The Great Canadian Transit Thread - Page 275

ssiguy · #**5481** Posted **Dec 28, 2014, 8:04 PM**

Anyway, the reason a city shouldn't just rely on freeways to move people is that it doesn't work but neither does just relying on transit. Vancouver has yet to grasp the latter part of that equation. Proof is in the pudding.............Vancouver has horrid traffic and yet at the same time has lower transit usage rates than Tor/Mon or even much smaller Ott/Cal. Remember clogged roads also slow down transit vehicles but saying so in Vancouver is heresy.

Great cities don't just have great highway system nor do they have great transit systems, they have both. Transportation is a system not an either/or. Tor/Mon/Ott/Cal all have good highway systems yet higher transit usage than Vancouver as does every single European and Asian city.

logan5 · #**5482** Posted **Dec 28, 2014, 8:04 PM**

Commissioner st leads from centerm and vanterm through to #1. its a private road for the exclusive use of trucks.

The_Architect · #**5483** Posted **Dec 29, 2014, 4:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by le calmar

You don't have to convert the Gardiner into a boulevard... Boston's Big dig anyone?

It's not working out very well for Seattle right now.

SkahHigh · #**5484** Posted **Dec 29, 2014, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Architect

It's not working out very well for Seattle right now.

Ouch... Thanks for posting this, never heard of it before.

Mrs Sauga · #**5485** Posted **Dec 29, 2014, 10:22 PM**

Wow I never heard of that highway before.... its SO similar to the Gardiner in that its elevated and cuts through the waterfront.

Glad ours is not two tiered. However, Seattle should be glad that they don't have train tracks extending the waterfront-city distance.

J.OT13 · #**5486** Posted **Dec 29, 2014, 10:31 PM**

Toronto should look to 1960s Montreal for inspiration and build over/bury the rail lines.

SkahHigh · #**5487** Posted **Dec 29, 2014, 11:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Toronto should look to 1960s Montreal for inspiration and build over/bury the rail lines.

It's a good thing they built the 720 back then. To think the original plan was to destroy parts of Old Montreal to make way for an elevated highway...

1overcosc · #**5488** Posted **Dec 30, 2014, 2:50 PM**

Quebec went overboard on infrastructure spending in the 1960s and 1970s, I don't think that's replicatable today. Although Ontario has now restored infrastructure spending to what it was back then adjusted for inflation, I think it's still less than the equivalent of what QC was spending at the time.

J.OT13 · #**5489** Posted **Dec 30, 2014, 5:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

It's a good thing they built the 720 back then. To think the original plan was to destroy parts of Old Montreal to make way for an elevated highway...

That would have been the biggest blunder in Canadian History! Thank God it never happened.

caltrane74 · #**5490** Posted **Dec 30, 2014, 6:13 PM**

New Platform Safety Barrier at Pearson Airport

Metrolinx Facebook Page

Nouvellecosse · #**5491** Posted **Dec 30, 2014, 10:03 PM**

That looks damn good cal. Japan good even.

SkahHigh · #**5492** Posted **Jan 7, 2015, 5:02 PM**

Quebec Transports minister Robert Poeti did a radio interview yesterday, unveiling the future plans for public transit in Montreal. Essentially, he wants to:

- Build a BRT on Pie-IX Blvd which could connect with Downtown
- Extend the Blue line of the Metro, but not necessarily underground (wonder how they'll do that)
- Build a light rail link from the West Island to Downtown with connection to the airport
- Can't say right now if the government will decide to go forward with the light rail on the future Champlain Bridge yet

So far 2 possible light rail lines, a Metro expansion and a BRT line might be in the books. Hopefully this gets done!

Nouvellecosse · #**5493** Posted **Jan 7, 2015, 8:34 PM**

Not sure about the "West Island LRT" suggestion. Are they planning to have it leave the rail corridor once it gets to downtown and continue using street running on say, Rene Levesque? Unless it's going to have a street running section there's no reason for it to be LRT as opposed to just a frequent commuter rail line. It could be similar to London Overground services.

As for the Pie-IX BRT, what I'd really prefer to see is a separate "Pink Line" metro similar in concept to the old White Line proposal. It could extend north from the Frontenac Green station and follow Iberville/Frontenac up to Mason or Rosemont and then go over to St. Michael until it connects to the Blue line and then extend another km into Montreal-Nord. The Pink line would interline with Green from Frontenac to Lionel-Groulx which would have 2 min peak headways and the rest of the Green and Pink lines would have 4 minute headways, or 3 min in a pinch. But 3 min would be a strenuous schedule to uphold since would be 90 sec on the shared section.

