The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by McC

Any handwringing about having Ville Marie and Villa Maria?

Ville-Marie is a borough, it's downtown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville-Marie,_Montreal

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Ville-Marie is a borough, it's downtown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville-Marie,_Montreal

Yeah, I highly doubt that's the name of the station there (which I think is at the Guy-Favreau federal government office complex), or that any station will be called Ville-Marie.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Ville-Marie is a borough, it's downtown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville-Marie,_Montreal

It's for Place Ville-Marie, and it's already been renamed to Gare Centrale as it will connect to the REM and the Gare Centrale itself.

[Laceoflight]

Originally Posted by Doady

If you want a direct rail connection from Montreal-Nord to Ville Marie, wouldn't AMT make a lot more sense than Metro? There is already a rail corridor available. Apparently there is AMT service now too, just upgrade it.

[...] reminded me of Hurontario and other inner suburban corridors of Toronto, they made me feel homesick. These kind of corridors have a lot of potential to urbanize, so maybe it is better to focus on them.

Maybe it's just that Montréal-Nord is not very well-known on here, but I always find it strange when people assume it's a suburb. I live at the border of Ahuntsic and Montréal-Nord, and it's still dense streets lined with rows of plexes and walk-ups around here. Not cookie-cutter suburbia. We really need mass transit options. The neighbourhood has an average density of 9000/sq.km, with pockets of towers and obviously some pockets of war housing cottages. The Pink Line would also serve the eastern parts of Rosemont and Le Plateau, which are way denser and still rely on unefficient buses. Plus, it's going to maybe integrate Saint-Léonard (which is dense suburban) to the inner city on the long-term.

I think the Pink Line is a great project in its actual form.
And the new commuter line to Mascouche is a real mess (the AMT corridor you mentioned). In fact, with the exception of 2 lines, commuter trains in the Greater Montreal Area are unefficient.

Bonus : the view from the backyard...

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

The Pink Line isn't just about giving Montreal-Nord a direct access to downtown, but also about giving about 750,000 Montrealers decent rapid transit that they currently lack.

Exactly.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

It's for Place Ville-Marie, and it's already been renamed to Gare Centrale as it will connect to the REM and the Gare Centrale itself.

ok good to know. so about 11 intermodal stations on the island with the addition of the Pink Line. that's major

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

ok good to know. so about 11 intermodal stations on the island with the addition of the Pink Line. that's major

You can see the REM green dot on the map at Ville-Marie, the colour is the REM green.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Doady

If you want a direct rail connection from Montreal-Nord to Ville Marie, wouldn't AMT make a lot more sense than Metro? There is already a rail corridor available. Apparently there is AMT service now too, just upgrade it.

Based on my (limited) experience in Montreal-Nord (my aunt lives there) I think LRT on Henri-Bourassa and/or Pie-9 would be better. Henri-Bourassa and Pie-9 reminded me of Hurontario and other inner suburban corridors of Toronto, they made me feel homesick. These kind of corridors have a lot of potential to urbanize, so maybe it is better to focus on them.

The RTM (ex AMT) train line is indeed in service and it's not used because it's not a direct line thus really long. It's also owned by the CN, which makes it basically impossible to add trains (it's already at capacity for commuter trains) and can't add tracks because it's in crowded sectors. The province is fed up with dealing with the rail barons hence the REM.

In the 2008 city plans, there were LRT on Pie-IX and Bourassa. Since operating costs are now included in business plans (I know, a novel idea...), this is why LRT isn't getting traction anymore compared to other Canadian cities. Same thing with the RTM as subsidies are incredibly high per user, even if the train is full. Per km, the REM (operating costs only) is about a sixth of a suburban train, per user.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by someone123

One would expect Montreal's system to be somewhat better because it is a larger and older city (and Canadian cities stopped investing as much in transit after the 80's), but it seems light years ahead of Vancouver's system.

With the pink line there will be good coverage of the downtown area and if there's a problem with one route there will be 2 alternatives. I haven't used Montreal's system frequently enough to see what it's like when something goes wrong but in Vancouver there are a lot of single points of failure and if something goes wrong the answer is often to find some way other than transit to get home (let's be honest; replacement shuttle buses are mostly for show). Vancouver's system offers generally poor coverage of inner neighbourhoods and the downtown area including the West End, one of the highest density parts of the city.

