VIA Rail

[steveintoronto]

I don't pretend to understand the Federal government's procurement process, but I suspect the red tape is pretty thick.
- Paul

As a Crown Corp, VIA has its own procurement criteria and procedures. The real elephant in the waiting room is Bombardier. There might be a move behind a diesel-electric smokescreen to make sure Bombardier win even if they can't meet the published criteria. Could the Gov't do this? Does the F-35 ring a bell with the previous administration? And where does La Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec fit into all of this? I wouldn't be reaching to ask that save that the criteria are so far-fetched, if not impossible.

Meantime, here's the best tech-article I've found yet on the Talgos, albeit I suspect there's been further improvements since:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/docs/TrainsMagazine_Talgos_January_2013.pdf

Also: http://www.midwesthsr.org/sites/default/files/studies/Talgo_advantages.pdf

 

[cplchanb]

As a Crown Corp, VIA has its own procurement criteria and procedures. The real elephant in the waiting room is Bombardier. There might be a move behind a diesel-electric smokescreen to make sure Bombardier win even if they can't meet the published criteria. Could the Gov't do this? Does the F-35 ring a bell with the previous administration? And where does La Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec fit into all of this? I wouldn't be reaching to ask that save that the criteria are so far-fetched, if not impossible.

Meantime, here's the best tech-article I've found yet on the Talgos, albeit I suspect there's been further improvements since:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/docs/TrainsMagazine_Talgos_January_2013.pdf

Also: http://www.midwesthsr.org/sites/default/files/studies/Talgo_advantages.pdf

slightly OT....but who on earth approved of that hideous cab design??!! They ought to be fired for letting such a monstrosity go through. Im pretty sure even the nazi tight North American regulations dont force these shapes out....

 

[steveintoronto]

slightly OT....but who on earth approved of that hideous cab design??!! They ought to be fired for letting such a monstrosity go through. Im pretty sure even the nazi tight North American regulations dont force these shapes out....

It was a requirement for FRA approval due to the sightlines needed for two operators in the cab.

See: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/docs/TrainsMagazine_Talgos_January_2013.pdf

Scroll down to "Evolution of the cab car". It's all explained with photographs and the text, albeit this text claims it was at the behest of Wisconsin, which is contradicted by what I read elsewhere indicating it was the FRA. I'll research further.

It's the Acela brutalization of the TGV all over again. By the time the FRA had finished applying arcane regulations, the weight of the original TGV had doubled, and thus the Acela having brake problems as well as being sluggish.

Edit to Add: I can't confirm the FRA was behind the cab design, but several sources put it down to *operator requirements*:

Here's one:
[...]Of course, the Talgo 8 cab car has also received plenty of jeers for its snout-nosed appearance, versus the rounded, bullet-like lines of older Talgo engines. In fact, the new model looks like it would be more at home in a Pixar movie about talking trains.

"Hey, it can be a duck or a beaver," Hamilton said. "Perfect for Oregon."

Actually, Gary Young, who designed the train for the Milwaukee-based Talgo America, said Amtrak is moving toward using two engineers on future trains and the older, sleeker design didn't work with the wider cab. "It had to be more boxy," he sad.[...]
http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2013/10/oregons_new_talgo_8_trains_for.html

In the event, as detailed in prior posts, and as Amtrak are operating them, they can be used with conventional locomotives. F59s and P42s are used regularly, sometimes with a Talgo loco at the other end on the Cascades route. Sometimes one of the Amtrak F40 'shells' is used (minus prime motor and equipment) as a cab-car at one end. This could be done in VIA's case until an electric loco is needed in lieu of a cab-car at one end, conventional (albeit Tier IV compliant) diesel the other on non-electrified routes, cab car when fully electric. Cab car might still need HEP generator in case of catenary failure, and as I've discussed prior, traction motors still on the bogies to be fed from the powered loco the other end to distribute traction and better control the forces on the consist.

 

[cplchanb]

It was a requirement for FRA approval due to the sightlines needed for two operators in the cab.

It's all in the information provided. It's the Acela brutalization of the TGV all over again. By the time the FRA had finished applying arcane regulations, the weight of the original TGV had doubled, and thus the Acela having brake problems as well as being sluggish.

I repeat my mantra: Time for Transport Canada to relax regs, as the US is now realizing they have to do. The locomotives in other nations for that derived model are sleek and contoured.

