[Johnny Au]

im no economics expert but i too wonder just where the money that is being collected in taxes and for the development fees of a record construction tempo are going to.
im chancing part of it goes to a word that begins with a C and ends with an N with 3 syllables...

I knew it!

The money's going to build an elaborate paifang in Chinatown!

One large enough for two Flexity Outlook streetcars to pass underneath it side-by-side!

 

[EnviroTO]

Province may have to run Eglinton LRT amid Toronto’s financial woes - Global News​

The high cost of any transportation operation is staff and fuel. Am I supposed to believe that an electric transportation system, brand new and under warranty, with vehicles that are driven by a single employee that handle a much larger capacity, is somehow more expensive to run than the buses it replaces?? How?? I get that the system was more expensive to build, and that the vehicles are more expensive... but to operate?? How?? Where is the money going to go??

 

[Steve X]

The high cost of any transportation operation is staff and fuel. Am I supposed to believe that an electric transportation system, brand new and under warranty, with vehicles that are driven by a single employee that handle a much larger capacity, is somehow more expensive to run than the buses it replaces?? How?? I get that the system was more expensive to build, and that the vehicles are more expensive... but to operate?? How?? Where is the money going to go??

Just because you see less vehicles and less operator doesn't mean it's cheaper to operate.

We don't know exactly what charges will ML request TTC to pay daily upkeep as it is in a secret operating agreement which they want to rip up now. Previously ML said they would only fund life cycle expenses. The extra costs could include:
Power distributions system
Railway wear and tear
Electricity cost for stations and signage
The cost of energy to move a LRV is more expensive than a bus
Daily LRV maintenance
Signal system maintenance
Tunnel maintenance

A bus would only cost fuel and maintenances. Roadway cost falls under the city while bus shelter maintenances is free in exchange of advertisement revenue.

It is be proven many times that a subway line cost more to maintain than the bus alternative. This is true for more recent expansions such as the TYSSE and Sheppard. As well as the streetcar network. TTC will also add services such as the 158 TRETHEWEY and 164 CASTLEFIELD routes as well as keeping the 34 EGLINTON parallel service. It is almost certain operating these LRT lines will cost more than the status quo.

The point of mass transit is to move mass amounts of people more efficiency. It is never about saving money unless it's Asia. Eventually the line will grew in ridership to get close to break even. Studies have found the Yonge Line does before COVID cause of the amount of riders. For a new line in North America, it'll never happen.

 

[EnviroTO]

Just because you see less vehicles and less operator doesn't mean it's cheaper to operate.

We don't know exactly what charges will ML request TTC to pay daily upkeep as it is in a secret operating agreement which they want to rip up now. Previously ML said they would only fund life cycle expenses. The extra costs could include:
Power distributions system
Railway wear and tear
Electricity cost for stations and signage
The cost of energy to move a LRV is more expensive than a bus
Daily LRV maintenance
Signal system maintenance
Tunnel maintenance

The point of mass transit is to move mass amounts of people more efficiency. It is never about saving money unless it's Asia. Eventually the line will grew in ridership to get close to break even. Studies have found the Yonge Line does before COVID cause of the amount of riders. For a new line in North America, it'll never happen.

All of that is the opposite of what the argument by the TTC against the province uploading the operating costs of the subway has been. The argument has often been that the subway subsidizes the surface routes operationally. The electricity cost for LRVs should not be more expensive than diesel fuel for buses. The LRTs have lower rolling resistance than buses and ask any electric vehicle owner... fuel to electricity costs are not comparable. Yes, there are buildings to maintain which is new, but most have low staffing requirements. Power distribution system = capital cost already purchased and under warranty. Railway wear and tear... sure that will become a cost but not immediately. Electricity costs for stations and signage = low (modern led lighting) unless they try to keep the stations at room temperature (heating could be more expensive). Daily LRV maintenance shouldn't be that much different than the three buses it replaces. Signal system maintenance = modoerate (new system so changes shouldn't be required but there will be some cost to run a control center). Tunnel maintenance... this is under warranty... there should be no immediate cost.

