Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Nothing concrete. Dorval mentionned Airport through Dorval station through Turcot. City of Montréal's Richard BERGERON says in the East.

The REM will cannibalize the Vaudreuil route, will shut down the Deux-Montagne line, and will affect the Repentigny line, which is already way way underused. With only the small lines left, which two of them offering longer transit times than buses, I doubt of the service long term.

There were talks also talks about the blue line extension being a REM by the mayor of Montréal last year.

REM doesn't get off the West Island. Isn't that problematic if they cancelled the Vaudreuil route, which I believe goes all the way to Hudson.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

REM doesn't get off the West Island. Isn't that problematic if they cancelled the Vaudreuil route, which I believe goes all the way to Hudson.

Yes but with so few users remaining, I can see it getting cut and replaced by buses. Rigaud was cut a few years back. As I said, commuter trains cost a fortune to run plus if not full pollutes more than if every user took its own personal car.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Yes but with so few users remaining, I can see it getting cut and replaced by buses. Rigaud was cut a few years back. As I said, commuter trains cost a fortune to run plus if not full pollutes more than if every user took its own personal car.

Is traffic an issue? If so, how do buses really replace trains effectively?

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Nothing concrete. Dorval mentionned Airport through Dorval station through Turcot. City of Montréal's Richard BERGERON says in the East.

The REM will cannibalize the Vaudreuil route, will shut down the Deux-Montagne line, and will affect the Repentigny line, which is already way way underused. With only the small lines left, which two of them offering longer transit times than buses, I doubt of the service long term.

There were talks also talks about the blue line extension being a REM by the mayor of Montréal last year.

It's premature to talk about cannibalizing ridership for Vaudreuil and Mascouche. Most of the ridership on that line is from people living along the A20 and nearby. There's not much park and ride, so for people going Downtown from 9-5 it will be much more efficient to walk 5-10 minutes to take the VH Line instead of driving to the REM, which is more centered on people living along the A40 and north of the highway.

I represented each network's approximate ridership origin. As you can see, the REM's catchment area (lime green) is huge. No doubt ridership on VH will decrease but I don't think it will end up shutting down the entire line. A VH line with 12,000 daily users is still more than the Mascouche, Candiac and Mont-Saint-Hilaire lines.

[p_xavier]

How timing fits this thread! http://globalnews.ca/news/3495272/hu...-train-agency/

Seems that the line is being dismantled early!

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

How timing fits this thread! http://globalnews.ca/news/3495272/hu...-train-agency/

Seems that the line is being dismantled early!

Is this really positive news?

The rapidly increasing cost of rail and limited service were the same reasons why rail service was terminated at Rigaud on June 30, 2010.

I believe VIA owns the abandoned right of way west of Rigaud with the long-term possibility of using it for high speed rail, however, VIA has already invested substantially to improve the alternate route from Coteau to Ottawa.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

How timing fits this thread! http://globalnews.ca/news/3495272/hu...-train-agency/

Seems that the line is being dismantled early!

I think we can all agree the potential shutdown at Hudson has nothing to do with the REM, and that shutting down an existing transit line isn't something to wish for. Even if that line has less ridership than a lot of STM bus routes.

It would be much more beneficial to have the REM and Vaudreuil-Hudson line as transit options for people in the West Island than to shutdown the commuter rail line and force people to drive to the REM...

[gunnar777]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I think we can all agree the potential shutdown at Hudson has nothing to do with the REM, and that shutting down an existing transit line isn't something to wish for. Even if that line has less ridership than a lot of STM bus routes.

It would be much more beneficial to have the REM and Vaudreuil-Hudson line as transit options for people in the West Island than to shutdown the commuter rail line and force people to drive to the REM...

I couldn't agree more. What is the best way to go about saving this station on the VH line? 50 commuters (per direction?) per day is low, but in Canadian cities, we usually expect absurdly high ridership thresholds before considering rail. There are WAY too many buses running around our cities for our cities' populations and economies, particularly in Montréal and Toronto. It's not a knock on buses, per se - they have their place. But we do need more comfortable, reliable transportation than road vehicles can provide over such long distances.

So back to my question, it seems Mayor Prévost wants to keep rail but also get better value. What options do we have to lobby for passenger rail to remain in Hudson?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I think we can all agree the potential shutdown at Hudson has nothing to do with the REM, and that shutting down an existing transit line isn't something to wish for. Even if that line has less ridership than a lot of STM bus routes.

It would be much more beneficial to have the REM and Vaudreuil-Hudson line as transit options for people in the West Island than to shutdown the commuter rail line and force people to drive to the REM...