Next: How the FRA makes ballet dancers wear safety boots, hard-hats and bullet-proof vests when stepping onto North Am trains...

interesting.....well if US relaxes their regs, im pretty sure our ass kissing govt will soon do so as well

 

[steveintoronto]

interesting.....well if US relaxes their regs, im pretty sure our ass kissing govt will soon do so as well

It would certainly make VIA's search a lot more prolific. As it stands, even the Talgo might not meet all the criteria stated. So is anyone going to bat in Ottawa to loosen the regs? They'd better be, or no-one will come to VIA's show-and-tell party in nine days.

Even if it's a memorandum of understanding from the Transport Minister to VIA's potential respondees stating (to the effect of) "We realize TC regs are far too stifling, and intend to relax a number of them. Please submit ideas of what you can offer and what regs need to be changed to satisfy VIA's criteria, and/or conversely, which VIA requirements are too onerous".

If the Libs want this to work, they have work to do themselves. And it will make Metrolinx' life a lot easier too. But not a word on this from Ottawa. What in Hades are they thinking? While the rest of the world speeds past us....

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm taking the liberty to post this here from the GO Transit Fleet string, as it rings the bell I've been calling for:

Stadler just got a contract to supply 96 EMU trains to Caltrain and the best one out there at this time.

I should note the ones I have been on were lowfloor, requiring no step down like our current cars. They also have a slide out gap plate to comply with ODA requirement at all doors. This would remove the need for the current accessiblity platforms.

Contracts awarded for Caltrain electrification project

cplchanb said: ↑
is it the kiss model or something that hasnt been sold yet? either way depending on regs, it could be a good precedent on what we can expect in the next few years

Its the Kiss model as far as I know and that what most systems are buying these days.

I think this will open the doors to change the regs to allow these cars here. They can run from 3-15 car sets and only take 5 minutes to MU sets to run as one set to about 2 minutes or less as 2 sets.

That is absolutely and necessarily pertinent to Canada! If the US is coming up to speed, (in more ways than one) then why can't we? The excuse of "Well the FRA wouldn't allow it" is beyond pale and stale.

 

[drum118]

U.S., Canadian freight-rail regulators meet in Ottawa

 

[mdrejhon]

"Well the FRA wouldn't allow it" is beyond pale and stale.

Given there seems to be a Caltrain waiver of mixing FRA-structural-rated and lighter structural-strength passenger trains -- but temporal separation from freight trains, let's imagine if some precedent of that occurs within a tiny subset of GO's network.

Transport Canada has already shown flexibility but the question is how quickly the regs here can be modified. A train protection system, Communications Based Train Control, is currently planned for RER.

Of interest to theoretical lighter structural strength trains is Bramalea-Aurora-Stouiville -- these are the proposed EMU sections of the $13.5bn GO RER plan (as illustrated in RER Business Case, Option 5: 10-Year Optimized).

So, how quickly can freight be moved off Bramalea-Aurora-Stoufville -- to nighttime-only customer freight deliveries in these sections (nighttime freight delivery as suggested in RER Business Case Appendix K) as the means of temporal freight separation?

Obviously, this does not include deadheads to a railyard (e.g. Whitby, etc), so another waiver may be needed for that (non-passenger transit of non-FRA trains on the Lakeshore lines). In the current assumed 10-Year Optimized plan (the $13.5bn budget), the Lakeshore service is still going to be electric locomotive driven, rather than EMUs.
[Speculation: I imagine the large stop spacing and the needed higher-capacity trains, is part of the reason -- most infill stations are on other lines -- and additionally, it might be possible that Lakeshore East trains will go express past the 'SmartTrack' stations (e.g. Gerrard) if the stations are theoretically designed only to accomodate the newer Bramalea-Stoufville EMUs (e.g. platform length and/or height considerations, such as a full-length ~20"-ish accessible platform for level boarding with commuter EMUs)]

This could change, but let's for simplicity, EMU passenger service only applies to Bramalea-Aurora-Unionville (and possibly Stoufville, short-turning 15-minute trains at Unionville to achieve 60-minute hourly to Stoufville -- as already suggested as an option in the RER Business Case)

Obviously, rules must be followed, but given the "known affected sections of GO network", it is a lot simpler than trying to do the whole GO network as lighter EMUs at once....

