Montréal Transit Developments

[MisterF]

This LRT is finally going ahead now in Montreal - but in the last 30 years? That from 1989? There hasn't been a single metro station open on the island of Montreal in that period of time. Nor has construction even begun. There have been at least 3 announcements though about various extension that were never built - mostly including at least one Blue line station. And two further announcements in the 20 years preceding that. Yes, they built 3 stations in Laval. Toronto has in the same time built eleven new subway stations, and is a couple of years away finishing the subway under Eglinton, extending out as LRT into Scarborough.

Montreal did excellent for about a 25-year period from the mid-1960s to late-1980s, and now seems to have got some progress again. Toronto did very well for 30 years from the early 1950s to early 1980s, and then has been doing well again since 2008, with the Line 1 extension, followed by Line 5 and Line 6, and now with both the Downtown line and another Line 1 extension looking possible over the next decade. Vancouver did very well for 35 years from 1986 to current - and perhaps that will continue if the Millennium extension to UBC and Expo line extension south proceed.

I don't see the need though, to pretend that Montreal has accomplished much at all since the late 1980s - that's 30 lost years.

Montreal may have only built three metro stations in the last 30 years (no idea why you're limiting yourself to the island) but it's building 67 km of metro at this very moment. Toronto is building 0 km. Yes, Eglinton is metro-like in the tunnel and RER will be a game changer, but they're not full metros like REM is. And of course Vancouver built an 80 km metro system in the same amount of time that Toronto built a mere 16 km. You don't see the problem with that?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Montreal may have only built three metro stations in the last 30 years (no idea why you're limiting yourself to the island) but it's building 67 km of metro at this very moment. Toronto is building 0 km. Yes, Eglinton is metro-like in the tunnel and RER will be a game changer, but they're not full metros like REM is. And of course Vancouver built an 80 km metro system in the same amount of time that Toronto built a mere 16 km. You don't see the problem with that?

The Montreal Metro cars are 2.51 m (8 ft 2 7⁄8 in) in width.

The Toronto legacy streetcars (CLRV, ALRV, Flexity Outlook) are 2.54 m (8 ft 4 in) in width.

The Eglinton Crosstown LRT Flexity Freedom cars are 2.65 m (8 ft 8 in) in width.

The Toronto Subway cars are 3.14 m (10 ft 3 5⁄8 in) in width.

 

[begratto]

Hang on - something isn't adding up. 600 passengers every 2 minutes is only 18,000 passengers an hour. Greater than 25,000 passengers an hour would require a train less than every 85 seconds.

Actually, I was wrong : 600 people per train is the average ridership forecasted, per train, at rush hour. The maximum capacity is 780 people per train. Source

Also, about the REM capacity (from the same source) :

The REM has been designed to accommodate increases in ridership.

Once commissioned, the REM will have a frequency of 150 seconds on the main segment (Rive-Sud – Bois-Franc) during peak hours. However, its technology allows for a frequency of up to 90 seconds, which means that capacity can be increased by two-thirds. If ridership increases significantly in coming decades, the frequency and number of trains in service on the network may be increased accordingly.

 

[Hopkins123]

Montreal may have only built three metro stations in the last 30 years (no idea why you're limiting yourself to the island) but it's building 67 km of metro at this very moment. Toronto is building 0 km. Yes, Eglinton is metro-like in the tunnel and RER will be a game changer, but they're not full metros like REM is. And of course Vancouver built an 80 km metro system in the same amount of time that Toronto built a mere 16 km. You don't see the problem with that?

Toronto looks even worse now that second-tier cities like Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa are catching up to us too as their light rail networks are majorily in separated, exclusive ROWs. But no, Toronto just had to insist on surface road-median with level crossings and stoplights when other configurations were still a viable option.

