Montréal Transit Developments

[asher__jo]

Corrections requises aux plans du REM de l’Est
I can't agree more that there is not nearly enough outcry over the proposal to elevate on René Lévesque. It saves costs, but DT Montréal deserves better than the cost-cutting "good enough" attitude. CDPQ was pressured to modify stage one of A lines of REM and the same needs to happen again.

 

[henrydm]

Corrections requises aux plans du REM de l’Est
I can't agree more that there is not nearly enough outcry over the proposal to elevate on René Lévesque. It saves costs, but DT Montréal deserves better than the cost-cutting "good enough" attitude. CDPQ was pressured to modify stage one of A lines of REM and the same needs to happen again.

yup, its not worth the REM de Lest if its elevated downtown

 

[lawwt]

The concerns in that opinion article are kind of meh.

Rene-Levesque is a 6 lane boulevard. It's got its own fair share of concrete buildings and an elevated line is not going to look out of place if the supports are designed well. Not sure why they're comparing it to the line in Chonquing China when you can take a trip to where the current REM crosses the St Laurent and see how the project might actually potentially look.

Additionally the opinion complains about ridership and its destination downtown while a lot of people agree that the main purpose is to connect the communities in the east of Montreal. These communities have a lower socioeconomic status, have some of the longer average commute times and have a low amounts of local employment.

This video does a good job of explaining why Montreal East needs these kinds of transit developments.

Not to say there aren't problems with this project. I think there are lots of details to be ironed out with how the stations are going to connect downtown but many of these opinion pieces generally reek of NIMBYism imo.

 

[sacred]

The concerns in that opinion article are kind of meh.

Rene-Levesque is a 6 lane boulevard. It's got its own fair share of concrete buildings and an elevated line is not going to look out of place if the supports are designed well. Not sure why they're comparing it to the line in Chonquing China when you can take a trip to where the current REM crosses the St Laurent and see how the project might actually potentially look.

Additionally the opinion complains about ridership and its destination downtown while a lot of people agree that the main purpose is to connect the communities in the east of Montreal. These communities have a lower socioeconomic status, have some of the longer average commute times and have a low amounts of local employment.

This video does a good job of explaining why Montreal East needs these kinds of transit developments.

Not to say there aren't problems with this project. I think there are lots of details to be ironed out with how the stations are going to connect downtown but many of these opinion pieces generally reek of NIMBYism imo.

I have to disagree that this is pure NIMBYISM. Great care was taken over the years to avoid surface transit in the core. It's worth extensively debating what we build through the CBD.

 

[NoahB]

I can't agree more that there is not nearly enough outcry over the proposal to elevate on René Lévesque. It saves costs, but DT Montréal deserves better than the cost-cutting "good enough" attitude. CDPQ was pressured to modify stage one of A lines of REM and the same needs to happen again.

"deserves better"

Those statements and the thinking behind them really helped speed up the Relief Line and whatever Scarborough will get for sure. /s

The article you linked even used the 130-year-old Chicago L as an example of how it could look like, which is a bad example. Give me a break.

Changing a plan from elevated to underground is no small change. and it can increase the costs of that segment two-fold. The REM de l’Est is already much more expensive per kilometre than the first REM. Tunnelling the downtown segment will make it even more expensive than the Blue Line Extention.

Elevating rail in urban areas is not the end of the world. We literally have Vancouver showing everyone how it's done. Even Cities like Melbourne are finding ways to turn heavy rail tracks airy with community spaces under it. This example isn't the most artistic but it shows how the project can add to the community and not destroy it like pundits are howling.

Or you can see how one station and surrounding track at the Hague was designed as an Instagram worthy landmark.

or how Riyadh's Metro simply covers up the concrete with rounded panels and lights them to the lines' color, creating a cool ambience and line identity.

Or you can see how even the simplest things can make a big difference. In Dubai, the concrete base is flat and painted white with columns that have a small flourish. Makes it very easy on the eyes.