So based on this information, would it be possible to have a waiver/permission for lighter structural strength passenger trains on time for Metrolinx EMU procurement?
(smallspy is welcomed to speculate on this...)

 

[steveintoronto]

So based on this information, would it be possible to have permission for lighter structural strength passenger trains on time for Metrolinx EMU procurement?

Or VIA! The short answer for VIA is no....only due to the fact that VIA own very little of their own track. Metrolinx own over 80% of theirs in the GTA, and are poised to gain more. VIA still have little to show...which puts the criteria stated for their 'new trainsets' in a very awkward, if not impossible, situation. It's great to be looking to the future, but why make it so inflexible for the immediate future by locking into "complete trainsets that are bi-modal, meet FRA, are already proven, etc".

Unless the regs are relaxed, VIA will have nothing! Metrolinx is a different story, because TC can always grant waivers for temporal separation, dedicated passenger, etc and not have to contend with an oil train or the like splitting an idle passenger consist like a can opener. That's not the case for VIA, they just don't have the track. So one really has to wonder....on what surmise is this 'Notice to Industry' that they've issued based on? Hadn't they best get a deal on track first?

Meantime, here's some text from Drum's intriguing headline above:
[...]U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) Chairman Daniel Elliott III yesterday met with Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Scott Streiner to discuss ways the two agencies can work together and share "best practice" information.[...]

Here's from the CTA:

Media Advisory: Meeting of the Canadian Transportation Agency and the US Surface Transportation Board
July 11, 2016

GATINEAU, Quebec – Today, Scott Streiner, Chair and CEO of the Canadian Transportation Agency hosted Daniel Elliott, Chairman of the United States Surface Transportation Board, to discuss opportunities for their agencies to work together and to share information and best practices in areas of mutual interest.

At the meeting, it was agreed that a Memorandum of Understanding would be developed to support ongoing exchanges and collaboration between the agencies. The agreement would see the agencies share information on their respective regulatory requirements, oversight processes, guidelines and best practices, and developments in rail transportation.

Chairmen Streiner and Elliott recognized the importance of engagement and information-sharing to support the development of each agency's approaches, particularly given the integrated nature of the North American freight rail system.

The Canadian Transportation Agency is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal and regulator with the powers of a superior court. It makes decisions on a wide range of matters involving federally-regulated modes of transportation (air, rail, marine, and, for purposes of accessibility, extra-provincial bus). Along with its roles as a regulator and an aeronautical authority, the Agency works to facilitate accessible transportation, and serves as a dispute resolution authority over certain transportation rate and service complaints. The Agency supports the goal of a competitive and accessible national transportation system that fulfills the needs of Canadians and the Canadian economy. www.otc-cta.gc.ca

The Surface Transportation Board is an independent adjudicatory and economic regulatory agency with, economic regulatory oversight of freight railroads, including rates; service; construction, acquisition and abandonment of rail lines; carrier mergers; the interchange of traffic among railroads; and certain oversight of passenger rail carriers, bus companies, and water carriers in the non-contiguous domestic trade. www.stb.dot.gov

For more information:

Media Relations
Canadian Transportation Agency
819-934-3448

media@otc-cta.gc.ca

Twitter: @OTC_gc / @CTA_gc

https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/conte...on-agency-and-us-surface-transportation-board

Very interesting. I wonder what the implications are for Transport Canada?

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Uh oh! VIA Rail and Caisse De Depot (Montreal REM) are fighting over the Mount Royal tunnel for Montreal-Quebec City HFR service. Article was in French and I don't have time to do a proper French to English translation so Google Translate will have to do for now:

Impossible de loger le train électrique et le TGF sous le mont Royal
(Impossible to accommodate both REM and VIA High Frequency Rail (HFR) in the Mount Royal Tunnel) - La Presse

(Quebec) The electric train imagined for the city hustles high frequency train Plans (TGF) Quebec-Montreal, both in need of narrow tunnel under Mount Royal to move quickly. Considering impossible to share the space, the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec (CDPQ) proposes to repress intercity trains at a transfer station near Highway 40, then retrieve passengers to carry them to the center- city.

Rémi Guertin and Jacques Vandersleyen respectively geographer and lecturer at UQAR, worried Monday in the crossroads of the Sun readers to see TGF around Mount Royal to reach Central Station and lose precious time that wants to save its customers.

