[CapitalSeven]

During the last stages of planning the Eglinton West Subway in the early 90's they came up with a plan to use the RT technology instead of heavy rail. Parts of the line would have been elevated or in open cut. It was supposed to save 250 million (open to debate of course).

I was at a public meeting where the TTC tried to sell this. A rather endearing old man who spoke about 20 words of English waved his arms about wildly indicating "underground yes, above-ground no" and the crowd went wild.

While I think it's perfectly rational to consider extending the Scarborough line (with either the Mark II or LRT technology) from STC all the way to Pearson as a single line at any combination of segregated grades, I'm pretty sure that anything elevated is dead on arrival.

 

[Rainforest]

If those savings can be applied to underground LRT lines, they can be applied to subway lines...underground LRT is marginally cheaper than underground subway, certainly not 2X cheaper.

At least half of a subway along Eglinton could be built in shallow trenches next to the road - blocks are very long west of Keele and east of Laird - but we don't know precisely how much more (if it is more) it might cost than an at-grade LRT because it won't be studied as part of the Eglinton EA. It might get a cursory dismissal as "too expensive" but if no one is seriously looking at the option, no one will look at serious cost saving options.

Well, honestly I am not an expert on this. But I got my data from Calvin Henry-Cottam's blog: http://www.lrt.daxack.ca/LRTvsHRT/CostCompare.html.

He did a detailed research of the subway and LRT lines already built, and quotes:
200 - 250 million per km for an underground subway
150 - 200 million for at-grade subway
130 - 160 million for underground LRT
and just 30 - 50 million for at-grade LRT

Wider tunnel needed for a subway is one thing. Some extra costs for a subway are probably just due to the higher volume of passengers: longer stations / platforms, more elevators, wider entrances, bigger bus bays.

 

[RedRocket191]

My question was if he adjusted for inflation. A quick check of his site shows that he did.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Calvin Henry-Cottam is basing his entire argument on the relative cost of transit projects, but he's simply not using the numbers fairly and you don't need to be an expert to notice this.

In the case of Spadina, he's not using the right numbers at all. Spadina's final inflated $2.6 billion cost includes a full $0.5 billion of contingency padding, it includes vehicles and Wilson yard modifications, and it is generally understood to be needlessly expensive due to tunnelling through largely empty land and due to building elaborate stations (Bessarion cost $36M, so why is York U costing $73M? 100% inflation in less than 10 years?).

Sheppard's per/km figure is listed but no note is made of the fact that its short length is disproportionately influenced by the two large terminal stations, by the tricky construction job keeping the intersection of Yonge & Sheppard open the entire time, by the hilly terrain resulting in deep stations, by the bridge/tunnel over the Don, etc., the cost of all of which would be absorbed by a longer length.

Meanwhile, the final costs of Transit City's underground components are unknown, but they do not include maintenance yards and do include future bus savings. What is listed as $140M per/km or so is hardly a final, realistic number.

 

[Rainforest]

Calvin Henry-Cottam is basing his entire argument on the relative cost of transit projects, but he's simply not using the numbers fairly and you don't need to be an expert to notice this.

I am sure he is using the numbers fairly. Nevertheless, they are open for debate, as each transit project is unique to some degree and any comparison can be challenged.

In the case of Spadina, he's not using the right numbers at all. Spadina's final inflated $2.6 billion cost includes a full $0.5 billion of contingency padding, it includes vehicles and Wilson yard modifications, and it is generally understood to be needlessly expensive due to tunnelling through largely empty land and due to building elaborate stations (Bessarion cost $36M, so why is York U costing $73M? 100% inflation in less than 10 years?).

But he noted that Spadina, per the existing plan, is abnormally expensive: 291 million per km on average. His estimates for other HRT / subway lines are actually lower: 200 - 250 million per km for underground, 150 - 200 million for at-grade.

Sheppard's per/km figure is listed but no note is made of the fact that its short length is disproportionately influenced by the two large terminal stations, by the tricky construction job keeping the intersection of Yonge & Sheppard open the entire time, by the hilly terrain resulting in deep stations, by the bridge/tunnel over the Don, etc., the cost of all of which would be absorbed by a longer length.

