Every year at budget time, there are many arguments about the coming year’s budget, fares and subsidy. Inevitably this concentrates on the current year just completing and the new year to come. Looking back over several years provides more context and is worthwhile in assessing where Toronto’s transit operations might go from here.
Service Budgets
An important part of the budget, but one that is not revealed in most public reports, is the service budget. This gives the planned hours of service per week for the various schedule periods (aka “boards”) through the year.
Values in this budget can evolve between the original versions in the preliminary operating budget and the final versions after the Commission and Council have hacked away to set fares and subsidies at the level they desire. The history of the service budgets reveals quite clearly how the possible growth in transit service has been throttled.
I have chosen 2006 as a starting point because this predates the rollout of the Ridership Growth Strategy (RGS) service improvements in fall 2008.
Each set of bars within this chart shows the budgeted weekly hours of service for five schedule periods: January, March-April, May, September and November. These are months that are not affected by seasonal service reductions, and they are also months when service changes tend to show up. November is typically a high point because major service improvements are rolled out when they have only a few weeks left to affect the current year’s financial budget.
Service is budgeted in operator hours because this is the largest component of costs, especially variable ones caused by service changes. (Costs of vehicles and infrastructure tend to relate more closely to the size of the system, not to the amount of service.) The actual breakdown of hours by mode for January 2013 is roughly 77% bus, 12% streetcar, 11% subway, and less than .5% RT.
For 2006, the three versions of the budget are almost identical showing that there was only minor “tweaking” over the course of the year. The two versions in 2007 show a similar pattern.
In 2008, the rollout of new service under the RGS kicked in. The original budget is quite different from the one adopted for RGS, and this shows up with a jump in budgeted service in November.
Further increases were planned in 2009, but the version that was eventually adopted shows the result of a tug-of-war between the Giambrone Commission and the Miller Budget Committee. Some new proposed services — notably the Transit City Bus Plan — were not approved by Council, and so the service budget was cut back. The final version, however, was still an improvement on 2008.
2010 was the last year of the Miller administration. Although the TTC planned to increase service in the fall, these plans were cut back in light of constraints imposed at the Budget Committee.
By 2011, the Ford administration was in control. The original 2011 budget had service at a level similar to the original 2010 proposal, but cutbacks in “poor performing” routes trimmed these ambitions. Even so, the actual budgeted service that was operated in 2011 was slightly better than the 2010 numbers. However, this was mainly a case of shifting service between routes and time periods to keep up with ridership growth.
The original 2012 budget included a cutback in the early part of the year as the RGS service standards were dropped and the TTC reverted to pre-RGS standards for vehicle loads. Midway through 2012, the budget was revised in light of strong ridership and unexpectedly high fare revenue.
Plans for 2013 are more aggressive and will return the TTC to roughly the originally planned 2009 level. However, this will be with less generous loading standards and with no restoration of lightly used services. (Indeed the TTC has not even revisited those cuts to determine whether some routes should regain service in light of overall growth in demand.) Whether this budget actually survives at Council remains to be seen.
In summary, the implementation of RGS led to a rise in budgeted service in late 2008, but the service has not grown during a period when ridership was rising a few percent annually. The TTC has used less generous loading standards and service reallocation to absorb demand rather than deliberately courting riders with service improvements.
Financial Budgets
TTC financial results have evolved over the period from 2006 to 2013 (budget).
2006.2013 Fiscal Results: Operations
The lion’s share of revenue comes from fares which are now running just over $1b annually. Various smaller income streams contribute about 5% to the total operating budget and the remainder comes from City subsidy. In turn, about $91m of that subsidy is funded by provincial gas tax, but from a bookkeeping point of view, the money all flows from the City.
Outside City Services are provided by the TTC for York Region Transit. Their income offsets the operating costs of running the service, and if YRT decided to operate these routes on its own, both the revenue and costs would disappear from the budget.
Operating Budget Depreciation recovers the amortized cost of capital assets acquired by the TTC with its own money. This annual charge against the operating budget is used to fund current capital purchases that are not eligible for subsidy (typically items with a comparatively short lifespan).
