Montréal Transit Developments

[nfitz]

REM's maximum design capacity is 780. https://rem.info/en/news/rem-seating-and-capacity

That's crush capacity, not capacity used for planning service. You can't design a very frequent service based on crush capacity, because the delay with everyone trying to squeeze in and out of the trains extends the dwell time, so you can't achieve 90 second frequency. To obtain the ultimate capacity at 90-second frequencies, you have to use the 600 number. You can observe a case study on this at the Line 1 Bloor platform every day!

780 will work fine at 5 minute intervals, and probably (barely) at 2.5 minute intervals. But travel times will be quicker if they can get it to 600 maximum rather than 780.

An engineering friend on the projet told me that underground stations were indeed built with 100m platforms for futurproofing.

That's good to hear. Aren't the current platforms 76.2 metres (250 feet) for 4 cars? Is it possible that they were futureproofed for 114.3 metres (for 6 cars)?

The only reason Montreal is getting new transit build quickly is because it's the CPDQi that runs the show exclusively. Hence why the government is even giving new projects directly to the CDPQi and not the ARTM, which is its official mandate.

Yes, that's an interesting experiment. Similar in some ways of how 407 got built so fast, with the 20-year construction timeframe under the NDP collapsing to 2-3 (more) years once it was privatized. Though in the long-term it's lead to astronomical tolls of over 56 ¢/km at rush hour - compared to 30 ¢/km on the extension owned and built by the government. It will be interesting to see how people feel about this line, and the fares, 20 years from now. Hopefully the contract is better written than the one the conservatives did when they sold the 407!

 

[nfitz]

As an aside, it's interesting to compare the reported dimensions, capacity, and seating of the REM rolling stock to the newest Toronto subway TR cars.

The REM rolling stock uses 2.95-metre wide cars that are 19.05 metres long. They will run in 4-car consists (two pairs) giving a 76.2-metre long train. Each train has 128 seats.

The TTC TR trains use 3.12-metre wide cars that are 23.19 metres long. They run in either 4-car consists (Line 4) giving a 92.8-metre long train with 256 seats or a 6-car consist (Line 1) giving a 139.1-metre long train with 392 seats.

For capacity let's compare the shorter 4-car Line 4 TTC trains.

With a peak capacity of 600, the REM has 2.67 riders/m² compared to 2.57 riders/m² on the 740-passenger TTC train. However with 128 seats compared to 256 seats, only 21% are seated on the REM compared to 35% on the TTC.

With a crush capacity of 780, the REM has 3.47 riders/m² compared to 3.28 riders/m² on the 950-passenger TTC train¹.

The additional capacity per square metre of the REM trains seems reasonable, as they got a lot less seats per square metre (0.57/m² on the REM compared to 0.87/m² on the TTC TR).

Here's the REM floor plan for a 2-car pair:


¹ Based on the Bombardier numbers of 165 standing in a A (cab) car, and 182 standing in a B/C car, and the TTC numbers of 60 seats in a cab car and 68 in the other cars. This would give a crush capacity of 1450 for a Line 1 train. Actual capacity might be slightly higher as Bombardier reports 64 seats in cab car, while TTC reports 60; presumably the number of standees is higher with 4 less seats).

 

[begratto]

It will be interesting to see how people feel about this line, and the fares, 20 years from now. Hopefully the contract is better written than the one the conservatives did when they sold the 407!

Fares are determined by the ARTM, not the CDPQ infra / REM.

The Quebec government will pick up the tab for the difference between what's collected with the fares and the expected return on investment.

 

[nfitz]

Fares are determined by the ARTM, not the CDPQ infra / REM.

Ontario thought they had the power to set 407 tolls - until they lost a series of court battles with the owner.

Though even with the power to set fares - isn't the key issue how much the government has to pay out for each rider? How that changes over time that will be interesting - and how much the government is willing to subsidize this. And what else comes with this ... does it forbid the STM for finally extending the Orange line to Poirier and Bois-Franc which they've been promising for 40 years? (which would be a very convenient interchange with the REM) (or Cartierville and into Laval, which was promised 10 years ago, starting this thread). What restrictions does it make on other upgrades into Dorval airport? (how there isn't a final station south of the airport at Dorval Circle I don't know - that would have been useful!)

 

[begratto]

(...) And what else comes with this ... does it forbid the STM for finally extending the Orange line to Poirier and Bois-Franc which they've been promising for 40 years? (which would be a very convenient interchange with the REM) (or Cartierville and into Laval, which was promised 10 years ago, starting this thread). What restrictions does it make on other upgrades into Dorval airport? (how there isn't a final station south of the airport at Dorval Circle I don't know - that would have been useful!)

