adys123
Active Member
The line would have economies of scale by default, as it will use existing rolling stock and maintenance and storage facilities. It will also provide additional network resiliency.
|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
urbanclient
Active Member
Yes you are right, but what about economies of scale for the start up costs for construction, hiring the labour, sourcing the materials; not to mention the soft costs involved in planning, overanalyzing, EAs and business cases etc... All just for 3.8 km? Sounds like a missed opportunity. I guess maximizing economies of scale cannot be expected from government(s) with shoestring budgets. Penny wise, pound foolish.
adys123
Active Member
Some of these things like the environmental assessment and substantial design work has already been complete. Changing the mode would mean spending the time and money to redo those aspects of it.
KhalilHeron
Active Member
do you know how many drivers it takes to run BRTs with that kind of capacity? That business model is usually only viable in countries where labour is cheap. Believe thats why a BRT was shut down on finch.
Also if you're talking economies of scale it's not like its an isolated line or that we don't have plenty of other transit projects going on. The argument would make sense if this were a standalone line and the first projects we'd built in years. Also ignores the plans for future extensions, and more projects in the west
DSCToronto
Superstar
From Board of Trade: https://www.cp24.com/local/toronto/...o-can-improve-its-waterfront-new-report-says/ and the full Report at https://bot.com/Resources/Resource-Library/thepowerofconnection
urbanclient
Active Member
Yes, you are right, BRT very likely could get quashed over concerns about labour costs over here. Point was to not discount other options for future projects. This one has too much inertia so I doubt it will be completely reworked. Yes I am aware it is just extending the existing network. My opinion was that 3.8 km of extra track seems like a missed opportunity to go for more. But what do I know... Maybe more would cost too much. All levels of government appear to be in austerity mode right now, at least ostensibly, and certainly so regarding considerations for local transit expansion.
KhalilHeron
Active Member
If this does get funding soon i do hope that future phases advance with similar speed. You're right that if this is the only streetcar expansion we do we will certainly waste some money and inertia. I'm hopeful that at least the broadview and parts of waterfront west will at least under construction within the next 10-15 years
Rainforest
Senior Member
Buses will not handle the expected demand. Even if there exists an option to accommodate the required volume of buses at the Port Lands / Commissioners end, those buses would swarm the street space at the downtown end of the route.
On the other hand, tabling a short, dedicated subway line as a Plan B, might be a good idea. Something similar to Montreal's yellow line, that only has 3 stops, and connects the Berry-Uqam interchange with the island and the south side of the river.
A subway would cost more than LRT, but:
1. That would be a short route, 4-5 km, thus comparable in price to a 10-15 km long LRT project. Not something unaffordable.
2. Some posters here expressed concerns that LRT might not actully have enough capacity if/when the area is fully built up.
3. Even though the new subway would be very short initially, such a project would include a new tunnel and one or two new subway stations in the downtown. That means, the other end can be extended much further north, and turn into another Relief Line if/when the need arises.
No need to scrap the LRT project. Just table both the LRT and the subway option, and let the provincial government pick one.
If they are again any LRT (especially given the current Finch LRT troubles), and would rather fund the subway - that works. If they would rather save money and fund the LRT - that works too.
On the other hand, tabling a short, dedicated subway line as a Plan B, might be a good idea. Something similar to Montreal's yellow line, that only has 3 stops, and connects the Berry-Uqam interchange with the island and the south side of the river.
A subway would cost more than LRT, but:
1. That would be a short route, 4-5 km, thus comparable in price to a 10-15 km long LRT project. Not something unaffordable.
2. Some posters here expressed concerns that LRT might not actully have enough capacity if/when the area is fully built up.
3. Even though the new subway would be very short initially, such a project would include a new tunnel and one or two new subway stations in the downtown. That means, the other end can be extended much further north, and turn into another Relief Line if/when the need arises.
No need to scrap the LRT project. Just table both the LRT and the subway option, and let the provincial government pick one.
If they are again any LRT (especially given the current Finch LRT troubles), and would rather fund the subway - that works. If they would rather save money and fund the LRT - that works too.
KhalilHeron
Active Member
Would make a far better stubway than sheppard, but i think with the proximity of the ontario line, advancing the LRT to connect with it is a better first step, especially for serving queens quay where trips are already short. If demand in the portlands grows to be too much we can contemplate a higher capacity solution then
urbanclient
Active Member
LRTs appear not to be inherently cheaper in Toronto's unique case, even though this streetcar line is obviously different, I worry the short length will drive per km costs up:
$17 billion was spent since ~2009 on Line 5 and 6 for 29 km. If we started planning metro in 2009 it would be cheaper than it is today. The Line 1 extension to Vaughan was done by 2017 for under $300 million per km with 6.2km of TBM tunnel. Even double that per km cost at $600 million/km gets us 28 km of metro for $17 billion. A new subway doesn't have to use 3.1 wide by 140 metre long Toronto rockets. Lighter automated metros from 2.4 to 3 metres wide exist, even lighter in weight per metre than the LRVs on Line 5 and 6. See Vancouver, Paris and Copenhagen. The fact more easily future proofed driverless metro was not considered in Line 5 studies may prove to be a grave mistake when capacity is maxed out on Eglinton in the (distant?) future.
urbanclient
Active Member
I hate to break it to you, but there are precedents in more fiscal stimulus-y places like China that indicate upgrading to heavier metro is unlikely after other local rail transit is built, unless you want to go the premetro route, which I am fairly certain isn't happening here. And since the parties involved seem allergic to asking Europeans for advice, I doubt we'll be able to pull off a premetro even if we tried.