Accident Claims have declined substantially in recent years thanks to changes in No Fault Insurance legislation. Because this change only affects claims for accidents after the legislation was implemented, and some claims take many years to settle, the full value of the new rules has taken a few years to work its way into the financial results. This is not an “efficiency” in TTC management per se, but rather a one-time reduction in costs thanks to a legal framework. To put it another way, this is not a “saving” that can be replicated in future years.
The Net Operating Loss reached its height in 2009, the first full year of the Ridership Growth Strategy and its enhanced service levels. Fares were unchanged from 2007-2009. In 2009 the number of trips went up, but the average fare declined slightly as did farebox revenue. The 2010 fare increase shows up in increased revenue and a declining net loss despite higher operating expenses.
In 2012, the total revenue rose more than the expenses (which were themselves moderated by service cuts through a return to pre-RGS loading standards), with the result that the net loss went down. The 2013 budget was drawn up on the basis of a zero increase in the net loss (hence the City subsidy).
Although accident claims, as noted above, are declining in 2013, this is largely offset by increased depreciation charges.
All of the funding to cover additional service and inflationary increase in operations comes from higher revenue. This is made up of the effect of the 2013 fare increase on existing riders (about 2/3) and added revenue from new riders (about 1/3).
The Revenue/Cost (R/C) ratio for the TTC was 70.7% (farebox income only) in 2006. As a matter of policy this was driven down by service improvements and fare freezes to the point that it bottomed out at 62.8% in 2009 (the first full year of RGS). For 2013, it will be at 69.0%, almost the level of 2006.
About 4.5% of TTC operations is funded by non-farebox revenue. Often the R/C ratio is quoted including this number, but with the implication that fares are carrying the full load. When this factor is included, the R/C ratio for 2013 will be 73.3%.
This distinction is important when advocates of greater transit funding talk of the days when 1/3 of TTC operating costs were shared equally by Queen’s Park and Toronto. If that were the case, then the R/C ratio including miscellaneous revenue would be 66.7%, and for fares only would be about 62%, roughly the level achieved in 2009 almost entirely with City-only subsidy.
Fuel and Traction Power
The cost of fuel and power to propel TTC vehicles is often raised in debates about diesel and electric propulsion.
Since 2006, the annual mileage of bus operations has risen from 105.9m to 123.6m km, or 17%, while the cost of diesel fuel per km operated has risen by 49%.
During the same period, the annual mileage of rail (electric) operations was almost unchanged. A small increase in streetcar mileage was offset by a reduction in subway mileage. Electric traction power costs per km operated rose by 26%.
The ratio of diesel to electric cost/km has risen from 1.612 to 1.914 or 19%.
These numbers must be taken with care because a bus kilometer is not the same as a subway or streetcar kilometer. Power costs are dominated by the subway which runs by far the most electrified mileage of service. Buses cannot substitute for any of the rail modes on a 1:1 basis, and moreover buses running on rail routes will tend to get worse than average mileage due to traffic conditions and stop service times for heavier than average demand.
In 2013, diesel costs will be down slightly from 2012 even though more bus service will be operated. This is the result of advantageous hedging by the TTC in the futures market for fuel.
2014 and Beyond
In future years, the TTC will likely continue to gain riders, but it is unclear that they will pay the full cost of inflation and service improvements through fares. Additional initiatives such as the mothballed Transit City Bus Plan (a network of express routes plus a designated “frequent service” network) or a return to the less-crowded RGS loading standards have not been priced into TTC budget planning.
Some TTC managers observe that the cheapest additional capacity can be had through improved service reliability. This will require a degree of commitment to line management and service quality well beyond anything we have ever seen in Toronto. It will also require advocacy for transit priority on City streets — not just the odd traffic signal with extended green time, but parking and turn restrictions that will improve overall road capacity. Toronto has never had the stomach for this sort of true “priority”.
Better service also affects the capital budget because it will drive requirements for more vehicles and the garage/carhouse space to stable and maintain them. Spending like this is usually overlooked in the rush to draw lines on maps and formulate the next megaproject, but it will be the lifeblood of bringing transit to a wider market in Toronto.
