Montréal Transit Developments

[dowlingm]

Lucien L’Allier station is currently closed for upgrade works, which has presumably not helped ridership on the three lines into that station and at least a portion of which may now be worthless.

Exo - Début des travaux majeurs de réfection de la gare Lucien-L’Allier dès le 1er avril

Exo annonce que des travaux nécessaires de réfection de la gare de train Lucien-L’Allier débuteront le 1er avril 2024. Les travaux entraîneront des fermetures de la gare par phases jusqu’en 2025.

exo.quebec

Assuming that these cuts proceed, and this isn’t merely a trial balloon to try and scare money out of the CAQ, what is this likely to mean for:

Exo fleet -
Retaining ALP-45s seems pointless with Mascouche gone. Selling them (NJT? ONXpress? MBTA or some other NEC system tiptoeing into electrification?) might help fund the Siemens Chargers to nudge out the old F59s.
Similarly there might be a market for the multilevels - NJT again, or SEPTA. Probably more than there is for CRRC at least.

Track time - with less / no Exo at Centrale, does that offer any opportunities for VIA to optimize / increase their activities? If some Exo qualified crews were willing to cross the street to VIA, perhaps it might mitigate some of the shortages we have heard about in the latter in recent months.

Track - are there any movements across the Mascouche-Repentigny Exo owned track other than by Exo? That track would not have come cheap, and presumably even if either QGRY or CN were minded to acquire it, it would surely be at a knockdown price.

 

[nfitz]

Lucien L’Allier station is currently closed for upgrade works, which has presumably not helped ridership on the three lines into that station and at least a portion of which may now be worthless.

Is it? The transfer at Lucien L'Allier was always painful. All riders have to do is go 4 further stops on the Metro and change at Vendome instead - which seems far more used to me now, then when trains terminated at Windsor station instead of Lucien L'Allier station.

 

[ARG1]

Exo fleet -
Retaining ALP-45s seems pointless with Mascouche gone. Selling them (NJT? ONXpress? MBTA or some other NEC system tiptoeing into electrification?) might help fund the Siemens Chargers to nudge out the old F59s.
Similarly there might be a market for the multilevels - NJT again, or SEPTA. Probably more than there is for CRRC at least.

Retaining ALP-45s is kinda pointless with or without the Mascouche Line, since it can no longer use the DM line (no more electrified segments)

Track time - with less / no Exo at Centrale, does that offer any opportunities for VIA to optimize / increase their activities? If some Exo qualified crews were willing to cross the street to VIA, perhaps it might mitigate some of the shortages we have heard about in the latter in recent months.

I doubt it...

Track - are there any movements across the Mascouche-Repentigny Exo owned track other than by Exo? That track would not have come cheap, and presumably even if either QGRY or CN were minded to acquire it, it would surely be at a knockdown price.

Nope, none at all afaik

 

[Urban Sky]

The reason why the REM exists at all is because it wasn't planned or operated by the AMT/ARTM, and was instead a "private" venture by the CDPQ (as private as a provincially run pension can be). In terms of origins, the goal of the line was to connect to the south shore, west island, and airports, however the CDPQ also asked to hand over access to DM and Mont Royal Tunnel because there was a concern they couldn't get enough ridership with the west islands and Airport alone, (let alone justify the cost of building a brand new tunnel), so in the absence of any other plans, reusing the DM line for a project like the REM is frankly a no brainer. Being realistic, it was either the REM or nothing at all, and in that context, the REM is an absolutely amazing project.

[…]
2) "Permanently" is a harsh term. In theory there's nothing stopping Montreal from building a 2nd tunnel, probably travelling from GC to Parc. This would allow for similar improvements as before, such as direct rail access to Repentigny and Mascouche, while also allowing SJ line trains to go directly to GC as well (and through running HFR trains). The question is when and for how much.

