Future Rapid Transit, LRT, BRT, Commuter Rail in Canada

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

If the subways were run as seperate transit company, I'm pretty sure it could still develop its own system with the money it made.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what MTR does in Hong Kong?

[WhipperSnapper]

Operation profitability is a far cry from capital expenditures. In the best case scenario, You're still comparing tens of millions to billions.

We have more regulation and better safety standards. Equipment is more technical than mechanical. You cannot compare today to 50 or 100 years ago.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what MTR does in Hong Kong?

Mostly yes, plus their realty branch is huge. They own most of the malls near the stations.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Operation profitability is a far cry from capital expenditures. In the best case scenario, You're still comparing tens of millions to billions.

We have more regulation and better safety standards. Equipment is more technical than mechanical. You cannot compare today to 50 or 100 years ago.

For Montreal, if I remember correctly a trip costs 3.25$ and it costs 1.85$ to run (includes infrastructure repairs and replacements). So with a ridership of 356 096 000 annually, that gives about 50M$ in profit a year. Enough to pay for more infrastructure and make more money. If it's a station every 3 years, it's still better than none in the last 30 years.

The STM also created a realty branch this year, and will build its first condo buidling on the land of one of its metro stations. They took example from the MTR.

The REM is based on the same principle, they expect to make money by being more efficient than the suburban trains and buses plus $500M in added-value from their land.

[nname]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

For Montreal, if I remember correctly a trip costs 3.25$ and it costs 1.85$ to run (includes infrastructure repairs and replacements). So with a ridership of 356 096 000 annually, that gives about 50M$ in profit a year. Enough to pay for more infrastructure and make more money. If it's a station every 3 years, it's still better than none in the last 30 years.

But the transit authority will earn much much less than that for each boarding. The $3.25 is for single-trip, adult trip cash fare. They'll get less if the user uses concession fare, multi-trip ticket or day/weekly/monthly passes, and a fraction of that reduced fare if the trip involves transfer. In the end, the average fare paid for boarding may be less than the cost to run the system...

Just give an example, the average cost per passenger for Expo/Millennium Line SkyTrain in Vancouver is $1.35* and the fare is somewhere between $2.75 for 1-zone and $5.50 for 3-zones. You'd think the transit authority is making huge amount of revenue from the system, right? But the average fare paid per boarding is actually only $1.40**. With 94M boardings a day, the revenue would be only about $4.5M...

* = including infrastructure maintenance and repair, but not new train purchases, major infrastructure/station upgrades, etc. Calculated from extrapolated 2016 cost of E/M from 2014 figure (no 2016 number reported), divide by the 2016 passengers

** = Calculated by dividing total transit revenue by total boarded passengers

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by nname

But the transit authority will earn much much less than that for each boarding. The $3.25 is for single-trip, adult trip cash fare. They'll get less if the user uses concession fare, multi-trip ticket or day/weekly/monthly passes, and a fraction of that reduced fare if the trip involves transfer. In the end, the average fare paid for boarding may be less than the cost to run the system...

Just give an example, the average cost per passenger for Expo/Millennium Line SkyTrain in Vancouver is $1.35* and the fare is somewhere between $2.75 for 1-zone and $5.50 for 3-zones. You'd think the transit authority is making huge amount of revenue from the system, right? But the average fare paid per boarding is actually only $1.40**. With 94M boardings a day, the revenue would be only about $4.5M...

* = including infrastructure maintenance and repair, but not new train purchases, major infrastructure/station upgrades, etc. Calculated from extrapolated 2016 cost of E/M from 2014 figure (no 2016 number reported), divide by the 2016 passengers

** = Calculated by dividing total transit revenue by total boarded passengers

I was just saying that as an example. The ARTM in Montreal will pay a fixed fee per user/km to all operating transit companies. So the most efficient will get the most money. It's simplified but it's the main idea. The ARTM management board has a majority of urbanists/transit/finance professionals and a minority of politicians. The idea is to fund the most efficient transit extensions and not a political wishlist.

The ARTM will be able to tax cities 10$ per sf for every new building built in 1.5km of each metro station to fund new infrastructure. The ARTM will also charge cities a fixed subsidy per user per km so cities won't be able to dictate how much they're will be willing to fund; they are obligated to.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

For Montreal, if I remember correctly a trip costs 3.25$ and it costs 1.85$ to run (includes infrastructure repairs and replacements). So with a ridership of 356 096 000 annually, that gives about 50M$ in profit a year. Enough to pay for more infrastructure and make more money. If it's a station every 3 years, it's still better than none in the last 30 years.

The STM also created a realty branch this year, and will build its first condo buidling on the land of one of its metro stations. They took example from the MTR.

The REM is based on the same principle, they expect to make money by being more efficient than the suburban trains and buses plus $500M in added-value from their land.

How do you come to a station every three years at $50 million clean profit a year? Does this station have connecting tunnels? One station at a time is not how you build a subway. It'll cost twice as much as the specialized equipment costs a fortune and devalues quickly. It's only worth it if you have a guaranteed multi-billion dollar contract such as with a line.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I was just saying that as an example. The ARTM in Montreal will pay a fixed fee per user/km to all operating transit companies. So the most efficient will get the most money. It's simplified but it's the main idea. The ARTM management board has a majority of urbanists/transit/finance professionals and a minority of politicians. The idea is to fund the most efficient transit extensions and not a political wishlist.