3, the grey line is also a (light) metro line.

If done, along with the current projects to start in 2018, Montreal will have 173km of real metro rapid transit.

[ssiguy]

Unless they are planning on charging more for these REM lines than standard Montreal fares, why not just call them and display them as part of the Metro system and be done with it? Just because one uses rubber tires and one doesn't is not a reason for different representations. REM is a high capacity, grade separated, frequent service so in every definition of the word, a Metro.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Unless they are planning on charging more for these REM lines than standard Montreal fares, why not just call them and display them as part of the Metro system and be done with it? Just because one uses rubber tires and one doesn't is not a reason for different representations. REM is a high capacity, grade separated, frequent service so in every definition of the word, a Metro.

When I see transit maps of routes like that I assume they are commuter rail or even feeder bus routes.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Unless they are planning on charging more for these REM lines than standard Montreal fares, why not just call them and display them as part of the Metro system and be done with it? Just because one uses rubber tires and one doesn't is not a reason for different representations. REM is a high capacity, grade separated, frequent service so in every definition of the word, a Metro.

It's a Metro but it won't be operated by the STM.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Unless they are planning on charging more for these REM lines than standard Montreal fares, why not just call them and display them as part of the Metro system and be done with it? Just because one uses rubber tires and one doesn't is not a reason for different representations. REM is a high capacity, grade separated, frequent service so in every definition of the word, a Metro.

The CDPQi just recently started calling it a metro léger (light metro) in its official communication but still LRT in English. It might head this way; there are many years until construction is over. Prices will be same region wide per km.

Even worse, the pink line is the same as the REM and is meant to be compatible with it.

[240glt]

Edmonton responds to accusations of screwing up the other legs of its LRT by planning to screw up the next leg

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-ne...ested-109-street-104-avenue-intersection

Just stop, Edmonton.. stop.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Edmonton responds to accusations of screwing up the other legs of its LRT by planning to screw up the next leg

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-ne...ested-109-street-104-avenue-intersection

Just stop, Edmonton.. stop.

10x more expensive ?

[240glt]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

10x more expensive ?

I doubt 10x, but yes it'd be more expensive to do it properly. Things done well cost money.

At this point most people in Edmonton are so sick of the continuous debacles that I don't think cost would even be a concern. Scale back the scope, do it properly.

Unfortunately, from arenas to bridges to LRT, in Edmonton things seem to get done half-assed

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by 240glt

I doubt 10x, but yes it'd be more expensive to do it properly. Things done well cost money.

At this point most people in Edmonton are so sick of the continuous debacles that I don't think cost would even be a concern. Scale back the scope, do it properly.

Unfortunately, from arenas to bridges to LRT, in Edmonton things seem to get done half-assed

what's the problem with the arena ? I thought it was a success.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

what's the problem with the arena ? I thought it was a success.

Shiny and fancy on the outside

Just don't look behind the walls

[sdimedru]

^some say...

[240glt]

^ Those in the know do

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

The RTM (ex AMT) train line is indeed in service and it's not used because it's not a direct line thus really long. It's also owned by the CN, which makes it basically impossible to add trains (it's already at capacity for commuter trains) and can't add tracks because it's in crowded sectors. The province is fed up with dealing with the rail barons hence the REM.

In the 2008 city plans, there were LRT on Pie-IX and Bourassa. Since operating costs are now included in business plans (I know, a novel idea...), this is why LRT isn't getting traction anymore compared to other Canadian cities. Same thing with the RTM as subsidies are incredibly high per user, even if the train is full. Per km, the REM (operating costs only) is about a sixth of a suburban train, per user.

The contrast with Toronto is interesting. In Toronto, the mainline railway routes are much better suited for transit. They're in generally straight lines whose routes match up very well with natural demand patterns and many of them are only sparsely used by the freight companies so the province was able to acquire most of them fairly easily (only a handful of spots, like in downtown Brampton, are CN/CP an obstacle of any real substance). So it makes perfect sense in Toronto for the regional rapid transit solution to consist of upgrading commuter rail to metro-like standards along the lines of a German S-Bahn, which is what Ontario is building.

But in Montreal where the railway lines are circuitous, not well placed to meet transportation needs, and face far more conflicts with freight traffic, the approach of building light metro largely along highway corridors makes more sense.

It really goes to show that each city needs to plan for its own circumstances rather than just trying to copy another.