 

[EnviroTO]

According to the freedom of access report on the operating cost of the two lines, it was stated the costs were $106 million annually. Looking at a Finch West service plan that shows an average 22 buses operating, a route length of about 25km, and an average speed of 15km/h you can do some back of a knapkin math using the current diesel fuel cost and fuel consumption rate to see that whole cost is likely to be mostly covered by fuel savings if the buses replaced by the service are taken off the road.

 

[asey20]

According to the freedom of access report on the operating cost of the two lines, it was stated the costs were $106 million annually. Looking at a Finch West service plan that shows an average 22 buses operating, a route length of about 25km, and an average speed of 15km/h you can do some back of a knapkin math using the current diesel fuel cost and fuel consumption rate to see that whole cost is likely to be mostly covered by fuel savings if the buses replaced by the service are taken off the road.

I asked ChatGPT to do the napkin math:

Assuming 22 buses are operating on a 25 km route at an average speed of 15 km/h for 16 hours a day, every day of the year, the buses would cover a total of 96,360,000 km annually.​

If a city bus consumes, on average, 30 liters of diesel per 100 km, then these buses would use a total of 28,908,000 liters of diesel in a year.​

With the cost of diesel at $1.25 per liter, the annual fuel cost for operating these buses would be $36,135,000.​

Note: I am assuming diesel at a wholesale price of $1.25 per liter. It could be higher or lower.

 

[Steve X]

All of that is the opposite of what the argument by the TTC against the province uploading the operating costs of the subway has been. The argument has often been that the subway subsidizes the surface routes operationally. The electricity cost for LRVs should not be more expensive than diesel fuel for buses. The LRTs have lower rolling resistance than buses and ask any electric vehicle owner... fuel to electricity costs are not comparable. Yes, there are buildings to maintain which is new, but most have low staffing requirements. Power distribution system = capital cost already purchased and under warranty. Railway wear and tear... sure that will become a cost but not immediately. Electricity costs for stations and signage = low (modern led lighting) unless they try to keep the stations at room temperature (heating could be more expensive). Daily LRV maintenance shouldn't be that much different than the three buses it replaces. Signal system maintenance = modoerate (new system so changes shouldn't be required but there will be some cost to run a control center). Tunnel maintenance... this is under warranty... there should be no immediate cost.

This is not a consumer product. You make it sound like everything is under warranty, not my problem. Someone has to pay for the cleaning staffs. Someone has to pay for the pumps sucking up water in the tunnels. Someone has to pay for the fans bring oxygen down to the stations. I can tell you it's not crosslinx. They aren't a charity. If an insurance company is to provide insurance and they only have one client, the cost would be more that how much they need to insure plus operating cost to stay in business.

Warranty is for defects made if things are installed incorrectly or manufacturing defects. If I was to do business with you and have to cover your daily wear and tear, I would simply not do business with you.

 

[Rainforest]

The Finch LRT cost situation will be of a particular interest.

Eglinton line is an odd duck, having long tunnels and many underground stations. It will probably cost more to operate than the bus lines it replaces, but the extra cost is justifiable from the whole network perspective as ECLRT will greatly improve the connectivity. Anyway, ECLRT is one of a kind, TTC will not have another line of similar design.

In contrast, Finch follows the classic surface LRT design, with just two underground stations. Thus the cost situation is very relevant to any other new surface LRT line that TTC might want to add in the future.

 

[EnviroTO]

I asked ChatGPT to do the napkin math:

Excellent use case for ChatGPT

So the cost released as the estimate to run the Finch West and Eglinton Crosstown lines was a total of $106 million. In fuel savings from the Finch West bus route alone $36 million of that is covered bringing the unfunded cost to $70 million. I could look up the service levels of routes 32, 34, 54, 51, and other impacted routes and determine the volume of busses replaced with this service to be able to calculate the fuel savings there... but you can see the order of magnitude we are talking about from the Finch West example. It is probably about $60 million in fuel savings on Eglinton and Eglinton West. Then you start to get into other items like not needing to maintain those buses, staff those buses, etc. The operating costs end up not being that different. It is the capital costs and payment against that initial expense that are the big dollar items. Buses aren't that efficient.