Steve Munro 
A couple of questions Steve:
1) From you statement about the budget being in operator hours does the subway and RT also include the collectors and does the surface lines include the backdoor loaders that are at some stops on Spadina?
Steve: I don’t think the collectors show up in the subway numbers as this is the budget for vehicle operations. Many of the loaders are working either as overtime or as pieces of work off of the spare board. Only a few are actually scheduled.
2) Are the fuel/power costs per vehicle km or per train km for subway?
Steve: The TTC reports mileage in vehicle km for all modes. This produced a one-time anomaly when the G trains were retired and the amount of subway mileage went down.
3) Would it be possible to get a comparison between the modes on cost per seat km or cost per passenger km?. This would make a comparison of the modes easier, though there is no way you could justify a street car to replace a 10 minute bus service because of differences in capital and maintenance costs.
Steve: It’s easy to convert vehicle km to seat km although there is some difference between different models of buses. Also, seat km are meaningless when over half of the load is standing as on the subway at peak.
LikeLike
“Some TTC managers observe that the cheapest additional capacity can be had through improved service reliability.”
Yes. When one streetcar follows right behind another one from one end of the line to the other, it is adding almost no capacity. Astute riders will get on the first streetcar, because if it gets short-turned, they can then get on the second one, but this doesn’t work the other way around (they get off at the short turn point and see the streetcar ahead take off over the horizon). However, the empty second streetcar does add to the theoretical capacity of the route.
Speeding up service is also a form of capacity increase. What would high-rate operation do for the capacity of the subway?
Steve: No, speeding up service is NOT a capacity increase unless the same number of vehicles remains in service but run closer together. This is physically impossible on the subway, and so high rate will only lessen travel times and operating costs (fewer trains providing the same frequency), but it will not increase capacity. I have had this discussion with a few TTC folks who took several iterations to get it into their heads that speed is not capacity, only frequency (and vehicle size).
This problem arose on the St. Clair project where early claims were all about how the TTC would be able to provide the same level of service with fewer cars because they would make the trip faster. The idea of actually improving the scheduled frequency of service came along later once the TTC realized that the project was hard to sell without a marked benefit to riders.
LikeLike
Diesel cost per mile driven should decrease slowly over time due to the introduction of new technology and policies. For example, when the buses have their engines turned off at Kennedy Station while waiting for crew change or passengers, this reduces fuel burn. Orion has a few EPA10 test buses which could see commercial introduction soon. This is dramatic. Right now an Orion VII only gets about 3 miles per US Gallon, the hybrid will get 5 miles to a Gallon. If a bus can get a real world 10 miles per Gallon, this will be a minimum of a 50% fuel burn advantage.
Steve: Much of this depends on the duty cycle. TTC’s experience with hybrids is that they don’t save anywhere near as much on routes where traffic moves freely because they don’t have enough stop-start cycles to take advantage of the energy recycling. I am very suspicious of quotes about energy uses until they are proven on a large fleet running under a mix of conditions including peak, off-peak, heavy/light load, etc. Savings under worst load conditions will not show up on a fleet-wide basis, and cost-benefit analyses based on such “savings” will not be achieved.
On the metro side, as the Yonge line moves to ATO, savings will be seen. The ATO can be programmed to gradually apply the brakes (at a cost of speed) which will generate more energy for the brakes to capture.
Steve: No that is hogwash. The kinetic energy of the train must be removed somehow, but it is the same regardless of how long one takes to stop. Stopping slowly, even if it produced a saving, would have to be weighed against increased running time, passenger convenience and fleet size. It takes a lot of energy savings to pay for one extra train, not to mention the perception that travel is not a brisk as before.
When the interior lighting switches to LEDs, that too will generate noticeable savings. With florescent lighting, energy is required to power the ballasts and to remove the heat generated by florescent tubes. Finally, as more T35A08s and the Flexity trams enter service, electricity consumption will also go down. The rivetless designs will generate less drag. At Mach 0.78, Boeing tested that it would reduce drag by a few percentage points.
Steve: The last time I looked, transit vehicles don’t run anywhere near Mach 0.78.
There is no breakthrough at this point to say run double the amount of buses using the same amount of energy. However, as improvements are made in propulsion, lighting, climatization and aerodynamics, together they will lower the cost it takes to operating any given mission.