Nope, it has nothing to do with it, only with the costs to operate such train.

But even to go to Rigaud/Hudson it's much faster to take the bus, it will be even faster to have a direct bus route from the REM.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

I couldn't agree more. What is the best way to go about saving this station on the VH line? 50 commuters (per direction?) per day is low, but in Canadian cities, we usually expect absurdly high ridership thresholds before considering rail. There are WAY too many buses running around our cities for our cities' populations and economies, particularly in Montréal and Toronto. It's not a knock on buses, per se - they have their place. But we do need more comfortable, reliable transportation than road vehicles can provide over such long distances.

So back to my question, it seems Mayor Prévost wants to keep rail but also get better value. What options do we have to lobby for passenger rail to remain in Hudson?

Nothing to lobby, the service is there. The city must just pay for it's share! He just has to deal with the ARTM.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

I couldn't agree more. What is the best way to go about saving this station on the VH line? 50 commuters (per direction?) per day is low, but in Canadian cities, we usually expect absurdly high ridership thresholds before considering rail. There are WAY too many buses running around our cities for our cities' populations and economies, particularly in Montréal and Toronto. It's not a knock on buses, per se - they have their place. But we do need more comfortable, reliable transportation than road vehicles can provide over such long distances.

So back to my question, it seems Mayor Prévost wants to keep rail but also get better value. What options do we have to lobby for passenger rail to remain in Hudson?

The best example of what you're saying is Downtown Montreal with the countless South Shore buses crossing the Champlain Bridge. There's bus congestion everyday around Griffintown and south of René-Lévesque (buses coming out of the downtown Terminnus) that screams for rapid transit in that axis. Luckily we'll have it in a few years but this further demonstrates your point. Same with Ottawa and the Transitway of which a part became the Confederation line.

At one point, even if you are placing reserved lanes and express bus lines, there's simply too much demand and the buses take up space on the roads. Or they're simply not convenient (the case in the West Island) because you have to transfer one or two times just to get to a rapid transit station where you will transfer more.

Someone living in Pointe-Claire going to McGill has to take a local bus to Fairview Terminus, then another bus to Cote-Vertu Metro, then transfer from the Orange line to the Green at Lionel-Groulx all the way to McGill station. It's preposterous. I would want to move out of that place as soon as I hit my 20s. Hence why the REM needed to go out west, to replace those bus lines feeding into the Metro. And I bet it's the same in some areas of Toronto.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Is this really positive news?

I'm all for rail transit, it's a necessity. I'm against commuters trains like GO and the RTM because they cost more to run than buses, and especially for the last leg of a trip, they pollute tons more than if people took their own car. So at this point, why do they run the train up to there? The answer is they shouldn't.

On the other hand, if the REM would go to Vaudreuil or Rigaud, the costs would be mostly for infrastructure and low costs for running cars per km, lower than a bus and no pollution.

It's a gross generalization but I'm definitely wondering why people are sold on commuter trains.

[crazycrazydoesdoes]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Smart Track... AD2W ...that's more in line with modern rapid transit (frequent commuter rail) than the subway anyways.

You should look up the definition of rapid transit instead of trying to save face after calling people "stupid" for making totally accurate statements

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I'm all for rail transit, it's a necessity. I'm against commuters trains like GO and the RTM because they cost more to run than buses, and especially for the last leg of a trip, they pollute tons more than if people took their own car. So at this point, why do they run the train up to there? The answer is they shouldn't.

On the other hand, if the REM would go to Vaudreuil or Rigaud, the costs would be mostly for infrastructure and low costs for running cars per km, lower than a bus and no pollution.

It's a gross generalization but I'm definitely wondering why people are sold on commuter trains.

It would be interesting to see the CO2 emissions of an 8-car commuter train vs say 850 cars on the road or 20 buses (the amount of buses it would take to carry those 850 commuter rail users to their destination). I don't know how precise this list is, but the calculations I made are as follow:

A diesel car = 133,5 grams of CO2 per km, so for a 40km trip it would be 5,340 grams of CO2 per km
For 850 cars = 4,5 tons of CO2

A diesel bus = 892 grams of CO2 per km, so for a 40km trip it would be 35,680 grams of CO2 per km
For 20 buses = 0,71 ton of CO2

A diesel train = 3912 grams of CO2 per km, so for a 40km trip it would be 156,480 grams of CO2 per km
There is only one train for those 850 users so the number isn't multiplied

Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...hl=en_GB#gid=0

As a matter of fact, the train in itself pollutes more than one car or bus but far less than the number of cars or buses it would put on the roads if it didn't exist. I may be wrong, if someone can correct me in my analysis.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

It would be interesting to see the CO2 emissions of an 8-car commuter train vs say 850 cars on the road or 20 buses (the amount of buses it would take to carry those 850 commuter rail users to their destination). I'm sure it's a lot less.

