[rbt]

In Vancouver, they were proposed to cut 45,000 annual hours of SkyTrain service and re-allocate the fund to other projects such as Surrey rapid bus. The cut itself would save $500k per year. So this gives an operating cost of around $11 per hours for the service being cut.

Tell me, what is the cost of running that first 1 second of automated service per day? You're completely right that it scales up very cheaply from there but that first second is really really expensive.

It's similar to the reason TTC provides 5 minute service at midnight on a Tuesday on the subway lines. The savings by cutting it is such a small percentage of the total that it rounds out.


Anyway, a focus on "automation where possible" isn't fiscally prudent. Some things do have savings by being automated but not even in Vancouver do they have automated track repair/replacement, automated garbage collection, automated inspections, automated plumbing installation/maintenance, automated tile grouting, automated painting, automated snow clearning, etc.


Careful wording is required when giving a government organization a mandate as you just might get what you ask for.

Giving them a mandate to automate where technically possible would very quickly break the bank; although I'd personally love it. I make good money putting people out of work.


Provided TTC is the operator of Eglinton and the private partner uses TTC control center, the tunnel portion of Eglinton will have automated driving.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Perhaps next they'll change their minds about it running under Eglinton at all just like they change their minds every 5 minutes with everything else to do with it.

 

[nfitz]

Tell me, what is the cost of running that first 1 second of automated service per day? You're completely right that it scales up very cheaply from there but that first second is really really expensive.

Bingo. It's the difference between the marginal cost of an hour of service, to the average cost of an hour of service. For the average cost, you have to pay station staff, maintenance, cleaning, power, etc. But the marginal cost of running more trains, doesn't include any of those costs at all.

 

[nfitz]

Perhaps next they'll change their minds about it running under Eglinton at all just like they change their minds every 5 minutes with everything else to do with it.

It does seem a lot of drama about something that may never happen. I really don't have a lot of expectation that any of this will be built, other than the piece of subway from Yonge to Weston on Eglinton, that they've already awarded a contract for.

 

[gweed123]

It does seem a lot of drama about something that may never happen. I really don't have a lot of expectation that any of this will be built, other than the piece of subway from Yonge to Weston on Eglinton, that they've already awarded a contract for.

Agreed. I think come 2014 we're going to have another battle over this stuff. The only piece that seems safe is the tunnelled portion of Eglinton. And personally, I'm fine with that. I'd much rather have a BRT + Subway solution for a lot of the corridors anyways (the subway only being a B-D extension to Sheppard-McCowan). If the subway extension doesn't materialize, I'd like to see Eglinton East elevated or trenched and connected as a through line to the SRT revamp (which was THE plan a year ago, and seems to have been dropped in favour of separate lines again).

 

[Palma]

It does seem a lot of drama about something that may never happen. I really don't have a lot of expectation that any of this will be built, other than the piece of subway from Yonge to Weston on Eglinton, that they've already awarded a contract for.

You mean LRT from Yonge to Weston

 

[gweed123]

You mean LRT from Yonge to Weston

He was referring to the physical design, not the technology. Technology in this case is irrelevant. Same as how the Tremont Street Subway in Boston runs the Green Line LRT, yet it's still called a subway, because it's underground.

 

[nfitz]

You mean LRT from Yonge to Weston

I mean the subway that's being built from Yonge to Weston. Who knows what, if anything, they will run in the subway.

 

[ssiguy2]

You know why I love coming to this site?..............because every week there is a new plan announced to talk about.

 

[Dan416]

You know why I love coming to this site?..............because every week there is a new plan announced to talk about.

Just as much as I love that we argue about the definition of the word "subway" on a regular basis.

Anyway, personally I'd like to see the whole Eglinton line built. I couldn't care less if the SELRT never happens.

However I'd really like to see the SRT replaced with a subway extension to STC.

 

[gweed123]

Just as much as I love that we argue about the definition of the word "subway" on a regular basis.

Anyway, personally I'd like to see the whole Eglinton line built. I couldn't care less if the SELRT never happens.

However I'd really like to see the SRT replaced with a subway extension to STC.

Agreed on all counts, but the more and more I think about it, Sheppard-McCowan as the terminus makes so much more sense than STC.

 

[daka_x]

Recycling the SRT technology (now modernized) would have cost less or the same as LRT

I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but there was some research/advocacy group from the other side of Canada that actually conducted their own study of the technology choice for the Crosstown LRT and found the choice of LRT technology more expensive than a rebuild of the Scarborough RT to more modern standards and the building of the Crosstown LRT under the same (but since-improved) technology. Apparently it would've saved the same amount of money (that moving some of the LRT at-grade would have) or more to switch the technology choice, because of a specific in the diameter of the tunnels.

"The compromise is SkyTrain: Toronto should be pursuing this technology and not LRT on Eglinton" at SkyTrain for Surrey

Everything makes sense, and it looks like these guys do know their stuff.

 

[Voltz]

I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but there was some research/advocacy group from the other side of Canada that actually conducted their own study of the technology choice for the Crosstown LRT and found the choice of LRT technology more expensive than a rebuild of the Scarborough RT to more modern standards and the building of the Crosstown LRT under the same (but since-improved) technology. Apparently it would've saved the same amount of money (that moving some of the LRT at-grade would have) or more to switch the technology choice, because of a specific in the diameter of the tunnels.

"The compromise is SkyTrain: Toronto should be pursuing this technology and not LRT on Eglinton" at SkyTrain for Surrey

Everything makes sense, and it looks like these guys do know their stuff.

If this was accurate I'm sure Bombardier would have made it loud and clear, in either case the TBMs have been ordered and I believe the tunnel liners have as well so there is no changing anything now.

 

[rbt]

I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but there was some research/advocacy group from the other side of Canada that actually conducted their own study of the technology choice for the Crosstown LRT and found the choice of LRT technology more expensive than a rebuild of the Scarborough RT to more modern standards and the building of the Crosstown LRT under the same (but since-improved) technology.

This is true UNTIL you extend it on either end.

If the line is to be built out from Malvern on the east to Pearson Airport in the west; LRT is billions cheaper (capital wise) than the other options.

If the line stays exactly as planned today, with no expansions at all, then LRT is not the cheapest option. Basically, the expensive chunks are being completed now and we can do the cheap portions later pretty much on a 2% property tax hike which lasts a 10 year period (after 10 years property taxes drop 2% again).

 

[JayBeeGooner]

I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but there was some research/advocacy group from the other side of Canada that actually conducted their own study of the technology choice for the Crosstown LRT and found the choice of LRT technology more expensive than a rebuild of the Scarborough RT to more modern standards and the building of the Crosstown LRT under the same (but since-improved) technology. Apparently it would've saved the same amount of money (that moving some of the LRT at-grade would have) or more to switch the technology choice, because of a specific in the diameter of the tunnels.

"The compromise is SkyTrain: Toronto should be pursuing this technology and not LRT on Eglinton" at SkyTrain for Surrey

Everything makes sense, and it looks like these guys do know their stuff.

Wow. Skytrain for Surrey clearly does not have a biased judgement towards Skytrain technology.