"we can contemplate a higher capacity solution then" ...again it's unlikely, not impossible, so hopefully they kept upgradability in mind.
JSF-1
Active Member
I honestly think the first thing that needs to happen is everyone needs to stop calling the East Bayfront and Waterfront West projects LRT's, because they aren't. They are just an expansion of the streetcar network that's going to use the same track gauge, the same rolling stock, and have the same stop spacing. This isn't some rapid transit line its just a local route no different form any of the city's other streetcar routes. The only reason its not being called what it is is because for some reason "Streetcar" is still a dirty word on this continent so we have to market things as something they are not. This is no different from the nonsense the city was pulling in the 90's with the Spadina and Harbourfront Streetcars, calling them LRT's when they clearly weren't. Just because a route runs in its own Right-of-Way or runs underground doesn't make it an LRT, there are fundamental differences; those differences being stop spacing, operating speed, and rolling stock. An LRT will have a wider stop spacing (e.g 500m+) which helps facilitate higher operating speeds, and uses larger LRV's. The Citadis and Flexity Freedoms for example can't operate downtown, not just because they use a different track gauge, but also because they are physically too big (or to use the technical term, they have a larger loading gauge). Finch West and Eglinton are LRT's even if the implementation has issues, this on the other hand is just an expansion of the streetcar network. New routes into the Port Lands and a connection from Exhibition to Roncesvalles, calling it anything else is not only disingenuous but it leads to needless debates because now people think we are building some rapid transit line on Queens Quay when all we are really doing is building more local ones with local stop spacing. An LRT shouldn't be stopping at every podunk side street because that's not its function, however that is the function of a streetcar (within reason of course, and the same can be said about buses as well. We should always be looking for unessicsary stops to remove on both Streetcar and Bus routes).
If you know me I believe we should be expanding our streetcar network, its madening seeing all of this debate over an LRT which doens't exist and never will because its not an LRT. If we just called it what is, I think everyone would have more reasoable expectations, and a more reasonable understanding of what we are actually trying to achieve here. Of course we can't do that because the second you mention the word "Streetcar" the car-centric roaches crawl out from under the floor boards and start hooting and hollering as if the devil himself is gonna come and personally kick their dogs...
**End of Rant**
If you know me I believe we should be expanding our streetcar network, its madening seeing all of this debate over an LRT which doens't exist and never will because its not an LRT. If we just called it what is, I think everyone would have more reasoable expectations, and a more reasonable understanding of what we are actually trying to achieve here. Of course we can't do that because the second you mention the word "Streetcar" the car-centric roaches crawl out from under the floor boards and start hooting and hollering as if the devil himself is gonna come and personally kick their dogs...
**End of Rant**
Last edited:
KhalilHeron
Active Member
Not saying we'd ever upgrade the streetcar line but rather if a future subway project similar to the ontario line ever happens again (very far future). I think we'd need to see a full buildout of East Harbour and the portlands, with even higher densities than proposed today before we ever need that though. 2 GO lines, a subway and multiple streetcar lines is already going to make the area one of the best connected as long as it all gets finished
nfitz
Superstar
You are comparing apples and oranges. The Bogata system is primarily a long-distace suburban system. There's an odd short connection, like the E (Eje Ambiental) - notorious for it's slow 9 to 10.5 km/hr average speed.
You are looking at total riders per day. What you need to look at is the peak-point passengers per hour per direction (pphpd).
As for the Guangazhou BRT - it only averages about 32,000 riders per line. It's more of an Ottawa-like transitway corridor - that they have since upgraded much of it to LRT. Even in a massively corrupt evil tyrannical military dictatorship it moves too slow; it also has exceedingly long stop spacing, averaging over 900 metres! That's not what you build along Queens Quay!
The roadway width is about 60 metres, requiring 4 BRT lanes. With the requirement for massive staircases to simply cross the street.
Is this really the kind of hellhole that you want for Toronto's waterfront?
And then look at the traffic jams of buses? What a joke! I doubt even surface LRT here would be suitable, let alone buses.
urbanclient
Active Member
Hence, this is why I said "That's not comprehensively true." I didn't say it was mostly false. I'm being just as pedantic as you are @nfitz It was mostly to address the common theme I have seen on multiple threads that discount BRT, with an air of prejudice, like BRT in itself is some marginally-better-than-normal-bus waste of resources. There do exist well-funded, competently run, BRTs. Unlike VIVA York Region. A BRT can easily exceed the ~3000 pphd and ~5200 to 6800 pphd of Line 6 and Line 5 at opening/6 months. Also those 31 lines on the Guangzhou BRT are not exactly like lines in the Toronto sense. Obviously I am not advocating for this for Waterfront LRT. I just don't think it's accurate to dismiss BRT purely based on capacity. It's more of an operating labour cost issue in Toronto.
Pedestrian bridges like that on normal streets reduce the need for traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings. Believe it or not, there's arguably less of a nanny state for pedestrian safety in parts of Asia compared to Canada. If we could afford those bridges they would be great for pedestrianizing wide arterial stroads. They're less of a requirement for crossing the street and more of a requirement for maintaining fast vehicle speeds on stroads in Asia. People would jaywalk without that bridge. And we get it, you don't like China or at least the Chinese regime, you don't have to repeat yourself every time someone mentions China, especially in the context of naming the two foremost BRTs. I wish Waterfront East LRT was longer, and consideration given for future capacity upgrades.
Last edited: