Montréal Transit Developments

[MisterF]

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.

True, there's a lot of grey areas between different terms. In most definitions of a metro, the common themes are a frequent electrified train running an exclusive, grade separated right of way with no interference from cars or pedestrians. Even that is a bit restrictive because nobody insists that the Chicago El isn't a true metro. There's nothing that eliminates something like REM or the Skytrain because they use a slightly different type of vehicle compared to most systems that we traditionally call metros. Despite nfitz's insistence to the contrary, they are both absolutely metro systems. I'd consider Ottawa's Confederation Line a metro too; it meets all the requirements. And Edmonton's LRT runs just like a metro even though it has at grade crossings.

That's why I don't put Toronto's lines 5-8 on the same level as any of the systems listed above. All of our new lines lines will run on the street and stop at red lights (except the parts that are in tunnels). That's a fundamental difference in how they operate compared to anything called a metro. Of course there's no 100% authoritative opinion on this, but IMO if it stops at red lights, it isn't rapid transit. RER will play that role more than any Transit City line except maybe Eglinton.

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.

No offence, but this is what I meant in my other post about Torontonians making excuses. Wide trains don't change the fact that Montreal and Vancouver have both built much more rapid transit than Toronto in the last several decades despite them being smaller, less wealthy, and having less demand for transit. Wide trains do nothing to expand coverage of the city, which is sorely lacking in Toronto compared to the other two cities.

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.

Again, I'm not sure why you're inventing this division of the part of the system that's off the island. Whether it's on the island or not, whether it's a project led by the city of Montreal or not, it's still a metro and part of the city's system.

 

[nfitz]

Again, I'm not sure why you're inventing this division of the part of the system that's off the island. Whether it's on the island or not, whether it's a project led by the city of Montreal or not, it's still a metro and part of the city's system.

As I've already stated, my point was I don't think only 3 stations in 30 years was much progress - and had no comparison to what was promised 30 to 40 years ago ... I also said similar of the Sheppard line and 1-station Line 1 extension in Toronto in a similar timeframe.

In terms of width ... the bigger issue is length. 600 people in how long trains? I'd think you'd need trains at least 90 metres long to do that ... but I've still seen no indication how long the Montreal cars or trains are.

 

[begratto]

In terms of width ... the bigger issue is length. 600 people in how long trains? I'd think you'd need trains at least 90 metres long to do that ... but I've still seen no indication how long the Montreal cars or trains are.

The REM's capacity is 780 people per train, not 600. Source: The REM, seating and capacity

Trains will be 80m long. Source (in French) : Comité de bon voisinage Canora-Mont-Royal and here too

 

[p_xavier]

The Executive Director of Metro Extensions and Big projects of the STM said on SRC that they are looking into finalizing tenders for the Blue line extension in 2020 to start construction in 2021 instead of 2022.

There are still negociating with commercial partners for the last station as it's intended to be into Galeries d'Anjou parking. The exact location still needs to be defined.

 

[nfitz]

The REM's capacity is 780 people per train, not 600. Source: The REM, seating and capacity

Elsewhere their website identifies this as the maximum capacity (presumably crush) with a peak capacity of 600.

You can't calculate the capacity of the peak hour, using crush capacity - because of how much impact running with crush capacity has in dwell times at stations. It's quite disturbing that they are reporting this, this way. It suggests that they are playing a bit fast and loose with the numbers (perhaps SNC-Lavalin is working on this ).

Trains will be 80m long. Source (in French)

Ah, that's interesting.

120 seats in 80 metres. That's quite low. If you look at other equipment, in an 80-metre length you'd get 223 seats on the Toronto TR (line 1 and 4) equipment, and 230 with the old (Line 2) equipment. The old Montreal Metro trains (the newer stuff they bought in the 1970s) would have about 187 seats. I haven't seen seat number for the Azur equipment.

Comparing to the narrower Bombardier Flexity on the Eglinton LRT you'd have 160 seats in 80 metres - probably more now, as I only know about the 70 seats on the original 30-metre double-ended design. The slightly narrower TTC Flexity LRVs would have 187 seats in 80 metres. The original TTC CLRVs had a whopping equivalent of 245 seats in an 80-metre length ... though that was unwieldy and was reduced to 224 on many cars.

There's definitely a shift away from seats, and the REM seems to be the lower than ever before - which is surprising given it's width. Though that should increase capacity a bit.

Though 600 does seem reasonable at peak ... the new higher capacity TR trains seem to be a similar width and equivalent to about 645 for that width. So they don't seem to have fallen into what we've seen in some places of these freakishly impossible crush loads.

What are the car lengths? How many doors? That's what kills GO Transit, is they have 310 metre-long double-decker trains with only 24 doors on each side. Compare to the 24 doors per side on the 138 metre long Toronto subway trains or the 27 doors on the 152 metre long Montreal Azur metro trains.

