Montréal Transit Developments

[CityStay]

Uh ... they are subway line numbers. Montreal doesn't have a Line 3 ... Pearson doesn't have a terminal 2. Should that stop people talking about Terminal 3?

We've talked about Montreal's 3-station Yellow line already, without discussions about whether it's a line or a linette(!?!?).

And what happens in 2030-2040-something when (if) "Line 3" disappears and becomes part of Line 2? Will Line 6 or UPS become Line 3?

? Most subway systems use different types of equipment on different lines. Many London lines have equipment that won't fit on other lines. Montreal's Line 3 was planned as steel-wheel from the original 1961 announcement, with the others being rubber-tired (also in the original 1961 announcement). I'm really not sure how this is relevant to the announcement.

Irrelevant indeed!

Montreal has colours, not numbers, so unless the number 3 has a corresponding colour... Whatever they were or were not thinking in 1961 is entirely irrelevant.

I haven't been/wasn't talking about Montreal's yellow line at all so that is also irrelevant. But it seems to me that, despite it being only 3 stations, it is entirely more useful than the Ikea Express shuttle or the Scarborough Rattletrap. It's a vital commuter link that dives under the river twice and connects the South Shore and park Jean Drapeau with the island. And Longueuil is the 5th busiest station in the network. Do any Line 3 or 4 stations even crack the top 20?

London is absolutely irrelevant as it is larger than the 3 largest Canadian cities combined and has more tubeage than all Canadian cities combined. Any comparisons between London, New York, Tokyo etc. and any Canadian city is always irrelevant. Yet they still manage to not use different equipment on every line.

Airport terminals and transit lines? Starts with an 'I ' and ends with a 't '!

 

[nfitz]

Montreal has colours, not numbers, so unless the number 3 has a corresponding colour...

And yet, for years, the line numbers were shown on the maps in the train. Line 3 was red apparently - I've only seen old B&W figures personally.

Read more at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_3_(métro_de_Montréal)[/QUOTE]Still I don't see the relevance of pointing out the 50+ of rapid transit in Toronto since the start of this thread, by responding that some lines Toronto built are short.

And Longueuil is the 5th busiest station in the network. Do any Line 3 or 4 stations even crack the top 20?

I'm surprised that Longueil cracks the top 5 in Montreal with only about 27,000 boardings a day. That would only rank about 11th in Toronto.

Both Don Mills and Scarborough Centre are relatively busy stations. I believe the Sheppard-Yonge platform for Line 4 ranks about 15 of 80, with Don Mills ranking about 19 of 80.

Here's the Line 3 and Line 4 numbers (which are boardings and disembarkments). Everyone focuses on how low Ellesmere, Midland, and Bessarion are, ignoring how busy some other stations are. Line 3 is of course way down from what it once was, with the service reductions in recent years.

 

[p_xavier]

From SSP- a backgrounder on the REM. Ultimately- keeping politicking out of decision making, pushing the project through cycles of optimization and piggy-backing onto larger infrastructural projects/utilizing existing infrastructures better. I bet you if they had to build a new tunnel through Mount Royal or a bridge across the St. Lawrence, REM would probably be a far less fantastic deal than it is now- credit to the Quebec Liberals.

SkyscraperPage Forum - View Single Post - The Great Canadian Transit Thread

SkyscraperPage.com's discussion forum is one of the world's most active community discussion portals for skyscraper, urbanism and building enthusiasts. Featuring coverage of the world's projects, there are topics that will appeal to the skyscraper enthusiast in everyone.

forum.skyscraperpage.com

SkyscraperPage Forum

I apologise about the typos in the text, I'm legally blind one eye and can't properly use one hand. I updated the text on SSP to fix many of them. d_jeffrey is an old handle of mine.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Montreal secures Quebec support for part of Pink line — a tramway from downtown to Lachine

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-lachine-tramway-annoucement-pink-line-1.5190472

 

[CityStay]

And yet, for years, the line numbers were shown on the maps in the train. Line 3 was red apparently - I've only seen old B&W figures personally.

Read more at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_3_(métro_de_Montréal)[/QUOTE]Still I don't see the relevance of pointing out the 50+ of rapid transit in Toronto since the start of this thread, by responding that some lines Toronto built last year are short.

I'm surprised that Longueil cracks the top 5 in Montreal with only about 27,000 boardings a day. That would only rank about 11th in Toronto.

Both Don Mills and Scarborough Centre are relatively busy stations. I believe the Sheppard-Yonge platform for Line 4 ranks about 15 of 80, with Don Mills ranking about 19 of 80.

Here's the Line 3 and Line 4 numbers (which are boardings and disembarkments). Everyone focuses on how low Ellesmere, Midland, and Bessarion are, ignoring how busy some other stations are. Line 3 is of course way down from what it once was, with the service reductions in recent years.

View attachment 193819

Ugh! Never enter into a discusion with a fanatic who apparently has nothing else to do!

Who cares what they were going to call a line that was never built using numbers that nobody ever uses? I'm sure you could stand on the street in Montreal for days asking where Line 2 or Line 4 is and illicit nothing but incredulous looks. Irrelevant!

