[Hopkins123]

The Union Pearson train is also fully grade separated and runs the same off-peak frequency as the REM.

Is RER also bona fide metro? Or just pseudo-loblaws?

Okay, we get it that you have some misguided vendetta against Montreal and will praise Toronto against it at all costs, but this takes the cake.

UPX has a daily ridership of only 10,091 passengers or roughly 2.35 million riders per year.

REM is projected to have over 190,000 daily passengers or roughly 69 million riders per year. 20x the ridership of UPX!

190k easily puts REM in the realm of subway level ridership, and is fully grade separated to boot, so my equivalency argument is both valid and sound. You're also presupposing that service along the branches won't increase in frequency over time as demand grows.

 

[nfitz]

Okay, we get it that you have some misguided vendetta against Montreal and will praise Toronto against it at all costs, but this takes the cake.

I'm not sure where you are getting that. Just above, I was praising the Montreal integrated fare system, and trashing the Toronto system. I even called the central section of the REM as "brilliant" (particularly adding the Vincent d'Indy and McGill stations from the 1961 plan). Please don't make personal attacks, and please don't say things that aren't true.

I was pointing out that the definition that you gave for "bona fide metro" also fit the UPE. I'd have thought it was clear, that it was the definition I was challenging - not trying to equate the lines.

Also, note, that I was saying the central and south sections of the REM were equivalent to a metro. But how does the RER-like UP/Kitchener line compere to one of the REM branches, which is more much RER-like?

UPX has a daily ridership of only 10,091 passengers or roughly 2.35 million riders per year.

REM is projected to have over 190,000 daily passengers or roughly 69 million riders per year. 20x the ridership of UPX!

None of those RER branches west of Bois-Franc are going to carry six digits of passengers a day. RER in Toronto is going to carry far more than 10,000 passengers a day. That corridor alone carries about 37,000 riders a day now! Lakeshore already carries over 100,000 a day

190k easily puts REM in the realm of subway level ridership ...

Lakeshore line is already over 100,000 a day, and will grow with full RER service. Is it also in that realm? Line 4 has about 50k - is it a subway?

The King streetcar is over 80k - is it a subway?

 

[Steve X]

I think it was 70 more, after the initial 6 that were delivered . 76 in total. So 25 trainsets. Say 21 with over 20% spares.

So they could do 14 three-car trains an hour. Every 4.25 minutes (if the 45-minutes is enough - and it's probably about right. That's 6,300 passengers an hour.

Alternatively, you could do 30 (with 27% spares) or 32 (with 19% spares) two-car trains. With 30 it's every 3 minutes with a 6,000 passenger capacity. With 32 it's every 2.8 minutes with a 6,400 passenger capacity.

Number of cars per train doesn't effect capacity. It just effects frequency.

Why run shorter trains every 3 minutes when they can run longer trains every 4.25 minutes? It's still very frequent service (Line 4 only runs every 5.5 minutes at peak). ANd it's cheaper.

I am pretty sure they can just get by 2 car consists for the first few years. The demand outside rush hour doesn't require them to drag a 3rd car around especially on the surface section.

The headway would be at least 4 minutes. TTC expects each car to hold 130 like the streetcars thus 390 per train. Hence the line has a maximum capacity of 5,900 ppdph. This reference comes from the EWLRT open house.

eglintonwestlrt.ca

I suppose they could operate short turn trains on the ATO section that can double the capacity and order higher capacity LRVs to push the capacity to 500-600 per train. With Freedoms, the could reach 13,260 with 34 trains per hour and up to 18,000 with high capacity trains. I don't think it's something to worry about. By that time, they would be build the Sheppard subway or some other subway(s).

If they built EWLRT with option 4, the service supplement section could run between Martin Grove to Laird with ATO. This would probably be the busiest section but won't even reach service capacity before 2051 when the Freedoms are due for retirement. The dwell time issue Streety McCarface is worrying about wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Urban Sky]

Okay, the recent back-and-forth between two members has been cleaned out.