Whenever you press REM apologists to defend that the REM was built the way it is (i.e., with absolute zero consideration of already known future infrastructure plans), they fall down to the same lame two lines of argument:

• That nobody was going to fund the ~$100 million needed to link the SJ line into the Mont-Royal tunnel
• That the government could always fund the ~$10 billion needed to build a new tunnel to achieve the link the SJ line into downtown (which would have been possible without the REM at a two orders of magnitudes lower cost, while unlocking more or less the same benefits)

Needless to say that the two arguments are mutually exclusive and that claims that „there were no plans“ are highly offensive given that such plans had been made been published and discussed for decades and that VIA was in the process of planning just that: a link from De La Concorde via the Mont-Royal tunnel into Gare Centrale. And this is how we find ourselves already planning tunnels for HFR before a single REM train has transported passengers through the tunnel they annexed.

So, sorry, the REM is the worst transit project this continent has seen in the last few decades and the people defending that senseless act of rail infrastructure vandalism are the worst kind of transit advocates. With „friends“ like this, transit users and rail passengers in this city and province really need no ememies…

 

[Urban Sky]

To fully appreciate the devastating effect of the REM onto the exo network, you need to add the Deux-Montagnes line (and data for 2016 and 2017). Even without the pandemic, loosing ~40% of its ridership base would have pushed any rail network close to the brink, given their considerable Economies of Scale, which mean that their fixed costs will always adjust much less to changes in their output (train-miles) than their revenues…

 

[DirectionNorth]

Whenever you press REM apologists to defend that the REM was built the way it is (i.e., with absolute zero consideration of already known future infrastructure plans), they fall down to the same lame two lines of argument:

• That nobody was going to fund the ~$100 million needed to link the SJ line into the Mont-Royal tunnel
• That the government could always fund the ~$10 billion needed to build a new tunnel to achieve the link the SJ line into downtown (which would have been possible without the REM at a two orders of magnitudes lower cost, while unlocking more or less the same benefits)

Needless to say that the two arguments are mutually exclusive and that claims that „there were no plans“ are highly offensive given that such plans had been made been published and discussed for decades and that VIA was in the process of planning just that: a link from De La Concorde via the Mont-Royal tunnel into Gare Centrale. And this is how we find ourselves already planning tunnels for HFR before a single REM train has transported passengers through the tunnel they annexed.

So, sorry, the REM is the worst transit project this continent has seen in the last few decades and the people defending that senseless act of rail infrastructure vandalism are the worst kind of transit advocates. With „friends“ like this, transit users and rail passengers in this city and province really need no ememies…

Whenever you press VIA Rail apologists (actually, federal government/ARTM apologists - VIA is not to blame for this mess) - you get some things that are implied - or said outright - in their arguments.

• That the federal and provincial government, who paid $2.5 billion collectively for the construction of the REM, didn't have leverage to change their plans, or;
• that it's the CDPQ's fault, rather than the ARTM or federal government, that this leverage wasn't applied and the REM was built the way it was.
• That the provincial government (especially ARTM) actually have achievable long-term plans for regional rail, rather than stupid $20 billion tramway "ideas" that will have worse ridership than Los Angeles.

People like @Urban Sky hate intracity transport, as is shown plainly here, and in other threads. Their only concern is a narrow-minded focus on how urban transit can be blamed for other peoples' faults, rather than the fact that other organisations have made exactly zero progress in decades, and continue to propose stupider and stupider plans, which is the case with EXO and the ARTM. No wonder we get nothing done, when all we hear is "it can't be done."

People who defend this broken status quo and fight any improvement for inner city transport (such as Urban Sky's opposition to the REM de l'Est, which does not "cannibalise" any existing infrastructure), rather than identifying the problem (which is a lack of federal leadership for intercity rail and provincial leadership for regional rail, allowing us to make short-term plans), are the "worst kind of transit advocates." With them, anything less than perfection is the enemy, and that’s how you get plans repeatedly thrown out. As they say, don't throw stones from glass houses ...

