Potential for Hydro Corridor Transitways?

[WislaHD]

If Hydro One is really struggling to stay positive in the books, then maybe they should consider renting out their corridors to the province for transit use as an additional source of income.

An unintentional plus from privatization?

 

[crs1026]

I suspect that their issues are risk (damage to their lines) and liability (falling wires).
The problem lessens if you bury the wires, but that isn't cheap, and with private investors now in the picture they won't be doing that on their dime.

- Paul

 

[TOareaFan]

If Hydro One is really struggling to stay positive in the books, then maybe they should consider renting out their corridors to the province for transit use as an additional source of income.

An unintentional plus from privatization?

I am betting that Hyrdo One won't be struggling to stay in the black.....once the privatization is complete to the 60% level they will be in a fairly unique position in the regulated price services area.....their regulator will also be a 40% shareholder...and will be the shareholder who most needs revenues and dividends to increase...dramatically!

 

[DSC]

Hydro corridors MAY be useful places to put transit lines if you want to have express lines with very few stops but as people generally do not live close to these corridors they are not the best locations if one is trying to provide local transit and thus requires easy local access.

 

[jcam]

If the land can be unlocked, it could be worth Hydro's while. For London 2012, they spent 115M pounds to replace 52 pylons with 3km of twin tunnels, and it freed up the Olympic park. Just have to figure out how to incentivise them properly (whether that's rezoning allowances, etc.)
http://www.otbeng.com/019_Lea_Valley_Cable_Tunnels.pdf

 

[dowlingm]

Burying the wires has operational disadvantages too. I know in Ireland there has been a lot of calls for transmission cables to be buried but the hydro agency has pushed back because it costs a lot to do and there are efficiency and damage scenarios in a subground mode. That said they do do it where called for - wasn't there a little TBM going between Leaside and midtown there a few years back to run a transmission reinforcement?

 

[jcam]

Burying the wires has operational disadvantages too. I know in Ireland there has been a lot of calls for transmission cables to be buried but the hydro agency has pushed back because it costs a lot to do and there are efficiency and damage scenarios in a subground mode. That said they do do it where called for - wasn't there a little TBM going between Leaside and midtown there a few years back to run a transmission reinforcement?

Yeah, I've driven past that a lot as it's down the street from my parents'. They're actually finishing up the utility building on Mt. Pleasant now. I believe that tunnel...down deep in rock...was adding 2 lines to the 3 existing lines on pylons along the rail line. Goes from Bayview to Yonge I believe.

 

[44 North]

Yeah, I've driven past that a lot as it's down the street from my parents'. They're actually finishing up the utility building on Mt. Pleasant now. I believe that tunnel...down deep in rock...was adding 2 lines to the 3 existing lines on pylons along the rail line. Goes from Bayview to Yonge I believe.

Hm. Where is this located exactly?

 

[jcam]

Hm. Where is this located exactly?

Directly north of the CP rail bridge on Mt. Pleasant, tucked in behind the pumping station.

 

[Tuscani01]

I suspect that their issues are risk (damage to their lines) and liability (falling wires).
The problem lessens if you bury the wires, but that isn't cheap, and with private investors now in the picture they won't be doing that on their dime.

- Paul

I see it a different way. Private investors are more likely to sell off/lease the corridors as it will provide a bigger return for them than not doing so. They can more than make up the cost of burying the lines by selling off the excess land it creates, as well as make decent returns by leasing some of the land to municipalities for transit projects, which in turn will raise the land value without the utilities needing to spend any capital.

 

[crs1026]

I see it a different way. Private investors are more likely to sell off/lease the corridors as it will provide a bigger return for them than not doing so. They can more than make up the cost of burying the lines by selling off the excess land it creates, as well as make decent returns by leasing some of the land to municipalities for transit projects, which in turn will raise the land value without the utilities needing to spend any capital.

By the same logic, the freight railways should be welcoming the opportunity to add passenger and commuter rail business to their rights of way as it represents a new business opportunity for them. Good luck with that !

