The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[MTLskyline]

Hmm.. It is great that there are two underserved areas now getting rapid transit (Montreal North/Saint-Leonard and Pointe-aux-Trembles)

However.. Some pretty major negatives
- Elevated tracks downtown.. So far all of the elevated REM structures have been pretty ugly.... I don't see them being able to make these architecturally interesting enough to offset the "mental barrier".
- Elevated tracks along the riverfront along Notre-Dame will be very unsightly also.
- Did I read there was only two car trains and small platforms?
- Seems to be a lot of duplication of route with the existing green line. The green line east of Berri-UQAM is not very busy.
- $10B cost seems expensive.. I presume this would mean less money left over for other transit initiatives
- This will be considered the "east end's turn", especially after the blue line extension, Pie-IX BRT and Mascouche commuter train line. Presumably it will be very difficult to argue for a Pink Line as a result of this. The next place to get new transit will probably be Longueuil.

To best honest.. if we're burying tracks along Lacordaire, why not just make it a regular Metro line and terminate it on the Green line?
And for Pointe-aux-Trembles, why not just have the REM start at the end at Honore-Beaugrand? It's an interchange, but how bad would it be really?

Some of this just seems like a waste:

https://www.cdpqinfra.com/en/rem-est

I would much rather they spend on serving one of the many existing underserved pockets like the east Plateau/Rosemont (Pink Line), or NDG (Blue Line Extension) or Lachine. And link up the Orange Line with Bois-Franc and extend the REM1 to Dorval Via station.

As ugly as Rene-Levesque Blvd is, an elevated train won't make it more attractive. I think a ground level LRT type system would be more interesting, with a lot of landscaping and trees added.

[SkahHigh]

^you’ve covered all the points mentioned here by a few of us and I’m sure you didn’t read all of our posts. Good analysis sir

[J.OT13]

Some good points here. Can't help but wonder if extending and splitting the Green Line might be cheaper and more efficient than a new REM.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

Hmm.. It is great that there are two underserved areas now getting rapid transit (Montreal North/Saint-Leonard and Pointe-aux-Trembles)

However.. Some pretty major negatives
- Elevated tracks downtown.. So far all of the elevated REM structures have been pretty ugly.... I don't see them being able to make these architecturally interesting enough to offset the "mental barrier".
- Elevated tracks along the riverfront along Notre-Dame will be very unsightly also.

Forgive me but I am going to play devil's advocate for a moment here...

The other alternative to elevated tracks would be to bury them underground, swelling the expenses. Underground rapid transit is a bitch to pay for and a big reason as to why Montreal is choosing to invest in REM systems that are mostly elevated and automated. I don't think that we would see REM East if it was all underground. Or at least, we would only see half of the project. And maybe that's the right direction in the long run?

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

- Did I read there was only two car trains and small platforms?

I agree. They need to future proof the stations by extending those platforms. Although even with the Canada Line in Vancouver, it can still expand its own capacity quite significantly with just 2-car trains; Vancouver did shoot itself in the foot by creating small stations for its only N-S route. Montreal should learn from this mistake and over build their stations to be able to at least accommodate 4-6 car trains.

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

- Seems to be a lot of duplication of route with the existing green line. The green line east of Berri-UQAM is not very busy.

Lack of future proofing aside, TOD in the east can help increase PPHPD. For me this is a project that is addressing the far-flung future needs of Montreal.

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

- $10B cost seems expensive.. I presume this would mean less money left over for other transit initiatives

$10B doesn't seem that outrageous to me TBH. Vancouver's Millennium line extension is costing $2.83B for only 5.7km of track and 6 stations (ALL underground which is swelling the costs btw). Whereas the REM east is costing $10B for 32km of track, 23 new stations, a whole fleet of trains, and it will need its own separate storage facility (correct me if I'm wrong here) as well.

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

As ugly as Rene-Levesque Blvd is, an elevated train won't make it more attractive. I think a ground level LRT type system would be more interesting, with a lot of landscaping and trees added.

Well there is nothing stopping the city of Montreal from landscaping and beautifying Rene Levesque Blvd. It never needed a piece of transit infrastructure for that; it just needed a city council that prioritized urban beautification.

Ground level LRT is a bit of a disaster functionally speaking. If REM East is to operate as an automated light metro system, then you would need to have it dip under/elevate over intersections in order to keep the system automated. As soon as you have it crossing street intersections, you need a driver so that you don't have automated trains mixing with human operated traffic. And a big part of the business case with REM is that it is significantly less expensive to operate because of its driverless trains. I also feel that the driverless trains were a big reason as to why they chose not to extend the green line but that's just an assumption.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

Hmm.. It is great that there are two underserved areas now getting rapid transit (Montreal North/Saint-Leonard and Pointe-aux-Trembles)

However.. Some pretty major negatives
- Elevated tracks downtown.. So far all of the elevated REM structures have been pretty ugly.... I don't see them being able to make these architecturally interesting enough to offset the "mental barrier".