Both of you — quit it — move on. No-one else wants to see it nor cares particularly about slight #1, 2, or 3. Discuss the matter at hand in the thread, and not each other.

Everyone (CityStay was another member who was recently sent on a brief holiday for the same reason): whenever we get threads where any other city beyond the centre of the crazy universe is mentioned, emotions tend to run high. Don't let them get the better of you. No personal attacks. Anyone who gets reported for further attacks will likely be going on a summer holiday.

42

@nfitz and myself have finally started to talk with rather than about each other, which has so far proven infinitely easier in a private conversation than in a public discussion like this thread and would therefore be my recommendation for any other members who want to set aside their interpersonal conflicts. Together with your clear commitment to crack down on uncivil behaviours and needlessly decisive (and especially: off-topic) discussions more consequently in the future, I am now confident that most of the issues I've voiced in my (now deleted, but previously archived) post will be resolved and no longer cause me (and presumably also other members) frustrations, so thank you very much for your efforts!

Talking about being selective and distorted with the use of facts. You omit one of the most important item. Infrastructure, trains, operation costs and financing are all included in the CDPQi number per km. It would cost nearly a billion to just to upgrade the Deux-Montagnes line to have two way service and a secured tunnel, and that's without two new stations. So if you want to compare real costs, compare real costs. If the CDPQi can be competitive with building a whole new system and operating it comparer to just operating costs, it's the public provider that's being expensive.

Just to recall, I was responding to the following claim:

The claim I read out of this statement is that it would be more cost-effective (i.e. lower cost per passenger) to remove exo's Deux-Montagnes line and to instead transport the now-displaced ridership with the REM and this is illustrated with a "full subsidy" figure of $1.21 per km per user. Note that the part of the REM network which lies east of Gare Centrale (i.e. the South Shore branch) could be built without affecting exo's Deux-Montagnes, Mascouche, Saint-Jerome or Vaudreuil-Hudson lines (i.e. those lines not serving the South Shore) at all; therefore, the base case in my argument is that exo’s current operations would be continued and the alternative case is to transport the same riders on the REM.


Even though I don't work for exo, I believe that VIA Rail is a sufficiently similar (publicly funded) passenger railroad to understand what kinds of costs they face and how they are accounted for:

• Operating costs include all costs which are associated with running the passenger services and include salaries for the staff, energy costs, the maintenance of any trains, stations or tracks owned and for all overheads (all salaries and expenses associated with the railroad's management and offices).
• Capital costs include all costs which are associated with the acquisition or renewal of fixed assets, such as trains, infrastructure (tracks and platforms) or facilities (stations or maintenance centers). However, there are no financing costs, as crown corporations are not allowed to assume any long-term debt and instead, any operating deficits (i.e. the gap between operating costs and operating revenues) or capital investments are assumed by the taxpayer (i.e. paid out directly of the budget of the appropriate level of government). Nevertheless, one could argue that a government running deficits has to take up and service debts for part of all its expenses, but these financing costs are not higher for $1 million in subsidies paid to exo than the same amount being paid to CDPQi or any other entity.

As I've shown in my previous post, even though neither the financial (provided by route) nor ridership (provided by station and route) figures which are publicly accessible allow to calculate the exact passenger-mileage and thus operating cost per passenger-km, the passenger counts provided for each stop indicate that the number of passenger-km must be somewhere between 108.9 and 146.5 million, which translates into an operating subsidy which ranges between $0.13 and $0.17 per passenger-km, thus at-most one-seventh of the quoted figure. I acknowledge that the claim is "$1.21 for the worse lines" and that the Deux-Montagnes line is referred to as the "most profitable line", which obviously can't simultaneously be "one of the worse lines", but the $1.21 figure is used directly to discredit the cost-effectiveness of exo's Deux-Montagnes operations.