But the TTC's estimate (plus inflation) for the Don Mills to STC extension actually comes with higher cost, 247 million per km. Despite needing only one new terminal station, and no bridge over the Don.

Meanwhile, the final costs of Transit City's underground components are unknown, but they do not include maintenance yards and do include future bus savings. What is listed as $140M per/km or so is hardly a final, realistic number.

That's true, we do not know how much the underground LRT will actually cost in Toronto environment (soil / wages / engineering and labor regulations). X 2 saving of LRT over subway is probably too optimistic. But X 1.5 does not look unreasonable, even if just due to shorter platforms (3-car trains versus 6-car), single tunnel, and smaller station infrastructure due to less passengers.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I am sure he is using the numbers fairly. Nevertheless, they are open for debate, as each transit project is unique to some degree and any comparison can be challenged.

No, he's not using the numbers fairly. There is no way to fairly compare final project costs, after delays and overruns, with a rough estimate (and Transit City's estimated cost has already been revised upwards by $2 billion). The first example he uses to try to prove that subways are "too expensive" is Spadina, and he's using wrong numbers. TTC estimates for subway projects are all ridiculously high; they're all 100% tunnelled and as gold-plated as possible and do not include the slightest attempts to save costs...and why would they make such an attempt when they can tout an "affordable alternative" like LRT?

Why do these "subways must be X times as expensive as LRT" figures keep spreading around the internet even though they're never applicable to real projects? They're just another chapter from the "LRT is our messiah" Bible. It makes absolutely no sense that a subway in a shallow trench would be cheaper than LRT in a tunnel, but some guy on the internet said it is, so he must be right. The difference between fully tunnelled LRT and fully tunnelled subway is marginal...marginally wider tunnels and marginally longer platforms and a few other marginal costs. But we won't know how small this margin is because they're not studying the option. If they actually studied it and concluded that the ridership wasn't there even in best case scenarios and that it wasn't worth spending $X, fine.

 

[Rainforest]

No, he's not using the numbers fairly. There is no way to fairly compare final project costs, after delays and overruns, with a rough estimate (and Transit City's estimated cost has already been revised upwards by $2 billion). The first example he uses to try to prove that subways are "too expensive" is Spadina, and he's using wrong numbers. TTC estimates for subway projects are all ridiculously high; they're all 100% tunnelled and as gold-plated as possible and do not include the slightest attempts to save costs...and why would they make such an attempt when they can tout an "affordable alternative" like LRT?

Why do these "subways must be X times as expensive as LRT" figures keep spreading around the internet even though they're never applicable to real projects? They're just another chapter from the "LRT is our messiah" Bible. It makes absolutely no sense that a subway in a shallow trench would be cheaper than LRT in a tunnel, but some guy on the internet said it is, so he must be right. The difference between fully tunnelled LRT and fully tunnelled subway is marginal...marginally wider tunnels and marginally longer platforms and a few other marginal costs. But we won't know how small this margin is because they're not studying the option. If they actually studied it and concluded that the ridership wasn't there even in best case scenarios and that it wasn't worth spending $X, fine.

1) Calvin Henry-Cottam's cost estimates for LRT are based mostly on the LRT projects already completed in other cities, rather than on the unproven Toronto's Transit City prospects. He made an honest attempt to produce best estimates, based on the available data.

2) His subway cost estimates are not actually based on the Spadina extension. On the contrary, he mentioned that Spadina is abnormally expensive. All his estimates (200 - 250 million per km for underground line, 150 - 200 for surface) come lower than the TTC's Spadina plan (291 million per km).

If he just wanted to bash subways rather than assemble accurate data, he could use that 291 million per km figure to raise his upper margin for underground subway, and give a range of 200 to 300 million. But he did not.

3) Obviously, LRT is not a magic universal solution for any transit route. It has its strengths (cost and construction speed) and weaknesses (capacity and travel speed) compared to an HRT line.