No the agreement doesn't prevent the Orange line extension to Bois-Franc, for which, incidentally, the Quebec government has asked the ARTM to accelerate the studies.

 

[nfitz]

No the agreement doesn't prevent the Orange line extension to Bois-Franc, for which, incidentally, the Quebec government has asked the ARTM to accelerate the studies.

What's left to study after 40 years!

Hmm, other options include "completing Cavendish Boulevard and revising the "functionality" of Highways 15 and 40." I remember hoping that Cavendish would be completed soon when I was in high school, as it would have been convenient to get to Place Vertu - a significant shopping mall back then (haven't been there in decades ... I've no idea what it's like now). Amazing how much some things never change ...when did planning on that begin - the 1950s? At one point it was supposed to be open for Expo 1967!

 

[begratto]

What's left to study after 40 years!

They need to update the costs. And to assess the impacts of Bois-Franc being a transfer station with the REM. Good new is that the new minister responsible for the region of Montreal, Chantal Rouleau, is not the type to study things eternally. She seems the type that gets things done.

Hmm, other options include "completing Cavendish Boulevard and revising the "functionality" of Highways 15 and 40." I remember hoping that Cavendish would be completed soon when I was in high school, as it would have been convenient to get to Place Vertu - a significant shopping mall back then (haven't been there in decades ... I've no idea what it's like now). Amazing how much some things never change ...when did planning on that begin - the 1950s? At one point it was supposed to be open for Expo 1967!

Well, that's pretty much Côte-Saint-Luc's faults, they were opposed the extension of Cavendish for decades and essentially blocked it.

Only relatively recently did the CSL city council change its mind.

 

[ssiguy2]

RER would be a lot further along and have near total grade separation by now and be a true Metro system like REM iif Metrolinx would put more emphasis and resources of track improvements and electrification and less of building parking garages which are free to boot.

 

[p_xavier]

That's crush capacity, not capacity used for planning service. You can't design a very frequent service based on crush capacity, because the delay with everyone trying to squeeze in and out of the trains extends the dwell time, so you can't achieve 90 second frequency. To obtain the ultimate capacity at 90-second frequencies, you have to use the 600 number. You can observe a case study on this at the Line 1 Bloor platform every day!

780 will work fine at 5 minute intervals, and probably (barely) at 2.5 minute intervals. But travel times will be quicker if they can get it to 600 maximum rather than 780.

That's good to hear. Aren't the current platforms 76.2 metres (250 feet) for 4 cars? Is it possible that they were futureproofed for 114.3 metres (for 6 cars)?

Yes, that's an interesting experiment. Similar in some ways of how 407 got built so fast, with the 20-year construction timeframe under the NDP collapsing to 2-3 (more) years once it was privatized. Though in the long-term it's lead to astronomical tolls of over 56 ¢/km at rush hour - compared to 30 ¢/km on the extension owned and built by the government. It will be interesting to see how people feel about this line, and the fares, 20 years from now. Hopefully the contract is better written than the one the conservatives did when they sold the 407!

Yes, but the DT stations will be the ones overwhemingly used so it will be good to factor the dwell time but I'm pretty certain they did.

80m for 4 cars. 100m for 5 cars. There were some discussions with the CDPQi has to have 5-cars trains for a 80m platforms with a bit of overhang on each side. I'll try to find more info if the platforms are exactly 80m or 76.2m to fit the trains.

here's still some waste because the current trains will be in two pairs configuration instead of one long train. Basically it's the same as Vancouver where they have different types of configurations. The Mark III are boas and are more efficient in space.

As for the contract, the provincial government has kept a first-right-to purchase option.

 

[CityStay]

And how is that different than other cities? This thread is about Montreal's 2009 "fake-news" announcement about 20 km of Metro expansions that have yet to progress one inch. And you use this thread to complain about Toronto?

I'm not holding up any Canadian city as an example of great transit planning, that would be foolish, but Toronto is particularly chaotic.

I first got excited about transit when Network 2011 was announced in 1985 while I was a young Ryerson student. That resulted - 17 years later - in a grand total of 2 new stations and the next-to-useless Sheppard line.

You go on and on about Montreal's 2009 "fake news" announcement , have you been following events here?

In that same timeframe we've had:
Transit City
RoFo's subway plan
One City
Smart Track
and now, DoFo's "who knows WTF is happening" subway plan

Still don't know how many stations on the Scarborough line
Still don't know what "new technology" is being used on the Ontario Line
Still don't know when the DRL will get going
Presto still doesn't work properly
ATC is still be installed - on one line only
A laughable partial cell phone network has been installed in a few downtown tunnels available to Freedom customers only

At least Montreal has successfully tackled the last 3, a long time ago in 2 cases, and their REM is being built.

