[rbt]

It's claimed in some quarters that REM's use of the Mount Royal Tunnel (thus barring the Deux Montagnes line from using it as well as VIA) would actually *reduce* rush hour load capacity into the core.

I'll dig for the reference if anyone challenges me on it.

This isn't a challenge but if you have a moment to dig up the article I would appreciate it; I tried a few searches and only came up with DMT impact during construction.

cptdb.ca says the DMT line has a ridership of about 32,000 per day; I assume that's mostly as rush time so would approach 15k pph during peak AM/PM hours?

Edit: Seems I know so little about AMT that I didn't realize the agency had been dissolved, replaced, and this is now the EXO-6 line managed by EXO.

 

[steveintoronto]

This isn't a challenge but if you have a moment to dig up the article I would appreciate it; I tried a few searches and only came up with DMT impact during construction.

cptdb.ca says the DMT line has a ridership of about 32,000 per day; I assume that's mostly as rush time so would approach 15k pph during peak AM/PM hours?

Absolutely, I'm now curious myself again whether to know at least if it's just alleged or actually verified. What I did think since posting that is that the length of REM trains could be increased, at least during peak, albeit that may be operationally difficult for them.

As a total aside, I can't remember which forum it was today where @alexanderglista posted an RFQ for Metrolinx RER, and being delayed about six weeks. I wrote an answer alluding to the ongoing dispute between Crosslinx and Metrolinx, and a quote from Marie Atkins (sp?) saying discussions were ongoing. That may have been a factor in delaying the "Mother of All DBFOM" as it's being referred to.

Just up at the Globe:

Metrolinx settles lawsuit with builders of $5.4-billion Crosstown light-rail project
OLIVER MOORE
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 6, 2018UPDATED 48 MINUTES AGO
Metrolinx is tapping into its contingency fund for Toronto's Crosstown light-rail project to get assurances that the job will be finished on time. It will not say how much extra money is involved, but notes that the overall budget of $5.4-billion has not risen.

The Ontario government transit agency had been in negotiations about how to resolve delays in construction since late winter with Crosslinx Transit Solutions, the consortium building the project. Crosslinx filed a suit in July seeking more money and an extension beyond the project's 2021 target for opening. Metrolinx had asked to have the case deferred until after the project was done.

The Crosstown is the largest transit project in Canada, a 19-kilometre light-rail line across the city’s midtown Eglinton Avenue. It is being built as a public-private partnership (P3) by ACS-Dragados, Aecon Group, EllisDon and SNC-Lavalin. Its timeline, which had slid already from the original promise of completion in 2020, was put in further doubt by the Crosslinx suit.


The Globe and Mail has learned that the two sides recently reached an agreement that, pending the approval of Crosslinx’s financial backers, would end the suit and retain the 2021 deadline. The deal includes changes to various construction processes, such as the possibility of 24-hour work in some underground sections, and additional money for Crosslinx to deal with unanticipated difficulties.
[...]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...awsuit-over-building-of-crosstown-light-rail/

Big guess on this? Pragmatism set in on how this could really screw sensitivities about the RER DBFOM. Crosstown has to set a precedent. It can't be perfect, but it's the largest project of its kind in Canada so far (REM is bigger?).

Bet yer tunneling booties that after REM's success bartering for money from PQ and Feds, and Infrastructure Bank now running, the Ont Cons are looking to do a lot more P3.

From the article:

“It sort of shatters that rhetoric around P3s keeping cost down and downloading the cost onto the private sector,” said Shelagh Pizey-Allen, executive director of the advocacy group TTC Riders.

I disagree! It shows how the *skill of negotiating these arrangements must be honed from experience and retained counsel*!

Other nations have gotten this right. It's essential that the GTHA does too. We're going to be hearing a lot more on P3 and DBFOM in the coming weeks and months.

I'd much prefer governments funding these directly, but the coffers are empty. P3 is a viable and tested alternative.

Addendum: @rbt Looks like I got lucky first Google search on REM Mt Royal and congestion. Haven't had time to vet these, but it's a good start, I'd like to discuss this further with you, as I think there's lessons for the GTHA on this, specifically the Relief Line.

How a New Transit System Could Hobble Montreal – Next City
https://nextcity.org/features/view/is-montreal-building-a-transit-boondoggle
Mar 12, 2018 - Rendering of the Réseau express métropolitain (REM) ... the world's fourth largest fully-automated light-rail system, offering competitive travel times, .... high-traffic commuter rail line under the city's highest peak, Mount Royal. Both the Mount Royal Tunnel and the Deux-Montagnes rail line (the city's busiest ...