The biggest cost saving comes in cases where LRT can be on-road (median lanes or side) while HRT must be elevated, trenched, or underground. For such routes, both the estimates and the simple common sense suggest that the saving will be several-fold.

For the sections where both LRT and HRT are underground, or both are elevated, obviously the saving factor will be much smaller. But I think that it will be more than marginal. Not sure about the impact of tunnel width. But a platform for 6 cars is not "marginally" shorter than the one for 3 cars; it is two times shorter.

4) I have to agree with you that TTC does not strive to build its lines in the most efficient manner, and that applies to both HRT and LRT. Unfortunately, I have no clue how to fix that. Vote down all Chancellors who sit on TTC board during the next elections? But who can voucher that the new board will be more effective? Plus, the senior engineering staff will remain unchanged anyway.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The biggest cost saving comes in cases where LRT can be on-road (median lanes or side) while HRT must be elevated, trenched, or underground. For such routes, both the estimates and the simple common sense suggest that the saving will be several-fold.

For the sections where both LRT and HRT are underground, or both are elevated, obviously the saving factor will be much smaller. But I think that it will be more than marginal. Not sure about the impact of tunnel width. But a platform for 6 cars is not "marginally" shorter than the one for 3 cars; it is two times shorter.

Just because something's cheaper doesn't mean it's better and should be built everywhere. A Rocket bus network could cover most of the city for the cost of one LRT line. If an LRT line is going to cost less than a subway line but still be billions of dollars, maybe we should focus on or consider the quality of service we're getting for these billions. We're not though...people like Calvin advocate LRT because it can give us more lines on our transit map, and moving people is utterly secondary to the ideological victory that LRT lines would give him. The page you linked to attempts to "scientifically" bash subways as effectively as Steve Munro does.

The Transit City plan is saying "Look how cheap I am...only $8 billion!" When people ask "Will the vehicles be overcrowded, or empty, and what will the travel times and frequency be like and...and I have a hundred concerns," Transit City says "Your concerns are unfounded because Transit City is affordable...trust us!" DRL supporters don't want to risk anything with a vital downtown line - no leap of faith is required with the DRL.

I'm not going to say tunnelled subways are equal in cost to tunnelled LRT because it's not true (if only because the tunnel would need to be a few feet wider), but the actual cost difference of something like subway vs LRT platforms is truly marginal. You still need to dig the tunnel and run tracks and wall structures and electrical stuff and whatever else...is the difference much more than a hundred foot long concrete slab and some tiles on the wall? And maybe longer ventilation ducts in the ceiling and more light fixtures? This is a marginal addition to the cost of the entire station.

 

[LCF2884]

There's no reason why a subway line can't be elevated for just as long a distance as ICTS. There's no reason why an elevated subway line couldn't be built in the Don Mills corridor. In fact, I think it would be highly desirable.

While ICTS/Skytrain is a great technology that's very successful in other cities, it's an orphan in Toronto. There's no serious prospect of extending it. In fact, when routes like the Downtown Relief Line were first studied in the 80s, they were planned to use ICTS. Closer study, however, showed that the capacity demand was so high on the route that it necessitated full subway technology.

Can you imagine though, having a heavy subway line elevated for a good 7 kilometers above Don Mills Road (If it were not underground)? I would imagine lots of rumbling as the heavy cars cross.

But with ICTS, building the guideway would be much cheaper (I think it's 4 million dollars saved per kilometer of elevated line). I'll have to confirm the numbers with you in a few weeks.

If I understand you correctly when you say "ophan technology", does that mean the technology wasn't very successful? There were so many reasons why SRT was costly and expensive. It was originally planned as a streetcar, but the TTC and Ontario decided to change the technology while building it. Some of the alignments are not suited well for ICTS cars, and the tight streetcar curves would grind heavily on ICTS wheels.

So I'm sure that an ICTS line along the DRL won't be as big as a mishap as the SRT.

