[Rainforest]

They estimate that each rider on the Sheppard subway is subsidized by $10. It's a huge drain on the rest of the system. And it still doesn't have sufficient ridership to justify it being a subway!

I can't believe Mel Lastman's boondoggle is being held up as some sort of paragon of planning.

That $10 number is only true if they use the counting approach that's never applied to other transit projects. Namely, include the capital cost amortization and the interest. If we applied that method to any other major transit project, be it subway or LRT or GO expansion, they all would end up being heavily subsidized.

When TTC boasts that their cost recovery ratio is 65% or 70%, and the best in North America - they count the operating expenses only, and leave all capital investments out of the picture. By the same measure, no way each rider on the Sheppard subway is subsidized by $10.

 

[Rainforest]

this is correct... the biggest pain of ever being in the bus is when you are crawling in traffic. This LRT will not do that. no one wants to be in traffic but its borderline insanity being in traffic when you're shoved in like sardines. I guess the argument could be made you could be on a BRT in its own lane for less money. However operating expenses would be up because you would need more busses and no matter what a bus simply isn't as comfortable as rail to ride on.

LRT having lower operating expenses is a theory at this point. Perhaps a good one. But:

- Labour cost savings will only happen during the peak hours, when you replace 4 regular buses or 2 artics with 1 LRT. Off-peak, you will need to run the same number of LRTs or buses, to maintain reasonable headways.

- Maintenance of the LRT tracks is 100% a TTC's expense, while buses run on the public road and the maintenance is done by the Roads department.

The city recently requested an operational subsidy from the province to cover the additional operating costs of the Eglinton and Finch LRT once they are in service. If the city was sure that the operating costs will go down and not up, then such request wouldn't make any sense.

 

[Rainforest]

Although, maybe I am overthinking those matters. Both the recent estimate of 16 kph and the 15-years old estimate of 23 kph are just that, estimates. I'm sure TTC hasn't created the vehicle allocation and crew shifts plans for FWLRT yet.

It is entirely possible that the 16 kph estimate is based on some error in the modeling, and the actual operating speed will be 20, or 23, or even 25 kph.

 

[sixrings]

LRT having lower operating expenses is a theory at this point. Perhaps a good one. But:

- Labour cost savings will only happen during the peak hours, when you replace 4 regular buses or 2 artics with 1 LRT. Off-peak, you will need to run the same number of LRTs or buses, to maintain reasonable headways.

- Maintenance of the LRT tracks is 100% a TTC's expense, while buses run on the public road and the maintenance is done by the Roads department.

The city recently requested an operational subsidy from the province to cover the additional operating costs of the Eglinton and Finch LRT once they are in service. If the city was sure that the operating costs will go down and not up, then such request wouldn't make any sense.

I am ok with the theory. It’s like the very last point in the advantages of an lrt over a bus. The comfort, capacity, image are all higher priorities to me. As a former finch east resident who loved the finch east express this is how I would have modelled my spacing. But people beg for stops. I don’t know if they still exist but I’d be infuriated that the bus would stop on the east side of don mills and finch and then immediately again on the west side. It was extremely annoying. I guess that is something good about subways that you don’t need to give in to NIMBYs. On the other hand just like transit priority lights I’d much rather believe the politicians can grown some balls and deal with these issues instead of having to spend billions to make it a subway cutting funds from elsewhere.

 

[allengeorge]

Metrolinx did indeed state 38 minutes in their communications.

Could be wrong, but in a direct answer to a question asking how fast the line would be, the Metrolinx document you linked states a travel time of 33-34 mins and a speed of 20-21km/h.

 

[rbt]

The question is the benefit to cost ratio, given that the LRT construction turned out to be quite expensive. Less expensive options are available, for example a BRT in the same kind of street median. Costs a fraction of the LRT cost, and dependent on the service details, might run faster than LRT. For example, the median lanes reserved for the express branch that stops at major intersections only, while a sufficiently frequent local branch continues to operate in the general traffic lanes and serves all existing curbside stops. Similar to VIVA rapidways, except both the express and the local TTC branches would be much more frequent.

Is LRT actually much more expensive or does it just seem that way because we use underground stations at some locations and include the maintenance yard as part of the cost (rather than as a side-item in a different budget). I'm not sure I've seen a genuine apples to apples comparison in Toronto; they always reuse other facilities for the bus proposals while at the same time TTC needs to expand bus storage capacity ($500M for a new bus maintenance yard isn't cheap).

I'm generally in favour of BRT (today*) despite the additional roadway width required (because I too presume it should be much cheaper) and because I think every single major roadway in Toronto should have a dedicated transit corridor and that requires incremental improvement. Battery buses make underground stops practical too.