Now what are the capital costs faced on the Deux-Montagnes line? Well, the line was constructed and opened over 100 years ago, which means that any construction costs have been completely depreciated. However, the line was modernized (with upgraded electrification and new rolling stock in 1992-95, which means that 2016 still falls within a reasonable window of depreciation:

1992 February 12 Quebec Transport Minister Sam Elkas announced a $289M modernization of the line: 58 new cars ($130M contract awarded to Bombardier); electrification to be changed to AC (25,000 volts, 60 Hz); stations to be renovated; tracks and signal system to be rebuilt; a short extension, to Autoroute 640 in Deux-Montagnes, to be added.

[...]

1993, 1994, and 1995, summers Line closed completely for various phases of modernization, as described later. Service was curtailed progressively before shutdown, and restored in stages after work completed. Trains were replaced with various bus services for the duration of the work.

[...]

1994 Fall First deliveries of new cars, built by Bombardier with GE electrical equipment. Cars are stored at a new shop in St. Eustache, north of Autoroute 640, off Boulevard Albert-Mondou, still used today. Test runs were made over a short section of track (25 kV 60 Hz) running south from the shop to a point just north of Oka Road overpass, where DC catenary ended. A short gap in the catenary separated AC and DC systems.
- MU motor car 6731 damaged by fire at Deux-Montagnes; retired, probably scrapped.

[...]

1995 Summer and Fall
- Final phase of renovation work completed, as described later.
- Disposition of DC rolling stock, as described later.

1995 October 26 Line reopened for rush-hour revenue service, after several delays. Rush-hour service was originally to resume August 28, and full-time service September 18.The new trains were an immediate hit with passengers, who were fed up with breakdowns and either roasting or freezing in the old trains. At first, the only apparent problems were with the end doors on some cars not closing properly. Bombardier technicians rode shotgun on some trips, to fix any problems. Full service resumed December 1, after completion of fencing along the line.

Mount Royal Tunnel Electrification by Mark Walton

According to the Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator, $289 million in 1992 is equivalent to $444 million in 2016. If we assume that this written off with linear depreciation and over exactly 21 years after the year of opening (i.e. with the end of 2016, i.e. 21 years after 1995), the annual depreciation would be $21.15 million (note that choosing a more commonly used depreciation period for infrastructure projects, such as 25 or 30 years, this figure would be even lower), which translates into a capital subsidy equivalent to a further $0.14-$0.19 per passenger km.

This means that at the upper bound of the passenger-mileage on the Deux-Montagnes line (146.5 million), the total subsidy is equivalent to $0.27 per passenger km ($0.127 for operation plus $0.144 for capital), whereas it would still be no more than $0.37 ($0.172 plus $0.144) at its lower bound (108.9 million).

In summary, the controversial decision to convert the Deux-Montagnes line from a full-scale commuter rail line to a Mini Metro is justified by some REM supporters by waving around an operational subsidy figure for today which happens to be two-thirds higher (168%) than the per passenger-km subsidy which will be paid to the CDPQi, whereas the correct figure for the Deux-Montagnes line was at-best one-half (50.8%) and might actually be as low as just over one-third (37.8%) of the REM's subsidy figure.

 

[MisterF]

If the UPX is ever electrified and integrated into the rest of the transit system then I would absolutely consider it a metro. You could make an argument for RER as well, although its stations are decidedly more commuter rail-like. It would help if the TTC stopped pretending that they don't exist on their maps. But these these things aren't sure things and aren't under construction yet so I have to give credit where credit is due - Montreal is leaving Toronto in its dust when it comes to metro expansion, regardless of the denials of certain forumers.

 

[Streety McCarface]

I think it was 70 more, after the initial 6 that were delivered . 76 in total. So 25 trainsets. Say 21 with over 20% spares.

So they could do 14 three-car trains an hour. Every 4.25 minutes (if the 45-minutes is enough - and it's probably about right. That's 6,300 passengers an hour.

Alternatively, you could do 30 (with 27% spares) or 32 (with 19% spares) two-car trains. With 30 it's every 3 minutes with a 6,000 passenger capacity. With 32 it's every 2.8 minutes with a 6,400 passenger capacity.

Number of cars per train doesn't effect capacity. It just effects frequency.