Yes, I don't think that an elevated rail line is acceptable on Rene Levesque. I think elevated is a clever solution in many places, but on a downtown main street? This line in Paris is probably the most attractive elevated rail line I can think of in the world - at least from my personal experience. Even there, the elevated line detracts from the environment and psychologically divides the street like a wall.

I think downtown Montreal is a great place, but the link between Old Montreal and the main centre of downtown along Ste. Catherine and Sherbrooke is already somewhat weakly knit together. I feel that the wide arterial of Rene Levesque already poses something of a barrier, and this will just widen it and make it more jarring.

I understand that cost reasons are why they're burying it along Lacordaire and keeping it elevated along R-L, but that could be a political landmine.

In Toronto, one of the things that could still sink the Ontario Line that the Ford government has staked so much political and fiscal capital on is that they aren't burying the stretch through Leslieville (if you're familiar with the context, this makes sense from not only a cost but a transfer to GO perspective), but they are planning on burying the Scarborough subway extension at great expense (this one makes much less sense). Not surprisingly, Leslieville NIMBYs and some media outlets have been vocal about the irony of transit being buried in the suburbs but not downtown. I think that the REM project could catch similar flak.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I understand that cost reasons are why they're burying it along Lacordaire and keeping it elevated along R-L, but that could be a political landmine.

In reports I often see costs presented per length of track but not per nearby resident or taxpayer. If you frame it in terms of raw cost it is easy to feel sticker shock from 2x or 4x costs for a segment, but one segment may be 10x or 100x more developed than another segment.

This is a variant of the phenomenon of exurbanites complaining about a lack of services when their basic garbage collection and snow clearance costs 4x per capita what maintaining city streets cost in medium density areas (probably with an even bigger gap when the true tax burden is calculated; apparently PVM is valued at about $1B). In Canada municipalities have become accustomed to leaning heavily on commercial areas and inner city residential areas with high tax rates to subsidize the rest. And for downtowns it's easy to notice "gold-plated infrastructure" without accounting for density and efficiencies of service. The fact that you can support nicer infrastructure in these areas is part of what makes them worthwhile in the first place.

[Reecemartin]

With all the talk of the Canada Line being "low capacity" and a "failure", I had to make a video to address these points. Take a look at it here:

https://youtu.be/DmCvNaDc3M8

[scryer]

-Delete-

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

With all the talk of the Canada Line being "low capacity" and a "failure", I had to make a video to address these points. Take a look at it here:

https://youtu.be/DmCvNaDc3M8

You raise some very good points especially about Toronto's {read Miller} Eglinton Line and how it should have been completely grade separated. Conversely, you should do some more research on the Canada Line. The CL currently is overcapacity and certainly much of this can be relieved by the 10 meter longer trains and higher frequency, it will NEVER reach 15k phpd. That figure assumed over 300 people on the 2 cars..........in other words everyone hyperventilates and assumes that no one going to the 3 colleges it connects and no one going to the airport brings any luggage or bags. A rather stupid assumption.

The line's frequency is "technically" every 90 seconds but again that is a bit of a myth because both the Richmond & YVR sections only have one track made worse by the fact that they have made no provisions for twinning the tracks and in fact haven't even lengthened the track past the stations enough to even have one train stationary. Also at Waterfront, they didn't make any provision for stationary trains. Translink has a good policy of keeping one train at terminus stations in case there is a break down but didn't allocate for this at Waterfront so the trains running every 90 seconds have to disembark and load on only one side of the station.

I agree with cut and cover in many areas but the problem was that they did cut and cover in the only section of the line that outside downtown is pedestrian friendly, the Cambie Street Village, resulting in many businesses going under. They were also called out for their cheap costs by importing cheap foreign workers.

As for the TOD, this has proven to be a God send to developers and Chinese money launderers. The huge Oakridge redevelopment were advertised in HK/Shang/Bei MONTHS before they were in Vancouver and even then in only Chinese papers. Even the developer admitted this development is being built for foreigners and with starting prices of $900k for a junior one bedroom, this is exactly what Vancouver doesn't need. Yes, the CL is fast and great for getting to the airport and is not yet at capacity but you don't build transit to last 20 years but 100 years. In terms of meeting future demand and TOD for the normal Vancouverite, the CL is a failure.

[nname]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The CL currently is overcapacity and certainly much of this can be relieved by the 10 meter longer trains and higher frequency, it will NEVER reach 15k phpd. That figure assumed over 300 people on the 2 cars..........

The plan would be 10m platform extension and a (shorter) middle car to make 3-car trains.