 

[Urban Sky]

Jesus, what a gross distortion of anything I ever said. Especially as someone who apparenthangs around a lot on the „Rail Fans Canada“ Discord server you should know way better than sprouting such a highly insulting and inaccurate BS:

Whenever you press VIA Rail apologists (actually, federal government/ARTM apologists - VIA is not to blame for this mess) -

I would still be working at VIA, if I hadn’t seen gross deficiencies, especially the gaping canyon between what was going on on its operational side and the people on the communications-side, which are tasked with communicating with passengers without having any exposure to what is going on. Have a look at Groups.io, where Tom Box regularly points out the obvious disconnects between VIA‘s operations and what it communicates on their website. I‘ve tried my best to do my bit while at VIA to narrow that canyon, such as by being a strong advocate for their PDF timetables and volunteering to proofread them after each timetable adjustment - and I‘m still a bit disappointed that they were phased out in May 2021 after I left.

you get some things that are implied - or said outright - in their arguments.

• That the federal and provincial government, who paid $2.5 billion collectively for the construction of the REM, didn't have leverage to change their plans, or;

I never denied that the federal and provincial governments had leverages and I do wholeheartedly criticize them for outsourcing any notion of strategic network planning to a pseudo-public pension fonds.

• that it's the CDPQ's fault, rather than the ARTM or federal government, that this leverage wasn't applied and the REM was built the way it was.

Just like VIA, the ARTM operates within the limitations of their own mandate and resources. Unlike VIA, they didn’t have the guts to confront the federal and provincial governments or the CDPQi directly to voice their concerns.

• That the provincial government (especially ARTM) actually have achievable long-term plans for regional rail, rather than stupid $20 billion tramway "ideas" that will have worse ridership than Los Angeles.

I‘m not defending the plans the ARTM has, but they operate within whatever mandate they have been given by the provincial government and commuter rail or suburban rail no longer seems to be part of it, for whatever reason.

People like @Urban Sky hate intracity transport, as is shown plainly here, and in other threads. Their only concern is a narrow-minded focus on how urban transit can be blamed for other peoples' faults, rather than the fact that other organisations have made exactly zero progress in decades, and continue to propose stupider and stupider plans, which is the case with EXO and the ARTM. No wonder we get nothing done, when all we hear is "it can't be done."

I‘ve repeatedly stressed how not enough credit is given to Metrolinx and the provincial government for simultaneously investing in new LRT lines (Eglinton, Finch, Hurontario), Subway extensions (YNSE and SSE) and new Light Metro lines (Ontario Line), while simultaneously catapulting their regional rail network into the 21st century. (I happen to proudly work or have worked on four of the projects I’ve just listed because I apparently hate intracity transit so much.) Toronto shows the way (not just nationwide, but continentwide) and it‘s the absolute opposite of what Montreal did with the REM, as they constantly future-proof their plans rather than bulldozing over any existing plans.

People who defend this broken status quo and fight any improvement for inner city transport (such as Urban Sky's opposition to the REM de l'Est, which does not "cannibalise" any existing infrastructure),

I never opposed the REM de l‘Est (though the downtown tunnel always seemed a bit excessive to me - oh, if there only was a different tunnel which could accommodate trains from Montreal-Est and beyond to downtown, but I digress…), but I can’t fault anyone who has seen how fast any public doubts or resistance against the REM was bulldozed away and has therefore concluded that the only way to protect their concerns was to shout down the project as soon as it was proposed. This is not how public transit or rail projects should be pursued (i.e., though consultations, such as in the GTHA and increasingly in Europe), but it‘s the opposite of the new model which the REM has established in Montreal (i.e., just overwhelm any opposition without any regards for legitimate concerns).

rather than identifying the problem (which is a lack of federal leadership for intercity rail and provincial leadership for regional rail, allowing us to make short-term plans), are the "worst kind of transit advocates."

