LRT and BRT even for simple lines. A number of transit planner/consultations people I know in the US have no idea why cost is where it is.

I really question why some LRT systems were built when ridership did not come close to even having an BRT. Other than Minneapolis that offer 10 minute service, all new lines I have rode are 15-20 minute service using 66' car or 100'. Minneapolis runs 3 100' cars.

 

[drum118]

I found the spreadsheet but cannot load it here.

 

[drum118]

You can try this link to the BRT vs LRT spreadsheet.

Regardless if this is 11 years old and various changes to technology have taken place over that timeframe as well what coming down the road, BRT will still loose to LRT for moving riders at the end of the day.

As for elevated lines, it will still be too costly to built and operate compare to BRT or LRT, but most of all some need to be full blown Metro to the point of being DD trains. Speed only effect ppl going long distance compare to local where we are try to move to an work/live/play/shop/entertain area than the current 4 areas by themselves. PPL can see what exist along the route they travel on the surface that may cause them to stop and visit a place at a later date they saw going by compare to elevated on the subway that cannot be seen.

Bottom line, elevated line will only happen if the road is wide enough to do so and that rules out most of Toronto streets. Sheppard is an road that could see an elevated line, but has a number of issues doing do like RR bridges.

As for cost to relocate underground service while building an LRT is the best thing that could happen as some are long over due to be replace as well needing upgrading to meet growth for the area or other areas.

 

[Voltz]

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.

Image only matters to transit fans and vote pandering politicians. if the service is good and suitable then the riders will come.

 

[sixrings]

Image only matters to transit fans and vote pandering politicians. if the service is good and suitable then the riders will come.

But vote pandering politicians are making the transit decisions. So although image maybe should not matter, it absolutely matters.

 

[DirectionNorth]

But vote pandering politicians are making the transit decisions. So although image maybe should not matter, it absolutely matters.

I see it as something that needs to be overcome once. If service on this mode is good, then all will be much easier afterwards. If it's a failure, then the public will no longer want it.

 

[afransen]

Image only matters to transit fans and vote pandering politicians. if the service is good and suitable then the riders will come.

Leslieville NIMBYs would like a word.

 

[Voltz]

Leslieville NIMBYs would like a word.

Well that's a bit different, they aren't asking for a higher order of a transit mode, or claiming that the planned line provides inadequate service.

 

[superelevation]

Over a 30 year life cycle and depending on ridership growth, an LRT will save $90-$250 Million in operation cost as well replacement cost compare to an BRT. Upfront cost is mostly won by BRT over the LRT since many run on roads they don't have to pay to have them fix or replace unless its a true BRT in its own ROW away from traffic like Mississauga Transitway or Ottawa system.

The biggest cost is the person who is driving X. 40' to DD buses can carry only so many riders before you need to add another bus or so to meet the ridership needs while an LRT depending on the system can carry more than any type of bus in service legally in NA before increase its length or add an car or 2 to the one in service without adding another driver. In TTC case, it gone from a 50'-75' car to a 100' car that carries more so say TTC and may get away going to 130' before it needs to add another car to the line for extra riders. Never will see MU streetcar in Toronto like there was with the PCC unless they run on a line like the Crosstown Line.

Having a bus trunk line with many branch is a standard used in many places Worldwide as a cheap way of providing higher quality of service for the centre section of an line and does not provide the RT the the Scarborough Folks wants.

If you get down to numbers, Sheppard only justify an BRT with some interlining of service that does not provide the tools to increase density that range in the $3-$5 return on each dollar investment for it. An LRT sees $10-$12 return on investments with some seeing higher and a few less than $10. A subway is around $15-$20 return on investments and can be more or less depending where it place. Sheppard subway has mostly been flat from day one as a poor investment,

If you look at Line 1 & 2, they are a mix bag for various sections of the line from being flat to over $20 return on the investment. In some cases, Streetcars had a higher return before the subway came along for sections that are now flat or below the investment for it.

This logic only makes sense if you are a city / region which is not growing rapidly. Sheppard already has substantial population within bus distance of future stations, which drives substantial ridership on other parts of the city. We know that Sheppard currently underperforms because it is short and has weak network connectivity. Extending it fixes this and allows more riders to spend more of their trip on the subway speeding up trips. Toronto *is* growing rapidly and folks coming from the 905 will only further strain the subway network, there is substantial density already existing between Don Mills Stn and STC, and this will only increase with Agincourt Mall redevelopment etc. (though everyone here acts like density is much more important than it is). Connecting transit is what drivers ridership.

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??

1) Vancouver / Montreal have solved many of these.
2) Local riders are a minority in the suburbs (and given everyone is suggesting density won't increase significantly it will be staying this way), the majority arrive by bus for obvious reasons. You are doing the majority of riders a disservice by adding stops, not the other way around.
3) If more people ride an elevated line than an LRT then was the extra money not worth it? Especially if the LRT needs expensive upgrades to match the capacity of a subway option in the future.

 

[drum118]

I will post this here as well cross post elsewhere as it has to do with elevated systems. This based on a report problems pertaining to Hawaii LRT which is a light metro that is years late and over budget that was just reported on.

Honolulu's rail project plagued with wheels too thin and tracks too wide​

One also needs to look at Montreal REM issues as well.