(BTW, I was surprised to see they'd dropped from 36 doors to 27 doors on the new Montreal trains - and it was a crush-loaded clusterf*** on one of my few rides on it in rush hour ... though a 5-minute dwell in Vendome eastbound was the big issue ... but it was a very slow rider after with people struggling to get in and out. How are people finding the trains with less doors?)

 

[nephersir7]

What are the car lengths? How many doors? That's what kills GO Transit, is they have 310 metre-long double-decker trains with only 24 doors on each side. Compare to the 24 doors per side on the 138 metre long Toronto subway trains or the 27 doors on the 152 metre long Montreal Azur metro trains.

Cars are ~20m long, with 3 doors each.(12 total)

 

[nfitz]

Cars are ~20m long, with 3 doors each.(12 total)

Thanks. Less doors than the new metro ... probably work fine at most stations. I wonder how much change-over they project at Central and the Green line interchange

Hmm ... will Central station have platforms on both sides? That could explain the less doors.

BTW, are there any diagrams of the Green Line interchange (McGill?) yet? (don't get me wrong - I think this is an amazing project - quite excited to see it after hearing about plans for Line 3 for so many years!)

 

[nephersir7]

I wonder how much change-over they project at Central and the Green line interchange

Hmm ... will Central station have platforms on both sides? That could explain the less doors.

Nope. Single island platform

BTW, are there any diagrams of the Green Line interchange (McGill?) yet?

Nothing more detailed than this old diagram. Like with the other transfer stations, it's far from being a platform-to-platform transfer. The REM station mezzanine will be linked to the metro station mezzanine by a new pedestrian tunnel under De Maisonneuve.

The Mascouche Line interchange station plans are a bit more detailed:

 

[nfitz]

The connection at Central looks like an improvement. It wasn't clear to me where the accessible path was though to Metro Bonaventure. Currently I don't think there was one (that I could find anyway lugging a suitcase recently ... despite the new elevators in the Metro station). Perhaps one will be able to go from the main concourse in Central, through the REM platforms and into Metro Bonaventure steps free?

McGill looks like it could have done with more planning. Comparing the work they are doing at Eglinton station to move the existing subway platforms to centre better with the new LRT platforms to make transfers easier ... the McGill transfer location looks just sloppy and rushed design. (Central to Bonaventure is always going to be difficult, with the combination of the elevated REM platforms in Place Bonaventure, the topography, and the very deep Metro station - but there's less excuse for it McGill. I must say though, I hadn't realized that the CN tracks run over the Green Line - which seems relatively shallow itself compared to many Metro stations.

 

[nfitz]

REM is a metro ...

It most certainly isn't. At best it's light metro - which the government, Caisse and English Quebec media all are referring to as light rail.

and as I've said many times you need only look at Vancouver to see what the trains will look like. The cars will be similar to the Canada Line but with four car trains.

Hang on ... that's a completely different manufacturer. Also those Skytrain cars are only 3.0 metres wide - which is narrow than what was reported above.

But yeah its a metro, call it "light rail" all you want but, its fully grade separated and has more capacity than many lines in systems that many here would certainly define as subways or metros.

I don't see how the capacity is much different than the fully grade-separated Ottawa system - which is invariably called light rail. Or even the grade-separated section of the Eglinton line. Are those both light metro, in a Toronto context?

 

[Hopkins123]

Semantics War!

 

[nfitz]

Semantics War!

Yes and no. Some seem to be focusing on technical terminology (though surely that's heavy rail, intermediate/medium rail, and light rail).

This is about branding. Subway/El/Metro/Skytrain/Light Rail ....

I'm simply respecting the local usage. I have no doubt that tecnically that the Ottawa, and even Eglinton, Light Rail lines exceed the technical definition of light rail, and are well into the intermediate (or medium) capacities! That's not really the point though ...

 

[Fritter]

How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[smallspy]

80-meter high floor trains with two bogies per car Definitely not light rail, irrespective of what the media and government want to call it.

To the contrary, compared to the current trains that run through the tunnel they are absolutely light rail. And that's what a lot of the early communication about the project had been focusing on.

Sematics are important, but so is context.

Dan

 

[MisterF]

The distinction between light rail and metro vehicles is at best blurred. What matters isn't the vehicle itself, but the way it runs. REM will have every characteristic of a metro, so it counts as one in my books. It seems to me that people arguing the opposite are just grasping at straws to counter the fact that Toronto is in the process of slipping to third place in Canada for metro coverage.

It's worth noting that all the talk about capacity and width and length of trains is largely irrelevant. A line can have all the capacity in the world, but that doesn't bring rapid transit any closer to neighbourhoods that lack it, and it doesn't help bottlenecks like Bloor-Yonge. Montreal could run single car trains for all I care, it still counts.