[ehlow]

[video=youtube;T-Bejzw9BBA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Bejzw9BBA[/video]

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Yay!

 

[TheTigerMaster]

So it look like Dennis made it to the finish line first. That slacker named Lea better not be too far behind.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

funny, i wrote the exact same thing a couple weeks ago in reply to someone else. My knowledge of the city and the surrounding gta is actually quite good imo, and i think my posts demonstrate this. If you can find any evidence that shows otherwise, point it out.

Just answer the question already! The fact that you are avoiding a direct answer implies that you don't live anywhere near the city.

Speaking as someone who lives in the affected area (the east end of old Toronto) your DRL proposal made it pretty clear that you have no idea as to the actual facts on the ground. Now you're doing the same thing in this thread...

Obviously people don't have to live in a city to comment on it, but it does help to have actually visited the places we discuss.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Question: How does the cost of operating and maintaining light rail vehicles on Eglinton Line compare to the cost of heavy rail vehicles (subways)? I'd assume that the cost of the LRV would be similar, since subways and light rail are [more or less] identical mechanically, but I'd like to be sure.

 

[BMO]

Question: How does the cost of operating and maintaining light rail vehicles on Eglinton Line compare to the cost of heavy rail vehicles (subways)? I'd assume that the cost of the LRV would be similar, since subways and light rail are [more or less] identical mechanically, but I'd like to be sure.

I think they cost more, when you run LRTs underground, I think it has to do with maintenance costs, considering you need to maintain the wires above track level and a few other things, as well as the difference in capacity. But it's also a toss-up when you consider it'll be serving above-ground as well and providing better operating costs there. Can't recall where I read about underground LRT costs. I think it was both, capital and operating were higher for underground (might have been when they were discussing ECLRT being underground in the east end).

 

[Johnny Au]

The curse of Mike Harris has finally been lifted!

 

[ehlow]

Why do the TBMs need to be extracted at Allen? Why can't they continue all the way to Yonge?

I'm not sure what level of detail you expect from an answer but... to state the obvious, because there's a subway line there and they have to dig a new station underneath the current one and connect the two.

Same with Yonge-Eglinton, except both pairs of TBMs will be extracted there.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'm not sure what level of detail you expect from an answer but... to state the obvious, because there's a subway line there and they have to dig a new station underneath the current one and connect the two.

Same with Yonge-Eglinton, except both pairs of TBMs will be extracted there.

I know. I completely forgot about Eglinton West station. Sigh... such a stupid question.

The sad thing is that I completely remembered that the reason the TBM couldn't cross Yonge was because of the Yonge Line. No such luck with me remembering the existence of Eglinton West Station.

I need to rest my brain

 

[ehlow]

I know. I completely forgot about Eglinton West station. Sigh... such a stupid question.

The sad thing is that I completely remembered that the reason the TBM couldn't cross Yonge was because of the Yonge Line. No such luck with me remembering the existence of Eglinton West Station.

I need to rest my brain

No worries!

 

[howl]

Question: How does the cost of operating and maintaining light rail vehicles on Eglinton Line compare to the cost of heavy rail vehicles (subways)? I'd assume that the cost of the LRV would be similar, since subways and light rail are [more or less] identical mechanically, but I'd like to be sure.

I don't have exact numbers but in general the larger the vehicle the lower the maintenance cost and the lower the operating cost on a per passenger basis. That's one of the main reason for going with a higher-capacity system. If smaller vehicles were the cheapest to maintain and operate we would have BRTs everywhere.

Think about just the cost of drivers. An articulated bus holds about 200 people. A three car LRT vehicle holds about 750 people. In order to move a daily average of 3000 people an hour you would need 4 LRTs or 15 buses moving each way, each with one driver. At $25 per hour the driver are costing $400 for the LRT and $750 for the bus, so right there the LRT is saving you $350 per hour. Multiply that by 20 hours and 365 days a year and you get a saving of $2.5 million, and that doesn't include driver benefits or other employee costs (uniforms, training etc.). You can scale that up with an 1100 passenger subway train. As your ridership goes up the more savings you get. Of course it's more complicated than that but you get the jist.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I don't have exact numbers but in general the larger the vehicle the lower the maintenance cost and the lower the operating cost on a per passenger basis. That's one of the main reason for going with a higher-capacity system. If smaller vehicles were the cheapest to maintain and operate we would have BRTs everywhere.

Think about just the cost of drivers. An articulated bus holds about 200 people. A three car LRT vehicle holds about 750 people. In order to move a daily average of 3000 people an hour you would need 4 LRTs or 15 buses moving each way, each with one driver. At $25 per hour the driver are costing $400 for the LRT and $750 for the bus, so right there the LRT is saving you $350 per hour. Multiply that by 20 hours and 365 days a year and you get a saving of $2.5 million, and that doesn't include driver benefits or other employee costs (uniforms, training etc.). As your ridership goes up the more savings you get. Of course it's more complicated than that but you get the jist.

I agree with this assessment. However, is it fair to say that light rail becomes cheaper once ridership is low enough? Surely its cheaper to several small light rail vehicles, rather than a massive, empty subway train.

 

[nfitz]

An articulated bus holds about 200 people. A three car LRT vehicle holds about 750 people.

Where do you get these numbers? A TTC Artic at peak holds 77 people. A single TTC Flexity holds 130 people - and are going to be similar in capacity to the Eglinton line vehicles.

You can probably ultra-crush a few more in. But 77 to 200? 130 to 250? These numbers don't make sense.

You can scale that up with an 1100 passenger subway train.

Well at least that number works. TTC report 1080 on a TR. I'd believe you could ultra-crush an other 3 people per car.

 

[44 North]

Speaking as someone who lives in the affected area (the east end of old Toronto) your DRL proposal made it pretty clear that you have no idea as to the actual facts on the ground.

So on top of having to deal with some bonkers fella reigniting debates that were long put to rest, not reading my posts (but still misquoting them), and calling me:

grossly incompetent, immovable, or ignorant

I have to deal with another poster making personal attacks. Sorry guy, I ain’t telling ya sheeeit. As for your issue with my Don Line routing and how I have “no idea the facts on the ground†(whatever that means)... Again: if you can find any evidence, point it out. What are they? The discussions on the matter are in the DRL and Fantasy Map threads, starting around Sept/Oct. If you supposedly know this area and see a problem with my route, why haven’t you posted about it?

I’ve always supported the one DRL alignment that everyone seems to think was written in stone and is somehow 100% guaranteed. But if it ain’t happenin (which is a distinct possibility that many ignore), there are alternatives. E.g GO Richmond Hill->Don Sub diversion. Re: the Crosstown... I don't know what you're whining about on that front. Questioning whether the in-median portion is RT or not is a valid discussion.

 

[nfitz]

I have to deal with another poster making personal attacks

How many times are you going to reply to the same post? LOL!

You've edited the context completely out of what I wrote. My point was that you were clearly neither grossly incompetent, immovable, nor ignorant, and simply had a great sense of humour.

Please don't call me name and remain polite. Thanks!