Stats with no links or no context are useless.

Which short lines were built last year?

80? 80 what? Do you mean 75?

And of course, Sheppard is a extremely vital line and not at all a stubway to nowhere that was left unfinished and may never be finished.

Not. At. All. Just ask anyone who needs to buy a new Flörgelsnooften or a Glörkblörgler!

 

[nfitz]

That's an image of a Quebec City project, not the Lachine streetcar.

 

[nfitz]

Ugh! Never enter into a discusion with a fanatic who apparently has nothing else to do!

Whats with the rudeness? It took about 3-minutes to type that. You could simply apologize for being wrong.

Who cares what they were going to call a line that was never built using numbers that nobody ever uses?

You are the one that started the discussion about Line 3 and Line 4, objecting to their names.

I'm sure you could stand on the street in Montreal for days asking where Line 2 or Line 4 is and illicit nothing but incredulous looks. Irrelevant!

While true today, was that your experience in Montreal in the 1980s, when the line numbers were more frequently used than Toronto's line numbers?

Stats with no links or no context are useless.

Comments without context are also useless. What stats?

Which short lines were built last year?

Typo fixed ... I've been ignoring your typos, rather than playing games with them.

80? 80 what? Do you mean 75?

Read the text. There are numbers there for each line at each station. There are 75 stations, but 80 ridership numbers provided, with separate numbers provided for each line at each station (there are 5 transfer stations, which each have two lines).

 

[Streety McCarface]

? Most subway systems use different types of equipment on different lines. Many London lines have equipment that won't fit on other lines. Montreal's Line 3 was planned as steel-wheel from the original 1961 announcement, with the others being rubber-tired (also in the original 1961 announcement). I'm really not sure how this is relevant to the announcement.

Not entirely, London is divided into two categories of rapid transit service based on the depth of the tunnels (subsurface and deep bore), but all use the same track gauge, same collection method, and are both grade-separated.

Contrast this with Vienna's system, where line 6 is a metro line run with light rail vehicles, but the line is still fully grade separated.

Cities like Chicago, Washington DC, San Francisco, Yokohama, Tokyo (kind of...their system is really weird, but all the trains in a company tend to have the same dimensions).

New York is also weird because there are two distinct sets of trains (like with London), but again, all the lines are grade separated and run on the same power system and track gauge.

Still think Lines 5 and 6 should have been lettered to differentiate them from the subway lines. Could have enabled the city to do some cool spur lines and other things in the future.

Ugh! Never enter into a discusion with a fanatic who apparently has nothing else to do!

Who cares what they were going to call a line that was never built using numbers that nobody ever uses? I'm sure you could stand on the street in Montreal for days asking where Line 2 or Line 4 is and illicit nothing but incredulous looks. Irrelevant!

Stats with no links or no context are useless.

Which short lines were built last year?

80? 80 what? Do you mean 75?

And of course, Sheppard is a extremely vital line and not at all a stubway to nowhere that was left unfinished and may never be finished.

Not. At. All. Just ask anyone who needs to buy a new Flörgelsnooften or a Glörkblörgler!

Dude...chill out. This is a civil thread.
Also, 50K people rely on the Sheppard line. Imagine if we got rid of the 501, or the 505 and 506, or the 510 and 509, people would riot. It's a system, every piece is important to its stability and success.

 

[nfitz]

Not entirely, London is divided into two categories of rapid transit service based on the depth of the tunnels (subsurface and deep bore), but all use the same track gauge, same collection method, and are both grade-separated.

To some extent, but there are other subtleties on the deep-level tube lines. Plus some rapid transit lines use very different equipment, such as the DLR, and the Elizabeth line trains.

New York is also weird because there are two distinct sets of trains (like with London), but again, all the lines are grade separated and run on the same power system and track gauge.

Don't forget NYC's SRT-like vehicles on the line to JFK. And then there's the PATH subway ...

Still think Lines 5 and 6 should have been lettered to differentiate them from the subway lines.

And yet there's Line 3 ...

 

[Streety McCarface]

To some extent, but there are other subtleties on the deep-level tube lines. Plus some rapid transit lines use very different equipment, such as the DLR, and the Elizabeth line trains.

Don't forget NYC's SRT-like vehicles on the line to JFK. And then there's the PATH subway ...

And yet there's Line 3 ...

The first two are grouped in separate systems entirely, and don't follow the colour schemes/numbering systems of each city's main subway system. I wouldn't consider the DLR a subway, but a grade-separated light rail metro, especially since the majority of it is above ground. Crossrail gets a little weirder because it's like a combination of the Overground, deep Underground, and Subsurface underground. I guess it's more of a commuter subway.

The JFK airtrain isn't technically part of the subway network, and PATH is arguably a commuter rail network (similar to the PATCO speedline in Philadelphia).

Line 3 is the big exception here in Toronto, but it's going away. Even then, I still wouldn't consider it a light rail line. It's completely grade-separated, has the speed associated with a subway/rapid transit, and has high level platforms. Then again, it all depends on interpretation.