The person lives in Vancouver and a transit advocate makes this comment.

Here we have the big problem with light metro. Unlike modern light rail, which is modular and interchangeable and flexible, light metro tends to be proprietary, as one company's light metro is not designed for another company's light metro.

Vancouver is a perfect example.

Currently we have three light metro lines, the Canada line, the Millennium Line and the Expo Line all with their own problems.

The Canada Line is a conventional railway, operating conventional EMU's and not compatible in operation with the proprietary Expo and Millennium Lines, due to the fact that kinematic envelope is much smaller for the E & M lines and they are also powered by Linear Induction Motors or (LIM's)

The Expo Line is that UTDC's proprietary ICTS/ALRT system, powered by LIM's and has tight curvatures and tight clearances.

The Millennium Line is Bombardier's rebuilt ICTS/ALRT/ALM system marketed as Advanced Rapid Transit (ART). Using an Innovia bodyshell, the ART cars are longer, a little wider and have larger wheels and trucks/bogies.

Now ALRT cars can operate on ART tracks and visa versa, they cannot operate with each other in coupled sets and as the ART cars have longer and larger trucks/bogies, they have great difficulty with the switches or points on the ALRT Expo Line; the cars must travel through the switches at a low speed and there is is much protest and flange squeal when they do.

Alstom now owns the proprietary light metro system now called Movia Automatic Light Metro and Translink is more than worried that they will dump the system altogether as no one else, except Vancouver wants the damn thing.

But the big problem facing the regional transit system is that the Expo and Millennium Lines, especially the Expo line, needs a mid life rehab before its capacity can expand beyond the current 15,000 pphpd and needs about $3 billion to complete it, including replacing all the switches with high speed switches.

The Canada Line needs a $1.5 to $2 billion rehab, just to increase its capacity beyond 9,000 pphpd and this must be done before any expansion of the line is considered.

TransLink is well aware of this but at this point they do not want to shock the taxpayers with bad news until their $4.6 billion, 12.8 km extensions of the Expo and Millennium Lines are well under way and i will add this, for $4.6 billion, not a car will be taken off the road.

I think the good Burghers of Honolulu are going to be in fincial shock one their light metro opens and under performs wonderfully.

 

[Rainforest]

^ The proprietary nature of the light metro systems adds some complexity. However, the design problems and the teething pains mentioned in the article, seem to be caused more by the poor management and oversight and less by the specific technology.

The fact that LRT is modular and interchangeable doesn't make it immune to delays and cost overruns. ECLRT is behind schedule, despite being as standard as it gets.

And the proprietary systems, generally speaking, can be replaced by another technology if the original maker discontinued the product line. The problem with replacing SRT isn't that it is proprietary; it is that the line was deliberately built with tight cleareneces and a very tight Midland - Ellesmere curve, and that could have been avoided if the city had more foresight back then.

 

[JSF-1]

tight cleareneces and a very tight Midland - Ellesmere curve, and that could have been avoided if the city had more foresight back then.

I don't really think you can blame the city for that though. The SRT corridor was never meant to be a light metro. It was planned for an LRT with standards built more closely to the Streetcar network. It was the Province that forced the ICTS trains on us, and said that they could handle the corridor as it was planned, I don't believe any changes to the alignment itself and its clearance were made.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

We're stuck with the subway, the two subways were always tied together as I have said for years. This will be in the next round of federal funding announcements post corona virus, in 2023/4.

 

[robmausser]

I will post this here as well cross post elsewhere as it has to do with elevated systems. This based on a report problems pertaining to Hawaii LRT which is a light metro that is years late and over budget that was just reported on.

Honolulu's rail project plagued with wheels too thin and tracks too wide​

One also needs to look at Montreal REM issues as well.

The person lives in Vancouver and a transit advocate makes this comment.

The statements made by this Vancouver transit advocate are demonstrably false, and they are either extremely stupid, or have an implicate bias.

The Canada Line is not mainline EMU by any stretch of the imagination. It is a Light Metro as well, in fact a more conventional type.

Even the ICTS is not proprietary technology, Bombardier has repeatedly stated that other companies are allowed to build for the technology. However none want to. That is definitely an issue when going with a specific technology like ICTS, but most Light Metros are not and use pretty standardized technologies, like, ding ding, the Canada Line.

That being said, nothing is ever completely off-the-shelf in the sense that you can mix and match metro systems and trains with no forethought. While you can buy systems that are off-the-shelf in terms of their widespread use and commonality, its not like you can just buy an Alstom train and it will work out of the box on your system. There are all sorts of considerations like the signaling system, etc.

Off the shelf just means its not a completely new system being designed from scratch from the ground up. Thats all it means. ALL transit systems are highly specialized and require much engineering and coordination to make sure they meet local goals, laws, infrastructure etc. Its not like buying a car or any consumer product, ever.

 

[nfitz]

The Canada Line is not mainline EMU by any stretch of the imagination. It is a Light Metro as well, in fact a more conventional type.

The only thing that makes the Canada line a light metro, is the tiny 40-metre long trains, not much longer than a streetcar!

If they ran 92-metre long trains like the Sheppard line, or 90-metre trains, which the stations on the Eglinton line are built for, it would be heavy metro.