[URBAN NOTE] "The not so hidden costs of underground LRT"

[rfmcdonald]

blogTO guest poster Ed Cunningham blogs about the costs that would apply to mayor Rob Ford's vision of underground mass transit. His take is that it would make things more expensive, and be on those terms alone the antithesis of a cheap line.

Before I get started, one fact needs to be established. This is not a debate about streetcars vs. subways. Neither Ford's plan, nor the Stintz/Transit City plan involves an Eglinton subway. In both cases the plan is for a light rail line, using Bombardier Flexity low-floor LRVs. The issue is whether the entire line would be buried (Ford's plan) or if it would run above-ground for much of its route, buried only between Laird and Keele (Stintz/Transit City plan). Any mention of subways in this debate is an attempt to cloud the issue, plain and simple.

Having established that this will be an LRT line, regardless of who gets the final say, let's start with where the LRT is going to stop. Toronto currently has one underground LRT stop, at Queen's Quay. It consists of two platforms with a walkway across the tracks to move between them, two entrance stairwells, and an elevator. Seeing as entrances, platforms, and wheelchair access are all necessities, it seems safe to assume that each stop on the Fords' underground LRT would have to be of similar design. If so, we need to talk about maintenance.

[. . .]
7
If you build a station, even a small one, there are significant upkeep costs. Whether the people doing the maintenance work are TTC employees or contractors, that work is still being done, and your fares are still paying for it. The city's above ground transit shelters, which involve less maintenance and are owned and maintained by Astral Media have virtually no effect upon the fare you pay.

Moving beyond maintenance though, let's discuss security. Queen's Quay, by way of example, is an unmanned station. TTC personnel do pass through there, due to the aforementioned maintenance tasks, and operators in the streetcars themselves keep an eye on the station. But what about stations in less populated areas?

Unsupervised, underground, out of view of passing motorists and local residents — is this a place you want to wait for a transit vehicle at 1 a.m.? Obviously this would be more of an issue in some areas over others, but to me, an unsupervised, out-of-the-way spot, where no one can hear me call for help seems like a bad place to spend my time. I would be much happier at an above-ground stop, visible to passing motorists, and from the windows of nearby buildings. So let's assume we can't leave these underground transit stops unsupervised. Would each one have a collector? Some sort of station attendant? A security guard? Either way, the TTC would be paying for someone to be there, and the ridership would be paying the TTC more to make that happen.

Doug Ford has suggested that if the Eglinton RT ran completely underground, it could be entirely automated, which I suppose would compensate for any extra costs incurred in station maintenance, but is his vision realistic? Even if the vehicles themselves were automated, would it be reasonable to run them without a paid attendant, who could contact emergency services in case of criminal activity, or a medical emergency on board? Would it be reasonable to have no one on board to oversee an evacuation through underground tunnels in case of a fire, blackout, or other emergency? Besides, Bombardier doesn't even mention this as an option in their specs on the Flexity Freedom.

What's at least interesting are the commenters, who seem fairly solidly opposed to Cunningham's alternative of surface light rail, seeing the lack of support for underground mass transit as signalling the marginality of Toronto's outlying neighbourhoods, even their political second-class status.

Ah, region wars. And Toronto has three more years of this, at least.