Why run shorter trains every 3 minutes when they can run longer trains every 4.25 minutes? It's still very frequent service (Line 4 only runs every 5.5 minutes at peak). ANd it's cheaper.

The Eglinton Flexities also only have one cab. The Kitchener Flexities and Finch West Alstoms have 2 cabs.

We won't really know the exact capacity until they release the schedule in 2 years, but personally, if your system has requirements of 5,500 PPHPD, and you only have enough trains to run capacities of 6K PPHPD, the line is still overcrowded. People will have to wait for trains to go by before they get on, and even during rush hour, this, to me, is completely unacceptable for a new line. Then again, we'll have to wait until the line is actually running before we get to see the service in action.

Food for thought, what if Metrolinx ordered some 7 car LRVs instead of 5 car vehicles (similar to the Valley line trains)?

 

[nfitz]

I am pretty sure they can just get by 2 car consists for the first few years. The demand outside rush hour doesn't require them to drag a 3rd car around especially on the surface section.

Quite possibly, we were talking about the 2031 5,500 number. I hadn't seen newer numbers - I wish they'd release the source modelling documents! Good catch!

The headway would be at least 4 minutes. TTC expects each car to hold 130 like the streetcars thus 390 per train. Hence the line has a maximum capacity of 5,900 ppdph. This reference comes from the EWLRT open house.

eglintonwestlrt.ca

Excellent information!

Often I comment that they are over-estimating capacity by using higher than design capacity and closer than crush capacity. This may be the first time, I think that they've been (slightly) low.

Good news for riders!

 

[p_xavier]

@nfitz straight from the REM itself. The genesis of the project in 1961.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I've written about this in previous threads but I highly recommend anyone who loves transit to visit Tokyo. It will utterly challenge anything you ever knew about or cared about regarding subways or what is a subway or who cares what a subway is. I went there not getting it, with the bias that the subway, a unified publicly operated system, was the way in which you travel around a big city and came away not caring at all about subways anymore.

 

[lrt's friend]

Who cares about subways versus REM versus RER versus LRT versus streetcars versus BRT versus bus lines. Just deliver faster, more frequent service to more locations. Ridership figures give the best measure of the success of a transit system.

 

[Hopkins123]

Who cares about subways versus REM versus RER versus LRT versus streetcars versus BRT versus bus lines. Just deliver faster, more frequent service to more locations. Ridership figures give the best measure of the success of a transit system.

Ridership figures is precisely what I was alluding to before when I was needlessly attacked and accused of things.

REM's integration with the Montreal metro system makes it complimentary to it not at odds with it. UPX is not well integrated with the TTC, heck it is like a 5 minutes walk just to connect with it at either Dundas West or Union.

 

[nfitz]

REM's integration with the Montreal metro system makes it complimentary to it not at odds with it. UPX is not well integrated with the TTC, heck it is like a 5 minutes walk just to connect with it at either Dundas West or Union.

The transfer at Dundas West has never been constructed - it's very short if they ever build it. Union is a bit of a slog - but closer to 3 minutes - about 250 metres. But is that much worse than changing from the Yellow line to the Orange line at Berri? Or from the commuter train to the Metro at Lucien-L'Allier - where if you make the mistake of not sitting at the front of the train, means you have to walk the entire length of the train to get off the platform, and then back along it again, to get to the Metro! Would have a tunnel under the tracks killed them - this was supposed to have been an improvement to the long walk at Windsor! And then there's the long walk from Bonavanture Metro to Central station - which was only marginally improved in the 1990s (late 1980s?) - it will be interesting to see how (if) that get's improved with the REM.

It's been a few years, but I found the connection from Parc Metro to the rail station surprisingly long - though I haven't been there for years, since before they restored rail service in the late 1990s - perhaps it was improved somehow? Even the Blue to Orange line at Jean-Talon seemed disappointingly long - though I haven't been there for years either ... perhaps I was spoiled by Lionel-Groulx and Snowdon, where I routinely changed trains.

And I've heard negative comments from other about changing from the Repentigny line to the Orange line at Sauve.