Heck, even Paris has a line almost as old as the Chicago L running next to the Eiffel Tower and nobody finds it's ugly. It has stations and trains much longer than what is planned for the Rem de l'Est

The space under the Line 6 metro line is a bike lane with trees around it.

What the REM de l'Est needs is not an underground alignment. What it needs is a strong artistic identity and a good plan to contribute to the public realm around the tracks and stations.

They already know this and have clearly stated in all their documents that they plan on making sure it does that. What the media needs to do is make sure they actually follow through on that.

 

[asher__jo]

"deserves better"

Those statements and the thinking behind them really helped speed up the Relief Line and whatever Scarborough will get for sure. /s

The article you linked even used the 130-year-old Chicago L as an example of how it could look like, which is a bad example. Give me a break.

Changing a plan from elevated to underground is no small change. and it can increase the costs of that segment two-fold. The REM de l’Est is already much more expensive per kilometre than the first REM. Tunnelling the downtown segment will make it even more expensive than the Blue Line Extention.

Elevating rail in urban areas is not the end of the world. We literally have Vancouver showing everyone how it's done. Even Cities like Melbourne are finding ways to turn heavy rail tracks airy with community spaces under it. This example isn't the most artistic but it shows how the project can add to the community and not destroy it like pundits are howling.
View attachment 292174

Or you can see how one station and surrounding track at the Hague was designed as an Instagram worthy landmark.
View attachment 292178
View attachment 292182

or how Riyadh's Metro simply covers up the concrete with rounded panels and lights them to the lines' color, creating a cool ambience and line identity.
View attachment 292184View attachment 292183

Or you can see how even the simplest things can make a big difference. In Dubai, the concrete base is flat and painted white with columns that have a small flourish. Makes it very easy on the eyes.View attachment 292217

Heck, even Paris has a line almost as old as the Chicago L running next to the Eiffel Tower and nobody finds it's ugly. It has stations and trains much longer than what is planned for the Rem de l'Est

View attachment 292173
The space under the Line 6 metro line is a bike lane with trees around it.
View attachment 292175

What the REM de l'Est needs is not an underground alignment. What it needs is a strong artistic identity and a good plan to contribute to the public realm around the tracks and stations.

They already know this and have clearly stated in all their documents that they plan on making sure it does that. What the media needs to do is make sure they actually follow through on that.

Stop citing much more suburban examples and equating that as equal to a much more urban/historic/dense/walkable street.

 

[asher__jo]

He also cited Paris line 6 which is as good an urban example you can have.


View attachment 292245

Fair enough. It may pass the test of not being unsightly, but we can aim higher.
Sèvres-Lecourbe

 

[nfitz]

Fair enough. It may pass the test of not being unsightly, but we can aim higher.

Given the relatively small vehicles, a better, and cheaper, solution might be to put the LRT in the median into downtown, and not grade-separate it. Shouldn't be much penalty to travel times if they put in the right traffic controls, and don't resist the temptation to add extra stops.

 

[p_xavier]

Given the relatively small vehicles, a better, and cheaper, solution might be to put the LRT in the median into downtown, and not grade-separate it. Shouldn't be much penalty to travel times if they put in the right traffic controls, and don't resist the temptation to add extra stops.

The CDPQi studied it and it would have a quarter of the ridership. The CDPQi makes its money from ridership and through lean operational costs, thus while it may be cheaper to build, it won't make as much profit.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

"deserves better"

Those statements and the thinking behind them really helped speed up the Relief Line and whatever Scarborough will get for sure. /s

The article you linked even used the 130-year-old Chicago L as an example of how it could look like, which is a bad example. Give me a break.

Changing a plan from elevated to underground is no small change. and it can increase the costs of that segment two-fold. The REM de l’Est is already much more expensive per kilometre than the first REM. Tunnelling the downtown segment will make it even more expensive than the Blue Line Extention.

