Montréal Transit Developments

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Toronto will always hold the title of being "the most expensive transit system" in Canada and probably North America depending on the exchange rate. So our pride is still unharmed.

Not so sure about that, given the amounts of ifs ands or buts on that score. Besides, wait till you take into account the amount of public subsidy the other systems receives on a per trip level.

AoD

 

[skahhigh]

Is what Montreal is proposing really LRT? LRT is not normally automated. Certainly what they are planning looks nothing like Eglinton. It sounds like they are abusing the term to mean "automated light metro" which is similar to Vancouver's system. Also I very much doubt it if this will start construction in 2017 if it is approved.

I think a commuter rail electrification program similar to Metrolinx RER would make far more sense. It would include all the commuter rail lines in Montreal, not just the Deux-Montagnes line, and it would avoid shutting down the Deux-Montagnes line during construction, and it would avoid truncating the Mascouche line which also uses the Mont-Royal tunnel.

It won't be RER. It will be an automated light metro similar to the Skytrain and the Dubai Metro, like the Caisse has always stated since the announcement.

 

[ksun]

Not so sure about that, given the amounts of ifs ands or buts on that score. Besides, wait till you take into account the amount of public subsidy the other systems receives on a per trip level.

AoD

I hear this reason a lot, but do you think "well, whether it is $140 a month or $60 doesn't matter at all since they are all subsidized"? I doubt it. Whether it is $140 or $60 still matters a lot.

And I argued many times that the subsidy per rider metric is not a good measurement of the level of subsidy either. The TTC has higher ridership than for example Chicago, so your stats for Toronto is of course lower because of the higher denominator, but it doesn't mean it costs more to serve a million riders than 75 million, does it? If for some reason, TTC ridership declines by 20% next year, does that mean the entire, exactly the same system next year will be 25% better funded although total funding remains the same, since the magic subsidy/rider is all of a sudden 25% higher?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I hear this reason a lot, but do you think "well, whether it is $140 a month or $60 doesn't matter at all since they are all subsidized"? I doubt it. Whether it is $140 or $60 still matters a lot.

And I argued many times that the subsidy per rider metric is not a good measurement of the level of subsidy either. The TTC has higher ridership than for example Chicago, so your stats for Toronto is of course lower because of the higher denominator, but it doesn't mean it costs more to serve a million riders than 75 million, does it? If for some reason, TTC ridership declines by 20% next year, does that mean the entire, exactly the same system next year will be 25% better funded although total funding remains the same, since the magic subsidy/rider is all of a sudden 25% higher?

A good metric of what, exactly? You're the one who put forth fares as bragging right, the question is - so what?

And to put it another way, just how much is low fares coupled by high level of government subsidies worth bragging about? Per capita usage of transit - yes, out of pocket fare price? A big whatever. Plus you can't suck on the "riders should pay for it with minimal subsidies" argument and then blow on the "but the out of pocket fares are high" - compared to what? Europe? Asia? And in what context? Long distance, multi-mode travel? Short one stop subway trip? It's kind of meaningless.

AoD

 

[ksun]

A good metric of what, exactly? You're the one who put forth fares as bragging right, the question is - so what?

And to put it another way, just how much is low fares coupled by high level of government subsidies worth bragging about?

AoD

I am only saying the TTC is not necessarily worse funded than other public transit systems in North America as the subsidy/rider data show, which is often used as a reason why the TTC is more expensive than others, because subsidy/rider is not a good measurement of how well a transit system is funded, far from it. It assumes costs of operating a system is directly proportional to the number of passengers it serves, but is it? It is overly simplified and definitely help the TTC in explaining away high costs. People here should know better to buy that kind of faulty logic and math.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I am only saying the TTC is not necessarily worse funded than other public transit systems in North America as the subsidy/rider data show, which is often used as a reason why the TTC is more expensive than others, because subsidy/rider is not a good measurement of how well a transit system is funded, far from it. It is overly simplified and definitely help the TTC is explains away high costs. People here should know better to buy that kind of faulty logic and math.

I don't think anyone on here believe it is a particularly low-cost system, but the gratuitous bragging right comment is kind of silly. In the North American context, what matters is high per capita usage, not fares prices.

AoD

 

[ksun]

I don't think anyone on here believe it is a particularly low-cost system, but the gratuitous bragging right comment is kind of silly. In the North American context, what matters is high per capita usage, not fares prices.

AoD

I am not refuting that it is a low cost system. I am refuting the theory that low subsidy is the reason for high fare. It hardly explains half of it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I am not refuting that it is a low cost system. I am refuting the theory that low subsidy is the reason for high fair.

What I am refuting is that other systems in North America would be far, far higher cost on a per fare basis than the TTC inclusive of subsidies, and as such, that your supposedly sarcastic statement of the latter having high fares is patently meaningless.