Have you ever heard me say anything positive about our federal and provincial government‘s transport policies?

With them, anything less than perfection is the enemy, and that’s how you get plans repeatedly thrown out.

Respecting known transit investment priorities is not aiming at „perfection“, but the most basic requirement of transit planning, you know the kind of public planning functions we have outsourced to the CDPQi…

As they say, don't throw stones from glass houses...

Yeah, whatever, LOL!

 

[nfitz]

I‘ve tried my best to do my bit while at VIA to narrow that canyon, such as by being a strong advocate for their PDF timetables and volunteering to proofread them after each timetable adjustment - and I‘m still a bit disappointed that they were phased out in May 2021 after I left.

I thought the PDF and paper schedules were just suspended because of Covid - both in terms of touching things, and because the timetable was changing so frequently. As far as I know, full service was only fully restored in the last few weeks.

I'm less bothered now they are in a clear HTML format on the website though - https://www.viarail.ca/en/plan/train-schedules/toronto-kingston-montreal

 

[ARG1]

Whenever you press REM apologists to defend that the REM was built the way it is (i.e., with absolute zero consideration of already known future infrastructure plans), they fall down to the same lame two lines of argument:

• That nobody was going to fund the ~$100 million needed to link the SJ line into the Mont-Royal tunnel
• That the government could always fund the ~$10 billion needed to build a new tunnel to achieve the link the SJ line into downtown (which would have been possible without the REM at a two orders of magnitudes lower cost, while unlocking more or less the same benefits)

Needless to say that the two arguments are mutually exclusive and that claims that „there were no plans“ are highly offensive given that such plans had been made been published and discussed for decades and that VIA was in the process of planning just that: a link from De La Concorde via the Mont-Royal tunnel into Gare Centrale. And this is how we find ourselves already planning tunnels for HFR before a single REM train has transported passengers through the tunnel they annexed.

These ideas are absolutely not mutually exclusive, because they're talking about different timeframes. Yes, the AMT had a lot of "long term plans" published that showed they had some visions of what a future network would or could look like, but they absolutely had no money nor any way to pay for it. As it stood, they were basically vapourware projects - back of napkin ideas that exists in the same purgatory as GO to Peterborough, or 15m electrified service to Hamilton Centre. When I (and many others) mention the possibility of a 2nd Mont-Royal, its not in the sense that we think this is something that could have construction started within 5 years, its in the sense that no, just because the MR tunnel was converted to REM, doesn't mean Montreal is permanently screwed will never have a central through station ever again. As it stands today, the chance that the ARTM will choose to fund a 2nd Mont Royal Tunnel is basically nil, especially when they wasting their time planning $20B tramways that will either be incredibly slow, or are just objectively worse counterparts to proposed REM projects *cough cough* PSE.

So, sorry, the REM is the worst transit project this continent has seen in the last few decades and the people defending that senseless act of rail infrastructure vandalism are the worst kind of transit advocates. With „friends“ like this, transit users and rail passengers in this city and province really need no ememies…

And this is the kind of attitude that forces people like myself to "apologize" for projects like the REM, because there is constructive/good faith criticism, and then there is labelling a project "the worst project on the continent within the last few decades". Might as well call it the reincarnation of the Anti-Christ while you're at it.

I can name at least half a dozen projects within the US/Canada from the last few decades (both built and planned) that are significantly worse than the REM, including but not limited to the Confederation Line, Eglinton, Bart SV Phase II, Las Vegas Loop, Maryland Purple Line, SF Central Subway, and many others.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Jesus, what a gross distortion of anything I ever said. Especially as someone who apparenthangs around a lot on the „Rail Fans Canada“ Discord server you should know way better than sprouting such a highly insulting and inaccurate BS:

Gosh, I should log on to Discord more often, but UrbanToronto suits me better.

As for highly insulting and inaccurate BS, I mean, "REM apologists," the "worst transit advocates," using the "same lame" arguments to defend "rail infrastructure vandalism"? Really?