Environmental groups call for REM project cancellation | CTV Montreal ...
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/environmental-groups-call-for-rem-project-cancellation-1.38...
Apr 21, 2018 - Work on the REM light rail line has already begun, but a group of environmental ... and South Shore, ignoring congestion in the eastern portion of Montreal. ... of the Mount-Royal Tunnelbeginning on April 27 and lasting until Fall, 2019. ....
REM construction will force closure of Mount-Royal Tunnel: report ...
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/rem-construction-will-force-closure-of-mount-royal-tunnel-r...
Apr 13, 2018 - The Mount-Royal tunnel will be closed due to construction of the REM ... REMconstruction officially underway as headaches for commuter train ...
Missing: peak ‎congestion

REM: Stretch of Deux-Montagnes line to shut for two years | Montreal ...
https://montrealgazette.com › News › Local News
Apr 26, 2018 - Starting in May, construction of the Mont-Royal station, and excavation ... laying of new tracks; and partial excavation of the Mount Royal tunnel.
Missing: peak ‎congestion

Catbus» Blog Archive » How the Caisse's Light Rail System will ...
www.cat-bus.com/.../how-the-caisses-light-rail-system-will-crumble-under-its-own-we...
May 18, 2016 - The REM can carry 600 people per train, and will have a peak frequency ... the capacity of four (!) existing commuter rail lines during peak hours. .... But the really scary constraint is the Mount Royal tunnel. .... on the north shore of the St.Lawrence (thus avoiding CN's congested main line on Victoria Bridge).
[...]

www.google.com

And on the Relief Line, a surprisingly objective opinion piece from York Region:
https://www.yorkregion.com/opinion-...m-may-offer-route-to-better-regional-transit/

 

[rbt]

Absolutely, I'm now curious myself again whether to know at least if it's just alleged or actually verified.

Thanks, That Catbus article seems to be the one.
http://www.cat-bus.com/2016/05/how-the-caisses-light-rail-system-will-crumble-under-its-own-weight/

One thing I notice immediately is the calculation uses maximum theoretical capacity for all lines (both existing and new). While commuter trains often run pretty full, are Montreal's actually running at 100% capacity? They mention over-crowding on DMT but not the other lines.


The counter-argument seems to be here (fewer seats but more capacity with standees).
https://rem.info/en/news/rem-seating-and-capacity

This is full of interesting details too; like the assumption that rush load will be spread rather evenly over a 3 hour period despite AMT not running trains evenly distributed over that same period.


It does seem like some type of platform/train lengthening will be wanted shortly after opening. REM does indeed look like replacement capacity only with very little in the way of expansion. Montreal got surprised by the last Orange line extension too.


RER (from Metrolinx) isn't really detailed enough to know the peak-period effects. We only really know details about off-peak service minimums. The flexibility with train length in their design (including keeping around some 12-car diesel trips) leads me to believe Metrolinx is aiming for increased peak-period capacity for each line in addition to providing off-peak service.

If all platforms continue to accommodate 12-car trains then actual service levels can be fairly flexible to meet demand, unless the DBOFM contract wording messes that up somehow.

 

[steveintoronto]

The Catbus article is the one! And as well as deal with the REM topic exquisitely, it does lend itself to comparisons in the GTHA.

RER (from Metrolinx) isn't really detailed enough to know the peak-period effects. We only really know details about off-peak service minimums. The flexibility with train length in their design (including keeping around some 12-car diesel trips) leads me to believe Metrolinx is aiming for increased peak-period capacity for each line in addition to providing off-peak service.

Metrolinx actually claimed to know more about the type of vehicle that RER would use over five years ago than what they claim now. They're almost meticulous in *not stating* what it will be. Verster: (gist)"It's up to the DBFOM winning bidder as to what the vehicle will be, and electrified or not". Indications are leaning to single deck, high platform, due to the rate of loading and unloading, and with the new 'open the entire length' trains, (think TTC Rockets, Crossrail 345s, Thameslink 700s, etc) they are single deck by nature.

If all platforms continue to accommodate 12-car trains then actual service levels can be fairly flexible to meet demand, unless the DBOFM contract wording messes that up somehow.

The DBFOM rules! Chances are that RER will only be 4-6 cars, and high platform. As to how that meshes with the present diesel hauled DDs remains to be seen.

Catbus on REM:

[...]
Given the scale of the project and the amount of money that will be invested in it, it would make more sense to build a system that is future-proof and could be eventually scaled up to much higher capacities, rather than a system that will already be beyond capacity from day one.

I hope the Caisse will rethink their choice to build a light metro, and, instead, opt for a technology with higher capacity, that can integrate with the existing lines, and that we can expand later.