Elevating rail in urban areas is not the end of the world. We literally have Vancouver showing everyone how it's done. Even Cities like Melbourne are finding ways to turn heavy rail tracks airy with community spaces under it. This example isn't the most artistic but it shows how the project can add to the community and not destroy it like pundits are howling.
View attachment 292174

Or you can see how one station and surrounding track at the Hague was designed as an Instagram worthy landmark.
View attachment 292178
View attachment 292182

or how Riyadh's Metro simply covers up the concrete with rounded panels and lights them to the lines' color, creating a cool ambience and line identity.
View attachment 292184View attachment 292183

Or you can see how even the simplest things can make a big difference. In Dubai, the concrete base is flat and painted white with columns that have a small flourish. Makes it very easy on the eyes.View attachment 292217

Heck, even Paris has a line almost as old as the Chicago L running next to the Eiffel Tower and nobody finds it's ugly. It has stations and trains much longer than what is planned for the Rem de l'Est

View attachment 292173
The space under the Line 6 metro line is a bike lane with trees around it.
View attachment 292175

What the REM de l'Est needs is not an underground alignment. What it needs is a strong artistic identity and a good plan to contribute to the public realm around the tracks and stations.

They already know this and have clearly stated in all their documents that they plan on making sure it does that. What the media needs to do is make sure they actually follow through on that.

I understand your argument, and really do hope that we can somehow make the elevated alignment work for RL. However, despite what many (including myself) think, RL is a wide boulevard but it's really not wide enough to make room for an elevated structure plus at least 4 lanes of traffic. RL at its widest point is 27 m wide, and up to 35 m facade to facade if you include sidewalk space. Sure, you could fit an elevated rail into that space, but have we considered how it could blend into the existing building facade along RL? How would the building owners react if their office or condo views are suddenly obstructed by a concrete structure that is only meters away from their window? Keeping in mind that RL has currently some of the most expensive office and condo property valuations in the city, it's not hard to imagine court challenges from each and everyone of these property owners. This isn't your garden variety suburban NIMBYism at play, as an elevated rail could dramatically affect the property valuations and appeal of some of the most iconic office, hotel, and residential buildings in Montreal (not to mention years of construction disruptions on the surface corridor).

I'm also hesitate to compare the situation on RL with say Singapore, Dubai, or Richmond No. 3 Rd, because in all of the above cases, the elevated rail was built in conjunction with surrounding high-rises,, not to mention much more free space in all of the above pictures. In Richmond BC's case, most of the highrises we see today didn't exist till after the Canada Line was completed in 2009, and thus allowed architects to integrate their building designs into Canada Line. Further, Richmond No. 3 Road has a much wider width road space to begin with (39 m at narrowest point, not including surrounding parking and side walk), where as RL already has a narrower width and tall street canyon on both sides of the street.

I'm not saying RL couldn't use beautifying - it desperately needs revitalization just like TO's Yonge corridor, but I don't think adding a massive elevated rail is going to make it any better. Have we, for example, properly explored all options with regards to an underground alignment? It doesn't have to go under RL, but just saying that even if we need to budget more, it's money well spent and future generations will thank us for not cheapening out.

 

[nfitz]

The CDPQi studied it and it would have a quarter of the ridership. The CDPQi makes its money from ridership and through lean operational costs, thus while it may be cheaper to build, it won't make as much profit.

Interesting ... is the study available? It would be interesting to see what drove that - I'd imagine it must be travel time ... but then, if signal priority was done properly, and there weren't any more stations (a really tough temptation to resist), what creates the difference?

 

[SFO-YYZ]

Given the relatively small vehicles, a better, and cheaper, solution might be to put the LRT in the median into downtown, and not grade-separate it. Shouldn't be much penalty to travel times if they put in the right traffic controls, and don't resist the temptation to add extra stops.

Are you really suggesting another Eglinton Crosstown hybrid LRT solution with at grade crossings through half of downtown MTL?