 

[EnviroTO]

This is not a consumer product. You make it sound like everything is under warranty, not my problem. Someone has to pay for the cleaning staffs. Someone has to pay for the pumps sucking up water in the tunnels. Someone has to pay for the fans bring oxygen down to the stations. I can tell you it's not crosslinx. They aren't a charity. If an insurance company is to provide insurance and they only have one client, the cost would be more that how much they need to insure plus operating cost to stay in business.

Warranty is for defects made if things are installed incorrectly or manufacturing defects. If I was to do business with you and have to cover your daily wear and tear, I would simply not do business with you.

I have already stated that I agree there are costs to maintain. What you don't understand is that those costs are minuscule in the big picture of what it costs to run the line and that operating a fleet of diesel buses is not cheap. Cleaning staff... there are 14 stations which were designed for low maintenance, the mostly do not have washrooms, lets be crazy and say it is a full time job to maintain it (I rarely see a janitor in the station so I'm pretty sure they aren't assigning a full time person for cleaning per station) so 14 people. How many people are bus mechanics, bus cleaners, bus drivers? Paying for fans and pumps... how much do you think these fans cost to run? They aren't nuclear plants, they are low maintenance HVAC units or industrial pumps that are expensive to buy, but not expensive to run. You don't seem to realize where the costs come from in running large business. It is always the largest consumed operational inputs (e.g. gas if you are a transport company, ink and paper if you are a publisher, hosting/CPU power if you are a website, etc), the staff, and the capital/debt financing. In this case the city doesn't need to worry about the capital/debt financing... the province already is covering that. So it is the other things, not the running of air conditioning, lighting, running a fan or a pump... it is the cost of the actual service, the consumed product, and not the maintenance (unless you have equipment due to be replaced and you are avoiding the capital expense of doing that by maintaining something beyond its normal service life).

 

[Steve X]

I have already stated that I agree there are costs to maintain. What you don't understand is that those costs are minuscule in the big picture of what it costs to run the line and that operating a fleet of diesel buses is not cheap. Cleaning staff... there are 14 stations which were designed for low maintenance, the mostly do not have washrooms, lets be crazy and say it is a full time job to maintain it (I rarely see a janitor in the station so I'm pretty sure they aren't assigning a full time person for cleaning per station) so 14 people. How many people are bus mechanics, bus cleaners, bus drivers? Paying for fans and pumps... how much do you think these fans cost to run? They aren't nuclear plants, they are low maintenance HVAC units or industrial pumps that are expensive to buy, but not expensive to run. You don't seem to realize where the costs come from in running large business. It is always the largest consumed operational inputs (e.g. gas if you are a transport company, ink and paper if you are a publisher, hosting/CPU power if you are a website, etc), the staff, and the capital/debt financing. In this case the city doesn't need to worry about the capital/debt financing... the province already is covering that. So it is the other things, not the running of air conditioning, lighting, running a fan or a pump... it is the cost of the actual service, the consumed product, and not the maintenance.

I always mention that a rail line cost more to operate than a bus route. Why did you think David Miller threaten to shut down the Sheppard subway?

When the line is operating. It is operating for the entire day from 6am to 1am. It is forecasted many hours when service levels on the LRT lines would be similar to current bus services. Ridership wouldn’t grow significantly in those hours while a bus being replaced with a 2 car train would certainly triple the operating cost.

We don’t know exactly how much it cost to operate those vehicles. We could use TTC’s charter rates as a guideline. https://www.ttc.ca/doing-business-with-the-ttc/chartering-ttc-vehicles/charter-rates
A streetcar is certainly twice the cost of a bus. The Finch LRVs are certainly more expensive to operate than a 30m Flexity due to its size.

