Visited Montreal for the first time. Some questions about their Metro system

I was absolutely blown away by how clean and nice the entire metro system in Montreal looked. This on top of the fact that there were homeless people sleeping on chairs and benches inside the actual platforms. The stations were remarkably clean and spacious. The physical expanse of some of the stations was astonishing, I can't even think of more than one or two stations in Toronto that can even come close to the actual size of most of the stations (the size of the mezzanine + platform, etc). It was also really interesting how at some interchange stations a different line would be on the same platform to make transfers quick.

My question comes down to how?

How come the Montreal system is able to stay clean and not look like a flood passed through it every day?

How come Montreal is able to justify large stations and art?

Before I visited I had always thought Montreal just had pretty art works in the stations, but after actually seeing it and using it we definitely need to take notes!

Quebec spent big, big, big bucks in the 1960's and 1970's on infrastructure which resulted in the hugeness of them. (subways, tunnelled A-720, Mirabel airport, etc.) Their transit system operationally isn't nearly as underfunded as Toronto's either, its really the opposite. Toronto is spending big bucks on capital expansion while Montreal spends more on day to day operations.

The Spadina line in Toronto is generally quite nice, it just hasn't been maintained as well as Montreal's.


Montreal also uses rubber tires, which means no steel brake dust accumulating and creating dirty stations.

The difference is noticeable, isn't it? From what I heard, the Metro was cheaper to build than the Toronto subway. Their system requires a single tunnel for two tracks as opposed to two tunnels--their trains are narrower. Montreal's geology allows tunnels to be cut through solid rock--Toronto has sandy soils and a relatively high water table that make it more expensive to build tunnels.

Though the architecture and design in the Metro is impressive, the finishes aren't that much more expensive than what the TTC uses--concrete, brick, tiles, metal panels and terracotta are the main finishes in the Metro. The difference is that Montreal chose a local architect for every station to arrange finishes in a sophisticated manner with eye-catching combinations of textures and colours. The architects understood the impressive columns and structural features of stations and highlighted them. The city wanted something higher value and made it happen.

Montreal got the engineers, architects and artists working together from the start on the stations. So you'll see things like stained glass windows as the public art--both functional as windows and ornamental as art. Montreal made it seem easy--they didn't get the world's elite architects like Foster on the Spadina line but created something fantastic nevertheless.

The STM's entire operation seems more refined and higher value: all system signage and the website work and look great (far better than the TTC). Even the waiting area/emergency amenity lighting on platforms is better--a cool blue versus the TTC's industrial orange for designated waiting areas.

It is also worth noting that the Montreal Metro rolling stock is also much older than the TTC's. They operate MR-63s, which were ordered in 1963 and delivered in 1964-67 and later for the first phase (coincident with Expo). The MR-73s were built between 1974 and 1980 for the '76 Olympics-related extensions as well as for the Blue Line and Orange Line extension to Cote-Vertu. There were enough cars to service the Orange Line extension to Laval.

The trains don't look their age.

The Azur trains now in delivery/testing phase will replace the MR-63s, but the oldest car will still be over 40 years old once the MR-63s are retired.

I see the Montreal bug has bit you too. From an urbanist's perspective, it is easily one of the best cities in Canada, if not all of North America. Don't know why, but the French have an impeccable eye for design.

I notice that Montreal's trains accelerate much smoother & faster out of the station. Is that due to ATC? If so, will our subway feel similar when ATC is finished?

I really like Montreal's subway as well, it has character and looks great. The trains are pretty thin (like a streetcar or LRT width), but it looks kind of cool that way.

In terms of us learning from them, I guess the next time we'll see new subway stations is when the Spadina extension opens in a couple of years. The next time we see new designs for stations will be Eglinton's underground stations. However my impression is that they will be modest stations, not have a huge open area like Montreal's or the Spadina line.

ehlow said:

I notice that Montreal's trains accelerate much smoother & faster out of the station. Is that due to ATC? If so, will our subway feel similar when ATC is finished?

I really like Montreal's subway as well, it has character and looks great. The trains are pretty thin (like a streetcar or LRT width), but it looks kind of cool that way.

In terms of us learning from them, I guess the next time we'll see new subway stations is when the Spadina extension opens in a couple of years. The next time we see new designs for stations will be Eglinton's underground stations. However my impression is that they will be modest stations, not have a huge open area like Montreal's or the Spadina line.

Click to expand...

The faster acceleraton is not due to ATC, it is due to them using rubber tires on their trains.

http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/usa-trip-160910-142.jpg

More friction = more acceleration but also is more inefficent.