Nobody knows what the hell is going on here, as usual.

 

[nfitz]

You go on and on about Montreal's 2009 "fake news" announcement , have you been following events here?

In that same timeframe we've had:
Transit City
RoFo's subway plan
One City
Smart Track
and now, DoFo's "who knows WTF is happening" subway plan

My point is that stuff has/is being built here too.

I raise the 2009 announcement because that's what this thread was about. Of course much of that 2009 announcement (the Metro stops on the island of Montreal) was a reannouncement of the 1983ish announcement - and how wasn't that a twist on the 1975ish announcement? And many more before and after?

In the same time, Montreal and surrounding municipalities made no progress on those 3 subway lines (2 of them are being promised again now), we've extended Line 1 by 8 km, built 23-km Union Pearson rapid transit line, constructed the 18-km 12-station grade-separated Mississauga Transiway, are most of the way through the 19-km 25-stop phase 1 of Line 5, and are now digging the 18 stop 11-km Line 6 which will open in 4 years. At the same time, the conversion of 5 GO lines to RER has begun, with some off-peak 15-minute service now achieved on 50 km of the Lakeshore East line and 3 trains an hour for much of the 57 km of the Lakeshore West line. GO service has also been extended for 53 km on the Georgetown line, 6-km on the Barrie line, and 12-km on the Richmond Hill line (the last 3.5 km are opening in 2020). (perhaps the less said about the 70-km extension of the Lakeshore West line to Niagara Falls the better ... and I'm not sure what to say about VIVA).

Yes, many plans have come and gone. But (for once), there's been actual expansion going on at the same time. With luck, there'll be shovels in the ground on other projects in the early 2020s.

Could we build stuff faster in Toronto with some 407-like corporation taking over the Lakeshore, Georgetown, and Stouffville lines with some REM-like service? Probably. Ironically, that wouldn't much different than what Bill Davis promised in the mid-1970s in exchange for cancelling the Gardiner Expressway extension to Port Union/Scarborough

 

[Hopkins123]

My point is that stuff has/is being built here too.

I raise the 2009 announcement because that's what this thread was about. Of course much of that 2009 announcement (the Metro stops on the island of Montreal) was a reannouncement of the 1983ish announcement - and how wasn't that a twist on the 1975ish announcement? And many more before and after?

In the same time, Montreal and surrounding municipalities made no progress on those 3 subway lines (2 of them are being promised again now), we've extended Line 1 by 8 km, built 23-km Union Pearson rapid transit line, constructed the 18-km 12-station grade-separated Mississauga Transiway, are most of the way through the 19-km 25-stop phase 1 of Line 5, and are now digging the 18 stop 11-km Line 6 which will open in 4 years. At the same time, the conversion of 5 GO lines to RER has begun, with some off-peak 15-minute service now achieved on 50 km of the Lakeshore East line and 3 trains an hour for much of the 57 km of the Lakeshore West line. GO service has also been extended for 53 km on the Georgetown line, 6-km on the Barrie line, and 12-km on the Richmond Hill line (the last 3.5 km are opening in 2020). (perhaps the less said about the 70-km extension of the Lakeshore West line to Niagara Falls the better ... and I'm not sure what to say about VIVA).

Yes, many plans have come and gone. But (for once), there's been actual expansion going on at the same time. With luck, there'll be shovels in the ground on other projects in the early 2020s.

Could we build stuff faster in Toronto with some 407-like corporation taking over the Lakeshore, Georgetown, and Stouffville lines with some REM-like service? Probably. Ironically, that wouldn't much different than what Bill Davis promised in the mid-1970s in exchange for cancelling the Gardiner Expressway extension to Port Union/Scarborough

Montreal was subject to the same ideological shifts in governance that Toronto was subjected to since 2009. Since 2009 Quebec has cycled through Liberals, Parti Quebecois, Liberals and now the CAQ provincially with some very eccentric Mayors appearing too like Coderre and now Plante - all with their own sets of crayons and napkins, just like us!!

Even though things are being built here too admittedly, it lacks the same attractiveness, that je ne sais quoi of Montreal's REM network which once complete will sprawl all over their greater metropolitan region (St Anne de Bellevue, Brossard, Deux Montagnes; with likely co-opting of the Train Est Line to Repentigny /Terrebonne and extension south to Chambly and St Jean de Richelieu). What's also not attractive about Toronto's rate of expansion is the prolonged length of time it takes to build even piecemeal expansions. TYSSE and Crosstown immediately come to mind, and don't get us started on the DRL/Ontario Line which at this point is a century overdue.

