[rbt]

It seems the fundamental basis for your claim that PPP is 'better' is they would start construction in a more timely manner.

Which isn't true at all. It is far easier to tender a contract to a general contractor to have something built than it is to tender for a business partner. Metrolinx had some preliminary discussions about entering P3 agreements and found any project involving one would be delayed by about 1 year to negotiate terms of the contract. Once that contract is signed, both the general contractor or P3 partner are about as likely to work as quickly as possible in both cases since they are both bound to the costs set in the bid.

The reason for the delay is pretty simple. One is expecting a cheque (very simple payment option) and the other needs to do a full scoping exercise on revenue ranges expected and risk managementment therein.

 

[EnviroTO]

P3 partnerships don't save money. The partner inflates the cost to build to handle risk, the construction doesn't proceed faster because the partner uses a similar tendering process to subcontract, and during the operate phase the private partner can set the price either ripping off users, the government, or both.

 

[ssiguy2]

PPP allow municipalities to access funds that they may not be able to get. Due to our ridiculous municiple governence laws the only real way for cities to raise much needed infastructure funds is by raising property/business taxes or increase fees for things that have to be renwed every year. It lets cities get at another source of capitol funds. If Canadian cities were allowed to place sales taxes on goods to raise funds, like they do in the US, then PPP may not be neccessary but Canadian cities do not have that kind of taxing power so they must look at all options to get their creeking infastructure up to snuff.
Like I said, I am strongly against private firms running transit systems but they can be very effective for new infastructure.

 

[Asterix]

But you are aware that these other funds from provincial or federal coffers are still coming from taxpayers?

As well, aren't most capital TTC projects heavily funded already from provincial or federal sources?

Who's paying for the subway extensions or what's left of Transit City and how are these funding setups different than what would be available from those other public sources with your PPP proposal?

If you are strongly against private firms running transit systems, where is the profit generator for these private firms to get involved PPP projects to build the infrastructure that is different than being given a contract from the TTC or city in their usual role as project managers?

 

[Fantomex]

To answer the question earlier, they do have bendable monorail tracks. They use them for switches.

I think monorail is definitely the way to go. Look at all the cities that have built monorails. Seattle just built a new line! They accidentally built it as LRT though. Oh well, there are always little administrative errors. I'm sure they'll get it right next time. Maybe they'll put monorails running down the middle of all the streets!

There are lots of great models of monorail to choose from as well! And when use a proprietary system we don't have to bother with all the administration of open tenders for vehicle replacement!

Here's a photo of monorail at it's finest. I would recommend the model on the left in this photograph. Having soft and cuddly public transport is greatly underestimated in this city. People won't leave the soft seats in their cars to move around in a box! No wonder transit is in such a hole in Toronto.

FWIW, I live in Toronto, too and I also want to see monorail in Toronto, or maybe even maglev (monorail with a wider rail that's magnetically levatated off the rail itself.) I'd love to see a Chicago Loop-style system in downtown Toronto that goes througn the core of it, or maybe just a monorail DRL instead. Both could be implemented quite well, or just only the monorail DRL.

 

[GraphicMatt]

If some rich philanthropist came to the city and said he would build and operate a monorail for free, I don't think anyone would object to building a monorail in Toronto. But in the real world where we only have a X billion dollars for transit expansion and need to set priorities for necessary projects, I don't think "consider building a monorail" should be anywhere near the city's to-do list.

As far as maglev is concerned, it would also be great if the city turned the CN Tower into a space elevator and started operating transit service to subspace orbit. Headways would probably suck, though.

 

[gweed123]

If some rich philanthropist came to the city and said he would build and operate a monorail for free, I don't think anyone would object to building a monorail in Toronto. But in the real world where we only have a X billion dollars for transit expansion and need to set priorities for necessary projects, I don't think "consider building a monorail" should be anywhere near the city's to-do list.

As far as maglev is concerned, it would also be great if the city turned the CN Tower into a space elevator and started operating transit service to subspace orbit. Headways would probably suck, though.

I think maglev actually has some validity for the Union-Pearson rail link. That would be TRUE high speed rail, not what they're proposing now. It would also eliminate the grade-separation issues, and could be built above the existing corridor. In fact, if you did it right, you could double it up and use the cross-beam of the maglev as the supporting structure for the wires for the GO train electrification. Kill two birds with one stone.

 

[wyliepoon]

^ The Shanghai Maglev Train takes 7min 20sec to travel 30km to the airport. It only travels at the maximum speed of 430km for about a minute before slowing down. Can anyone translate that to Union-Pearson?

[video=youtube;SMyffFFedrM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMyffFFedrM[/video]

However there would be the same kind of opposition in Weston with maglev as with diesel. When plans were revealed that the current Shanghai maglev line is to be extended through the inner city, hundreds of Shanghai residents protested over concerns of "radiation", among other issues related to the maglev extension (Wikipedia - "The Shanghai scheme has a buffer zone around the track that will be 22.5 m wide, which compares unfavourably with German standards that require houses to be 300 m away from the line."). In a country not known for listening to concerns of residents when planning and building infrastructure projects, this project, which was supposed to have been completed for Expo this year, has been stalled.

 

[EnviroTO]

Considering the trip to Pearson is at most 25km a similar maglev to Pearson would take almost the same amount of time 3min10sec to speed up to 431 in 11.5 km, 3min10sec to slow covering another 11.5km, and a curvier stretch near the airport for the final 2km which would need to be run slower at maybe 70km/h which adds another 1min30sec. It could actually end up being a slightly longer trip time due to the curves from Woodbine into the airport or if it were to run underground and direct only a few seconds faster (at 431km/h it only takes 8 seconds to travel a single kilometer so 2km takes 16 seconds). Somewhere between 7min6sec and 8min.