AoD

 

[SFO-YYZ]

Looking at the proposed route, it will be 24 stations (connecting points to 3 existing STM metro stations) and almost 3x the length of Eglinton Crosstown at 67 km spread across into 4 segments built mostly on existing track hence lower cost and shorter timeline.

Take it with a grain of salt, but here is Caisse's published project timeline. 2020 completion sounds like Cloud 9 fantasy, but let's wait and see.

• Spring 2016 – Consultations.
• End of summer 2016 – Environmental impact public hearings (BAPE).
• Fall 2016 – Call for proposals with qualified consortiums.
• End of 2016/beginning of winter 2017 – Final decision required from governments.
• Winter 2017 – Environmental decree.
• Spring 2017 – Financial closing.
• Spring 2017 – Start of implementation.
• 2020 – Operation of first trains.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/caisse-de-depot-train-de-louest-champlain-bridge-1.3548109

 

[ksun]

What I am refuting is that other systems in North America would be far, far higher cost on a per fare basis than the TTC inclusive of subsidies, and as such, that your supposedly sarcastic statement of the latter having high fares is patently meaningless.

AoD

Again, I don't agree calculating anything on a per rider basis leads us to anything meaningful although it sounds fair. It is like comparing the electricity usage of a household of 10 versus a household of 2, claiming the former conserves energy better because they use less on a per person basis.

What is more meaningful is look at the whole system and estimate its cost requirement per year using a standardized approach, and then compare such estimates with the act cost of operating it. Per rider cost is always misleading because cost of service is not proportional to ridership.

 

[nfitz]

It won't be RER. It will be an automated light metro similar to the Skytrain and the Dubai Metro, like the Caisse has always stated since the announcement.

The announcement said light rail. I'd think that the Skytrain and Dubai Metro is more akin to the Scarborough RT than it is to LRT - in a Toronto context.

 

[skahhigh]

The announcement said light rail. I'd think that the Skytrain and Dubai Metro is more akin to the Scarborough RT than it is to LRT - in a Toronto context.

Is grade-separated, partly at grade, underground and elevated rail considered light rail? Keep in mind the frequencies will vary between 3-12 minutes from 5AM to 1AM, which is similar to our Metro Blue line. The REM will actually open and close at the same time as the Metro system.

It really is more of a complementary rapid transit system than "light rail". Like I said many times, it'll be automated.

 

[44 North]

Is grade-separated, partly at grade, underground and elevated rail considered light rail? Keep in mind the frequencies will vary between 3-12 minutes from 5AM to 1AM, which is similar to our Metro Blue line. The REM will actually open and close at the same time as the Metro system.

It really is more of a complementary rapid transit system than "light rail". Like I said many times, it'll be automated.

Agreed. It might cause confusion to transit enthusiasts or the general public to say light rail, however in some ways I think it's acceptable. Just to let it be known that this isn't an extension of the Mtl Metro, nor a typical heavy rail subway. What I think is a mistake would be to call it "LRT" - which more often than not means some sections will be operating tram-style in-median + stopping at traffic lights (which this proposal most definitely will not). *I've already seen the media refer to this as "LRT", but nowhere have I seen the Caisse use the term.

The CPDQ's technical document uses the term "light metro", which IMO is a good way of describing what's proposed (and ditto for systems like the SRT or Skytrain). But I agree, I think the Caisse would be wise to simply call this a subway/metro and not get into confusing semantics. Much in the same way the TTC should've referred to the SRT as a subway line from Day 1 instead of giving it its "RT" moniker for ~30yrs.

Although it's brief, the technical doc is also interesting in that it settled an earlier debate about what type of vehicles they want. And by providing clues about what company will provide these vehicles (considering it's eerily similar in look and specs to Bombardier's MK-III).

 

[rbt]

It won't be RER. It will be an automated light metro similar to the Skytrain and the Dubai Metro, like the Caisse has always stated since the announcement.

So instead of using 60's automation technology (RER-A launched in '69) you'll be using recent automation technology (like Metro line 14 or recently converted line 1); somehow that's not surprising.

Small vehicles are because of low ridership expectations rather than anything else. Why build bigger than necessary? Toronto regularly misses the mark here with a population that demands to go big or go home, then they go home.

 

[smallspy]

Toronto will always hold the title of being "the most expensive transit system" in Canada and probably North America depending on the exchange rate. So our pride is still unharmed.

Just because you continue to say it doesn't make it true.

Is grade-separated, partly at grade, underground and elevated rail considered light rail? Keep in mind the frequencies will vary between 3-12 minutes from 5AM to 1AM, which is similar to our Metro Blue line. The REM will actually open and close at the same time as the Metro system.

Again, it is all relative.

Is the equipment and infrastructure capable of handling railroad equipment? If not, right off of the bat, it's a type of "light rail".

Is the equipment and infrastructure - and therefore ultimate passenger capacity - less than that of a full-blown subway? Then yes, it's a "light rail" system.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.