* 10 years ago I preferred LRT due to the flexibility of being able to run below-ground or elevated with minimal added cost where warranted; underground high-speed human driven diesel bus infrastructure isn't cheap.

 

[adys123]

Is LRT actually much more expensive or does it just seem that way because we use underground stations at some locations and include the maintenance yard as part of the cost (rather than as a side-item. I'm not sure I've seen a genuine apples to apples comparison in Toronto; they always reuse other facilities for the bus proposals while at the same time TTC needs to expand bus storage capacity ($500M for a new bus maintenance yard isn't cheap).

I'm generally in favour of BRT (today*) despite the additional roadway width required (because I too presume it should be much cheaper) and because I think every single major roadway in Toronto should have a dedicated transit corridor and that requires incremental improvement. Battery buses make underground stops practical too.

* 10 years ago I preferred LRT due to the flexibility of being able to run below-ground or elevated with minimal added cost where warranted; underground high-speed human driven diesel bus infrastructure isn't cheap.

Absolutely this is a point often overlooked. MSF for light rail lines are included in the cost of building the line (including room for future expansion), whereas, there is a need for bus garages, but all analysis seems to ignore the costs associated with that on a many-to-one replacement. Same with the operating and maintenance costs over 30 years, not evaluated for buses.

 

[Ward8]

This post really doesn't sit well with me. This "this is good enough for the people of Rexdale" has a hint of something... to it. We aren't making the downtown crowd along the Yonge corridor, or along Boor, wait these kind of times/spdees, but for the people of Rexdale, "yeah, let em wait." instead of wanting better for the area and riders.

Thats very uncharitable. I read the OP as saying it's going to be a huge improvement over existing options despite its potential flaws.

Another line that I was once a resident along is the St Clair street car. It could be MUCH faster with some simple operational improvements, and some stop removals. Off peak its probably slower than a bus, but during peak hours, it's faster than a bus would be or driving is by a significant margin. The people I knew in the neighbourhood, myself included, loved the 512 despite its warts. It was a very predictable and comfortable ride, and that matters along with speed when you consider that the alternative, especially in the case of the mixed traffic Finch bus, which is abysmal.

Finch has greater stop spacing, which is a big win, and it has limited intersections with switches. With signal priority, it could easily be faster than driving. There is certainly an argument to be made that BRT may have been the most economical option. That said, if this line is slow or has problems, it wont be the "LRT" technology that is to blame, it will be bad operational decisions. The "LRT" has every opportunity to succeed as a fast reliable RAPID transit, even if it probably wont end up that way.

 

[Rainforest]

Could be wrong, but in a direct answer to a question asking how fast the line would be, the Metrolinx document you linked states a travel time of 33-34 mins and a speed of 20-21km/h.

That's a lot better than 16 kph, and closer to the expectations. Let's hope they reach at least 20-21 kph.

 

[Rainforest]

Is LRT actually much more expensive or does it just seem that way because we use underground stations at some locations and include the maintenance yard as part of the cost (rather than as a side-item. I'm not sure I've seen a genuine apples to apples comparison in Toronto; they always reuse other facilities for the bus proposals while at the same time TTC needs to expand bus storage capacity ($500M for a new bus maintenance yard isn't cheap).

I'm generally in favour of BRT (today*) despite the additional roadway width required (because I too presume it should be much cheaper) and because I think every single major roadway in Toronto should have a dedicated transit corridor and that requires incremental improvement. Battery buses make underground stops practical too.

* 10 years ago I preferred LRT due to the flexibility of being able to run below-ground or elevated with minimal added cost where warranted; underground high-speed human driven diesel bus infrastructure isn't cheap.

That's a good point; they piggy-back on the existing bus facilities when costing the bus service enhancements, but eventually those facilities run out of space, and they need to build a new one. Assigning a portion of garage cost to each transit node would lead to more accurate comparisons.

I suspect though, that LRT will still come out substantially more expensive, because of the tracks, and more expensive vehicles.

 

[Rainforest]

I am ok with the theory. It’s like the very last point in the advantages of an lrt over a bus. The comfort, capacity, image are all higher priorities to me. As a former finch east resident who loved the finch east express this is how I would have modelled my spacing. But people beg for stops. I don’t know if they still exist but I’d be infuriated that the bus would stop on the east side of don mills and finch and then immediately again on the west side. It was extremely annoying. I guess that is something good about subways that you don’t need to give in to NIMBYs. On the other hand just like transit priority lights I’d much rather believe the politicians can grown some balls and deal with these issues instead of having to spend billions to make it a subway cutting funds from elsewhere.

Everyone can have personal preferences, but I don't believe "image" matters for many riders. Comfort matters, but the difference between LRT and bus is not that big. I guess if we polled the riders and asked them to pick either better comfort or better travel time, the majority would pick better travel time.