"Unfortunately it is impossible to pass under Mount Royal a mode of transport for both light and heavy," says the director of media relations Infra CDPQ inc., Jean-Vincent Lacroix.

This balance several arguments to justify the exclusive use of the old tunnel 100 years by electrical Montreal Network (EMN).

Mr. Lacroix cites safety standards of the Federal Railroad Administration, the body regulating the railway transport in the United States, which does not allow the simultaneous operation of a heavy and light system on the same channel. Transport Canada has no similar standard, said the spokesman, it is customary to refer to practices south of the border. The space would otherwise be too small to develop a second path of movement.

Not cohabitation

Mr. Lacroix added that the automated system chosen to manage the decisions on the future network would integrate a heavy train manually driven. Especially with a frequency of three minutes during peak hours, maybe less, there is no room for a slip intercity train whose speed is not the same. "It is fashionable solution for both commuter trains Via Rail," but insists the representative of the CDPQ.

It puts forward the draft A40 intermodal station planned near the junction of Highways 40 and 15, which would allow passengers TGF-Quebec Montreal as well as those of the commuter train to reach the city center, but the airport and other areas of the metropolis. This last part of the journey could be done by light rail or subway, which would be extended at the expense of the Fund.

"We look for the most effective. A shared platform, it would help a lot. The fact is that high frequency, it is also interesting because someone would happen now would not have to wait very long "- a few minutes at most - to complete his route, said Mr. Lacroix.

A waiting area is projected same for empty cars commuters to transfer without delay.

Discussions are ongoing with Via Rail to secure the two major infrastructure projects, says the Fund.

Discussions with Via Rail

For its part, Via Rail is not hiding his interest in the Mount Royal tunnel. According to the Senior Advisor Media Relations Mariam Diaby, the circulation of REM and TGF "technically possible on the same infrastructure if it is planned and built with the intention of allowing the interoperability of the two projects." It states that "it is also an increasingly popular approach in Europe". The Sun asked for concrete examples and awaits a response.

It was not possible to know either how the corporation welcomes the idea of depositing its passenger intermodal station. While driving on lanes on the north shore, Via Rail think trains could link the capital and metropolis in 2 hours and 10 minutes instead of 3:20, which would triple the traffic to 1.2 million passes per year.

LRT projects ($ 5.5 billion) and heavy train ($ 4 billion) are still in the planning stage. Federal grants are claimed in both cases. For now, the Mount Royal tunnel belongs to the Agence métropolitaine de transport (AMT), who acquired CN along the Deux-Montagnes line for commuter trains. The Caisse wants to purchase it. Via Rail has not clarified its intentions.

 

[steveintoronto]

Excellent find Alex. Well that certainly puts a few of the 'queries' in this string as to what was to become of the "Montreal Tunnel" as Sabia (Caisse) puts it. There might also be more going on behind the scenes as to AMT's feelings on the matter too. They were poised to tender out replacements for the MR-90s.

This will also, ostensibly at least, 'complicate' the relationship between the Caisse and Desjardins-Siciliano. Google actually didn't do a bad job translating. They've come a long way, especially considering English is such an illogical language.

I'll keep my eyes peeled for more on this, as I'm sure will others. It certainly puts a perspective on VIA's "Interest" publication almost a month back, stating the need for "electric" as well as diesel, albeit nowhere can I find it stating "bimodal".

 

[SaugeenJunction]

More VIA Rail versus Montreal REM details (translated via Google):

Le REM aggravera-t-il la fracture Montréal-régions?
Le Devoir - http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/montreal/475129/le-rem-aggravera-t-il-la-fracture-montreal-regions

The announcement of the light system project on automated rail (REM) for the Montreal region was initially welcomed as a breath of fresh air. But once past this first surprise, the project of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ) is enough to leave some wondering: for $ 5.5 billion, Montrealers will have only 12 more stations without any connection direct with the metro! A Polytechnic teacher stressed that a similar amount, the city could have trams and three additional metro stations. Others argued that the fund behaves like a dog in a bowling game, when transit is primarily a detailed understanding of the dynamics of a city and its urban structure. Also, we proposed a project that recycles a rail network inherited from another era, the logic falls freight. More important Quebec may be cut in half because the REM was presumably thought in isolation.

