Montréal Transit Developments

[Urban Sky]

Do we though. By defining categories, we reject the possibility that it's a continuum undefinable by categories.

In order to discuss the title of this thread ("Montreal to have the largest Subway system in Canada?"), it is necessary to have some shared understanding about what transit categories (or "labels") we are actually referring to.

For example, one might claim that the REM is light-metro west of Bois-Franc, but is behaving more like a heavy-metro east of Bois-Franc.

Line 4 is heavy-metro - but it's got the same length trains and a similar capacity for the underground section of the Eglinton line between Mount Dennis and Laird. It may even be more frequent. And it's similar to the Montreal Blue line in terms of train lengths and capacity when the Blue line was exclusively used 6-car trains for many years last century.

Which, like all definitions, is going to require exceptions. Such as the pieces of the London Overground, which are surely metro, but use diesel. Or the Chicago El line with the level crossing. And isn't there track sharing on parts of Seoul Line 1 towards Suwon and beyond? And then, what if VIA does get it's way, and shared the Mount Royal tunnel with the REM (which I think is unlikely)?

Maybe this should tell you how impractical it is to define transit categories along operational characteristics like train lengths operated, frequencies operated and passenger capacity offered (i.e. the sort of characteristics which can be changed - within certain operational constraints, of course - with a simple timetable change). My definitions rely on the general nature of the infrastructure they are operated on (by asking two simple questions: (1) Is the right-of-way shared with any other modes? and (2) Can the train lengths be expanded without facing massive infrastructure constraints?). That's why with my definitions, there is no ambiguity about REM being a light metro on its entirety (it uses an entirely segregated right-of-way which is sealed due to platform screen doors and any extension of train lengths requires massive infrastructure works at all stations and a complete rework on the train control system installed), Toronto's line 4 or Montreal's blue line being heavy metros (the train lengths deployed can be extended to the normal length of the trains used on their respective heavy metro networks by simply removing the barriers which block off part of their platforms), "Line 5 Eglinton" being a light rail (as it partly operates on road space) or London Overground being heavy rail (as it uses the regular heavy rail network owned by Network Rail).

As for Chicago, I don't know which "level crossing" you are referring to (I don't recall any from my last and only trip 3 months ago) and I have never been in Asia outside of Japan. However, the specifications chosen by the CDPQi for the REM network makes the Mont-Royal tunnel inherently incompatible with regular heavy rail traffic. Therefore, if VIA is in the end able to use the tunnel with its trains (note that I can't comment on how likely that is), then only because the second batch of its current order (which will be required only if HFR is approved and will be specified according to whether trains are allowed in the tunnel) would have been heavily customized to certify this heavy rail trainset in a light metro environment. Therefore, any possible track sharing between the REM and VIA only affects the classification of VIA rolling stock and not the classification of the REM itself.

I'm very suspicious of any scheme that labels the low capacity Scarborough RT (The Scarborough Skytrain!) as Metro, but labels the much higher capacity Line 5 west of Laird as something else!

That's because the word "metro" doesn't say anything about the capacity of the respective transit network, as it only indicates whether its ROW is shared with other rail or non-rail modes or not...

The terms are interesting - though often academic. Wikipedia has been a battleground of terminology - particularly between North America and the rest of the world. The principle there is common usage prevails - the challenge is whose common usage.

But to follow Wikipedia's example - in local articles, you use local terminology and common usage. And this is not only a Toronto-based forum ... it's an urban Toronto (as opposed to suburban!) forum. So Toronto terminology should predominate, though with preference for local English terminology used elsewhere when discussing there systems. So Toronto and New York have subways. Montreal, Washington and Paris have metros. London has tubes and undergrounds (and trams and overgrounds!). Meanwhile Montreal has chosen to brand REM as light rail (though I can see it could also have been branded metro or RER), as has Ottawa. The jury is still out, particularly with the increasingly bizarre recent schism between TTC and Metrolinx, but it looks like they'll brand Line 5 as subway, like Line 3.