You can't blanket compare the GO network to REM either. Off-peak hourly service on some lines (not even all) makes our commuter rail system seem like a joke by comparison to REM's 90 second headways through the central trunk section (Bois Franc to River Sud) and 3-6 minutes service levels on the branches.

 

[44 North]

At the same time, the conversion of 5 GO lines to RER has begun

Wait, is RER even a thing anymore? Honest question, but I was under the impression a bulk of the new stations were canceled, or re-analyzed for business something or other (i.e canceled). The new stations were part of what made it RER in the first place. And then electrification is not a definite either. Basically it's simply GO Expansion, which doesn't mean much since GO has been expanding since the 60s.

Also I noticed you called UPX a rapid transit line. Is that correct? Sure its pricing structure changed, which seems more a temporary political move (considering it was planned from the ground up to effectively be the opposite of rapid transit: an elite low-use service).

And then FWLRT. Sure "it will open in 4 years", but the same could've been said in 2008. It's delayed by over a decade, and that's for a "rapid transit" line on par with 512 St Clair.

What I think REM is good for in the UT sphere is that it shows an approach to building subways. Not a vague notion of "rapid transit" that includes buses in mixed traffic. But seemingly an actual subway system. And they actually started quickly and decisively. Perhaps there's been lots of plans in Mtl going back decades. But for this one it stands out since it's started and was specified from the beginning what kind of service it would be: a subway system. Other than Network 2011 in the mid 80s, I can't think of something similar here since.

 

[rbt]

Wait, is RER even a thing anymore? Honest question, but I was under the impression a bulk of the new stations were canceled, or re-analyzed for business something or other (i.e canceled). The new stations were part of what made it RER in the first place. And then electrification is not a definite either. Basically it's simply GO Expansion, which doesn't mean much since GO has been expanding since the 60s.

RER as a dramatic improvement in service levels and operating cost efficiency is definitely still a thing, though still many years from completion.

RER as an upgrade of existing stations and addition new stations is effectively on hold. That said, the off-corridor (station) package can be revived as quickly as it was deferred.

Also I noticed you called UPX a rapid transit line. Is that correct? Sure its pricing structure changed, which seems more a temporary political move (considering it was planned from the ground up to effectively be the opposite of rapid transit: an elite low-use service).

Not sure what pricing has to do with the definition of rapid transit. There are helicopter services in Hong Kong that definitely qualify as rapid transit (runs every 5 to 15 minutes to Macau, Ghangzhou, and the airport; available to everyone; no pre-booking seats; some trips even require a transfer (HK downtown to Macau often transfers at the airport). It's a ~$200 trip (versus the $40 ferry on 30 minute frequencies), so a premium rapid transit service.

London Underground is still a Metro even if numerous less well off people take the surface bus routes instead due to their lower price point.

 

[nfitz]

You can't blanket compare the GO network to REM either. Off-peak hourly service on some lines (not even all) makes our commuter rail system seem like a joke by comparison to REM's 90 second headways through the central trunk section (Bois Franc to River Sud) and 3-6 minutes service levels on the branches.

I think you can compare the REM to our 15-minute offpeak nascent RER system - at least the outer branches. The core Brossard to Bois-Franc service is more comparable to the existing Metro.

But hang on - not sure where your frequencies are coming from. begratto posted above that the core and Brossard will be every 2.5 to 5 minutes (which is very metro-like). But the Deux-Montagnes branch will be only every 5 to 15 minutes and the other 2 branches will only be every 10 minutes (at peak) to every 15 minutes off-peak.

Wait, is RER even a thing anymore? Honest question, but I was under the impression a bulk of the new stations were canceled, or re-analyzed for business something or other (i.e canceled). The new stations were part of what made it RER in the first place. And then electrification is not a definite either. Basically it's simply GO Expansion, which doesn't mean much since GO has been expanding since the 60s.

It's hard to tell honestly ... there were two different things going on. The expansion of diesel services, which was supposed to be pretty much done by now, for full-day GO service on parts 5 main lines (not Richmond and Milton) including every 15 minutes from Aldershot to Oshawa. And then the electrification/full RER of the same lines (at least to Unionville, Bramalea, and some point on the Barrie line).

The issued the RFP for the operations tender last week for service (including the RER service) - but it's not really clear what it still is, especially with the Conservative cuts. and the indefinite deferment (not cancellation) of new stations. Still, (mid-day it's already every 15 minutes from Union to Oshawa, 3 trains a day from Union to Oakville, and 2 trains a day to Aldershot ... with 18-hour a day 7-day a week every 30-minute service in full effect. Nascent may be the operative word here! Compare to when this thread started, when there was only one train an hour - and one-directional peak service only on the other 3 lines (other than 2-3 Bramalea trains that I think had already been cancelled by 2009 for the UP upgrade).