News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1.1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 835     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.7K     0 

Montréal Transit Developments

Comparing a Light Metro project which is largely at-grade or even within an existing ROW (with a relatively short tunnel being modernized) with an LRT project which is dug into the ground for half its length doesn’t really appear to me as a valid and fair comparison.

I would believe that the Skytrain is a much more valid comparison, but it also seems to suffer from high construction costs recently:
vancouver.citynews.ca

Surrey Langley Skytrain project cost now $2B higher

The B.C. government says the cost of building the Surrey Langley SkyTrain extension will cost $2 billion more than originally estimated.
vancouver.citynews.ca vancouver.citynews.ca

To compare, the per-km costs of the early stages:
sfb.nathanpachal.com

Cost of SkyTrain

A blog on transportation, urban planning, environment, and other issues that affect the livability in the South of Fraser.
sfb.nathanpachal.com sfb.nathanpachal.com
 
Urban Sky said:
Comparing a Light Metro project which is largely at-grade or even within an existing ROW (with a relatively short tunnel being modernized) with an LRT project which is dug into the ground for half its length doesn’t really appear to me as a valid and fair comparison.
Click to expand...
There's other comparison issues as well. The Eglinton costs include 30 years of maintenance - and I don't know how much for operation; how many years of maintenance/operation are included in the REM (and Vancouver) numbers? And do the Montreal numbers include the 4-km of structure that was part of the Champlain Bridge construction in the cost (or just the denominator)?

For Vancouver, the Broadway subway cost would be a better comparison - though I doubt that includes decades of maintenance.
 
For the Vancouver extensions, maintenance would not be included because those ones are not P3s run by a separate operator (they are true extension to the existing TransLink operated lines).
The Surrey one might include the new storage yard, but that could be costed separately.
 
officedweller said:
For the Vancouver extensions, maintenance would not be included because those ones are not P3s run by a separate operator (they are true extension to the existing TransLink operated lines).
The Surrey one might include the new storage yard, but that could be costed separately.
Click to expand...
Line 5 and Line 6 are also run by a separate operator. There's a difference between operator and maintenance. (the operator isn't even maintaining the vehicles!).

(that's not really your point though). It does make apples and oranges comparisons difficult. Even more traditional big costs like land acquisition, design, vehicle acquisition (and yards), may or may not be included in easily accessible public numbers. Sometimes vehicles were purchased a decade earlier, with an eye to a future use!
 
New exo Charger has arrived (Unit 1400)!!!

In Boone, Iowa:
2c2e8053f4ef2bcb94fbb80a12aea6a171d37609.jpeg

c43f1dc7270ef3a60fd9d8048c937b92b832cfdc.jpeg


In Montréal:
0486d3e1c43c17f118d8798ec71fbaf81a6377d4.jpeg

Credit: @Filyx20 on AgoraMTL
 
Now that the Mascouche line is no longer able to terminate at Gare Centrale because of the REM, could the ARTM have the line merge with the St- Jermone line after Sauve and have the Mascouche line terminate at Lucien -L'allier instead? It would mean sacrificing Ahuntsic station.
 
Bojaxs said:
Now that the Mascouche line is no longer able to terminate at Gare Centrale because of the REM, could the ARTM have the line merge with the St- Jermone line after Sauve and have the Mascouche line terminate at Lucien -L'allier instead? It would mean sacrificing Ahuntsic station.
Click to expand...
Not really - there's no curve, and would be hard to engineer without knocking off a corner of an office building - or making it very tight and slow.

Though Ahuntsic station is easily replaced by Chabanel station on the St-Jerome line - they are both accessible from the same Costco parking lot. Looking at the map, gosh I haven't walked around Chabanel in decades. Is it me, or didn't Rue Chabanel used to dead-end at the CP tracks?

I'd think transferring to the REM to get to Central (and McGill) would be far quicker. Though if you wanted to use Central, I'd think some kind of connection from CN to CP at the yards at Cote-St-Luc would be easier.
 
Bojaxs said:
Now that the Mascouche line is no longer able to terminate at Gare Centrale because of the REM, could the ARTM have the line merge with the St- Jermone line after Sauve and have the Mascouche line terminate at Lucien -L'allier instead? It would mean sacrificing Ahuntsic station.
Click to expand...
Why? Transferring at Ahunstic or even Sauvé will always be better.
 
1734414489555.png

1734415085908.png

Quebec Tramway, now calledTramCité, is now estimated to cost 7.6B for a 19km/29 station "Phase 1". Previous estimate of $5.2 did not include 1B of preparatory work/land acquisition. The cost will be updated after a planning/development phase with CDPQ ending in 2027.

"Agreements" signed by Quebec City, Quebec Province and CDPQ for construction start in 2027 and opening in 2033.

The province wants the Feds to contribute 40 percent instead of their current 18-20 percent commitment but hasn't ruled out funding it itself.

The agreement entails the city paying 8.9% ($675 million), CDPQ paying 20-30%, and the province and federal government figuring out the rest.

CDPQ expects a 10 percent return on investment, which the Montreal Gazette suggests is thanks to the maintenance contract.

Something interesting is that they are looking into whether the signed contract with Alstom can be modified for the new project. Otherwise, they might cancel it.

https_www.montrealgazette.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.montrealgazette.com%2Fnews%2Fprovincial-news%2Farticle618644.html
ici.radio-canada.ca

Un tramway de Québec à 7,6 G$ et une première pelletée de terre en 2027

Le gouvernement vise une première pelletée de terre au plus tôt en 2027 et une mise en service en 2033.
ici.radio-canada.ca ici.radio-canada.ca
 
NoahB said:
The province wants the Feds to contribute 40 percent instead of their current 18-20 percent commitment but hasn't ruled out funding it itself.

The agreement entails the city paying 8.9% ($675 million), CDPQ paying 20-30%, and the province and federal government figuring out the rest.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing they're banking on the upcoming election season?
 
Sharing some thoughts while in Montreal.

I'm currently at the Brossard station of the REM. Very clean, massive surface parking lot, which appears over 90% full.

While I don't like the fact that the REM completely keecapped/ cannibalized the EXO, it complements the Metro system very nicely.

Also the Metro here in Montreal is much better than the subway in Toronto. The Alstom Metro trains are impressive.

Also noticed here in Montreal they don't leave space for ads in the interior of their rolling stock. I see no ads anywhere when riding the REM or Metro trains. Gives the interiors a cleaner appearance.

REM train hits a top speed of 87km/h when going over the Champlain bridge.

When I got to Brossard I made the mistake of stepping out of the station to "take in" the parking lot. Even though I have an OPUS card, I ended up having to purchase a ticket to get back into the station. My OPUS card was only good for zone A and Brossard station is in zone B. Ah well. Lesson learned. Just assumed that the OPUS card worked similar to the PRESTO card. Would be nice to see Montreal get a similar "one fare" integration as PRESTO.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top