The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[SaskOttaLoo]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Ya the American numbers are sad. This was the 2018 light rail'Subway ridership for cities across North America.

01. N.Y.C 2,629,594,200 (373 km)
02. Mexico City 1,591,984,000 (226.5 km)
03. Toronto 416,210,500 (76.9 km)
04. Montreal 383,147,700 (69 km)
05. Chicago 225,895,100 (165.4 km)
06. Washington 226,349,600 (188 km)
07. Monterrey 180,818,000 (32 km)[
08. Boston 155,748,800 (61 km)
09. Vancouver 160,014,800 (79.5 km)
10. San Francisco 125,576,400 (167 km)

Is there a source for these figures?

[gunnar777]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

If the Green Line wasn't already in a tumultuous place, the new provincial budget might be the final death knell... for now at least.

A good opportunity for the feds to step in. As they're looking to do so in western Canada, this could be a good opportunity.

Jason Kenney and Doug Ford make me wish we could scrap our dumb, useless provinces and become a unitary state like the UK.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

Jason Kenney and Doug Ford make me wish we could scrap our dumb, useless provinces and become a unitary state like the UK.

Sod that. Then we won't get anything - see how the only place in the UK that receives public transit money is London.

[SaskOttaLoo]

Hi all,

I had posted sometime ago about my concerns that the REM will permanently block Via Rail from using the Mont Royal tunnel. However, I hadn't been aware of many of the other issues with the project: https://nextcity.org/features/view/is-montreal-building-a-transit-boondoggle

First off, I REALLY want to like this project and hope it will succeed, given how much it is seemingly going to increase frequencies on the existing Montreal commuter lines that are part of this project. Plus, driverless systems can be a lot more cost-effective and enable much more frequent trips a la Vancouver's SkyTrain.

However, some of the main concerns raised seem hard to ignore:
* Although taxpayers put up ~50% of the investment, the CDPQ gets the first return of a mandatory 8-10%. This just makes no financial sense but fits with my observation at how bad government typically is at negotiating.
* Commuters using the existing commuter lines going through the Mont Royal tunnel will now have to switch to the REM before reaching downtown, making their trips worse than before by requiring an extra transfer and extra time
* There may not be much change in overall system ridership: "According to a February 2017 investment forecasting report, more than 90 percent of the REM’s users are expected to be existing transit users switching to the new system."
* No transparency, including on what the fares will be, and no public bidding for the project. One reason this is concerning is that the CDPG actually owns a lot of the real estate that will benefit from the project. Owning a private company myself, I know how much bidding for government contracts delivers better value for government.
* The article seems to imply that the borrowers didn't obtain as low of a financing cost as the government would've received had they borrowed for the project
* Charging a fee for future developments near the stations could potentially push new development farther away from them (this one is so far speculative)


What do others think? Is this article off-base or not?

[GreaterMontréal]

According to a February 2017 investment forecasting report, more than 90 percent of the REM’s users are expected to be existing transit users switching to the new system."

The REM was mainly created to replace bus lines that had downtown Montréal as their final destination. More than 22,000 people cross the Champlain Bridge every morning to the downtown terminus, + now we have a connection to YUL as a bonus.

The connection with the 3 Metro lines was the icing of the cake as that will allow people to go from UdeM to Mcgill in less than 10 min.

The REM will be used as a ''feeder network system'', most if not all the bus lines from the suburbs will have a REM or a Metro station as their final destination.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

A good opportunity for the feds to step in. As they're looking to do so in western Canada, this could be a good opportunity.

"Look, we are supporting the places we did not get voted in."

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

Jason Kenney and Doug Ford make me wish we could scrap our dumb, useless provinces and become a unitary state like the UK.

What makes you think decision-making from faraway would be any better?



https://www.ft.com/content/cf3ff750-d92a-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17

[gunnar777]

Originally Posted by accord1999

What makes you think decision-making from faraway would be any better?

In the context of Kenney and Ford? I'm not sure it's possible to be worse off.

[ssiguy]

I think REM, like Toronto's RER, will depend on one key issue..........fares. If the fares are the same as standard fares today and interchangeable then ridership will soar but if they aren't then most of the travelling public will be infuriated by their tax dollars going towards a system they can't afford to take.............two tiered transit.

Metrolinx has finally realized this as all the service in the world by it's new GO/RER system means little if the fares are still beyond reach. So last year they dropped GO train fares for trips of about 10km or less by a whopping 40% and surprise, the fastest growing ridership stations are the ones under 10 km from Union station. The UPX started with truly obscene fares of $27 and hence was only getting 1500 passengers a day despite running each way, all day at 15 minute intervals. Hence they plunged the price to around $9 and ridership has subsequently soared by 6X what it was despite no increase in frequencies or service. The much cheaper fares has actually resulting into needing LESS government subsidy to run the line.

REM's success will depend on the fares and if they are the same as standard ones in the MUC, then people will be willing to overlook some of the deficiencies of the project funding itself. If not, poeple will be infuriated at the high cost of the fares and having to watch trains go by that they can't afford to take while they wait in the rain or snow for the next packed bus knowing that not only did the travelling public like themselves get screwed but so did the taxpayers.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by SaskOttaLoo

Hi all,

I had posted sometime ago about my concerns that the REM will permanently block Via Rail from using the Mont Royal tunnel. However, I hadn't been aware of many of the other issues with the project: https://nextcity.org/features/view/is-montreal-building-a-transit-boondoggle

First off, I REALLY want to like this project and hope it will succeed, given how much it is seemingly going to increase frequencies on the existing Montreal commuter lines that are part of this project. Plus, driverless systems can be a lot more cost-effective and enable much more frequent trips a la Vancouver's SkyTrain.

