[k10ery]

^If you think the DRTES is a feasibility study for a DRL, you may end up being disappointed I think. We'll see.

 

[CapitalSeven]

We could easily be disappointed. It's well known that the TTC doesn't favour a DRL, and the study may be slanted to say it isn't required or isn't affordable. Fingers crossed.

 

[gweed123]

We could easily be disappointed. It's well known that the TTC doesn't favour a DRL, and the study may be slanted to say it isn't required or isn't affordable. Fingers crossed.

Studies are slanted in the way politicians want them to be slanted. If the politicians want subways, the study will favour subways. If the politicians want LRT, the study will favour LRT. This is unless of course the want of the politicians is completely unfeasible, then the study writers are in a pretty big pickle (as is the case with Ford's Sheppard Subway).

City Council commissioned the DRTES with the understanding that rapid transit expansion downtown is needed. You pretty much have the study's conclusion right there. The main focus of the study, as I understand it, is to determine what is the best option (or options) for expansion.

It's more of a "how to" as opposed to a "yes or no" study. At least that's my understanding of it. It would take some pretty big cohonés to come out and say "rapid transit expansion isn't needed downtown".

 

[ibhattac]

Is it because more people can be employed with buses and streetcars and that includes all those managers than if you have subways?

Are you seriously insinuating that TTC plans and studies are driven by a desire to increase the size of the TTC's work force? Could the disinclination towards investing in subways be driven in small part by the fact that subways require much higher population/job densities (250+ persons/hectare) at each station stop to make them financially viable?

 

[EnviroTO]

What is wrong with the TTC? I use to think it was politicians meddling into the TTC's affairs. But is it? Is it because more people can be employed with buses and streetcars and that includes all those managers than if you have subways?

There is greater employment in buses on a per passenger basis than with the Transit City LRTs. A platform in the centre of the street has no staff but likely all the underground stations would have a staff member for safety/vandalism concerns and fare collection. If it was all about employment then going bus only would be the choice of the TTC.

 

[Platform 27]

drum, unless Rob Ford found $4 billion between the couch cushions and also a portal that can send construction crews 2 years back in time to help meet his campaign timelines (not sure which is more likely), I think it's a safe bet that you meant to post these in this thread.

 

[CDL.TO]

drum, unless Rob Ford found $4 billion between the couch cushions and also a portal that can send construction crews 2 years back in time to help meet his campaign timelines (not sure which is more likely), I think it's a safe bet that you meant to post these in this thread.

Thanks for pointing that out. Drum's post has been moved to the Spadina Extension thread.

 

[Palma]

Are you seriously insinuating that TTC plans and studies are driven by a desire to increase the size of the TTC's work force? Could the disinclination towards investing in subways be driven in small part by the fact that subways require much higher population/job densities (250+ persons/hectare) at each station stop to make them financially viable?

You must work for the TTC to be so angry. A bus that runs on Dufferin every 2 min needs a driver per bus vs the new subway cars that is supposedly suppose to be operator free. Which would need more staff - the bus or the subway?

 

[nfitz]

You must work for the TTC to be so angry.

Where is there any indication that they are angry?

A bus that runs on Dufferin every 2 min needs a driver per bus vs the new subway cars that is supposedly suppose to be operator free. Which would need more staff - the bus or the subway?

The new subway cars are not operator-free. There's two operators per train. And station attendants ... and station cleaners, etc. I'm not sure that it's cheaper to run a bus every 2 minutes, than a subway train every 6 minutes.

 

[rbt]

You must work for the TTC to be so angry. A bus that runs on Dufferin every 2 min needs a driver per bus vs the new subway cars that is supposedly suppose to be operator free. Which would need more staff - the bus or the subway?

Subway by a fair amount.

You missed all of the maintenance and inspection staff who keep the subway running. Not so much out of the gate as 15 to 30 years after the subway is built. Maintenance (not expansion, just maintenance) on our subway system is at or above $300M per year who do such things as making the tunnels round again (because they tend to warp) and resealing stations that are located underneath underground rivers. Escalators, elevators, fare gates, etc. all require maintenance too; likely much more than we currently give them.

Replacement of failing parts after 50 years is way higher than repaving the street every 10 years. All electrical subsystems, signals, network/communications equipment, ...; so you don't get anything in favour of subway when including road maintenance either.


Today, it works out to about $3M/year/km in maintenance efforts for our existing subway system (see TTC capital/operating budgets), largely due to age. This staff is mostly local but some is remote (contracted 3rd party firms). Very little goes into the raw materials.