 

[Mount Dennis Resident]

I always mention that a rail line cost more to operate than a bus route. Why did you think David Miller threaten to shut down the Sheppard subway?

When the line is operating. It is operating for the entire day from 6am to 1am. It is forecasted many hours when service levels on the LRT lines would be similar to current bus services. Ridership wouldn’t grow significantly in those hours while a bus being replaced with a 2 car train would certainly triple the operating cost.

We don’t know exactly how much it cost to operate those vehicles. We could use TTC’s charter rates as a guideline. https://www.ttc.ca/doing-business-with-the-ttc/chartering-ttc-vehicles/charter-rates
A streetcar is certainly twice the cost of a bus. The Finch LRVs are certainly more expensive to operate than a 30m Flexity due to its size.

A bus route uses the roadway that is maintained and paid for by the city. That cost is not included in the costs for the TTC (unless the TTC pays the property taxes that pays for it?).

 

[EnviroTO]

I always mention that a rail line cost more to operate than a bus route. Why did you think David Miller threaten to shut down the Sheppard subway?

When the Sheppard line opened it was overbuilt. It wasn't replacing a bus fleet capable of transporting subway capacities down the entire length of Sheppard, it was replacing a smaller 5km stretch with much less capacity. Only when the capacity is at a certain point is the mode of greater scale cheaper to operate. This is a chart of capital costs, but operationally things are similar where as you increase the number of people you are trying to move, the costs of operating a mode of transit not designed for that capacity becomes more expensive... it becomes more expensive to operate buses than to operate an LRT or a subway once you are trying to move a capacity that is reasonable for an LRT or a subway.

The design capacity of the Eglinton and Finch lines were optimized for a capacity that the line will actually see, so it will be cheaper than buses.

A Porter Q400 is cheaper to operate than an A380, but if you are trying to move 500 people from Toronto to Los Angeles, it is likely cheaper to put them all on the A380.

 

[smallspy]

Excellent use case for ChatGPT

So the cost released as the estimate to run the Finch West and Eglinton Crosstown lines was a total of $106 million. In fuel savings from the Finch West bus route alone $36 million of that is covered bringing the unfunded cost to $70 million. I could look up the service levels of routes 32, 34, 54, 51, and other impacted routes and determine the volume of busses replaced with this service to be able to calculate the fuel savings there... but you can see the order of magnitude we are talking about from the Finch West example. It is probably about $60 million in fuel savings on Eglinton and Eglinton West. Then you start to get into other items like not needing to maintain those buses, staff those buses, etc. The operating costs end up not being that different. It is the capital costs and payment against that initial expense that are the big dollar items. Buses aren't that efficient.

If you want to do some more math....

This is a bit out of date, but it costs ~$100k per bus to run an 8 hour shift every single regular weekday per year. This factors in all direct operating expenses.

Finch West has about 430* service hours (number of buses multiplied by the hours in service) per regular weekday day. (* the number is actually higher, but I'm rounding down to capture only the service that would be directly replaced by the LRT.)

Have at it.

Dan

 

[EnviroTO]

If you want to do some more math....

This is a bit out of date, but it costs ~$100k per bus to run an 8 hour shift every single regular weekday per year. This factors in all direct operating expenses.

Finch West has about 430* service hours (number of buses multiplied by the hours in service) per regular weekday day. (* the number is actually higher, but I'm rounding down to capture only the service that would be directly replaced by the LRT.)

Have at it.

Dan

Hmm. The 430 makes sense, but the $100K seems really low for direct operating expenses unless it is all expenses minus fuel, because the driver is maybe $75K of that (more when you factor in paid benefits). When I look at the fuel a bus would use over 8h shifts annually if travelling 15km/h... it seems like it would be more than $800K so the costs of running a bus for an 8h shift all year round would approach $1 million.