Steve: Yes, but I am not holding my breath. Energy efficiency on diesel motors is driven by the trucking industry, the prevailing cost of fuel and, to some extent, environmental regulations in badly polluted locations. Even if a new technology appears, it will take over a decade for the fleet to “turn over” to the point where the energy saving makes a notable dent in overall costs, and this will be lost in the mix with other cost pressures including the capital cost of vehicles and the higher maintenance cost of new technology.
LikeLike
I always thought that an increase in average speed IS a capacity increase. This is my logic:
If one considers roots to be like loops with vehicles equally spaced, the faster the average speed of all vehicles, the more vehicles cross a certain point on the loop per unit time.
So I would think increasing the speed alone, whilst keeping all other variables fixed (number of vehicles, vehicle size, etc.) does increase capacity. Am I missing something?
Steve: You are correct that if the number and size of vehicles is unchanged, then faster operation increases capacity by reducing the headway. However, there is a lower bound on subway headways imposed by the signal system and by track layouts at terminals. If high rate is implemented, then fewer trains will be operated and at best only a slight capacity improvement will result. Once the YUS has a new signal system, some headway reduction will be possible and the question will then be whether this should be achieved by buying and operating more trains, or by increasing average train speeds with high rate operation.
LikeLike
Benny Cheung wrote:
Steve:
Aside from nearly falling from my chair laughing at the thought of transit vehicles running at Mach 0.78 (“EXTRA High Rate”), any reduction in heat generated by fluorescent tubes would be offset by increased energy required to heat the cars in cold weather. In absolute terms, savings from gradual technological changes may be nearly impossible to measure, especially when combined with energy loads for new equipment that may be added to the vehicles and offsetting counter effects such as the example above.
Additionally, Orion won’t be introducing any buses with new engines since Daimler threw in the towel on the transit bus business. It’s now up to other manufacturers to keep working on that.
LikeLike
By far and large this is what the TTC needs, better route operations on all its bus and street car routes; I’ll leave the subway out of this.
But I honestly haven’t seen much in the way changes in regards route management in the last few years.
So I won’t hold my breath.
LikeLike
Benny Cheung says:
Steve:
Technically what Benny says would be true if the higher braking rate produces power at a rate greater than that which can be absorbed by the traction power system. Power varies as the square of the speed so the energy released in slowing from 80 km/h to 60 is a lot more than that release when slowing from 20 km/h to 0. That being said you are correct in your comment about extra operating costs from slower service. If the “Super Capacitor” turns out to be a cost effective method of storing energy then that might be a better way to go, but to run slower to increase energy savings is normally a non starter.
Regardless, the TTC puts in so many speed restrictions with their grade timing signals that the chances of reaching a speed where the energy released by braking could not be absorbed by the system is small. Hopefully ATO will allow the service to operate at high rate thus reducing the number of cars required to operate the line.
LikeLike
Robert Lubinski says:
I realize that I might be sounding like an apologist for Benny but some times he makes sense and is right, even if for the wrong reasons. Rivetless construction has a number of benefits though I doubt that reduced air friction at 78 km/h, let alone Mach 0.78 is one of them. Rivets create a stress point in the skin and tend to collect dirt below them which is not as easy to clean as a smooth skinned vehicle.
While you would need extra energy to heat the car in the winter you would need less energy to cool the car in the summer. If I remember my illumination theory classes correctly and incandescent bulb convert 1% of its energy to light and 99% to heat; for fluorescent the numbers were about 7% light and 93% heat. While I don’t know the number for LED’s I am willing to bet it is a lot more efficient. The big saving would not be in energy but in maintenance cost. LED’s last much longer than fluorescent bulbs and they do not have a ballast that requires periodic replacement. This is much larger cost than many realize and is one of the reasons why trucks, buses and car, not to mention most traffic signals, have switched to LED’s.
Steve: And the LED’s save money even when the train is standing still!