And we the public, who still have to pay for half the project, and who will be stuck riding it afterwards, should hold them to that.

http://www.cat-bus.com/2016/05/how-the-caisses-light-rail-system-will-crumble-under-its-own-weight/

Amen to that! A further thought on the Caisse' stake in the Canada Line and now REM: How far away is a bid by the Caisse, or Ontario Pension Plan(s) from making a proposal on the Relief Line? And....who approaches whom? QP to 'them'...or 'them' to QP?

 

[nephersir7]

A further thought on the Caisse' stake in the Canada Line and now REM: How far away is a bid by the Caisse, or Ontario Pension Plan(s) from making a proposal on the Relief Line? And....who approaches whom? QP to 'them'...or 'them' to QP?

The whole thing could also be initiated by the feds. With the federal election approaching, it's gonna look bad on the Liberals if the REM is the Infrastructure Bank's only investment. They want other projects like it.

“We are pleased to participate in the funding of this important public infrastructure project,” said Pierre Lavallée, President and CEO of Canada Infrastructure Bank. “Public transit is one of our priority areas. Our role is to invest alongside private sector and institutional investors, and other public-sector partners to facilitate the development of strategic projects like the REM.”

http://canadainfrastructurebank.ca/...itain-project-with-1-28-billion-15-year-loan/

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Good thing that the Relief Line is the only rapid transit in the region that has a strong business case for it then.

 

[steveintoronto]

Good thing that the Relief Line is the only rapid transit in the region that has a strong business case for it then.

Indeed! And even if it wasn't 'quite there', a modest subsidy would get it there. The Relief Line is a compelling need, as much or more than REM or the Canada Line. I have no faith that the Ford Admin will fund this, weasel words to the contrary, and the Fed Libs have been badly dragging their feet on infrastructure investment.

Here's the official stance on things, talk is cheap, but I think the Private Sector will jump onto this given the right cues and signals>
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releas...anning-the-toronto-relief-line-625920433.html

Here's how cynical I am on this political football: Private Investment (with gov't participation...P3) will be vastly more neutral and discerning on doing what's needed and with what technology is the best for the demand. Even the Feds will try and influence outcome for political gain, but the least compared to the other two levels.

I'm sure we'll be hearing more on this shortly...

lol...and as @nephersir7 and some others have stated, after the REM love fest by the Feds, Toronto has the precedent to state: "You owe us!".

There's even the chance of the Feds working directly with Toronto to go around the Province, a la Adam Vaughan statements of 'direct funding'.

 

[rbt]

Metrolinx actually claimed to know more about the type of vehicle that RER would use over five years ago than what they claim now.

The vehicle is actually one of the less interesting parts.

Is there an intention to restructure trains for peak service versus non-peak (12-car trains peak, 4 car trains off-peak); we see this on the Barrie line today.

What is the best frequency for peak service? Lake Shore achieves 5 minute headways today (combined); will that be achievable on more lines? Will Metrolinx require infrastructure targetting 3 minute headways per track pair?

4-car trains with 15 minute headways are completely different than 12-car trains with 3 minute headways even if that burst of service only lasts for 1 hour.

The DBFOM rules!

Indeed. And I don't know whether the contract will require a fixed level of service"6-car trains @ 10 minute headways @ 9am" or whether it'll be written as "average customer load in any 1 hour period will not be over 98% of capacity operated, with a minimum service of 15 minute headways between 5:30am and 2am".

That second one effectively means the operator needs to scale service to meet demand.

Many hard 3P lessons learned were from the first type of contract (fixed service levels). Paying for increased service and extensions broken the bank in both the UK and Australia. These agencies now try to tender the second type of agreement which is much more about service expectations and less about how it is achieved.

I'm hoping Metrolinx sticks strictly to service requirements while being helpful by providing a bunch of tools (various completed EAs, studies, etc.).

 

[begratto]

You don't even have to enter Fantasy Land to do that. It's claimed in some quarters that REM's use of the Mount Royal Tunnel (thus barring the Deux Montagnes line from using it as well as VIA) would actually *reduce* rush hour load capacity into the core.

I'll dig for the reference if anyone challenges me on it.

Actually, with the REM, the morning rush hour sitting capacity is reduced from 8,100 to 6,480 vs the Deux-Montagnes current suburban train. Overall capacity, however, will increase from 17,100 to 42,120 with 54 rush hours departures instead of 9.

Source

 

[nfitz]

That downtown subway coverage would be crazy - 3 parallel lines. Wouldn't they cannibalize ridership from one another?

They've had 2 parrallel lines since the mid-1960s, and both are overcrowded at rush hour -and have been for years.

Not sure how adding a third would be crazy. Isn't that what you are supposed to do?