The importance is not too much what terms we use, but that we use them consistently. If you insist for some Toronto-centric reasons on calling heavy metros "Subways", then be my guest. As long as it is clear that the term applies to the Toronto Subway, the Métro de Montréal and the London Underground alike (regardless of their respective brand names). Also, given that you misunderstood this forum as the right place to spread your derogatory stereotypes concerning the societal attitudes of certain provinces only a week ago, I would have expected you to show a bit more humility than lecturing other members about what you now believe this forum to be about and what not...^^

In Toronto, Metro is a grocery store, and Subway is also a sandwich shop!

Guess what: In Montreal, Metro is also a grocery store, and Subway is a sandwich shop! So what?

If we ignore labels, and focus on capacity, frequency, and travel times, the discussion becomes simpler.

Except that we now have to re-establish the classification of every single transit network after every major timetable change...

 

[nfitz]

In order to discuss the title of this thread ("Montreal to have the largest Subway system in Canada?"), it is necessary to have some shared understanding about what transit categories (or "labels") are actually referring to.

The thread was solely named about the long-broken promise to extend the blue, orange, and yellow subway lines by 20 km.

The thread title needs renaming.

Guess what: In Montreal, Metro is also a grocery store, and Subway is a sandwich shop! So what?

Except that we now have to re-establish the classification of every single transit network after every major timetable change...

So what indeed. No one needs to classify anything actually. That's my point.

 

[Urban Sky]

The thread was solely named about the long-broken promise to extend the blue, orange, and yellow subway lines by 20 km.

The thread title needs renaming.

Probably, but it has become a thread that compares the current and future extents of the respective rail-based transit networks of Montreal and Toronto and I expect that a new title would reflect that.

So what indeed. No one needs to classify anything actually. That's my point.

If you want to understand the world and those aspects you want to discuss about, you need clear and distinctive definitions/terms/label. If you don't, you don't.

 

[nfitz]

If you want to understand the world and those aspects you want to discuss about, you need clear and distinctive definitions/terms/label. If you don't, you don't.

I disagree. I think that simply discussing in terms of frequency, speed, and capacity suffices. The planning process should provide those specs, and the design process meets it.

Forcing definitions on things is not how our living language works. You let it evolve naturally and document it. One wouldn't create some unnecessary body, for example, trying to control language usage, and thus killing it in the process!

 

[robmausser]

Back to REM... official groundbreaking ceremony today for the terminus station at Trudeau Airport. Boring machine to be delivered in the first week of August to begin tunneling @YUL.

REM Trudeau Airport Terminus Groundbreaking - CTV Montreal

Is there an elevator from the platform to airport concourse?

Id hate to take a large checked bag up all those escalators.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Is there an elevator from the platform to airport concourse?

Id hate to take a large checked bag up all those escalators.

Look at the concourse level, elevators from concourse to platform.

Also look at the wall behind the escalators, there seem to be 4 elevators there.

Finally, there seem to be 2 elevators from the main floor to the street.

 

[nfitz]

Is there an elevator from the platform to airport concourse?

Id hate to take a large checked bag up all those escalators.

There'd have to be these days to meet accessibility standards in any modern building code - even in Quebec!

 

[Urban Sky]

I disagree. I think that simply discussing in terms of frequency, speed, and capacity suffices. The planning process should provide those specs, and the design process meets it.

The problem is that the achievable frequency, speed and capacity of any transit network is largely determined by the choice of transit category it is based on and that's why the less-than-subtle differences between a light rail, light metro, heavy metro or heavy rail infrastructure matter and especially so in a forum dedicated to transportation questions. Because we might otherwise wake up in a few years down and realize that converting an already over-ultilized heavy rail corridor into a light metro network, while also forcing the passengers of two new branches and two existing commuter rail lines onto that downgraded corridor might not have been the best available idea...

Forcing definitions on things is not how our living language works. You let it evolve naturally and document it. One wouldn't create some unnecessary body, for example, trying to control language usage, and thus killing it in the process!