Capacity matters, no doubt. If the demand is in the range that cannot be easily handled by artic buses, but can be handled by LRT, that's a good case for LRT.

And, I'd surely like to see improvements in traffic signals that let LRT run faster.

 

[sixrings]

Is LRT actually much more expensive or does it just seem that way because we use underground stations at some locations and include the maintenance yard as part of the cost (rather than as a side-item. I'm not sure I've seen a genuine apples to apples comparison in Toronto; they always reuse other facilities for the bus proposals while at the same time TTC needs to expand bus storage capacity ($500M for a new bus maintenance yard isn't cheap).

I'm generally in favour of BRT (today*) despite the additional roadway width required (because I too presume it should be much cheaper) and because I think every single major roadway in Toronto should have a dedicated transit corridor and that requires incremental improvement. Battery buses make underground stops practical too.

* 10 years ago I preferred LRT due to the flexibility of being able to run below-ground or elevated with minimal added cost where warranted; underground high-speed human driven diesel bus infrastructure isn't cheap.

Everyone can have personal preferences, but I don't believe "image" matters for many riders. Comfort matters, but the difference between LRT and bus is not that big. I guess if we polled the riders and asked them to pick either better comfort or better travel time, the majority would pick better travel time.

Capacity matters, no doubt. If the demand is in the range that cannot be easily handled by artic buses, but can be handled by LRT, that's a good case for LRT.

And, I'd surely like to see improvements in traffic signals that let LRT run faster.

Well I’ll just speak for myself. I do know people who will use the streetcar. Who will use the subway. But will NEVER use a bus. Do I think these people are a bit snobby and spoiled… sure but they exist. The kiss and ride was essentially made for these people.

Ideally these lines open and there’s pressure applied to get the signal priority going. We will see how at grade works with finch and hurontario.

 

[Rainforest]

In any case, it is handy that Finch will soon have an LRT line in operation. It was wise of the residents not to go subway-or-nothing routine, if they did then they wouldn't get any improvements in the near future, and perhaps nothing for a few decades.

Nor did it make sense for them to ask "let's downgrade us to BRT and save money". The province is paying, the city is actively looking to showcase LRT, then why not showcase it on Finch.

Once in operation, this line will provide important lessons. Travel speed, and what can be done to improve it. Operational expenses, better riders-per-driver ratio vs more infrastructure to maintain. And finally, how the demand grows and where does it peak.

 

[sixrings]

In any case, it is handy that Finch will soon have an LRT line in operation. It was wise of the residents not to go subway-or-nothing routine, if they did then they wouldn't get any improvements in the near future, and perhaps nothing for a few decades.

Nor did it make sense for them to ask "let's downgrade us to BRT and save money". The province is paying, the city is actively looking to showcase LRT, then why not showcase it on Finch.

Once in operation, this line will provide important lessons. Travel speed, and what can be done to improve it. Operational expenses, better riders-per-driver ratio vs more infrastructure to maintain. And finally, how the demand grows and where does it peak.

I will say one other benefit is on street boarding. I recently used the Ottawa lrt from Rideau centre. The station is ridiculously deep as if the constructors were half trying to see if they could make it to Hell. The two or was it three flights of escalators took a solid five minutes to even get onto the platform. You add that to your travel time both ways and you add 10 minutes to your trip. Made me have some fear about the depths of eglinton and or the Ontario line.

 

[T3G]

Well I’ll just speak for myself. I do know people who will use the streetcar. Who will use the subway. But will NEVER use a bus. Do I think these people are a bit snobby and spoiled… sure but they exist. The kiss and ride was essentially made for these people.

Ideally these lines open and there’s pressure applied to get the signal priority going. We will see how at grade works with finch and hurontario.

I don't avoid buses, per se, but I can't say I'm a fan, and if there's a rail option, I would always opt for that one.

Buses can be good.

Just not TTC ones.

The Orions are pretty adequate in terms of ride quality, while the Novas are a spine shattering abomination, but both suffer from having an AWFUL interior layout. No standee spaces, meaning that as soon as the bus fills up (which doesn't take much), there is pretty much no place for you to stand where you're not in someone's way. Can't stand by the wheel wells, because people are getting on... can't stand by the rear doors, because people are getting off... can't stand in the wheelchair spot, because if there is no wheelchair or stroller, people are sitting there, and if there is, then they are taking up that space... can't stand in the high floor section, cause people are getting off and it's super crammed... I honestly don't know what is wrong with the TTC that they keep ordering their buses like this. The last bus with a good interior floor plan was the 1996 Orion V.

You know what buses are good? VIVA's Van Hools. They ride better than any North American bus, and they have a GIANT space across the rear doors that can fit a wheelchair/stroller and quite a few standees.