Considering the cost of building that kind of infrastructure and the fact the proposed air rail link is expected to take 22min, I don't think an investment in maglev to shave off less than 15 minutes makes much sense. Maglev should be restricted to long distances where high speeds can be maintained and therefore large distances can be crossed quickly. Getting to the airport in 22 minutes seems marketable. Going downtown to downtown, Toronto to Montreal on a maglev in 1h17min would be worth something.

 

[ssiguy2]

Funny how people support maglev for longer rout transit but not Monorail for urban transit...............don't get it.

 

[gweed123]

Funny how people support maglev for longer rout transit but not Monorail for urban transit...............don't get it.

The issue is speed-up/slow-down times. If the train has to slow down again before it even reaches peak speeds to stop at the next station, is it really worth having that speed in the first place? I do agree with EnviroTO that it wouldn't shave much time off of it, however I think that the fact that it is maglev could be used as a significant marketing opportunity, especially for businesses in downtown. "We have rail" "whooptiedoo!"... "We have maglev" "niiiice".

And I definitely support a maglev/TGV along the Quebec City/Windsor corridor. In my opinion, the GO redo of the Lakeshore GO line should be done to accomodate TGVs. 4 track the entire thing, 2 for express and 2 for local. Just think of a GO service that would have limited stops and go from Hamilton to Union in under 20 minutes. That would certainly make GO a much more attractive commuting option. And if the point came where the Feds did want to implement TGV Via service, the entire section through the GTA is already built. In fact, they might even be able to get Federal capital for the project, because of the intent of the system to be integrated with TGV Via.

 

[Mapleson]

P3 developments are the current political vogue funding mechanism because of the capital starved environment we purpetuate. Having a private firm involved does not ensure lower costs or better performance. If you want a good example of big P3 failures look at London (England) and Metronet (Tube Operator) requiring a C$3b bail out. Yes, you can get some good quality work from a good quality contractor/partner, but you better be very sure of the quantity you are getting, or else you pay for the mistake twice.

I think maglev actually has some validity for the Union-Pearson rail link. That would be TRUE high speed rail, not what they're proposing now. It would also eliminate the grade-separation issues, and could be built above the existing corridor. In fact, if you did it right, you could double it up and use the cross-beam of the maglev as the supporting structure for the wires for the GO train electrification. Kill two birds with one stone.

You reduce the grade-seperation issues by massive overkill. It does not address any current or future grade-seperation issues at these intersections, which we benefit from under the classical rail grade-seperation scenario. You could equally elimate the issues by elevating the whole rail corridor.

Funny how people support maglev for longer rout transit but not Monorail for urban transit...............don't get it.

Urban transit generally has a much higher proportion of route time assoicated with embarking/alighting and accelerating/braking. As these factors grow the incremental improvements in headways decreases.

Monorail/Mag-Lev

Advantages
- Grade seperated RoW
- Low rolling resistance
- Faster speeds/acceleration

Disadvantages
- Visually distruptive (think Gardnier Expressway)
- Long station spacing needed to optimize
- Increased Cost to Service Level ratio


As for the Simpson's jokes, they are brought on by the term "monorail". If you aren't dealing with grade-seperated RoWs or reduced rolling resistance, you are left with an incompatible set of tracks and rolling stock compared to the rest of the network and more expensive turnouts/switches. Any modern, serious discussion of monorails generally refers more specifically with grade-seperated RoWs and maglev.

If a monorail is powered by an electric 'third rail' is it still a monorail?

 

[Second_in_pie]

The issue is speed-up/slow-down times. If the train has to slow down again before it even reaches peak speeds to stop at the next station, is it really worth having that speed in the first place? I do agree with EnviroTO that it wouldn't shave much time off of it, however I think that the fact that it is maglev could be used as a significant marketing opportunity, especially for businesses in downtown. "We have rail" "whooptiedoo!"... "We have maglev" "niiiice".

And I definitely support a maglev/TGV along the Quebec City/Windsor corridor. In my opinion, the GO redo of the Lakeshore GO line should be done to accomodate TGVs. 4 track the entire thing, 2 for express and 2 for local. Just think of a GO service that would have limited stops and go from Hamilton to Union in under 20 minutes. That would certainly make GO a much more attractive commuting option. And if the point came where the Feds did want to implement TGV Via service, the entire section through the GTA is already built. In fact, they might even be able to get Federal capital for the project, because of the intent of the system to be integrated with TGV Via.

Actually, I think Maglev could have significant benefits because of the much higher start/stop times and controllability of maglev on the trains. Though that said, those benefits could probably come with other, easier systems.

Quebec City-Windsor definitely requires TGV, and if not now, it definitely will in 20 years, as Montreal alone surpasses 5 million people and the GGH over 10. I'm not really sold on maglev though.

 

[Mapleson]

TGV requires 7km radii for turns now (4km previous standard). Axle loads are limited to 17 tonnes in France. You aren't going to build that within the existing mixed-use corridor. Move the line north of Finch and create a new corridor.

The Quebec City-Windsor corridor could support a much larger infrastructure base economically, if you can fit it in physically.

 

[EnviroTO]

Funny how people support maglev for longer rout transit but not Monorail for urban transit...............don't get it.

Because maglev gets you speed and monorail doesn't get you anything when you are building everything on the surface or underground.