I would hate to see any Torontonian being forced to call his "Subway" or a Londoner his "Underground" a "Metro" and I couldn't care less that the TTC calls all its - soon - 6 lines "Subways", as long as we are clear here that these 6 lines use 3 very distinctive transit concepts - with lines 1, 2 and 4 being the same kind of transit system Montrealer or Parisians call a "Metro" and Londoner call the "Underground", line 3 being the same kind of transit system a Vancouverite calls the "Skytrain" and lines 5 and 6 being the same kind of system a Calgarian calls the "CTrain" or an Edmontonian calls the "LRT". Whether people here in this forum call transit systems similar to Toronto's lines 1, 2 and 4 "metros", "subways", "underground transit" or "heavy metro", those similar to Toronto's line 3 a "light metro" or a "medium capacity rail system" and those similar to Toronto's line 5 and 6 "light rail", "LRT" or "streetcars" is of completely secondary importance.

As for your newly found interest in Sociology and now Linguistics, I suspect that your observations might be more relevant for the readers of forums dedicated to these two fields than to those of a forum dedicated to "Transportation and Infrastructure" in an urban (Torontonian) context...

 

[CityStay]

I took the 363 bus under an extended (tunnel-like, subterranean) underpass this evening. Would this qualify the 363 as a light-wheeled subway? Hmmmm...

 

[CityStay]

___

 

[Streety McCarface]

I took the 363 bus under an extended (tunnel-like, subterranean) underpass this evening. Would this qualify the 363 as a light-wheeled subway? Hmmmm...

A subway defined as an "underground electric railway", and your example is a diesel bus (no railway, no electricity), so...no. It wouldn't be classified as a subway.

It also doesn't have the capacities of MRT or the grade separation associated with it. So...no, not a metro either.

 

[p_xavier]

In the Ontario line IBC, seems that Metrolinx renamed the REM.

Metrolinx concluded that the Ontario Line should be built with provision for trains of up to approximately 100 metres length and assuming a 3.0 metre car width. This compares with 80 metre stations being built for the Montréal Express Metro, and 90 metre stations and trains with 2.4 metre car widths on the Grand Paris Express. See Table 10 for other examples.

 

[robmausser]

Look at the concourse level, elevators from concourse to platform.

Also look at the wall behind the escalators, there seem to be 4 elevators there.

Finally, there seem to be 2 elevators from the main floor to the street.

Is it one continuous elevator though? It looks like a series of them that you would have to transfer from, unless im missing something here

 

[Streety McCarface]

Is it one continuous elevator though? It looks like a series of them that you would have to transfer from, unless im missing something here

I was lazy (and had a meeting), it would be a set of stairs, a passageway, then another set of stairs. Point is, you'd have to cross over the tracks without directly passing them.

Also, another thing I forgot: platform heights.

EDIT: Wrong forum, yes, there seem to be a series of 3 elevators, similar to other stations on the TTC network (usually only 2, but there's probably an additional one at the airport because those elevators are pre-existing or will be owned by the airport authority.

 

[Urban Sky]

In the Ontario line IBC, seems that Metrolinx renamed the REM.

Metrolinx concluded that the Ontario Line should be built with provision for trains of up to approximately 100 metres length and assuming a 3.0 metre car width. This compares with 80 metre stations being built for the Montréal Express Metro, and 90 metre stations and trains with 2.4 metre car widths on the Grand Paris Express. See Table 10 for other examples.

The REM trains will be tiny, as even the CDPQi itself admits::

Source: CDPQ Infra

Just to provide a comparison most posters here will be more familiar, the current morning peak timetable (which is already a reduction of 2 departures compared to the pre-construction service levels on the Deux-Montagnes line mentioned in the table above), but run with GO Transit's 12-car bilevel trains (seating capacity: 1,944 seats per train) would have slightly more than 3 times the total seating capacity offered by the REM (11*1,944=21,384 seats vs. 6,912 seats) in the same 3-hour period:

Source: current exo timetable for the Deux-Montagnes and Mascouche lines
Note: only trains arriving Gare Centrale between 6:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. are shown.


But to give credit, where credit is due, the PR team of the CDPQi has identified irresistibly creative ways of explaining why less seats (for which dramatically more passegners will compete) still equates better service for its future passengers (including the recommendation to negotiate more flexible office hours with their supervisors):

Source: CDPQ Infra