I would still be working at VIA, if I hadn’t seen gross deficiencies, especially the gaping canyon between what was going on on its operational side and the people on the communications-side, which are tasked with communicating with passengers without having any exposure to what is going on. Have a look at Groups.io, where Tom Box regularly points out the obvious disconnects between VIA‘s operations and what it communicates on their website. I‘ve tried my best to do my bit while at VIA to narrow that canyon, such as by being a strong advocate for their PDF timetables and volunteering to proofread them after each timetable adjustment - and I‘m still a bit disappointed that they were phased out in May 2021 after I left.

I never denied that the federal and provincial governments had leverages and I do wholeheartedly criticize them for outsourcing any notion of strategic network planning to a pseudo-public pension fonds.

Just like VIA, the ARTM operates within the limitations of their own mandate and resources. Unlike VIA, they didn’t have the guts to confront the federal and provincial governments or the CDPQi directly to voice their concerns.

My understanding is that the government wanted an airport-South End train, and CDPQ (who, it seems, have largely given up on more lines, notwithstanding the provincial government's stupid decision to make them write a Québec City transit master plan) delivered the plan.

And apart from VIA, nobody voiced any concerns. Failure for everybody! /sigh

I‘m not defending the plans the ARTM has, but they operate within whatever mandate they have been given by the provincial government and commuter rail or suburban rail no longer seems to be part of it, for whatever reason.

The best line for improvement in the exo network is the Vaudreuil line, but that hasn't happened (presumably) because of a combination of freightco usage and ARTM incompetence.

Nothing to do with the Mont Royal tunnel. Saint Jérôme improvements were, at the city's past and future pace of transit construction, decades into the future.

I‘ve repeatedly stressed how not enough credit is given to Metrolinx and the provincial government for simultaneously investing in new LRT lines (Eglinton, Finch, Hurontario), Subway extensions (YNSE and SSE) and new Light Metro lines (Ontario Line), while simultaneously catapulting their regional rail network into the 21st century. (I happen to proudly work or have worked on four of the projects I’ve just listed because I apparently hate intracity transit so much.) Toronto shows the way (not just nationwide, but continentwide) and it‘s the absolute opposite of what Montreal did with the REM, as they constantly future-proof their plans rather than bulldozing over any existing plans.

It seems to me that the current approach at Metrolinx and Queen's Park is to turn on the money hose and use it to light the remains of transparent, cost-effective, and future-oriented planning on fire. Everything from botched GO Expansion priorities, to the completely opaque OL, and the albatross of an LRT we're going to see on Eglinton.

I never opposed the REM de l‘Est (though the downtown tunnel always seemed a bit excessive to me - oh, if there only was a different tunnel which could accommodate trains from Montreal-Est and beyond to downtown, but I digress…), but I can’t fault anyone who has seen how fast any public doubts or resistance against the REM was bulldozed away and has therefore concluded that the only way to protect their concerns was to shout down the project as soon as it was proposed. This is not how public transit or rail projects should be pursued (i.e., though consultations, such as in the GTHA and increasingly in Europe), but it‘s the opposite of the new model which the REM has established in Montreal (i.e., just overwhelm any opposition without any regards for legitimate concerns).

Either you didn't mean what you wrote in this post about the REM de l'Est, or they changed the meaning of the letters and I need to relearn how to read. It's only a few pages back on this thread.

We seem to have this argument every few months. Someone mentions the ARTM or the REM, you say it's the worst transit project ever with increasingly inflammatory words, we disagree (and a few others as well), and the world keeps turning.

The solution to good transit is easier than the solution to Urban Toronto circular debates, but yeah, whatever, LOL.

 

[Urban Sky]

Either you didn't mean what you wrote in this post about the REM de l'Est, or they changed the meaning of the letters and I need to relearn how to read. It's only a few pages back on this thread.

