wrt the Canada Line, the capacity was specified in the Request for Proposals - i.e. it was determined by the government, not the private proponent. The proponents just build to what was requested. The RFP specified that platform lengths were to be determined by the proponent based on the requested capacity.
The width of the cars will be 3 metres - wider than Skytrain cars but only marginally narrower than TTC subway cars. However, the shorter train lengths means that the curve diameter can probably be tighter for the Canada Line.
The biggest benefit is that the private proponent is contributing about $750 million to the cost of constructing the line. It is a fixed price contract, so the increases due to higher materials and construction costs (or unforeseen tunneling problems) have been borne by the private proponent. The only increases are due to changes in scope of the contract - i.e. adding stations, moving station locations, adding track, changing track location, etc.
wrt the cost recovery figures, not sure if some of the quoted figures are for rapid transit only (i.e. PATH). For the translink figure, that's for for all Translnk services, including bus, community shuttles and handydart service (5.49% recovery). Skytrain itself recovers its operating costs (For 2005, 100.4% cost recovery - the first time since the M-Line was opened).
Here's the 2005 report citing cost recovery ratios:
www.translink.bc.ca/files...6/4.13.pdf