LikeLike
Robert Wightman said:
And this kind of illustrates the point about energy being consumed by additional equipment that is always being added. The H-5 cars were more energy-efficient than the older Hawker cars in terms of the traction system, but they introduced air-conditioning which added energy usage. It gets difficult to disentagle all the savings and increases when you look at a vehicle fleet all together. Over time the overall consumption would decrease as equipment becomes more energy efficient but along the way you have a lot of pluses and minuses.
Even with overall increases in energy efficiency, increases in the cost of the energy and increased service (more vehicles) are the primary factors in budgeting for these costs.
LikeLike
Bright, white LEDs don’t last as long as you’d think. For applications that require coloured light (traffic lights, taillights) they make sense. Well, we shall see how well the white LEDs in headlights and general illumination really last.
LEDs do generate heat, and it’s awkward heat, because it’s generated on the backside of the fixture where proper cooling is harder to do.
Steve: The bottom line, however, is that the propulsion power for transit vehicles vastly outweighs the power for lighting and so the saving in power costs and consumption will be comparatively small.
LikeLike
A note on the regenerative braking. When braking, there are two methods to bring the vehicle to a stop. The regular brake pads and discs converts motion energy into heat. This is the fastest way and the most wasteful. Regenerative braking has a few limits. First, there is a limit on how much motion energy can be converted at a given time. Also, once converted to electricity, how much can the capacitor, battery or the system can store it in a short burst of time.
This is why hypermilers drive the way they drive. They brake gradually over a longer distance so that the regenerative braking can capture more energy. In a panic stop situation, the brake pads are used and most of the energy ends up as heat. Remember, as soon as the brake pads hit the discs, that means the braking demand at that time exceeds what the regenerative brakes can handle.
Steve: Actually, transit braking has operated on the basis of dumping energy into resistors or regeneration for a very long time (it is a fundamental part of the PCC design which dates from the 1930s, for example). The tread or disc brakes only cut in at low speed. These are not the fastest way to stop a transit vehicle.
The rate of braking is constrained by physics of passengers, not by the capability of the electrical system. A standing passenger cannot handle much more than 1m/s/s without being thrown to the floor, but the electrical braking can actually operate at a higher rate. The degree of line receptivity is affected by how many trains are in the same power section and by whether there are dummy loads in substations as a “last chance” load, and there are schemes to use flywheels as storage systems at substations (thereby eliminating the need to put one on every vehicle). Recovering energy in braking is a well-developed technology.
LEDs can also make a bit of money. With a mood lighting controller, there is nothing stopping the TTC from altering the color of the LEDs for the advertiser. For example, Bell can pay the TTC to make blue streaks of lights inside the metro to promote their brand. Virgin Airlines or Mobile can demand the entire carriage be lit in red. If someone is ambitious, there is nothing stopping them from making the lights alter in a range of colors like in a disco. It might be tacky, but at least it makes money.
Steve: Soon the entire train will be a video screen. I am tired of hearing schemes to intrude on passengers’ travel in order to generate a tiny amount of revenue. We could eliminate all advertising at a cost of a 2.5% fare increase, about 7 cents.
A rivet-less design in addition to providing better aerodynamics and acoustics, it also reduces maintenance. The rivets can create metal fatigue since pressure is constantly applied at that spot especially during compression and decompression cycles. To check for metal fatigue is very labor intensive work and expensive. If anyone wants to see a case of metal fatigue, check out the events for Aloha Airlines Flight 243.
Steve: Subway cars do not go through compression and decompression cycles because they do not usually travel in the upper atmosphere.
LikeLike
This comment thread is always fascinating. It is difficult to understand how an article about budgets can end up in an intense debate about rivets and LEDs. However, don’t take that as a criticism (anyone) as it was interesting.
I think the greater issue is whether the (limping) Ford Administration will continue its attack on the TTC and perpetuate its RSS (Ridership Shrinkage Strategy). Unfortunately (for Ford), despite effectively reducing service by increasing loading standards in pursuit of the attack on Transit, the greater public has not co-operated. Despite overcrowding – and the discomfort and delays that inevitably ensue – the public continues to embrace the TTC and ridership continues to grow. Eventually, one would hope, the Council will rise up and provide the funding increases that will allow a significant increase in service commensurate with the demonstrated enthusiasm of the riding public. (Even allowing the TTC to keep its surplus would be a start.)