I really have neither the time nor the headspace to comment on anthing else at this point, but this is what I actually wrote in the post you linked:

Allowing the REM to build the way it was build was indeed a brutal attempt of strategic planning with a sledgehammer, but given that experience, I struggle to blame anyone who didn’t want to take a second chance of blindly adopting one of the CDPQ’s brainchildren…

[…]

And this is what I wrote (and you quoted) today (with a small correction of a logical error, which might have confused you):

I never opposed the REM de l‘Est (though the downtown tunnel always seemed a bit excessive to me - oh, if there only was a different tunnel which could accommodate trains from Montreal-Est and beyond to downtown, but I digress…), but I can’t fault anyone who has seen how fast any public doubts or resistance against the REM was bulldozed away and has therefore concluded that the only way to protect their concerns was to shout down the project as soon as it was proposed. This is not how public transit or rail projects should be pursued (i.e., though consultations, such as in the GTHA and increasingly in Europe), but it‘s the opposite of the new model which the REM has established in Montreal (i.e., just overwhelm any opposition without any regards for legitimate concerns).

Both times I say exactly the same: Given how the CDPQi has bulldozed over any legitimate concerns concerning the original (!) REM, I can understand anyone who was concerned about the initial design of the REM de l‘Est and decided to rather outrightly oppose the REM de l’Est than to trust that there will be any form of meaningful consultation to acknowledge and mitigate these concerns.

With no word have I insinuated that the REM de l‘Est would have been a bad project, just that people had little reason to believe that their concerns will be heard and respected if the project goes ahead. I‘m talking about nothing else than Stakeholder Management here: If you all but remove „help to improve“ from the options available to citizens, you inevitably drive many of those with some skepticism about the project into the „oppose at any cost“ camp - and that is yet another toxic legacy of the (original!) REM project…

 

[ARG1]

It seems to me that the current approach at Metrolinx and Queen's Park is to turn on the money hose and use it to light the remains of transparent, cost-effective, and future-oriented planning on fire. Everything from botched GO Expansion priorities, to the completely opaque OL, and the albatross of an LRT we're going to see on Eglinton.

I can see the lack of transparency in your examples, but I can't really find the lack of cost-effectiveness and especially future oriented planning. OL is being built with extensions in mind, GO is leaving a ton of space for future lines and projects (namely Milton RER and level boarding), you can argue that projects like the SSE and EW are being over paid for which is fair, but I certainly wouldn't call it "a money hose". Most projects were building today were studied for many decades at this point, were just finally getting around to putting shovels in the ground.

 

[Urban Sky]

I can see the lack of transparency in your examples, but I can't really find the lack of cost-effectiveness and especially future oriented planning. OL is being built with extensions in mind, GO is leaving a ton of space for future lines and projects (namely Milton RER and level boarding), you can argue that projects like the SSE and EW are being over paid for which is fair, but I certainly wouldn't call it "a money hose". Most projects were building today were studied for many decades at this point, were just finally getting around to putting shovels in the ground.

I would also argue that the amount of projects Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario are overseeing simultaneously would overwhelm any organization, despite the help of their armies of contractors and trusted consultants (like myself, LOL). It‘s just insane what‘s currently getting built in the GTHA and that‘s the backdrop against which we should project all the legitimate concerns (or in the case of the ECLRT: endless saga) about the delays and cost overruns we are seeing…

 

[Urban Sky]

… and the contrast with Montreal could of course not be starker, where we have (almost) built a single, admittedly massive project in record time, but have only one other project in the pipeline (Blue Line East extension), as all other projects have been upended by the scorched earth which the REM‘s brutal tour de force through design, consultations and approval has left behind.

I‘d much rather live in a city where the next project is just a $100 million funding decision of an ignorant provincial government away as one where all remaining projects seem to have become $10+ billion megaprojects against which all NIMBY hell breaks loose because nobody can trust the consultation process anymore…