New stuff is cheaper but it gets old within a generation. Parts of Sheppard are already getting mid-life maintenance.

Now, if you were replacing a dozen bus routes with 2 minute frequencies and expected future growth, then it would be different.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Subway by a fair amount.

You missed all of the maintenance and inspection staff who keep the subway running. Not so much out of the gate as 15 to 30 years after the subway is built. Maintenance (not expansion, just maintenance) on our subway system is at or above $300M per year who do such things as making the tunnels round again (because they tend to warp) and resealing stations that are located underneath underground rivers. Escalators, elevators, fare gates, etc. all require maintenance too; likely much more than we currently give them.

Replacement of failing parts after 50 years is way higher than repaving the street every 10 years. All electrical subsystems, signals, network/communications equipment, ...; so you don't get anything in favour of subway when including road maintenance either.


Today, it works out to about $3M/year/km in maintenance efforts for our existing subway system (see TTC capital/operating budgets), largely due to age. This staff is mostly local but some is remote (contracted 3rd party firms). Very little goes into the raw materials.

New stuff is cheaper but it gets old within a generation. Parts of Sheppard are already getting mid-life maintenance.

Now, if you were replacing a dozen bus routes with 2 minute frequencies and expected future growth, then it would be different.

We experience maintenance problems with the aging water mains and electrical systems. Worse in the former suburbs, with the cost shared with the low-density properties along the route, instead of the medium-density in the old city.

 

[rbt]

We experience maintenance problems with the aging water mains and electrical systems. Worse in the former suburbs, with the cost shared with the low-density properties along the route, instead of the medium-density in the old city.

Of course, but those issues also exist on streets without buses and cannot be attributed to the cost of TTC service. I would take more frequent resurfacing as an expense the buses cause as they regularly cause divots at the sides of roads at busy stops.

Reshaping the subway tunnel on the Yonge line is exclusively a TTC problem.

 

[CharmAlarm]

As usual, all these discussions are pointless unless there is money on the table..money which will become increasingly scarce for those who bother to read the headlines. Here is a good analysis of the looming provincial financial crisis and how it will affect transit in the city:

http://spacingtoronto.ca/2012/01/09/lorinc-don-drummond-will-mess-up-rob-fords-plans/

 

[TrickyRicky]

In a way I think that Toronto should consider the Herculean task of positioning itself to go it alone in the future. In this day and age it is increasingly looking like, as hard as it may be to believe, the ever cash-strapped city may be the only fiscally solvent man standing in the end. The Province is a lame duck because of Healthcare. We are talking about a future where Healthcare goes from 45% of the Provincial budget to 70%! The Federal Government, which somehow gets a pass these days (for unknown reasons) is spending even faster than the Province and has looming pension and other issues that are just as serious as the Healthcare issue is for the Province.

What does it look like for Toronto to go it alone on transit? It means slash spending AND increase revenues AND dedicate this funding to transit. The remarkable part of it is if sold properly I think the majority of Torontonians would accept this proposition. Does it make sense to absolve the other levels of government for what should be, by international standards, their portion of responsibility for urban transit? I don't think it matters anymore. That ship has sailed in our present reality. We are on our own and it's up to us to make it happen.

 

[gweed123]

In a way I think that Toronto should consider the Herculean task of positioning itself to go it alone in the future. In this day and age it is increasingly looking like, as hard as it may be to believe, the ever cash-strapped city may be the only fiscally solvent man standing in the end. The Province is a lame duck because of Healthcare. We are talking about a future where Healthcare goes from 45% of the Provincial budget to 70%! The Federal Government, which somehow gets a pass these days (for unknown reasons) is spending even faster than the Province and has looming pension and other issues that are just as serious as the Healthcare issue is for the Province.

What does it look like for Toronto to go it alone on transit? It means slash spending AND increase revenues AND dedicate this funding to transit. The remarkable part of it is if sold properly I think the majority of Torontonians would accept this proposition. Does it make sense to absolve the other levels of government for what should be, by international standards, their portion of responsibility for urban transit? I don't think it matters anymore. That ship has sailed in our present reality. We are on our own and it's up to us to make it happen.

If this is the case, I think an increasing percentage of funding for transit projects will need to come from user fees (road tolls, gas taxes, etc). Because it's becoming increasingly clear that tax dollars going towards transit projects are going to become more scarce.