 

[nfitz]

Line 3 is the big exception here in Toronto, but it's going away.

The going away was prefaced on the TTC plans to replace it with a subway extension. Now that the province has forced the TTC to cancel that project, and is yet to actually do anything themselves ... it's not going away anytime soon. I don't see a "final" decision being made now until after the 2022 election.

 

[CityStay]

Whats with the rudeness? It took about 3-minutes to type that. You could simply apologize for being wrong.

You are the one that started the discussion about Line 3 and Line 4, objecting to their names.

While true today, was that your experience in Montreal in the 1980s, when the line numbers were more frequently used than Toronto's line numbers?

Comments without context are also useless. What stats?

Typo fixed ... I've been ignoring your typos, rather than playing games with them.

Read the text. There are numbers there for each line at each station. There are 75 stations, but 80 ridership numbers provided, with separate numbers provided for each line at each station (there are 5 transfer stations, which each have two lines).

You know, I was just about to take you seriously until you said this:

"Comments without context are also useless. What stats?"

What stats? Really?? Maybe the stats that you provided?

And yet, for years, the line numbers were shown on the maps in the train. Line 3 was red apparently - I've only seen old B&W figures personally.

Read more at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_3_(métro_de_Montréal)[/QUOTE]Still I don't see the relevance of pointing out the 50+ of rapid transit in Toronto since the start of this thread, by responding that some lines Toronto built are short.

I'm surprised that Longueil cracks the top 5 in Montreal with only about 27,000 boardings a day. That would only rank about 11th in Toronto.

Both Don Mills and Scarborough Centre are relatively busy stations. I believe the Sheppard-Yonge platform for Line 4 ranks about 15 of 80, with Don Mills ranking about 19 of 80.

Here's the Line 3 and Line 4 numbers (which are boardings and disembarkments). Everyone focuses on how low Ellesmere, Midland, and Bessarion are, ignoring how busy some other stations are. Line 3 is of course way down from what it once was, with the service reductions in recent years.

View attachment 193819

You ask "Stats, what stats?"

Notice the stats at the end.

 

[nfitz]

What stats? Really?? Maybe the stats that you provided?

??? You said "Stats with no links or no context are useless". Did you click on the ridership numbers in my post? They are linked to the PDF on the TTC website. How is this not a link?

Well here's your post, clown.

Notice the stats at the end.

The stats at the end, that are linked to the TTC website. What's with the name-calling?

Why aren't the moderators banning users who are calling names? Why is CItyStay trying to claim that those stats were not linked?'

CityStay, just because you were wrong about a couple of things, doesn't make it okay to start trying to bully people and call them names - and pretend that they didn't link things that are linked.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Irrelevant indeed!

Montreal has colours, not numbers, so unless the number 3 has a corresponding colour... Whatever they were or were not thinking in 1961 is entirely irrelevant.

I haven't been/wasn't talking about Montreal's yellow line at all so that is also irrelevant. But it seems to me that, despite it being only 3 stations, it is entirely more useful than the Ikea Express shuttle or the Scarborough Rattletrap. It's a vital commuter link that dives under the river twice and connects the South Shore and park Jean Drapeau with the island. And Longueuil is the 5th busiest station in the network. Do any Line 3 or 4 stations even crack the top 20?

London is absolutely irrelevant as it is larger than the 3 largest Canadian cities combined and has more tubeage than all Canadian cities combined. Any comparisons between London, New York, Tokyo etc. and any Canadian city is always irrelevant. Yet they still manage to not use different equipment on every line.

Airport terminals and transit lines? Starts with an 'I ' and ends with a 't '!

It's very difficult to compare ridership between each system, as they give their statistics in completely different forms. However, it's pretty safe to say that Berri-UQAM station has less ridership than Sheppard-Yonge (2*(13.1 Million / 300) = ~86K PPD).
Jean Drapeau station gets 8,600 passengers per day, that's worse than Bayview and not much better than Leslie.
Longueuil station gets 52,600, not much better than Don Mills. Ridership fluctuates day to day, and ridership on the Sheppard line can fluctuate between 60-70K PPD and 30-40K PPD. To me, both lines are about the same in terms of ridership.
I'll be going through all statistics shortly.

 

[nephersir7]

It's very difficult to compare ridership between each system, as they give their statistics in completely different forms. However, it's pretty safe to say that Berri-UQAM station has less ridership than Sheppard-Yonge (2*(13.1 Million / 300) = ~86K PPD).
Jean Drapeau station gets 8,600 passengers per day, that's worse than Bayview and not much better than Leslie.
Longueuil station gets 52,600, not much better than Don Mills. Ridership fluctuates day to day, and ridership on the Sheppard line can fluctuate between 60-70K PPD and 30-40K PPD. To me, both lines are about the same in terms of ridership.
I'll be going through all statistics shortly.

FWIW, here are the metro passenger demand numbers quoted in the REM ridership study. Looks like it needs to be multiplied by two to get the actual ridership figure.

https://www.cdpqinfra.com/sites/default/files/pdf/summary_rem_forecasting_eng.pdf