Yes it's lot less, the problem is when the train isn't full... it pollutes the same.

http://www.viarail.ca/en/plan-your-t...-train-and-car

From Via Rail :

Train emissions calculator
The formula used to calculate train related data emissions is: (Litres of diesel fuel consumed X Emission Factor) / average of seats available on the selected route = Kg of CO2 equivalent per seat. The emission factor of 3.00715 Kg of CO2 equivalent per Liter of diesel No. 2 was used. The fuel consumption for each selected route was calculated using an average of real-time fuel consumption as measured by the Witronix technology over a 12-month period. The emission factor for diesel No. 2 is calculated by Environment Canada as part of its National Inventory Report (2011 submission) and takes into consideration the global warming potential of CO2, CH4 and N2O.

Flight emissions calculator
Number from Zerofootprint Flight emission calcultor for AirCanada used: https://aircanada.zerofootprint.net/...n/OffsetFlight This link open a window.

Car emissions calculator
For the calculations, a mid-size sedan with a combined fuel consumption rate of 10.0 Liters per 100 km was used, considering an average capacity of 4 passengers per vehicle. The distances are calculated in Kilometers using Google Maps. The formula used to calculate car related data emissions is: (Litres of gasoline consumed X Emission Factor) / average # of seats = Kg of CO2 equivalent per seat. The emission factor of 2.500 Kg of CO2 equivalent per Liter of gasoline (Tier 0) was used. The fuel consumption rate for a mid-size vehicle is an average calculated for mid-size type vehicles from the 2013 Fuel Consumption Guide developed by Natural Resources Canada. The emission factor for gasoline is calculated by Environment Canada as part of its National Inventory Report (2011 submission) and takes into consideration the global warming potential of CO2, CH4 and N2O.

So with a fully seated vehicle, a car pollutes about x2.3 than a train. Montreal/Toronto trains are usually 6-cars. So just a gross calculation a car would pollute 3x per passenger more than a fully seated 8-car commuter train. Basically if a train is more than 2/3 empty, it pollutes more than a car. This also means that a VIA Senneterre train pollutes more than a car even if full (and even worse thinking it takes almost double time than by car).

At least GO RER will solve the pollution problem.


While I don't like the BAPE, for the train de l'Est the report mentioned that putting a train would actually increase the pollution with a fully loaded train, just imagine with empty running trains like now...

[niwell]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

So with a fully seated vehicle, a car pollutes about x2.3 than a train. Montreal/Toronto are usually a 6-car train. So just a gross calculation a car would pollute 3x per passenger more than a fully seated commuter train. Basically if a train is more than 2/3 empty, it pollutes more than a car.

GO Trains are usually 10 or 12 cars, and during rush hour are often standing room only. Off peak they are rarely more than 2/3rds empty, even when I have taken the Lakeshore line on Sunday evenings. Given the massive number of commuters pouring into a downtown that's already gridlocked I'd think that even before electrification it's a net environmental benefit. Even taking into account the off-peak travel where this may not always be the case.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by crazycrazydoesdoes

You should look up the definition of rapid transit instead of trying to save face after calling people "stupid" for making totally accurate statements

Save face is exactly what you are doing but suggesting I should look up the definition of rapid transit. I'm done with you.

[MalcolmTucker]

Someone can do some fancy math and work backwards on the fuel amount from the costs here (pages 45-47): http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf..._Report_EN.PDF

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by niwell

GO Trains are usually 10 or 12 cars, and during rush hour are often standing room only. Off peak they are rarely more than 2/3rds empty, even when I have taken the Lakeshore line on Sunday evenings. Given the massive number of commuters pouring into a downtown that's already gridlocked I'd think that even before electrification it's a net environmental benefit. Even taking into account the off-peak travel where this may not always be the case.

I'm sure it's more than justified for Toronto. In Montreal that's not the case for many lines. The busiest line in Montreal is already electrified and being coverted to REM anyways.

There were plans to electrify all commuter rail lines but the CN/CP refused to collaborate. This would have been the start of Montreal's RER network basically. Since that is not possible, the REM was born from these challenges.

[Rico Rommheim]

Less than 80,000 commuters use the AMT's 6 train lines every morning. You can't compare that to GO.

I'm for the gradual phasing out of ALL commuter train lines eventually - replaced by buses or REM.