You don't even have to enter Fantasy Land to do that. It's claimed in some quarters that REM's use of the Mount Royal Tunnel (thus barring the Deux Montagnes line from using it as well as VIA) would actually *reduce* rush hour load capacity into the core.

I'll dig for the reference if anyone challenges me on it.

Not sure I get that one. VIA's an issue (but hardly a rush-hour capacity issue). But the Deux-Montagnes line? Every Deux-Montagnes line station is part of the REM, and would have significant service increases. Is there an example of someone using this line currently, who is going to suffer? It's a massive advantage to any rider that I can think of. Service is only hourly most of the day and even only 2-3 trains an hour in rush hour. I don't see an exact number for the off-peak REM frequency, but it's being called a "high-frequency service" with trains about 3.5 minutes during rush hour, instead of every 20 minutes.

Oh wait ... off-peak every 5 to 15 minutes.

So that's Montreal Metro-like frequencies.

 

[begratto]

They've had 2 parrallel lines since the mid-1960s, and both are overcrowded at rush hour -and have been for years.

Not sure how adding a third would be crazy. Isn't that what you are supposed to do?

Not sure I get that one. VIA's an issue (but hardly a rush-hour capacity issue). But the Deux-Montagnes line? Every Deux-Montagnes line station is part of the REM, and would have significant service increases. Is there an example of someone using this line currently, who is going to suffer? It's a massive advantage to any rider that I can think of. Service is only hourly most of the day and even only 2-3 trains an hour in rush hour. I don't see an exact number for the off-peak REM frequency, but it's being called a "high-frequency service" with trains about 3.5 minutes during rush hour, instead of every 20 minutes.

Oh wait ... off-peak every 5 to 15 minutes.

Actually, the worse frequency (presumably late nights) on the REM will be every 15 minutes on the 3 branches, but every 5 minutes on the main trunk (from Bois-Franc to Rive-Sud).

From Deux-Montagnes, there will be a train every 5 minutes in the morning rush-hour instead of 8 morning trains ; a huge improvement.

So that's Montreal Metro-like frequencies.

Not quite, but not far from it. They have increased the frequencies of the metro, it's now every 4-10 minutes off-peak on weekdays (they maintain the 5-6 minutes frequency until 10pm), and every 6 minutes (until late in the evening) to 12 minutes (the first and last two hours of service) on weekends. Better than it used to be, but still not as good as Toronto's service. But with Projet Montréal in power, I expect the frequency to increase in the next few years.

 

[nfitz]

Not quite, but not far from it. They have increased the frequencies of the metro, it's now every 4-10 minutes off-peak on weekdays (they maintain the 5-6 minutes frequency until 10pm), and every 6 minutes (until late in the evening) to 12 minutes (the first and last two hours of service) on weekends. Better than it used to be, but still not as good as Toronto's service.

Pretty sure it was up to 14-minutes last time I looked - which is awfully close to 15 minutes.

Certainly matches the metro frequencies when it was new! Hmm, looks like a very recent change. Still, surprising it's scheduled up to 12 minutes in Montreal - compared to 6 minutes in Toronto, off-off-peak.

 

[begratto]

Pretty sure it was up to 14-minutes last time I looked - which is awfully close to 15 minutes.

Here's Montreal métro's most recent frequency info (scroll down to "Fréquence de passage"). It's 6 minutes during the day on weekends, every 12 minutes in the first and last hours of service.

Certainly matches the metro frequencies when it was new! Hmm, looks like a very recent change. Still, surprising it's scheduled up to 12 minutes in Montreal - compared to 6 minutes in Toronto, off-off-peak.

But... Montreal has early service on Sunday mornings, starting at 5:30! But I must admit that late night service is not very good in Montreal - métros are often packed at midnight due to the low frequency.

 

[Allandale25]

Context for will happen (or rather, may not happen), next: https://www.thestar.com/politics/pr...g-change-that-almost-doubles-the-deficit.html

 

[nfitz]

Context for will happen (or rather, may not happen), next: https://www.thestar.com/politics/pr...g-change-that-almost-doubles-the-deficit.html

Hmm ... "Ontario finance minister expected to embrace accounting change that almost doubles the deficit"

Given the Liberals left the PCs with a balanced budget at the end of the last fiscal year, and the PCs aren't implementing any of the tax changes, or spending changes, that was planned to turn this into a deficit, then surely two times Zero is still Zero!

Which means there must be an additional story here somewhere. It mentions the deficit goes from the planned $6.7 billion to $11.7 billion. But shouldn't it be just $5 billion?

Better yet - why is a fiscally-conservative centre-right party spending $5 billion to subsidize hydro rates. That's a very left-wing policy. (spoiler - right-wing populists aren't fiscally conservative!)