The ARTM will be able to tax cities 10$ per sf for every new building built in 1.5km of each metro station to fund new infrastructure. The ARTM will also charge cities a fixed subsidy per user per km so cities won't be able to dictate how much they're will be willing to fund; they are obligated to.

I've seen tax financing formulas like this before. They never quite work out that great. Recessions always come as a surprise. (remember real estate is cyclical by nature) Cities always end up on the losing end to the private equity investors.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by haljackey

Large article on the London Free Press today regarding the tunnel kill
http://www.lfpress.com/2017/06/11/bu...plan-collapsed

In a nutshell the tunnel went from 90 million
to 220 million
to potentially 300 million+

Cost for the tunnel would be almost as much as the rest of the system, and would be 'expected' to be covered by the province / feds. The city thinks some of that cost would be 'shifted' back to them which is one reason why they backed out.

That damm railroad!

Bus tunnels are way more expensive than rail tunnels for several reasons such as width (4 lanes instead of 2 tracks) and ventilation (diesel buses vs. electric trains).

Ottawa also had plans for a bus tunnel in the early 90s but was scrapped, probably for similar reasons as London.

[ssiguy]

While true buses need a bigger tunnel footprint, the ventilation issues are no longer there. Modern buses for BRT can uniformly now run on electric power for relatively short distances like a 1 or 2 km tunnel.........they can easily be emission free blocks before/after the tunnel and thru the tunnel itself.

Not saying it's a good {or bad} idea simply pointing out the diesel fume and hence larger ventilation issues are no longer there.

[Hybrid247]

O-Train


https://twitter.com/jcl_7/status/865333856345477122


https://twitter.com/Canardiain/statu...97150001643522

[gunnar777]

^ So pleased that Ottawa is so close to getting real rapid transit at last!

And I hate to nitpick but man, Alstom makes ugly-ass trains. Not that it matters - not that it matters! But yeah anyway you can design something unattractive to a point, but that's just ridiculous

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

^ So pleased that Ottawa is so close to getting real rapid transit at last!

And I hate to nitpick but man, Alstom makes ugly-ass trains. Not that it matters - not that it matters! But yeah anyway you can design something unattractive to a point, but that's just ridiculous

Yes that was my first thought, that's ugly AF.

[kwoldtimer]

Is it just me or is the door placement on those O-trains a bit weird?

[lrt's friend]

The door placement likely relates to the modular design of the trains. There is an option to add another segment into each train set in the middle. Also, there are no doors at either end so that the trains can be longer than the platform. That also explains why there are two doors close together in each end segment.

I am guessing here but one of the middle segments have doors close together in order to accommodate bicycles. I wouldn't be surprised if you will find a bike rack in that section but I could be wrong.

I am sure some the people from the Ottawa board can confirm or explain further the specifics of the train layouts.

[hipster duck]

Those Alstom trains have a very "bolted together last minute" kind of look. Maybe it's the fact that the seams that separate the cab from the rest of the car body and those of the exterior panels are so visible. But looks are just looks, and what matters is how solidly they're built.

On the other hand, the Bombardier Flexitys that Toronto ordered for its streetcar network looked very sleek and polished from the outside, but had out-of-tolerance components literally bolted together at the last minute by factory workers. BBD not only delivered their trams late, they also delivered a batch of lemons that had to go back to the shop. They are kind of like the Jaguar E-type of light rail vehicles.

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Bus tunnels are way more expensive than rail tunnels for several reasons such as width (4 lanes instead of 2 tracks) and ventilation (diesel buses vs. electric trains).

Ottawa also had plans for a bus tunnel in the early 90s but was scrapped, probably for similar reasons as London.

The tunnel was to be 2 lanes and bus only, with future upgrades to LRT planned for it.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

^ So pleased that Ottawa is so close to getting real rapid transit at last!

Not sure what you mean by that as Ottawa already has a great RAPID transit system. The Transitway was fast, reliable, and frequent. The downtown section was the only slow part but that is because they never built that part of the Transitway.

The Transitway also has the great advantage of being able to use express buses on the route in rush hour. It's great to see the city invest in transit but unless you live right beside a station, the average Ottawan going downtown to will find their commute times have increased.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Not sure what you mean by that as Ottawa already has a great RAPID transit system. The Transitway was fast, reliable, and frequent. The downtown section was the only slow part but that is because they never built that part of the Transitway.

The Transitway also has the great advantage of being able to use express buses on the route in rush hour. It's great to see the city invest in transit but unless you live right beside a station, the average Ottawan going downtown to will find their commute times have increased.

They assure us that travel times will be comparable. That is due to the fact that the downtown subway will be faster than the current bus traffic jam. However, travel time gains will be lost by the additional transfer. This is going to be a very expensive fix of the downtown congestion issue but I expect that what the experts are saying will be true. Travel times will not increase.

Time will tell how this will impact ridership. I am a bit of skeptic.

[gunnar777]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Not sure what you mean by that as Ottawa already has a great RAPID transit system. The Transitway was fast, reliable, and frequent. The downtown section was the only slow part but that is because they never built that part of the Transitway.

The Transitway also has the great advantage of being able to use express buses on the route in rush hour. It's great to see the city invest in transit but unless you live right beside a station, the average Ottawan going downtown to will find their commute times have increased.

What I meant by that is a rapid rail system, with full ROW/grade separation. Nine years of living in Ottawa and I just wasn't personally impressed by the BRT system, due to its nonexistence downtown.