Why would Montreal want an automatic light-metro? I know why the Caisse wants to, to make money off of Montreal and Quebec taxpayers.
First of all this line is an automatic light-metro and not light-rail as there is no such thing as an automatic LRT because the definition of LRT is the ability to operate in mixed traffic (example as a street car if need be).
Also remember that modern light-rail made automatic light-metro obsolete back in the 1980's and only a few companies build with light-metro because of this. As the majority of light-metros tend to be proprietary, the operator of a light-metro is stuck with one supplier (example: Vancouver's ALRT/ART SkyTrain Lines)
What also should be understood, automatic operation does not save money, that it increases operating costs! Ottawa send a delegation to Vancouver to monitor the light-metro system and found that SkyTrain was: 1) More expensive to build than LRT 2) More expensive to operate than LRT 3) more expensive to maintain than LRT 4) lacked capacity
In Ottawa they are building with LRT. it should also come as no surprise that only seven ICTS; ALRT; ALM; ART (all names that the UTDC/Bombardier's proprietary light-metro was marketed by) have been sold and built since the late 1970's, all in private deals with the operating authority or provincial government, with not one of the light-metros being allowed to compete against light rail.
Enter Vancouver's Canada Line.
Vancouver's Canada Line was a politically inspired P-3 rapid transit line, which included financing from the Caisse. As ALRT/ART SkyTrain was too expensive to build, the BC Government forced TransLink (the operating authority) to build with the SNC Lavalin lead consortium in a mock bidding process (BC judge Pittfield, in the Susan Heyes lawsuit called the bidding process a charade), with the obvious results.
The Canada Line's construction costs soared over $1 billion over the original $1.3 billion budget and drastic economies were made. In the end, the Canada line was left with stations with 40m platforms and can only operate 2 car trains, which greatly reduces capacity. The Canada Line, which uses mainline railway EMU's is the only heavy-rail metro in the world, built as a light metro and has less capacity than a simple streetcar line costing a fraction to build!
I mention the Canada Line, because as a mock P-3, the profit comes from the operational and maintenance budget and last year, the Canada line received over $110 million from TransLink for operating the line.
Here is way the Caisse is wanting to build light-metro in Montreal, they see an annual income from operations and maintenance maybe 2 or 3 times more than the consortium that operates Vancouver's Canada line.
It also should be remembered that in Vancouver, over 130,000 U-Pass deep discounted ($1 a day for unlimited travel) seasonal passes have been issued to post secondary students and with theline passing no less than 6 major post secondary institutions, ridership on the Canada Line is greatly skewed and in fact there has been no modal shift from car to transit and in south Delta transit ridership has collapsed since the Canada line opened because of the forced transfer from bus to metro, instead of the previous direct service to Vancouver.
The Caisse is not doing Montreal any favours, rather, they see the Montreal taxpayer as a great cash cow.
First of all this line is an automatic light-metro and not light-rail as there is no such thing as an automatic LRT because the definition of LRT is the ability to operate in mixed traffic (example as a street car if need be).
Also remember that modern light-rail made automatic light-metro obsolete back in the 1980's and only a few companies build with light-metro because of this. As the majority of light-metros tend to be proprietary, the operator of a light-metro is stuck with one supplier (example: Vancouver's ALRT/ART SkyTrain Lines)
What also should be understood, automatic operation does not save money, that it increases operating costs! Ottawa send a delegation to Vancouver to monitor the light-metro system and found that SkyTrain was:
1) More expensive to build than LRT
2) More expensive to operate than LRT
3) more expensive to maintain than LRT
4) lacked capacity
In Ottawa they are building with LRT. it should also come as no surprise that only seven ICTS; ALRT; ALM; ART (all names that the UTDC/Bombardier's proprietary light-metro was marketed by) have been sold and built since the late 1970's, all in private deals with the operating authority or provincial government, with not one of the light-metros being allowed to compete against light rail.
Enter Vancouver's Canada Line.
Vancouver's Canada Line was a politically inspired P-3 rapid transit line, which included financing from the Caisse. As ALRT/ART SkyTrain was too expensive to build, the BC Government forced TransLink (the operating authority) to build with the SNC Lavalin lead consortium in a mock bidding process (BC judge Pittfield, in the Susan Heyes lawsuit called the bidding process a charade), with the obvious results.
The Canada Line's construction costs soared over $1 billion over the original $1.3 billion budget and drastic economies were made. In the end, the Canada line was left with stations with 40m platforms and can only operate 2 car trains, which greatly reduces capacity. The Canada Line, which uses mainline railway EMU's is the only heavy-rail metro in the world, built as a light metro and has less capacity than a simple streetcar line costing a fraction to build!
I mention the Canada Line, because as a mock P-3, the profit comes from the operational and maintenance budget and last year, the Canada line received over $110 million from TransLink for operating the line.
Here is way the Caisse is wanting to build light-metro in Montreal, they see an annual income from operations and maintenance maybe 2 or 3 times more than the consortium that operates Vancouver's Canada line.
It also should be remembered that in Vancouver, over 130,000 U-Pass deep discounted ($1 a day for unlimited travel) seasonal passes have been issued to post secondary students and with theline passing no less than 6 major post secondary institutions, ridership on the Canada Line is greatly skewed and in fact there has been no modal shift from car to transit and in south Delta transit ridership has collapsed since the Canada line opened because of the forced transfer from bus to metro, instead of the previous direct service to Vancouver.
The Caisse is not doing Montreal any favours, rather, they see the Montreal taxpayer as a great cash cow.
Reply
So when you talk about the mock P3...what, the AMT (or its successor) would basically be paying The Caisse?
I'll soon update this with more of the shortfalls of the proposed system. Thank you. And I'll have to use your "Cash Cow" comment.
Reply
Leave a comment