[nfitz]

The outer portiosn of subway lines always have lower ridership numbers than the sections closer to the core.

True - but the same report does show the Yonge extension having 8,800 and even the much maligned Spadina extension having 7,200. But I also agree that it would likely make sense to build this piece as subway rather than LRT - particularly with the network connectivity.

You can't go much further right than what those two are, and if the plan can survive them, it can certainly survive a swing back to the political left (when/if that does happen).

Given how big the issue has been in the public and media, it's hard to imagine that Hudak would not have to take some kind of position on the issue going into the election ... which might isolate us from the cuts that happened after Harris was elected. Though with the latest polling indicating that support for Hudak is fallling and McGuinty growing, then it's far too early to be assuming who will win the next election. Though neither party is in majority government territory at the moment.

 

[gweed123]

Given how big the issue has been in the public and media, it's hard to imagine that Hudak would not have to take some kind of position on the issue going into the election ... which might isolate us from the cuts that happened after Harris was elected. Though with the latest polling indicating that support for Hudak is fallling and McGuinty growing, then it's far too early to be assuming who will win the next election. Though neither party is in majority government territory at the moment.

Who needs transit when you have buck-a-beers?

But I do agree with you, transit will certainly be an election issue, especially if the Toronto projects get kicked into a higher gear by that time. Question though, would funding for Metrolinx' projects be a full legislature vote, or would that be a cabinet decision that's made at budget time? If it's a cabinet decision, transit funding may not be as safe as if it was a full vote. You can bet that the Liberals and the NDP would team up to block any type of funding cuts for transit projects if the full vote was indeed the case. But yes, Ontario, like Canada, is moving closer and closer towards a political stalemate, with neither party getting enough support to form a clear majority.

 

[dowlingm]

Who needs transit when you have buck-a-beers?

I can see the election literature now - Hudak, Ford and a two four. And it'll be Coors Canadian, not Steamwhistle or any other fancy downtowner brand.

 

[Northern Magus]

Question though, would funding for Metrolinx' projects be a full legislature vote, or would that be a cabinet decision that's made at budget time? If it's a cabinet decision, transit funding may not be as safe as if it was a full vote.

Funding commitments like this are pretty much never made through primary legislation except for annual budgets -- otherwise it would create huge delays (3 readings + committee + assent), slow down the passage of other bills, etc.

Specific commitments are typically entered into by Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario.

Given how big the issue has been in the public and media, it's hard to imagine that Hudak would not have to take some kind of position on the issue going into the election ...

True, just as it's hard to imagine that Hudie wouldn't have to take some kind of position on the HST or the Health Premium.

Oh wait a minute......

 

[Northern Magus]

Interesting that the only item on that list not shown on the 15 year plan is #3 on the list. Mixed up priorities much?

More like insufficient funds to do it earlier. Realistically, there's probably no way it's getting built without substantial revenues coming in from road pricing. And in any event, when added together, the Transit City projects would clearly benefit more people, which justifies their prioritization.

But what's truly surprising is that based on these numbers, Mayor Rob Ford's avowed #1 priority -- extending the Sheppard Subway -- would quite arguably be wasteful spending. It just isn't justified by the numbers, although our intrepid mayor hasn't really been known for enlightened decision-making.

 

[nfitz]

True, just as it's hard to imagine that Hudie wouldn't have to take some kind of position on the HST or the Health Premium.

I thought the Tories were quite clear about their position on the HST. They thought the timing was bad introducing it, but that they generally support the concept and would keep it - perhaps decrease the rate.

Though we're not in an election yet ...

 

[gweed123]

More like insufficient funds to do it earlier. Realistically, there's probably no way it's getting built without substantial revenues coming in from road pricing. And in any event, when added together, the Transit City projects would clearly benefit more people, which justifies their prioritization.

But what's truly surprising is that based on these numbers, Mayor Rob Ford's avowed #1 priority -- extending the Sheppard Subway -- would quite arguably be wasteful spending. It just isn't justified by the numbers, although our intrepid mayor hasn't really been known for enlightened decision-making.

Insufficient funds, or just a misallocation of funds?

And Transit City as a whole may benefit more people, but break any of those projects down on ridership per dollar, and the DRL would come out on top. A $5B DRL with a daily ridership of 57,100 works out to $87,565/passenger, while the top TC project (Eglinton) works out to $4.6 billion for 30,700, which equals $149,837/passenger. Other TC lines have an even worse ratio. The SLRT is $1.4 billion for 15,300, or $91,503/passenger. The breakdowns for Finch West and Sheppard would likely be even lower, but they weren't on the Top 15 list that nfitz posted, so I don't have readily available stats on those.

So yes, the 4 Transit City projects would benefit more people, but collectively they would also cost almost twice as much. On a dollars per passenger basis, the DRL is by far the best return on investment.

 

[rbt]

And Transit City as a whole may benefit more people, but break any of those projects down on ridership per dollar, and the DRL would come out on top. A $5B DRL with a daily ridership of 57,100 works out to $87,565/passenger, while the top TC project (Eglinton) works out to $4.6 billion for 30,700, which equals $149,837/passenger.

This type of calculation should be done for new passengers only.

Installing a new system on Bay and closing Yonge would look mighty good with the above calculation since it would have the lowest capital expense per passenger. Moving a passenger from one system (sunk cost) to a new one isn't beneficial.