On a related, but non transit topic, I am watching with interest how the perverse concept of “no service cuts – guaranteed” is resulting in the closing of fire halls and police stations. It seems we lonely lefties will no longer be alone in defending our City against the madness of Fords.
LikeLike
According to the data I have been checking the maximum power created during regenerative braking is about twice that in accelerating. This is necessary to get rid of the extra kinetic energy at high speed. The IGBT inverters run at an input line voltage between 600 to 750 volts but some can with stand up to nearly 1500 volts to absorb the voltage spikes from regeneration when the power released by decelerating at 1m/s/s is about twice that used for acceleration. This is necessary if you want initial deceleration rates to be near the initial acceleration rates. If the regenerated voltage cannot go higher then the deceleration curve will be a reverse of the accelerating curve, low at first at high speeds and then higher as speed drops.
LED’s, like all diodes, have a voltage drop at the PN junction. Unlike ordinary diodes which have a 0.7 volt drop, LED’s can get much higher depending on their colour. The heat generated is almost equal to the voltage drop times the current but there is some converted to light. I switched to white LED’s from incandescent lights for night sailing a few years ago. My power consumption for the same amount of light is less than 10% of what it was before. I haven’t replaced the LED’s yet but I would have replaced the incandescent lights. They get warm but they won’t burn your hand.
The big maintenance cost in fluorescent lights is replacing ballast transformers. I don’t know how the LED’s in headlights and subway interior lighting are mounted but it is not rocket science to design one that is easily replaced. Edison did it over 100 years ago.
LikeLike
I don’t really have the time to weigh in on the various topics much except to add to Robert Lubinski’s post, how much energy was consumed over the life of the H5 cars hauling heavy air conditioning units that are used less than six months a year back and forth across the city for decades? Those air conditioners consumed a lot of energy just by being along for the ride even when they’re not being used.
LikeLike
Vehicle weight should be heading downwards as more plastics, resins and lighter weight steel are being used. The existence of air conditioning and other climatization units did not alter this trend. The T1 has a weight of 48040 KG individually. In a six car trainset it would weight 288240 KG. The T35A08 has a weight of 205000 KG in the current TTC configuration.
It must be noted that lighter vehicle weights are easier on the tunnels. There is a possibility that tunnel and track maintenance could be extended. No one has yet researched this subject, but if no tractor trailers travel on the 401, surely the highway would last longer.
On the topic of climatization units, the TTC metros now have plastic films applied on the windows. This has the effect of reducing heat transfer between the inside of the train and outside. This is in addition to the anti graffiti properties.
Steve: What is your source for the T35A08 weight? This number has been noticeably absent on Bombardier’s site.
LikeLike
Dear TTC passenger, you’ll be glad H-5’s (and any other series for that matter) have AC in the dead of winter when you are cheek to jowl with passengers in their winter parkas.
LikeLike
From the TTC themselves.
Steve: Thanks.
LikeLike
LED lights may reduce electricity consumption, however they still need to be cleaned. Over time, dust and bugs from the tunnels, people, and general environment will accumulate enough to dim the lights. Having corners, angles, and other hard-to-reach places will allow the dust to gather. While the exterior of the new cars maybe easier to clean, the interior may not be.
LikeLike
I understand the argument that the tracks may not wear out as fast with lighter vehicles – although, if ATO does successfully tighten headways and enough compatible vehicles are available to run more aggressive service, you’re back to at least as much wear by weight on the rails as when they were T1s, if not more depending ultimate service.
I don’t understand how the tunnels benefit from lighter vehicles. The forces the tunnels’ walls and ceiling have to resist are overwhelmingly from the outside of the tunnel; the inside forces are much weaker on walls/ceilings. The concrete beneath the rails in bored tunnels is to create a solid level surface, and in box tunnels, the base is supporting far more than the tracks/vehicles; these include the transferred loads of the walls and ceiling, as well as uplift forces from water in the ground. I do not see tunnels taking less of a beating, particularly since the strongest forces inside the tunnel on the walls/ceiling would be wind forces from displaced air by a passing vehicle.
Steve: It’s those trains passing at mach 0.78 you have to watch out for!