Even with advanced priority signaling, the "LRT" will end up crossing at least 28 street crossings and 10+ major North-South intersections in a within a 3 KM segment. Unless we are eliminating half of those intersections' and prohibiting left turns along the entire RL boulevard. Not to mention you can forget about using automated rollingstock with that many at-grade crossings. Even with with all of the safety precautions and priority signaling, I don't trust Montrealais' audacity to J-walk whenever they can whether there is a signal or no signal, especially on a heavily populated corridor with a lot of pedestrian and auto traffic. Let's not be cheap - either build it elevated or tunneled. Have we not seen enough driver-streetcar collisions in Toronto due to poor design - Queen's Quay, St. Clair, King 504 anyone?

 

[nfitz]

Are you really suggesting another Eglinton Crosstown hybrid LRT solution with at grade crossings through half of downtown MTL?

No - Eglinton is designed for 90-metre trains. This line is talking about a single 40-metre vehicle. A simple 40 or 45-metre Flexity streetcar would serve the demand.

If the only alternative is underground (because of public objection to elevated downtown), it seems reasonable.

Recall the uproar when Doug Ford proposed building elevated transit down Front Street downtown! It's a tough sell.

Even with advanced priority signaling, the "LRT" will end up crossing at least 28 street crossings and 10+ major North-South intersections in a within a 3 KM segment. Unless we are eliminating half of those intersections' and prohibiting left turns along the entire RL boulevard. Not to mention you can forget about using automated rollingstock with that many at-grade crossings. Even with with all of the safety precautions and priority signaling, I don't trust Montrealais' audacity to J-walk whenever they can whether there is a signal or no signal, especially on a heavily populated corridor with a lot of pedestrian and auto traffic.

By definition, J-walking is crossing against a signal. You literally can't J-walk when there's no signal!

That aside ... I would suggest prohibiting left turns (and why not, they are prohibited mostly on many downtown streets), and limiting them to the one-way streets instead.

I keep being told by so many people who must know better than me, that we'll be having fully automated automobiles down soon. How then is automated rolling stock not an option before then?

 

[SFO-YYZ]

No - Eglinton is designed for 90-metre trains. This line is talking about a single 40-metre vehicle. A simple 40 or 45-metre Flexity streetcar would serve the demand.

If the only alternative is underground (because of public objection to elevated downtown), it seems reasonable.

Recall the uproar when Doug Ford proposed building elevated transit down Front Street downtown! It's a tough sell.

By definition, J-walking is crossing against a signal. You literally can't J-walk when there's no signal!

That aside ... I would suggest prohibiting left turns (and why not, they are prohibited mostly on many downtown streets), and limiting them to the one-way streets instead.

I keep being told by so many people who must know better than me, that we'll be having fully automated automobiles down soon. How then is automated rolling stock not an option before then?

Right. Let's see how automated rollingstock with 20+ at grade crossings on a busy boulevard works out. And while we are at it, why not give out the rollingstock contract to Tesla. The trains are already 40 m, and you want to constrain it even further with at grade crossings? Seriously.

In short, CDPQ will never go with a tramway LRT solution for the REM because it's not their operating model for the REM. That's why they've been tasked to take over the Longueuil tramway and turning it into a line similar to REM-A.

 

[nfitz]

Right. Let's see how automated rollingstock with 20+ at grade crossings on a busy boulevard works out. And while we are at it, why not give out the rollingstock contract to Tesla. The trains are already 40 m, and you want to constrain it even further with at grade crossings. Seriously.

In short, CDPQ will never go with a tramway LRT solution for the REM because it's not their operating model for the REM. That's why they've been tasked to take over the Longueuil tramway and turning it into a line similar to REM-A.

Fair enough ... but if there's public outcry about building an El downtown, then the only other alternative is tunnel, which I'd think would have even worse economic returns. Where's the report on the different options?