DRL may be able to hold it's own in new ridership to the system (Danforth and DRL and Yonge if it goes to Eglinton).

 

[gweed123]

This type of calculation should be done for new passengers only.

Installing a new system on Bay and closing Yonge would look mighty good with the above calculation since it would have the lowest capital expense per passenger. Moving a passenger from one system (sunk cost) to a new one isn't beneficial.

DRL may be able to hold it's own in new ridership to the system (Danforth and DRL and Yonge if it goes to Eglinton).

But are you factoring in the fact that those 'existing' passengers have just opened up spots on the YUS and BD lines? The amount of latent demand that the Yonge line has especially is pretty substantial. How many people COULD take the subway but don't because it's "too damn crowded"? How many of those optional riders would perhaps be drawn to transit because of the fact that the Yonge trains are no longer crammed like sardine cans? It's difficult to quantify, I will acknowledge that, but it still exists.

By the way, your same logic would apply against upgrading bus routes to LRT, because a lot of those people are not 'new riders', they were people who were riding the bus before.

And why are 'new riders' more valuable than existing riders? Does their opinion/view/happiness matter more because they're fickle and will only take transit if it's rapid transit at their doorstep?

PS: Mods, this should probably be moved to the Transit City thread, it's gotten a bit off topic, but I think it's still a good discussion.

 

[TOareaFan]

And why are 'new riders' more valuable than existing riders? Does their opinion/view/happiness matter more because they're fickle and will only take transit if it's rapid transit at their doorstep?

PS: Mods, this should probably be moved to the Transit City thread, it's gotten a bit off topic, but I think it's still a good discussion.

Yes it is a good discussion.

Perhaps the reason new riders are "more valuable" (I don't think that is what rbt meant btw...I think he meant you can only measure "return" based on them) because they bring new dollars. If I spend $1billion on a transit line and attract no new customers but I make the ones I already have more comfortable that might be a good thing but there is no financial return. If I spend that same $1billion elsewhere and attract some new customers there is a return (and quite measurable at that).

 

[gweed123]

Yes it is a good discussion.

Perhaps the reason new riders are "more valuable" (I don't think that is what rbt meant btw...I think he meant you can only measure "return" based on them) because they bring new dollars. If I spend $1billion on a transit line and attract no new customers but I make the ones I already have more comfortable that might be a good thing but there is no financial return. If I spend that same $1billion elsewhere and attract some new customers there is a return (and quite measurable at that).

That certainly is a valid point. My rebuttal was based on the fact that building a line that syphons existing riders doesn't necessarily mean that it's not attracting new riders to the system. 17,500 spaces on peak hour Yonge line trains is a lot to remove, and those are spots that could easily be filled by the 'new riders' that rbt was mentioning. New riders don't have to be created directly by that new line, they can be indirect by taking passengers from other routes, opening up spaces to be filled on those routes.

ADD: It would be interesting to see what the ridership numbers were like on the Yonge line immediately before the opening of the Spadina line, immediately after the opening, and 6-12 months after. I would anticipate you would have seen a high ridership, then a drop-off (passengers switching to using Spadina, especially those from west of Yonge), then a slow rise as those empty spots were filled. I anticipate a similar thing if the DRL were to be built, especially if it goes up to Eglinton.

 

[TOareaFan]

That certainly is a valid point. My rebuttal was based on the fact that building a line that syphons existing riders doesn't necessarily mean that it's not attracting new riders to the system. 17,500 spaces on peak hour Yonge line trains is a lot to remove, and those are spots that could easily be filled by the 'new riders' that rbt was mentioning. New riders don't have to be created directly by that new line, they can be indirect by taking passengers from other routes, opening up spaces to be filled on those routes.

and I don't think rbt was saying that investing in areas with existing transit do not attract new riders....I think he was just saying that the calc should be based on new riders only. (i really should let him/her speak for him/her self but that is how I read it )

 

[SlickFranky]

This calc should probably take operating costs (among other things) into account for it to be even partially useful, especially since that's primarily what the TTC really cares about. They're looking for the most operational-savings bang for the buck, not the least capital-per-rider, as they're not paying the capital anyway. Capital efficiency is of more interest to those supplying the capital, and less-so to those making use of it.

 

[TOareaFan]

This calc should probably take operating costs (among other things) into account for it to be even partially useful, especially since that's primarily what the TTC really cares about. They're looking for the most operational-savings bang for the buck, not the least capital-per-rider, as they're not paying the capital anyway. Capital efficiency is of more interest to those supplying the capital, and less-so to those making use of it.

Well, if someone gave me free capital and I could invest it in different ways, I think I would care a lot about how many customers each option created.....sure, I would also care about operating costs and the net benefit each of those new customers brought me.....but if one option did not produce any new customers (extreme example) it makes the calc very easy

 

[nfitz]

The breakdowns for Finch West and Sheppard would likely be even lower, but they weren't on the Top 15 list that nfitz posted, so I don't have readily available stats on those.

Finch West was #17 for the peak hour with 11,300 (and #22 for the peak point at 4,500). Sheppard East LRT is so far down I don't know how it ranks ... 6,800 for peak hour which is below #25 ... and 3,100 for peak point which is somewhere around #24 - the same as VIVA Highway 7.