To make a long story short, I don't think Toronto has a monopoly on physical integration issues!

 

[SFO-YYZ]

The transfer at Dundas West has never been constructed - it's very short if they ever build it. Union is a bit of a slog - but closer to 3 minutes - about 250 metres. But is that much worse than changing from the Yellow line to the Orange line at Berri? Or from the commuter train to the Metro at Lucien-L'Allier - where if you make the mistake of not sitting at the front of the train, means you have to walk the entire length of the train to get off the platform, and then back along it again, to get to the Metro!

It's been a few years, but I found the connection from Parc Metro to the rail station surprisingly long - though I haven't been there for years, since before they restored rail service in the late 1990s - perhaps it was improved somehow? Even the Blue to Orange line at Jean-Talon seemed disappointingly long - though I haven't been there for years either ... perhaps I was spoiled by Lionel-Groulx and Snowdon, where I routinely changed trains.

To make a long story short, I don't think Toronto has a monopoly on physical integration issues!

Connection from UPX to TTC at Union is anything but smooth. Also, calling it "3 minute" walk is a bit of a streeeetch. Fast walk for a commuter who's doing it daily - maybe. But UPX is supposed to serve primarily air passengers and visitors. I wonder how many visitors can do the transfer from UPX to TTC in 3 minutes at Union, in its present state configuration. Man it's convoluted even for locals like you and me. I don't think it is comparable at all to green/blue/yellow line connections at Berri-UQaM.

Montreal's STM interchange stations can be vast, but the you still get the feeling that it's designed as one metro system, not piece-meal work. Lucien-L'Allier is a long walk from AMT to Metro, but man the station interior itself is built like a monumental tribute to modernist architecture

 

[nfitz]

Connection from UPX to TTC at Union is anything but smooth. Also, calling it "3 minute" walk is a bit of a streeeetch. Fast walk for a commuter who's doing it daily - maybe. But UPX is supposed to serve primarily air passengers and visitors. I wonder how many visitors can do the transfer from UPX to TTC in 3 minutes at Union, in its present state configuration.

Yeah, it's certainly not clear during construction. And the lack of a good connection from the moat to the Skywalk is baffling. But it's not going to take any more than that to to walk out the west end of Union TTC, along the moat ,and up to the Skywalk ... if you know where everything is. If being the operative word.

Both are surely faster than getting from the platforms at Bonaventure, all the (long!) way up the Mezzanine, into that newis building (with the bus terminal), then another long escaltor up to Le Passage", and then up another escalator to near the CN building entrance, and along that walkway to get into Central station (for a bonus, try doing it with a large suitcase - I'm not sure it's even possible with a wheelchair).

Montreal's STM interchange stations can be vast, but the you still get the feeling that it's designed as one metro system, not piece-meal work. Lucien-L'Allier is a long walk from AMT to Metro, ...

And Lucien-L'Alllier seems simpler than Bonaventure to Central - at least it's signed better. Surely the latter is the best (worst?) example ever of piece-meal! It certainly doesn't feel designed - even compared to Union.

What Montreal did do well was the old main Voyageur bus terminal, sitting right on top of where the Green line and Orange line met at Metro Berri. You just walked up the stairs from the mezzanine and you were there. I haven't seen the new bus terminal though - I hear they moved it further north. These days, I seem to only ever (rarely) take buses from Metro Radisson.

 

[macookie]

I've taken the greyhound from Ottawa to Montreal, I do know you get dropped off at the north end of the bus station. I've walked through the station to an exit to outside to Berri St and then walked about 50m to the entrance of the metro just, taken the stairs down, with luggage. (augh)... and it's seems like it's about 5-10 minutes transfer. But... maybe I'm missing a shortcut.

What Montreal did do well was the old main Voyageur bus terminal, sitting right on top of where the Green line and Orange line met at Metro Berri. You just walked up the stairs from the mezzanine and you were there. I haven't seen the new bus terminal though - I hear they moved it further north. These days, I seem to only ever (rarely) take buses from Metro Radisson.