CL was able to achieve 7000 pphpd with 3.33min frequency on 41m trains. That's about 390 people for 41m trains.... or 9.5 people per meter.

The minimum frequency by design of the single tracks is 2min. Assume the final train length is about 52m... that would be 500 people for a 52m train.... or 9.6 people per meter. How is this not achievable?

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah. it is over capacity at times because there aren't enough trains. Even if the stations were built to 80m there would still be the rolling stock problem, and costs would have been significant, potentially removing financial capacity that was used for other projects, like buying more rolling stock!

[J.OT13]

I was critical of the Canada Line for many years, but my opinion has evolved over time. It's a rapid transit line built fast and cheap. It serves direct airport-downtown (first in Canada) and urban areas outside the downtown peninsula (I wish they had build a station between Roundhouse and City Centre though) .

A lot of the negatives like the lack of entrances, fare gates and vertical circulation can and has already started getting fixed. The ultimate capacity is lowest in Canada for a rapid transit line, but Arbutus is sitting there, ready to provide relief.

We often hear criticisms of the Canada Line, but far fewer complain of white elephants, lines that are way overbuilt, in other cities. Examples are plenty in Toronto, with the Sheppard Line, the cathedral like stations of the Vaughn extension and the planned Scarborough subway. In Montreal, the Blue Line could have been built cheaper with shorter platforms.

Not to say CL is perfect. More double tracking, tail tracks, possibility of Expo like platforms for a little more capacity. It was none the less a success story in my book.

We need more fast and cheap Canada Lines, fewer slow and stupid expensive Scarborough subways. Montreal seems to have gotten the message.

[GreaterMontréal]

Eventually the Blue Line will fill up. There will be an intermodal station on Lacordaire.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Eventually the Blue Line will fill up. There will be an intermodal station on Lacordaire.

To 40,000+ phpd? I can't see the Blue Line ever needing the full capacity at any point.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

To 40,000+ phpd? I can't see the Blue Line ever needing the full capacity at any point.

I prefer to have a system that can handle 40k phpd even if you ''only'' reach 80% capacity than to have a system that can handle 25k php at 100% capacity. With the blue line extension, Anjou will probably have its own TOD.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

And there's a Tramway project to Le Sud-Ouest area of Montréal.

That project would be a REM extension of the B line proposed. It was agreed with the city of Montréal that whichever technology chosen for the East would continue West to Lachine.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I was critical of the Canada Line for many years, but my opinion has evolved over time. It's a rapid transit line built fast and cheap. It serves direct airport-downtown (first in Canada) and urban areas outside the downtown peninsula (I wish they had build a station between Roundhouse and City Centre though) .

A lot of the negatives like the lack of entrances, fare gates and vertical circulation can and has already started getting fixed. The ultimate capacity is lowest in Canada for a rapid transit line, but Arbutus is sitting there, ready to provide relief.

We often hear criticisms of the Canada Line, but far fewer complain of white elephants, lines that are way overbuilt, in other cities. Examples are plenty in Toronto, with the Sheppard Line, the cathedral like stations of the Vaughn extension and the planned Scarborough subway. In Montreal, the Blue Line could have been built cheaper with shorter platforms.

Not to say CL is perfect. More double tracking, tail tracks, possibility of Expo like platforms for a little more capacity. It was none the less a success story in my book.

We need more fast and cheap Canada Lines, fewer slow and stupid expensive Scarborough subways. Montreal seems to have gotten the message.

I don't understand the criticism of the line. It works well. It is double track the entire route. The other complaints could be said of most other lines in Canada.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I don't understand the criticism of the line. It works well. It is double track the entire route. The other complaints could be said of most other lines in Canada.

Agreed. There are a couple forum members on here who keep posting the same disproven dribble.

Not going to go through it all again, but overall the Canada Line has been a massive mass transit success and serves its corridor well.

Does it have issues? Yes. Is it a disaster? Not at all.

And as noted on here some minor upgrades will go a long way to addressing most of real issues with he line in the future.

I would take the Canada Line any day with its full grade separation and automatic operation over any of the at grade LRT system being built in North America.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Agreed. There are a couple forum members on here who keep posting the same disproven dribble.

Not going to go through it all again, but overall the Canada Line has been a massive mass transit success and serves its corridor well.

Does it have issues? Yes. Is it a disaster? Not at all.

And as noted on here some minor upgrades will go a long way to addressing most of real issues with he line in the future.

I would take the Canada Line any day with its full grade separation and automatic operation over any of the at grade LRT system being built in North America.

Name me one line in Canada that does not have a single issue with it.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Name me one line in Canada that does not have a single issue with it.

Exactly.

I was actually thinking the other day about how quirky all of Canada's urban rail systems are, and how different they all are from each other.