However, some of the main concerns raised seem hard to ignore:
* Although taxpayers put up ~50% of the investment, the CDPQ gets the first return of a mandatory 8-10%. This just makes no financial sense but fits with my observation at how bad government typically is at negotiating.
* Commuters using the existing commuter lines going through the Mont Royal tunnel will now have to switch to the REM before reaching downtown, making their trips worse than before by requiring an extra transfer and extra time
* There may not be much change in overall system ridership: "According to a February 2017 investment forecasting report, more than 90 percent of the REM’s users are expected to be existing transit users switching to the new system."
* No transparency, including on what the fares will be, and no public bidding for the project. One reason this is concerning is that the CDPG actually owns a lot of the real estate that will benefit from the project. Owning a private company myself, I know how much bidding for government contracts delivers better value for government.
* The article seems to imply that the borrowers didn't obtain as low of a financing cost as the government would've received had they borrowed for the project
* Charging a fee for future developments near the stations could potentially push new development farther away from them (this one is so far speculative)


What do others think? Is this article off-base or not?

This article is pure emotional BS.

* Although taxpayers put up ~50% of the investment, the CDPQ gets the first return of a mandatory 8-10%. This just makes no financial sense but fits with my observation at how bad government typically is at negotiating.

Compared to any transit other projects, where the government will never get ANY return on its Investment.

* Commuters using the existing commuter lines going through the Mont Royal tunnel will now have to switch to the REM before reaching downtown, making their trips worse than before by requiring an extra transfer and extra time

Mascouche line is being diverted through the Turcot yards. And big deal, the REM will be faster than the current commuter trains and will bring many other destinations.

* There may not be much change in overall system ridership: "According to a February 2017 investment forecasting report, more than 90 percent of the REM’s users are expected to be existing transit users switching to the new system."
The CDPQi underballed so to be sure to have a profit from its Investment.

* No transparency, including on what the fares will be, and no public bidding for the project. One reason this is concerning is that the CDPG actually owns a lot of the real estate that will benefit from the project. Owning a private company myself, I know how much bidding for government contracts delivers better value for government.
The CDPQi doesn't decides the fares, the ARTM does, just as it does for the STM, EXO and other transit compagnies.

There were public biddings, and it was so transparent that when Bombardier didn't win the bid, the politicians were furious about that and wanted to force the CDPQi to use Bombardier trains...

* The article seems to imply that the borrowers didn't obtain as low of a financing cost as the government would've received had they borrowed for the project
It got a Canada's Infrastructure Bank loan, which is lower.


* Charging a fee for future developments near the stations could potentially push new development farther away from them (this one is so far speculative)
The opposite is happening as development fees are higher than what they were expected to be and many projects were announced near the new REM stations. Source : https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/201909/...-23-millions-dans-les-coffres-du-rem.php

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

REM's success will depend on the fares and if they are the same as standard ones in the MUC, then people will be willing to overlook some of the deficiencies of the project funding itself. If not, poeple will be infuriated at the high cost of the fares and having to watch trains go by that they can't afford to take while they wait in the rain or snow for the next packed bus knowing that not only did the travelling public like themselves get screwed but so did the taxpayers.

The STM has been officially delegated by the ARTM to do the smartcard system for the REM. Fares will be integrated. This scenario won't happen.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am really concerned that the enormous cost of the Confederation Line is creating a situation similar to what has been experienced in many U.S. cities that will lead to lower ridership. There has been a public backlash concerning bus service cuts and the overall poor speed and reliability of common transit trips.

And yet for all that "backlash", ridership has still been pretty successful and there's no evidence yet, that the growing pains are massively translating to long term drops in ridership.

3 million in ridership, for a month, on a brand 12 km line is an achievement:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lrt-ottawa-riders-3-million-public-transit-1.5327856

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We are finding out that capital cost repayment at least matches all operational savings and this makes it impossible to improve neighbourhood bus operations needed to make the overall transit system perform well. One of the big problems relates to the fact that the city paid the largest share of the capital cost for building the Confederation Line.

It was always known that the LRT would cost as much as the buses and infrastructure in replaces. What it does do is reduce future liabilities that result from population growth. Growing transit ridership using 50-100 pax buses was just going to get more and more expensive going forward. The Confederation Line ends that practice.

I agree that they need to bolster the feeder network. And hopefully, there's much more apetite for that after Stage 2 when a massive chunk of passenger-kms is moved to the LRT network.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And yet for all that "backlash", ridership has still been pretty successful and there's no evidence yet, that the growing pains are massively translating to long term drops in ridership.

3 million in ridership, for a month, on a brand 12 km line is an achievement:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lrt-ottawa-riders-3-million-public-transit-1.5327856

We can't make a judgement on those figures yet. They result in an average of 100,000 per day. The expected ridership is/was 200,000+ per day on weekdays. We have to consider the first three weeks of operations were in conjunction with the, at the time, existing parallel bus service.

We need a solid year before we can truly evaluate the Confederation Line's success. Possibly even a year after Stage 2 is fully operational (2025-2026).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

We need a solid year before we can truly evaluate the Confederation Line's success.

Which is why concern about a backlash is overwrought. Teething pains will happen with a new system and such a massive changeover.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Which is why concern about a backlash is overwrought. Teething pains will happen with a new system and such a massive changeover.

Has a new line been introduced without some teething pains?

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Preliminary renders for the Broadway SkyTrain Extension have been released, and in this video we break it all down! Enjoy.

https://youtu.be/6xScFW_hO8M

Thanks so much for your contributions, Reece.

[Bobert]

Oh wow that Broadway-city hall station looks great!.

The number of elevators + escalators shows that they expect this to be a busy station (as it should be).

I wonder if they will reconsider that single entrance though. I would not be surprised if they ended up having to add a second entrance a few years later.