The railway from the North Shore: a challenge

Passenger trains between Quebec and Montreal who travel by CN of the South Shore take about three hours, and Via Rail trains are regularly late due to freight trains whose speed is not synonymous with profitability . The simplest and least costly solution to improve the efficiency of Quebec-Montreal train is to borrow the tracks of the North Shore, where freight trains are less frequent, while integrating the Three area network -Rivières (population of some 156 000 persons). By increasing gradually the railway from the North Shore, it would be possible to Quebec-Montreal in about two hours. But the REM makes that impossible project.

In fact, if the Mount Royal tunnel is for the exclusive use of the automated process of the Caisse, TGF Via Rail will work around the Mount Royal by a maze of yards in full operation, negotiating with passing trains goods and switching locomotives. Why bother investing in a shorter route between Montreal and Quebec if the time gained is lost by the circumvention of Mount Royal? Both say that TGF-Quebec Montreal may never see the day (always according to available information). And, given the current traffic, perhaps we must fear for the future of passenger train between short while Quebec-Montreal. In the longer term, is he limited to a regional service offering only a few departures a week? Already the Gaspésie was abandoned and departures to New Brunswick could be even less frequent. What future do we we reserve transit in eastern Canada?

Marginalize the continental margin

Deprive Quebec and Trois-Rivières TGF would be to push further east from Quebec to the margin of the continent, marginalization on the long-term strengthening of geopolitical and socio-economic links between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. It is important to give Montreal an efficient public transport system, this is no doubt. But should it be at the expense of the regions for which only offers dismantling and bike paths? It seems so, and nonsense of the report Higgins-Martin-Raynauld (1970) always seem to be the preferred development model by our governments: we still claims that every dollar invested in Montreal inflects positively the economy of our regions. If the State has a good role to play, it is to see that the actions of one do not prevent the development of others.

Similarly, the significant reduction in Orléans Express services in the region reminds us that public transit is a necessity for all, not just half of Quebec.

Should we consider the establishment of a national company of railways to provide Québec with an efficient intercity transportation service? For if it is very nice to have bicycle paths and healthy citizens, they do not allow the less fortunate to travel to the territory!

As for TGF Quebec-Montreal, the technological choice of the Caisse could prevent its realization at the expense of the future of the national capital, Québec. And the cost of an automatic train looks inconsistent with the claim of the Caisse de depot to deliver a profitable project. As if the transit could be profitable in Quebec, while it is nowhere in the world!

 

[steveintoronto]

Alex: Excellent credit for supplying that translation. There are a number more articles appearing in the French press in Montreal, and my French is not good enough to do justice to translating, and ma petite fille is in the Gatineau region right now for the summer (She teaches the rest of the year).

Gazette has this up, but be warned, this has hidden agendas:
http://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...rain-project-looks-great-but-what-of-ste-anne

Here's an excellent article complete with maps and pics of the "abandoned corridor":
http://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...lding-a-136-million-train-corridor-to-nowhere

That this will go unused boggles the mind, there's a whole other layer of subterfuge right there.

Noted that Urban Sky has given you a like.

I'll have more later, but suffice for now to state that "TGF" translates to "HFR". What I will add for now is that it's beyond odd that the English press hasn't picked up on this story!

 

[smallspy]

Here's an excellent article complete with maps and pics of the "abandoned corridor":
http://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...lding-a-136-million-train-corridor-to-nowhere

That this will go unused boggles the mind, there's a whole other layer of subterfuge right there.

Noted that Urban Sky has given you a like.

I'll have more later, but suffice for now to state that "TGF" translates to "HFR". What I will add for now is that it's beyond odd that the English press hasn't picked up on this story!

Because it's much ado about nothing.

The corridor that they are building will absolutely, positively be used. The CN line through Montreal will be moved to it, and with it VIA's service to Central Station.

What the article is complaining about is the additional room that they were allowing for in the corridor for the previously conceived express train to the airport from Central Station will now be "wasted" as those additional tracks - if they were going to be built separately but within the same corridor - are now no longer needed. (This also assumes that CN or VIA didn't need to expand their line at any point in the future.)

For the Gazette to claim that it's a "$136mil corridor to nowhere" is grossly misleading, and frankly isn't far from an outright lie. The corridor will be very well used. What won't be used is about 30 feet of it.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

The corridor that they are building will absolutely, positively be used. The CN line through Montreal will be moved to it, and with it VIA's service to Central Station.