As for Montreal, the Blue Line 5 is in the final stages of approval. Check out this report: http://www.stm.info/sites/default/f...es/ap_ligne_bleue_briefing_23_avril_final.pdf

I can also see them planning out the shadow platforms at Bois Franc for an eventual interchange with the Orange Line. It'd be nice if another 5 stop extension could occur there after the Blue Line extension is finished (Poirier, Bois Franc, De Salaberry, Gouin on the island, and Chomedey in Laval).

So yeah, Toronto may have built 11 new subway stations since 1989 but the momentum has definitely cooled here whereas other jurisdictions are still dreaming big, acting quickly on loosening the purse-strings of funders and their residents have an appetite for expansion.

 

[Hopkins123]

The Montreal Metro cars are 2.51 m (8 ft 2 7⁄8 in) in width.

The Toronto legacy streetcars (CLRV, ALRV, Flexity Outlook) are 2.54 m (8 ft 4 in) in width.

The Eglinton Crosstown LRT Flexity Freedom cars are 2.65 m (8 ft 8 in) in width.

The Toronto Subway cars are 3.14 m (10 ft 3 5⁄8 in) in width.

It's not about the vehicle type or size, but the right-of-way type. 9-car Azurs can carry just as many passengers as a 6-car T1 trainset. Montreal's brutal winters demonstrate how ingenious in foresight it was not to have their metros ever venture outdoors. An exclusive right-of-way is the mark of a good transit system.

 

[nfitz]

Montreal may have only built three metro stations in the last 30 years (no idea why you're limiting yourself to the island) ...

Perhaps you are not aware that those 3 stations were not in Montreal, nor built by the city? That outside-of-Montreal extension wasn't even on the list of proposed lines in 1980s and early 1990s, that was prominently touted (the Orange line extension to Bois-Franc, the Blue line extension to Lasalle and Montreal-Nord (later changed to Anjou), the white line down Pie-IX to Montreal Nord, and the various LRT proposals.

My point though, is like the 1990s Toronto Line 1 extension and the early 2000s Sheppard subway, it didn't break the back of the inertia that had grown since Metro/subway expansion stopped in both cities in the 1980s.

but it's building 67 km of metro at this very moment.

I think somone might have mentioned that alraedy. It's light rail (metro leger) not metro. Which would be more impressive if it did more than add only 23 stops to the network (and only 11 new ones, much of this is the recycled century-old electrified Deux-Montagnes line.

Toronto is building 0 km. Yes, Eglinton is metro-like in the tunnel and RER will be a game changer, but they're not full metros like REM is. And of course Vancouver built an 80 km metro system in the same amount of time that Toronto built a mere 16 km. You don't see the problem with that?

REM is most certainly not full metro! And good grief ... Vancouver - it's not full metro either ... the Eglinton line has a higher capacity with 60-metre and 90-metre long trains than the Canada Line, with it's 40-metre long stations (and only ultimately expandable to 60-metres).

Montreal is finally making some significant and commendable progress, with this plan that has been almost 60 years in the making. But It seems rather disingenuous to completely dismiss the new 35 rapid transit stops Toronto is currently building along the 30-km of the first phases of Line 5 and 6 - the cost of which exceed that of the REM.

The Montreal Metro cars are 2.51 m (8 ft 2 7⁄8 in) ...

I was asking about the REM cars - hopefully they are significantly wider than the narrow Montreal Metro cars - though I doubt as wide the Toronto subway cars (3.14 metres)

 

[begratto]

REM is most certainly not full metro! And good grief ... Vancouver - it's not full metro either ... the Eglinton line has a higher capacity with 60-metre and 90-metre long trains than the Canada Line, with it's 40-metre long stations (and only ultimately expandable to 60-metres).

I don't get why you keep saying this. Look at this list of systems that use the exact same trains that the REM will be using, the Alstom Metropolis. Notice a pattern? They all call it a metro :

What is it that makes the REM different from these metros in your mind?