The problem is that transit will not want to pay a full rate of return. Unlike railways, with Hydro the rate of return is determined by a regulator, but as with railways transit would doubtless advocate for the lowest rate of return that the regulator will accept. Like railways, Hydro will need to protect the capital it already has invested, and it will need to protect its ability to deliver on the business it already has, which is generating the return on that committed capital. So the return on the new venture would have to represent very low risk. Having to argue with the regulator about that return is risky in itself, let alone making sure there is no operational or liability impairment to the transmission business that's there today.

I'm not saying it can't be done. Rocky Mountain Rail Tours gets excellent service from the freight railways, because it pays for that service. That cost is passed to the consumer. Riding RMTR ain't cheap.

- Paul

 

[Tuscani01]

By the same logic, the freight railways should be welcoming the opportunity to add passenger and commuter rail business to their rights of way as it represents a new business opportunity for them. Good luck with that !

The problem is that transit will not want to pay a full rate of return. Unlike railways, with Hydro the rate of return is determined by a regulator, but as with railways transit would doubtless advocate for the lowest rate of return that the regulator will accept. Like railways, Hydro will need to protect the capital it already has invested, and it will need to protect its ability to deliver on the business it already has, which is generating the return on that committed capital. So the return on the new venture would have to represent very low risk. Having to argue with the regulator about that return is risky in itself, let alone making sure there is no operational or liability impairment to the transmission business that's there today.

I'm not saying it can't be done. Rocky Mountain Rail Tours gets excellent service from the freight railways, because it pays for that service. That cost is passed to the consumer. Riding RMTR ain't cheap.

- Paul

But the example of freight lines being shared with passenger service is different than using a hydro corridor as a transit corridor.

Passenger service has the potential to delay freight service, which the line is primarily servicing. A bus route through a hydro corridor does not impede the flow of electricity, unless we plan on hanging buses from the transmission lines.

The risk to freight service on a line also serving passengers is greater than the disruption which a bus route would create in a hydro corridor, which is practically non-existent.

 

[crs1026]

A bus route through a hydro corridor does not impede the flow of electricity, unless we plan on hanging buses from the transmission lines.

On a hot summer day, with transmission lines sagging from a combination of heat and load, a Van Hool double decker bus would likely encroach on the safe clearance engineering standards of existing transmission lines. A little wind, and...... The 2003 Ontario blackout was the result of a transmission line contacting an untrimmed tree, in Ohio.

Roads require light standards, maintenance (ie cranes), light bulb replacement trucks.... further potential encroachments.

A fallen transmission line snagging a bus, or even just blocking its path, is plausibly a 1 - in - 10 year occurrence, which is likely too frequent for most actuaries. Insurance would be problemmatic.

Busses do slide off roads in winter, potentially contacting pylons.

All of this can be solved with money, but that's what will hold this back.

- Paul

 

[Tuscani01]

On a hot summer day, with transmission lines sagging from a combination of heat and load, a Van Hool double decker bus would likely encroach on the safe clearance engineering standards of existing transmission lines. A little wind, and...... The 2003 Ontario blackout was the result of a transmission line contacting an untrimmed tree, in Ohio.

Roads require light standards, maintenance (ie cranes), light bulb replacement trucks.... further potential encroachments.

A fallen transmission line snagging a bus, or even just blocking its path, is plausibly a 1 - in - 10 year occurrence, which is likely too frequent for most actuaries. Insurance would be problemmatic.

Busses do slide off roads in winter, potentially contacting pylons.

All of this can be solved with money, but that's what will hold this back.

- Paul

One look at the Mississauga Transitway shows how all these challenges can be overcome when there is a will to do so. It's not rocket science, and it's not costly, especially since any transit route would run parallel to the hydro lines, not across them. We already have roads, parks, trails, parking lots under these corridors without running into any issues. I don't see why that would suddenly change.

 

[howl]

Burying the wires has operational disadvantages too. I know in Ireland there has been a lot of calls for transmission cables to be buried but the hydro agency has pushed back because it costs a lot to do and there are efficiency and damage scenarios in a subground mode. That said they do do it where called for - wasn't there a little TBM going between Leaside and midtown there a few years back to run a transmission reinforcement?

It's not a question of "if" but "when". One day the technology will be there to safely bury even the biggest lines, and the value of the land those lines currently sit on will be high enough that developers will be willing to pay to bury the lines at no cost to the utility company. When that day comes you will see a wholesale change in the suburban environment.