LikeLike
I assume the mass of 205,000 kg is for the entire 6-car unit, not each individual car. (It’s not a weight of course … you can’t measure weight in kg, using SI). Which seems odd, given the rest of the stats are per car. A full 6-car train would have upwards of another 100,000 kg of passengers..
In highway engineering, 100 vehicles weighing 100 units of weight each, will do more damage than 200 units weighing 50 units of weight each.
Presumably the same holds for track engineering.
It’s also a function of weight per axle. Presumably there is a bit more weight on the front and back cars.
Either way, it does look like the weights of the cars are coming down!
LikeLike
Probably the most aggressive agent of deterioration on the tunnels is the road salt that migrates through tunnel walls (either at construction joints or shrinkage cracks). Waterproofing membranes have a finite life, and once the concrete around reinforcing steel becomes contaminated with chlorides, it’s really only a matter of time before the expansive steel corrosion products start to pop off concrete. I suspect that regardless of their function in conveying trains, that the economical service life of the tunnels will ultimately be governed by factors such as this which are (for all practical purposes) outside of the control of the TTC.
LikeLike
TTC Passenger says:
They may consume energy by going along for the ride but many people would not want to ride the system in summer without it. Most systems with hot humid summers are running air conditioning. If you want more people to ride the system you have to make it more comfortable.
Karl Junkin says:
True but at least you get more capacity.
The only thing that I could think of would be microscopic cracks being causes by vibrations. Hopefully lighter cars would create less vibrational forces, but so would maintaining proper track profiles.
Don’t forget the effect of Mach 0.78 winds on platform edge doors and waiting passengers.
Steve: Never mind the passengers! I am trying to imagine a pigeon propelled at Mach 0.78 ahead of a train.
LikeLike
On the topic of the LEDs, has the TTC got any data coming back from the savings with a switch to LEDs on the buses and streetcars?
I recall that when the first Orion VII showed up, a driver I was talking to complained about the LEDs, saying that in the past if a light burned out they could send a tech with a replacement bulb, but with the LEDs the bus would have to be taken out of service.
On Robert’s question about hauling the Air Conditioning units back and forth … are they exclusively AC units? I would have expected that trains built for Canada would have combined heating & air conditioning unit.
Steve: Heating comes separately and is spread throughout the car.
On the topic of the TTC funding breakdown … it is interesting to read this:
I guess the big point here is that, while the city has had to come through with money to fund TTC operations, so have passengers. Some of that money has come from additional passengers, additional ‘efficiencies’ and the rest from fare increases.
Based on the data from all these budget years, I wonder what the ‘magic’ R/C ratio would be for TTC operations over the next few years … of course both R & C will change in the next few years with the subway extension and later on the LRT lines opening up.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: I want to know where the $10m will come from to operate the Spadina extension. How much service will be cut in Toronto because we signed a deal with York Region to operate the subway free for them?
LikeLike
Moaz: It’s funny to read about the operating ‘surplus’ (which will go back to the City), the day before the fare increase is about to kick in. I’m surprised that, since the meeting was on Dec 19th, the word didn’t get out to the media about the ‘surplus’ … or maybe I just missed reading about it?
How would the projected surplus (15.5m extra revenues + 21.6m unspent costs) have made a difference (assuming the money didn’t go back to the City)?
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: At the very least, some improvements to service could be offered at least to the degree that the fleet can handle them. We are now getting back into the problem that as ridership grows, we don’t have a fleet to improve peak loading standards even if we wanted to, and have a two-year lead time to rectify the shortage of buses. For streetcars we have to await the new LRVs and a slowdown in retirement of the CLRV/ALRV fleet. Even that’s a catch-22 because of reliability problems with the old cars.
LikeLike
So to oversimplify things, the TTC is getting more money than it needs in 2013 but is still raising fares, after cutting services back in 2012 to save money…All that extra money is going back to the City which will, presumably, spend it somehow (perhaps to reduce the cost of balancing the 2013 budget) …
No chance that money can be put into a fund to be called upon when the TTC actually needs it … say, in 2015 when most of the new LRVs and the new subway extension come into service …
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike