The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

The new QC transport minister has met with the CDPQi to go forward with two new REM lines/extensions. The formal mandate will be made shortly.

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2018/10/23/bonnardel-reclame-un-prolongement-du-rem

17km in Laval connecting to the future Du Ruisseau Station and a 22km line from Boucherville to Chambly with a connection at Rive-Sud Station. But this is the CAQ plan, the REM will have its say.

Is "the REM" really a decision-making body that has authority of some kind?

[begratto]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Is "the REM" really a decision-making body that has authority of some kind?

Well, the CDPQ can decide not to invest any $'s into the REM extensions. They're independent from the government.

The CAQ government could always decide to cover 100% of the costs of the extensions, though.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by begratto

Well, the CDPQ can decide not to invest any $'s into the REM extensions. They're independent from the government.

The CAQ government could always decide to cover 100% of the costs of the extensions, though.

So that (the Caisse) is what d_jeffrey meant by the "REM" and its decision-making power?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Is "the REM" really a decision-making body that has authority of some kind?

The REM as an organization can do planning and have contracts with the ARTM. The CDPQi is the one getting the mandates for the government. I'm under the impression that the CAQ would even change the CDPQ laws to get things done if gets escalated to that.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

That sort of question is what is wrong with transportation in North America. Why ask if the transit system is profitable? Why not ask whether the 400-series highways are profitable, or basically roads in general. Why is public transportation the only publicly-funded transportation infrastructure that people think should be profitable? Why should our taxes pay for roadways but not transit systems that are available to all, even those without cars?

It wasn't meant to be an attack on public transportation. I'm a strong believer in transit. More money should be invested in building up our transit systems and not on widening more roads and highways. Roads and highways are never profitable (unless heavily tolled) and are bad for the environment.

I was curious to see the difference in performance between bus systems and rail based systems. I was also curious to see if a dense metro network serving the urban core (such as Montreal) recuperates more than a system built to serve the far-flung suburbs (basically everyone else).

I also wanted an idea on how much we in Ottawa might save once we roll out our first rail line.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It wasn't meant to be an attack on public transportation. I'm a strong believer in transit. More money should be invested in building up our transit systems and not on widening more roads and highways. Roads and highways are never profitable (unless heavily tolled) and are bad for the environment.

I was curious to see the difference in performance between bus systems and rail based systems. I was also curious to see if a dense metro network serving the urban core (such as Montreal) recuperates more than a system built to serve the far-flung suburbs (basically everyone else).

I also wanted an idea on how much we in Ottawa might save once we roll out our first rail line.

This is a Wiki article (YMMV), but you can look at the individual links provided within: Farebox recovery ratio

[Doady]

GO Transit's 80+% cost recovery ratio seems impressive, until you have to pay for a short trip, or transfer to the TTC.

Likewise, the TTC's 70% cost recovery doesn't seem as impressive when you think about its lack of system-wide time-based transfers until a few months ago.

[p_xavier]

There's a rumour going on on FB/forums that the Bassin Peel station of the REM will now be a Griffintown station and that the city of Montréal would pay for an extra station in Pte-St-Charles.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

There's a rumour going on on FB/forums that the Bassin Peel station of the REM will now be a Griffintown station and that the city of Montréal would pay for an extra station in Pte-St-Charles.

What route will REM follow into Laval?

It would be so nice if REM got to Vaudreuil with a place for overnight parking so that visitors could get onto a train into downtown Montreal easily.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What route will REM follow into Laval?

It would be so nice if REM got to Vaudreuil with a place for overnight parking so that visitors could get onto a train into downtown Montreal easily.

https://youtu.be/UK22_wfSyRY

[Dengler Avenue]

Sometimes I really wonder what's barring cities like Toronto from achieving the kind of ratio that HK MTR did. The density's there.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

https://youtu.be/UK22_wfSyRY

In the extended REM proposal going north, it bugs me that the REM would run maybe 1 km (?) to the west of the end of the orange Métro line, but that there would a gap between them. I hate it when they do that.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In the extended REM proposal going north, it bugs me that the REM would run maybe 1 km (?) to the west of the end of the orange Métro line, but that there would a gap between them. I hate it when they do that.

Same issue with Orange line to Bois-Franc REM station. Another party will fix that someday. More metro being built now, connexions can come later.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Same issue with Orange line to Bois-Franc REM station. Another party will fix that someday. More metro being built now, connexions can come later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mNDYWhRSaw

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Sometimes I really wonder what's barring cities like Toronto from achieving the kind of ratio that HK MTR did. The density's there.

Toronto's density isn't even anywhere near the same level as New York City (~50% cost recovery ratio), let alone Hong Kong.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Doady

Toronto's density isn't even anywhere near the same level as New York City (~50% cost recovery ratio), let alone Hong Kong.

Having lived in Canada for 9 years really butchers my standard...

[rbt]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Sometimes I really wonder what's barring cities like Toronto from achieving the kind of ratio that HK MTR did. The density's there.

It's largely against the Canadian constitution to compete against companies willing to do the same work (there's a threshold but it's pretty low).

Anyway, using expropriation to build a subway + commercial for-profit mall/office, etc. development is impossible here without some changes to our basic laws.

For TTC to be self-funding, it would need to do it strictly from the farebox. Step #1 in making that happen would be to abandon a huge chunk of the suburbs which is neither politically viable or beneficial to the government.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by wave46

This is a Wiki article (YMMV), but you can look at the individual links provided within: Farebox recovery ratio

Thanks! To be honest, I'm a little surprised the rail based systems aren't performing better than the bus systems. In the case of Montreal, it might have more to do with the cheap fares (which is good) than operation and maintenance costs. I think the TTC's 70% can be attributed partly to its subway and expansive streetcar network, but mostly its ridiculously expensive monthly passes.

[ssiguy]

Farebox recovery only covers half the story. High farebox recovery may look like a system has huge ridership to nearly support itself but could be just a case of receiving very little funding from the city and/or senior levels of government.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by rbt;8356658[B

]It's largely against the Canadian constitution to compete against companies willing to do the same work (there's a threshold but it's pretty low).[/B]

Anyway, using expropriation to build a subway + commercial for-profit mall/office, etc. development is impossible here without some changes to our basic laws.

For TTC to be self-funding, it would need to do it strictly from the farebox. Step #1 in making that happen would be to abandon a huge chunk of the suburbs which is neither politically viable or beneficial to the government.

Under which section?