What the article is complaining about is the additional room that they were allowing for in the corridor for the previously conceived express train to the airport from Central Station will now be "wasted" as those additional tracks - if they were going to be built separately but within the same corridor - are now no longer needed. (This also assumes that CN or VIA didn't need to expand their line at any point in the future.)

For the Gazette to claim that it's a "$136mil corridor to nowhere" is grossly misleading, and frankly isn't far from an outright lie. The corridor will be very well used. What won't be used is about 30 feet of it.

Here's what the article stated:
[...][The corridor, including a concrete tunnel under a highway ramp, was to accommodate commuter trains and an airport shuttle, with tracks running near the Falaise St-Jacques, Canadian National freight tracks and Highway 20.

Problem is, the province just chose a different route for the long-awaited airport shuttle and improvements to West Island train service.[...]

So I leave it to smallspy and/or others to translate the Radio Canada story on it...can't be too difficult if it's close to an "outright lie".
http://ici.radio-canada.ca/audio-vi...-136-millions-construit-pour-rien-sous-turcot
Quoi?

What won't be used is about 30 feet of it.

The following is a direct quote. If Mr Spy cares to find some other quote by Transport Quebec spokesperson Sarah Bensadoun, then by all means, supply it:
[Though no airport/commuter tracks will be installed, Bensadoun said the land for the corridor will remain in place for a possible, unspecified future public transit project.]

For just "thirty feet"? Sacre Bleu! Well, this story gets more complicated all the while...

Perhaps Mr Spy could set Transport Quebec straight on the matter? Here's an idea: Suggest they share it with VIA and electrify it too, and if AMT aren't interested in running commuter to the west end of the island, then VIA just might be. And more. And service the Deux Montagnes line too...it appears to be a game of stakes, so VIA should play to win.

Edit to Add: Bear in mind that the REM is demanding $2.5 Billion from the Feds to make their concept happen. That may or may not be a fair figure, all very contentious, but meantime, VIA could do a hell of a lot with that same chunk, let alone what Transport Quebec is also expected to pump into REM.

There's been some very interesting proposals put on the table, time to hear from Desjardins-Siciliano again. Sabia (Caisse) may have tried to pull a fast one on him by trying to trump him on his own concept. Next move is D-S'.

The full story has yet to unfold.

Edit to Add: Here is the story in English from CBC Montreal:

LRT wouldn't use it
Transports Québec says rail corridor could still have future uses
CBC News Posted: May 27, 2016 8:51 AM ET Last Updated: May 27, 2016 8:51 AM ET

Designers included the rail corridor in plans for the new Turcot Interchange thinking it would serve a planned airport shuttle train. (Radio-Canada)

Montreal's new light rail network will bypass a $136-million train corridor under the Turcot Interchange that Quebec's Transport Ministry had designed for that purpose.

The corridor was written into the new Turcot's design with the expectation it would serve a planned rail shuttle between downtown Montreal and Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau International Airport.

The cost of including it in the Turcot development was estimated at $136 million by the ministry, according to documents obtained by Radio-Canada.

However, on April 22, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, which is fronting $3-billion of the new light rail network's $5.5 billion price tag, announced the airport train would not use the Turcot corridor.

• Ambitious light rail project for Montreal proposed by Caisse de dépôt
• Montreal's proposed light rail system misses mark, critics say
• ANALYSIS: New light rail system for Montreal by 2020. Seriously?

The pension fund said it wants the rail network to be in service by 2020-2021, but work on the Turcot is only scheduled for completion in 2020.

The new light rail network has a projected cost of $5.5 billion. (Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec)

As a result, LRT planners have three possible routes to the airport in mind, and the Turcot corridor isn't one of them.

"The LRT project announcement doesn't change the pertinence of maintaining a rail corridor for future use," said Transports Québec spokeswoman Sarah Bensadoun.

The ministry said it's impossible to estimate the cost of the Turcot's rail corridor.

However, documents obtained by Radio-Canada clearly show that from the moment of its inclusion in the plans, the cost was pegged at $136 million.

The corridor was envisioned as part of series of measures aimed at encouraging public transit.

A map of the light rail network's proposed stations. (Caisse de dépôt et Placement)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/turcot-rail-corridor-bypassed-by-lrt-1.3602871[/quote]