SameGuy

Not really. New aircraft register between 80-90 dB on takeoff under full thrust when directly overhead at the end of the runway, at an altitude of less than 400 feet. The envelope of the sonic signature created by this new generation of aircraft (A220, A32Xneo, 737Max, Dreamliner, A350) presents a very sharp attack and decay, with peaks between 78 and upper-80s, lasting just a few seconds. The ramp from ambient to a noticeable increase in amplitude is also quick, and brief. With altitude, the envelope changes, and at 3000 feet the peak barely registers in the upper seventies within a roughly 30° angle of the observer, again lasting but a few seconds. Constant comparisons to aircraft is a relevance fallacy intended to equate to a condition that simply isn't the same. Aircraft are loud and disruptive, yes, but a home buyer considering Pointe Claire or St Laurent has an adequate chance to experience the level of disruption they may feel, before committing. Condo buyers in Griffintown, on the other hand, were aware of the occasional, slow-running mainline trains – that, while loud enough, do not create disruption every two minutes – and more recent shoppers were assured that the new "light rail" wouldn't be disruptive at all.

Chaboillez/Dow/Quad was the perfect location for a ballpark and entertainment precinct

Based on the Ottawa news reports from five years ago, this was easily predicted

It's no Via Appia, that's for sure

But you've contradicted yourself. Yes, we are going way off topic here, but I just like to point out the contradiction in your statements. It's OK for our poorly maintained, inefficient roadways, dysfunctional healthcare system, crumbling infrastructure, and overcrowded schools to not turn a profit, because "[n]ot having a toll on every corner, doesn't mean revenus and profits aren't created somewhere in the market," but an imperfect public transit system must somehow derive a bottom line fiscal profit (as opposed to the assumed, philosophical profits of the other services) in order to be considered viable?

Ok so you agree that an efficient, safe, reliable public transit system shouldn't have to show a bottom line profit to be profitable to society. Good. I guess you're a social liberalist like me after all. 😉

I don't think the dysfunction inherent in our version of transit planning and administration can be properly characterized as not seeing public transit "as an absolute necessity."

"Isn't seen as" by whom, though?

Para-public. It doesn't report to the government, but rather to its stakeholders; the public is its investor group, but it is a for-profit entity that must find return on investment by any means. Public transit is a social service. We don't expect our roadways or crosswalks or sewage systems or schools to turn a profit, but just to be safe and reliable.

TransitApp isn't the same company it was five years ago.😉

Again, the only way I could see a public metro system being completely privatized is if we let our habitual exceptionalism dictate such an illogical course of action. Some of the best, most efficient metros on the planet are owned by the public but are privately operated under concession; the public transit authority mandates the needs of the system, and the private concession holder finds the most efficient ("profitable") means to meet the mandate. This is the only way I could see our metro being improved and made more efficient.

It's an older essay, but the points Anton brings up are nevertheless still valid. https://www.cat-bus.com/2017/07/automation-metro/

Full automation of our Métro would cost billions and take at least a decade (if not longer) to implement, in exchange generating savings that are a tiny fraction of the cost of this major undertaking. Platform screen doors alone would cost half a billion (2018 – likely doubled by the time we get around to doing it), the signalling system for the entire network would have to be changed and all the MR-73 vehicles would need to be retired and replaced by modern train sets. My layman's guess would put the cost of automating the STM Métro at somewhere around $5 billion. Wouldn't you rather see that $5 billion spent on expanding transit to areas that desperately need it? I can certainly see that that kind of investment would make absolutely zero sense for a profit-minded organization like the CDPQ.

PS: hers is mag-light size. Only rent-a-cops use mag-lights.

It's a holster for a tac light.

We're also bad at retro-proofing. We almost never fix past mistakes, usually don't learn from them, and are doomed to repeat those errors and bad habits time and again.

I didn't think any MR-90s were still intact.😉

If the O&D studies show that a radial line from downtown to the eastern tip can justify a higher-capacity "metro" for $10-36 billion, ok, great. We still have yet to see any such numbers.

The "artists" are all allergic to ragweed

I think a lot of people here just randomly throw around the term "tram-train" when what they really mean is "tram." A tram-train is a system that uses tram vehicles, and operates as a tram in the city centre or the denser parts of a core, and then shares a mainline (passenger and/or freight) railway to extend further into the suburbs; modern trams that serve as mass rapid transit might also operate as a traditional tram in the dense core or CBD, but often (usually) also have their own fully-grade-separated right-of-way to cover longer distances at much higher speeds than local transit (buses, streetcars, metro) can usually run. A modern tram might run along its own ROW down the centre of, say, René-Lévesque downtown, and with proper signalling it should still operate more swiftly than buses or automobiles, but then it heads into its own, separated ROW along the long-touted Notre-Dame alignment just past de Lorimier. With stations much further apart, it can zip through less-dense areas and cruise through the industrial areas at top speed before getting out to the eastern suburbs.

They also siht on the sidewalks there so...

As I said, "conflate." In a segregated right-of-way, there are no intersections. Modern trams may be on the road, but in a separate right of way and with controlled intersections, but often they also run fully-grade separated on longer stretches. "How fast" = "what is the average speed."

Honestly, it just depends how fast it goes. The interior of a low floor tram is almost identical to the interior of a high floor vehicle like our new REM. A modern tram vehicle in a grade-separated right-of-way is easily capable of speeds over 80 km/h. Somehow, way too many people (who should know better) keep conflating modern trams with slow running street cars. Tens of thousands of people a day have no trouble riding long distances (Montmorency to downtown, anyone?) in our narrow, stuffy Metro, that averages less than 40 km/h, but I guess because it's underground, it's acceptable.

CLC/SIC, non?