There would also be an LRT on Jean Talon to Anjou that would connect to both the Blue and Pink lines.

MalcolmTucker · #**5494** Posted **Jan 7, 2015, 8:56 PM**

Can always buy outdoor (powered wheels on rail) capable rolling stock for the blue line, and switch the rubber tired vehicles to the other lines. Weight is supported through the rails already no?

May require some doing, but nothing mind blowing.

GreaterMontréal · #**5495** Posted **Jan 7, 2015, 9:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Not sure about the "West Island LRT" suggestion. Are they planning to have it leave the rail corridor once it gets to downtown and continue using street running on say, Rene Levesque? Unless it's going to have a street running section there's no reason for it to be LRT as opposed to just a frequent commuter rail line. It could be similar to London Overground services.

As for the Pie-IX BRT, what I'd really prefer to see is a separate "Pink Line" metro similar in concept to the old White Line proposal. It could extend north from the Frontenac Green station and follow Iberville/Frontenac up to Mason or Rosemont and then go over to St. Michael until it connects to the Blue line and then extend another km into Montreal-Nord. The Pink line would interline with Green from Frontenac to Lionel-Groulx which would have 2 min peak headways and the rest of the Green and Pink lines would have 4 minute headways, or 3 min in a pinch. But 3 min would be a strenuous schedule to uphold since would be 90 sec on the shared section.

There would also be an LRT on Jean Talon to Anjou that would connect to both the Blue and Pink lines.

The BRT on Pie IX reaches A-440 in Laval.

manny_santos · #**5496** Posted **Jan 7, 2015, 9:22 PM**

I don't understand. Why would removing a highway not lead to more traffic on nearby streets?

GreaterMontréal · #**5497** Posted **Jan 7, 2015, 9:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I don't understand. Why would removing a highway not lead to more traffic on nearby streets?

one of the reason is to have a better access to Griffintown. The boulevard will be as large as a highway. The new LRT could be built under the boul.

https://darylvsworld.wordpress.com/2014/...ain-technology-for-champlain-bridge-lrt/

http://blogues.lapresse.ca/avenirmtl/2014/04/02/une-nouvelle-ligne-de-metro-pour-le-slr-champlain/

Nouvellecosse · #**5498** Posted **Jan 7, 2015, 9:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

The BRT on Pie IX reaches A-440 in Laval.

We could simply extend the pink line to Pie IX and have the BRT connect to it rather than having it go all the way to the Green line.

Although honestly I have separate plans for that area. It would be served by a suburban express rail link that would see a single track spur leave the Repentigny corridor and run elevated up St. Michael and on a bridge across the River and on a viaduct to Concorde and finally Saint Martin with service every 15 min into downtown via Mont Royal tunnel.

Nouvellecosse · #**5499** Posted **Jan 7, 2015, 9:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

one of the reason is to have a better access to Griffintown. The boulevard will be as large as a highway. The new LRT could be built under the boul.

https://darylvsworld.wordpress.com/2014/...ain-technology-for-champlain-bridge-lrt/

http://blogues.lapresse.ca/avenirmtl/2014/04/02/une-nouvelle-ligne-de-metro-pour-le-slr-champlain/

I agree with the use of Skytrain technology but I don't care for the depicted alignment. There should be two separate branches on Taschereau. One that goes north with 3 stops at Panama, Auguste, and Churchill/Edouard and a southern branch with 4 stops at Panama, Rome, Des Prairies, and Boul. St. Jean. Just having two stops and requiring practically everyone to take a local bus as until they get as far as the highway doesn't really make for much of an improvement in rider experience considering the transit lane on the bridge and highway makes that stretch into an express ride as it is.

As for the second picture, they need a scenario C where there is an elevated section that goes above the rail yard and would be much less expensive than the tunnel which would be very nice but not necessary, and less of an inconvenience than the jog shown on the surface section. And option C should have the same number of stations and option A.

What I'd really like to see is the south shore link integrated with my suburban rail vision I mention in my previous post.

lrt's friend · #**5500** Posted **Jan 8, 2015, 1:20 AM**

Will Skytrain technology perform well in Montreal's climate?