While the Metro in Montreal is nice, there are some things about our system that my friend from Montreal likes better.

For example, our trains are much wider and the Toronto Rockets are now much better.

Also, Air Conditioning. The Montreal trains cannot have AC. There is no room for it and no proper venting in the tunnels.

Even the new trains they are getting are not Air Conditioned. When I visited in mid july last year it was BRUTAL.

There stations are nice, but so were Torontos once upon a time.

The original Vitrolite Tiled subways of the Yonge line shimmered and were gorgeous.

http://www.blogto.com/city/2013/12/what_the_original_ttc_subway_station_tiles_looked_like/

Look at the clean entrance area and the all-glass collector booth.

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/images/subway-5103-13.jpg

Whenever I see the puke yellow bricks of Dundas station I want to do horrible things to whoever was responsible for "renovating" (destroying) these beautiful stations.

It really is a crime.

A lot of people told Metrolinx to invest in good station design for the Crosstown. Hopefully they got the message.

ShonTron said:

It is also worth noting that the Montreal Metro rolling stock is also much older than the TTC's. They operate MR-63s, which were ordered in 1963 and delivered in 1964-67 and later for the first phase (coincident with Expo). The MR-73s were built between 1974 and 1980 for the '76 Olympics-related extensions as well as for the Blue Line and Orange Line extension to Cote-Vertu. There were enough cars to service the Orange Line extension to Laval.

The trains don't look their age.

The Azur trains now in delivery/testing phase will replace the MR-63s, but the oldest car will still be over 40 years old once the MR-63s are retired.

Click to expand...

Oh wow. 50 years? Wow. They're that ancient? Damn. Imagine seeing a Gloucester or M series rolling down the Yonge line in rush hour. I can't even invision that. It's incredible that Montreal's cars have such great longevity.

Any insight as to why Montreal cars last so long? Here in Toronto we get rid of then in 25 to 35 years. The TTC is already in early planning to scrap the T1's and the oldest one is only 19.

robmausser said:

For example, our trains are much wider

Click to expand...

Not just wider, but longer as well. Toronto subway trains are absolutely massive by any standard.

TheTigerMaster said:

Not just wider, but longer as well. Toronto subway trains are absolutely massive by any standard.

Click to expand...

Platform length in Montreal is almost identical to Toronto. Yet their trains take the full platform. Their trains are slightly longer than ours.

robmausser said:

The faster acceleraton is not due to ATC, it is due to them using rubber tires on their trains.

Click to expand...

However the smoother ride is. Conversely, if you ever ride in Montreal when the ATC is down (a rare event), you'll have a much rougher rider than you've ever experienced anywhere! Most likely due to a complete lack of practice for the drivers.

junctionist said:

A lot of people told Metrolinx to invest in good station design for the Crosstown. Hopefully they got the message.

Click to expand...

Have you seen any design other than something that it basically functional. Architecture costs a bit more money. The RFP is already out, and the winning bidder will complete the design, and will want to minimize cost. Look for cookie-cutter, simple designs. BD-type designs for a new century. I'd assume there'll be more open spaces and higher ceilings than in the 1960s, simply because that's cheaper these days. But don't expect anything of much interest or individuality like we'll see on the Spadina extension.

The RFP specifically states that they want nice stations.

innsertnamehere said:

The RFP specifically states that they want nice stations.

Click to expand...

Yes, but nice and they all look the same? Or nice, and each one has a different architect? It's the latter that's the key, and what Giambrone pushed TTC to do for the six new YUS stations.

BTW, where is the RFP? I didn't think it was publicly available?

For whatever reason the TTC has seen fit to emulate NYC in many respects. This includes the cramped, dirty and utilitarian stations, the horrific signage and the dull livery of the vehicles. NYC has a solid, efficient and expansive system but aesthetics are not their strong point so I have no clue why the TTC has followed their lead all this time.

Other Canadian cities have a much better grasp of the importance of visual design. Vancouver for example recently hired a design agency to overhaul everything from signage to their website, and it definitely shows. Unfortunately, probably due to nonexistent funds, the TTC always cobbles together some inadequate, slapdash in-house solution as we have seen with the current wayfinding pilot.

Mayor Jean Drapeau made it clear at the time he wanted "Paris Metro" in Montreal which is why it looks the way it does today. I was in Paris in May and I can say in all honesty, that Montreal stations looks better than Paris.

Paris


Montreal


I recommend this website for a rating of all the Montreal Stations and detailed pictures

http://metrodemontreal.com/index-e.html

Click on "Matt's Rating"