 

[EnviroTO]

Wider tunnel needed for a subway is one thing. Some extra costs for a subway are probably just due to the higher volume of passengers: longer stations / platforms, more elevators, wider entrances, bigger bus bays.

That would depend on design though. An LRT likely would use a tunnel larger than the London tube but the London tube is a full fledged subway and not LRT. A two car subway wouldn't need as long a platform. A station which isn't expected to handle a large capacity need not be overbuilt.

 

[unimaginative2]

The Downtown Relief Line was originally planned as ICTS, but upon further study subway technology was deemed to be the only way to go because of the high demand and potential for growth on the route.

 

[drum118]

Can you imagine though, having a heavy subway line elevated for a good 7 kilometers above Don Mills Road (If it were not underground)? I would imagine lots of rumbling as the heavy cars cross.

But with ICTS, building the guideway would be much cheaper (I think it's 4 million dollars saved per kilometer of elevated line). I'll have to confirm the numbers with you in a few weeks.

If I understand you correctly when you say "ophan technology", does that mean the technology wasn't very successful? There were so many reasons why SRT was costly and expensive. It was originally planned as a streetcar, but the TTC and Ontario decided to change the technology while building it. Some of the alignments are not suited well for ICTS cars, and the tight streetcar curves would grind heavily on ICTS wheels.

So I'm sure that an ICTS line along the DRL won't be as big as a mishap as the SRT.

An elevated section would be better than found in NYC or Chicago's.

An guideway would cost less than $4 million saving. Vancouver is abut $76/km million

The cost between 2 car station and 8 cars is not as great as people think because you are only building a wider tunnel section for the extra cost difference. The big cost is putting in stars and elevators for the first section when you build the station. If you want a 6-10 car platform, then a second entrance will have to be built and that will increase the cost of the station by 50%.

The stations have to be built to handle 4 cars train from day one with provision to expand down the road to longer platforms. If not, we are going to have problem decades from now.

TTC streetcars cannot handle any of the current SRT curves as well not being the same gauge.

At some point regardless if it LRT or ICTS, you have a carrying limit issue before moving to a subway unless to want to make longer trains.

Therefore, the tunnel and platforms have to be built to handle subway cars down the road. If you use LRT from day one, the the platforms will require to have provision in place to be raise it up to match the subway cars. ICTS will require on street platforms to be elevated from day one and the station platforms will not have to be raise.

You could use the surface section from LRT/ICTS to subway, but would require putting up fences along the route except at intersections if you use the same setup for the existing system.

 

[unimaginative2]

Good points, drum. I agree that you're going to want to at least rough in a station for 6 car lengths, because growth could exceed the capacity of single LRVs pretty quickly.

I'm also not so sure about single entrances on short platforms. Aren't two exits still required by the fire code for new stations, regardless of the length of the platform?

 

[Rainforest]

That would depend on design though. An LRT likely would use a tunnel larger than the London tube but the London tube is a full fledged subway and not LRT. A two car subway wouldn't need as long a platform. A station which isn't expected to handle a large capacity need not be overbuilt.

But a two-car "subway" will be in LRT territory in terms of capacity. So, what's the benefit of it?

For a route with really high demand (DRL: no reason to expect a volume much lower than for the existing Yonge and US lines, and those are pretty packed in the south), stations must be able to handle at least 6 subway cars. Perhaps even 8 cars is not a stretch, to prepare for future growth.

For routes that can do with 2-car trains, why not use LRT cars? They can run both in tunnels and in on-street sections.

 

[unimaginative2]

I agree, Rainforest. I think we're all getting a bit distracted here. The basic facts are that the cost savings of underground LRT vs underground subway are fairly minimal. Subways also offer a much greater capacity upside. That makes it the only sensible choice for the DRL, a route that has immense potential for capacity growth. Other routes, especially feeders to the subway in the suburbs, might be more suited to LRT, where high capacity might never be needed.

It's also important to always remember the importance of service speed. Surface LRT is much slower than the subway, and that will make it much less attractive for people switching from their cars or parallel subway routes.