Sorry, didn’t mean to get anyone’s goat. I don’t know that much about this, so I wasn’t sure.
Apologies for making it seem that it was that was directed at you. It wasn't intended to be, it was a general comment.
And if we were to cancel the current LRV order, change the SELRT plans, put out a tender for an entire new fleet of vehicles with a special pantograph feature etc....wouldn't that be about on par in terms of costs, complexity, time as, say, making the tunnels larger for the current LRV fleet?
I think things really are too far gone at the point to make a change. As I stated days ago, I'm really aiming for the death of the "accepted" perception that the only way to make Sheppard a single line would be to spend hundreds of millions on expanding the tunnels.
That said, I'm quite certain that changing an LRT order to a different design (one that isn't unique and high-floor vehicles are generally cheaper than low-floor ones) would be a tiny fraction of the cost of expanding the tunnels.
Since you want to keep harping on this.....
Have you done any projections on what the cost to procure a completely separate and different fleet of LRVs would be? What it would cost to maintain them in their own facility? What it would cost to retrofit the Sheppard subway stations? What it would cost to redo the engineering of the Sheppard Line to handle these high-platform cars? Are these changes substantial enough that we're going to have to redo the EA process?
Hell, while you're at it, let's do the calculations for the life-cycle costs too. Can all of the modifications and the purchase of a unique fleet of equipment be expected to "pay for itself" in the long run?
Hey Dan! Yeah, I know I'm harping but like I said, this widely accepted misperception is really bugging me!
I haven't made any arguments about costs, so it's interesting that you've brought that into the argument. I'm don't have all the information at hand needed to crunch life-cycle costs, but it would be fantastic if someone did. So I can't answer that, but I can still continue to talk about the potential range of transit system designs. Can you crunch life-cycle costs? Otherwise I'll leave those questions unanswered and assume that you agree that a single line is doable, but we're just not sure what the economic case is.
As for redesigning things, I've previously said that I think things are too far gone at this point to change course. Which is perhaps unfortunate, but doesn't prevent us from working to overcome the misperception that the only solution to a single line would require spending hundreds of millions on rebuilding the tunnels and platforms.
Overall, I think that trying to shift the debate away from the "Subways vs. LRT" false dichotomy to a more nuanced one about the multitude of ways that LRT can be designed and implemented will really foster a better discourse about rapid transit in Toronto. I dream of a future when people in transit discussions ask "What is the appropriate level of grade separation?" rather than yelling "Subways subways subways!".
Actually, yes he did!
because AMSTERDAM.
I specifically said "could", based upon a relevant case study from another jurisdiction. What information do you have to suggest it would be otherwise? If you have any info, you should add it to the discussion.
Besides, don't you think there's value in seeing how other places deal with the same problems that we face?
Well, for wild-eyed guesses, let's try a lifetime markup of 25% over the price of the standard BBD Flexity for a low floor model. Try $ 20M per platform lowered, ie $40M per station . I'm being optimistic that as noted the only modification is jack hammering and excavating. Assume there is room for ramped access to the platforms so no changes to escalators etc. Assume signals are compatible. Assume $10M per km of track for whatever new electrical power delivery infrastructure is fitted.
Against this, credit a 10% ridership and revenue increase thanks to the line taking higher profile as a corridor and a positive effect on pace of development along the line. As noted, credit the savings in TR orders thanks to subway cars redeployed to Lines 1 and 2. I won't propose any 'intangible' benefit credits.
These numbers are pure guesses and undoubtedly can be argued. The point is, maybe it's a quarter of a billion. Far cheaper than additional subway construction, and still prudent within the GTA funding envelope, whatever that is. The world won't end if this isn't done - It's just the price of correcting the past and doing things right.
Interesting argument. But with a rolling stock that is designed to fit on the existing line, you could remove that $40M per station for lowering platforms. Also, since there won't be as much of need to reconfigure Sheppard station to add an additional LRT platform, there is potential savings there was well.
But still, all these numbers are really based on conjecture.