I was asking about the REM cars - hopefully they are significantly wider than the narrow Montreal Metro cars - though I doubt as wide the Toronto subway cars (3.14 metres)

From what I read (but can't find the source now), the REM cars should be 3,2m wide.

 

[nfitz]

I don't get why you keep saying this. Look at this list of systems that use the exact same trains that the REM will be using, the Alstom Metropolis. Notice a pattern? They all call it a metro

Ah, WIkipedia - the website anyone can edit.

It doesn't really matter what it's called in other countries. I have no idea why you are insisting on calling it Metro, when even above you were calling it Light Metro - which the Caisse themselves, like most Canadians, call Light Rail in English.

The use of Metro there, seems to be a pointer to generic pages about entire systems, that include many different types of rolling stock. Such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_subway.

Hmm, and reading about that Alstom product - it's not so much a particualr vehicle, but an entire family of different types of vehicles - including classic Parisian rubber-tired Metro cars - like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP_05

I'm assuming that these new Montreal REM cars don't have rubber tires! I think we need to know a bit more about what is planned here. There are conflicting claims on what the capacity is. And unfortunately what we call it, is generally a function of what the capacity is.

From what I read (but can't find the source now), the REM cars should be 3,2m wide.

What about the vehicle and train lengths. I'm still trying to account for the "600 passengers every 2-3 minutes being over 25,000 passengers an hour" discrepancy.

 

[begratto]

Ah, WIkipedia - the website anyone can edit.

It doesn't really matter what it's called in other countries. I have no idea why you are insisting on calling it Metro, when even above you were calling it Light Metro - which the Caisse themselves, like most Canadians, call Light Rail in English.

Your bad faith doesn't change the fact that all these cities that use the same trains as the REM call their systems "metros". You have not answered my question : what is it that makes the REM different from these metros?

What about the vehicle and train lengths. I'm still trying to account for the "600 passengers every 2-3 minutes being over 25,000 passengers an hour" discrepancy.

Read post 439. 780 passengers train every 90 seconds = 31,200 ppd

 

[nfitz]

Your bad faith doesn't change the fact that all these cities that use the same trains as the REM call their systems "metros". You have not answered my question : what is it that makes the REM different from these metros?

Bad faith? How? You were the one calling them light metros before, and now you are trying to call them metros? And yet the Caisse calls them light rail - who are surely the ultimate authority.

And why are you calling them all the "same trains". I pointed out above that this is a family of vehicles, that have significant differences. Some have rubber tires. You aren't suggest they all have rubber tires do you?

Read post 439. 780 passengers train every 90 seconds = 31,200 ppd

Ah, I missed that.

There's a problem there. It says that 600 is peak. 780 must be crush? But you can't use crush numbers for capacities for very frequent service, because your dwell times completely blow up - as you can see every day on the 501 and 506! So 600 every 90 second = 24,000 would be the route capacity - not 31,200.

What are the vehicle and train lengths?

Hmm ... 120 seats ... that seems low. Looking at TTC numbers, the old 92-metre long 4-car Line 4 trains were 670 at peak with 264 seats. The new Line 4 trains are 740 at peak with 256 seats. A similar length (101 metre) but narrower six-car Montreal metro train (that you used to see on the Blue Line - perhaps you still do) has about 236 seats.

Does that mean there's not a lot of seats? Or they are over-estimating the peak capacity? Really need to see the vehicle and train lengths to get a better feel for that.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

Ah the great "what is the definition of a metro" debate rears its head again, possibly the longest running transit debate next to "should we build the Scarborough subway"

 

[doady]

The STM's ridership has increased from 363.3M in 2016 to 429.5M in 2017, and close to 450M in 2018, although they have not published the official number AFAIK. A 24% increase from 2006 to 2018.

View attachment 174323View attachment 174323



Not necessarily ; seems to me they're both moving in the same direction. The STM will increase its fleet by 300 buses between now and 2021, so the total fleet (not counting the suburban transit sytems) will increase from 1800 buses to ~2100. More service should help attract additional customers in the STM buses.

The extension into Laval masked some of STM's ridership losses on the island. I think the overall numbers are not quite as rosy as they seem at first glance. I hope those new buses help to reverse the ridership loss.

Montreal has a great system, Vancouver has a great system, but so does Toronto. There are of course some irritating things about the system, I find the constant complaining from some people here even more irritating. Some people just like to complain for the sake of complaining.

 

[p_xavier]

As long as it's rapid transit we shouldn't care. The REM has higher capacity than either the Blue and Yellow line and those are not downgraded to light metro. Blue line is capped at 6 car metro trains at 3m40s, this is lower capacity then the REM trunk line. But still, I consider the REM as a medium capacity rapid transit system.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

As long as it's rapid transit we shouldn't care. The REM has higher capacity than either the Blue and Yellow line and those are not downgraded to light metro. Blue line is capped at 6 car metro trains at 3m40s, this is lower capacity then the REM trunk line. But still, I consider the REM as a medium capacity rapid transit system.

The thing about these debates is that it turns out there's just varying shades of grey, nothing is black and white. Is Chicago's El a metro? It's heavy rail, frequent, yet not entirely grade seperated. How about Vienna's U6? It's entirely grade seperated, but uses low floor light rail vehicles. If it's a metro, then what's Ottawa's confederation line which is virtually identical in terms of rolling stock, grade seperation and capacity, but it's called LRT. The Canada line in Vancouver uses the same rolling stock as several asian metro systems, and the vehicles are as wide as a TR train, but because it's only two cars long is it a metro? If it's not, then what's Cincinnati's red line which is also only two cars long, yet generally considered a "real" metro. What about the shuttle lines on the NYC subway which are also 2 cars?

It's all just becomes very fuzzy, so arguing over the terminology goes nowhere. So instead a better comparison is how does the Montreal Metro + REM compare against all the planned lines of the TTC, which includes lines 5,6,7 and 8, even though all those are "LRT". I'd exclude Go RER since it's more regional than urban focused, but even that point is debatable.

 

[rbt]

The thing about these debates is that it turns out there's just varying shades of grey, nothing is black and white. Is Chicago's El a metro? It's heavy rail, frequent, yet not entirely grade seperated. How about Vienna's U6? It's entirely grade seperated, but uses low floor light rail vehicles. If it's a metro, then what's Ottawa's confederation line which is virtually identical in terms of rolling stock, grade seperation and capacity, but it's called LRT. The Canada line in Vancouver uses the same rolling stock as several asian metro systems, and the vehicles are as wide as a TR train, but because it's only two cars long is it a metro? If it's not, then what's Cincinnati's red line which is also only two cars long, yet generally considered a "real" metro. What about the shuttle lines on the NYC subway which are also 2 cars?

It's all just becomes very fuzzy, so arguing over the terminology goes nowhere. So instead a better comparison is how does the Montreal Metro + REM compare against all the planned lines of the TTC, which includes lines 5,6,7 and 8, even though all those are "LRT". I'd exclude Go RER since it's more regional than urban focused, but even that point is debatable.

The french Metro term is derived from the Metropolitan Railway Company but today is a description of how a system is used (mass rapid transit) rather than the specifications of any piece of equipment. Above ground, under ground, overhead electric, 3rd rail, 4 rails, rubber tires. monorail, high capacity BRT, etc. can all work and are all considered Metro's.

Ottawa Confederation line will definitely be operated and used by locals as a mass rapid transit system (a Metro), and the technology used to implement that metropolitan railway is LRT.

The central chunk of REM is most likely going to be treated by locals as part of their mass rapid transit system, which makes it part of the metro.


Germans are a bit more specific than the French. NY has U-Bahn (MTA) and S-Bahn (Long Island Railroad, Metro North Railroad) but all 3 of these systems fit the term Metro.