News   Mar 31, 2026
City Council March, 2026: Plenty of Rental, Mutli-Phase Redevelopments Approved
 904     2 
News   Mar 31, 2026
Building Toronto’s Skyline Podcast Event to Feature Brad Bradford in Concord
 159     2 
News   Mar 31, 2026
Glittering Forma Rises Higher in the Entertainment District
 1K     0 

VIA Rail

Xav said:
That's why a CP to CN connection near Ahuntsic station (there is still an existing overpass above Acadie boulevard from that old connection) and a stop at Côte-de-Liesse station would make more sense. It's already built as an interchange station for train-REM connections, it could accomodate all north shore commuter rail lines and Via lines. It has more room to grow too.
Click to expand...

This does seem like a good location for a connection but the station is located to significantly south of the CN-REM separated crossover. EXO trains will turn south parallel to the REM to enter a single platform and parking tracks as shown in plan linked below.

 
Xav said:
In general that would make sense, but the transfer at Canora is not that simple. There is a busy intersection there that cannot be eliminated or moved under or over the tracks. Furthermore, the REM station is now located 180m from the CP tracks, so passengers would need to walk under or over Jean-Talon street and the REM tracks to reach the station.

That's why a CP to CN connection near Ahuntsic station (there is still an existing overpass above Acadie boulevard from that old connection) and a stop at Côte-de-Liesse station would make more sense. It's already built as an interchange station for train-REM connections, it could accomodate all north shore commuter rail lines and Via lines. It has more room to grow too.
Click to expand...

I know the area well - I actually used to live right by that intersection.
Changes would have to be made, but it's nothing so dramatic or fundamental that it would render it impractical.

Just for shits and giggles, here'd be my suggestions:
  • The Wilderton/Jean-Talon crossing could be moved east to Darlingon. Since it's Wilderton's northbound pair, it's basically a zero-sum change for drivers. It would be a positive change for transit users, who'd no longer have to contend with the poorly-designed intersection right outside the new REM station.
  • The REM station can be rebuilt. The reason why it's so far north of Jean-Talon is because the engineers wanted to avoid both the slight curve of the tracks just north of the portal, and the added expense of widening the shallow tunnel under Jean-Talon and the CP tracks. Given the relative unimportance of the station, they opted for cheap, and I don't fault them. But just because the northern option was cheaper doesn't mean the southern option was impossible. As a cut-and-cover tunnel under un-built space, there's nothing about it that would indicate to me that it's an exceptional undertaking. Within the budget of a multi-billion dollar HFR, rebuilding the station would not be an outrageous sum, especially for the time and operational savings it could represent.

The reason I prefer the Canora/Dorval option to the Côte-de-Liesse one is because it enables much simpler and quicker trips from one side of Montreal to the other. I think we can all agree that transfers are a cost to passengers. If it is easy (cross-platform, fare-integrated, timed), it costs less. And it can be well worth it when it saves more time than it costs in time/complication.
  • For passengers from points east of Montreal headed west (and v.v.), a connection at Dorval would 'cost' in complication. But with a time, cross-platform design, it would reduce it by making it as simple as possible. Your train pulls in, the next one is already on the other side of the platform, you walk across, and it leaves less than 5 minutes later. And on the other side of the equation, it would save time by avoiding the slow track between Dorval and Centrale. Instead of 40-50 minutes (see below for how I get to that number), you clear the distance between Dorval and Canora in about 20, including the dwell time at Dorval. Yes, the connection was a bit irksome, but it was brief, you didn't have to think about it, and you feel like you're getting where you want to go quickly.
  • The twin transfers of VIA-REM, REM-VIA would also carry cost in complication, but I'd argue that two of them on different networks carries far more. We're all transit buffs here, but imagine explaining to your 70-year-old aunt how she should take her bags at Centrale, find the REM platform going the right direction, and to pay attention to get off at the right station. It's not impossible, it's just a lot more hassle, especially to those who aren't actively interested in the stuff. And then on the 'benefits' side of the equation, it's much less clear; between the 20 minutes from Dorval to Centrale, the 5-10 minutes it takes to detrain all passengers at Centrale, get to the REM, the 10 minutes up to C-d-L, and to entrain (with some extra buffer dwell to not leave without your aunt, who, despite your best efforts, took the train towards Brossard two stops before realizing and turning around), it's been 40-50 minutes since Dorval. You've gone through all this trouble all this time... in order to end up within literal sight of Dorval, only a 10-minute taxi ride down the 40/440. Anyone who's had to contend with transit knows the frustration and disrespect of having to spend an inordinate amount of time in order to land almost right back where you started. The stakes are also higher - even if HFR runs every hour, it's still an hour. It's hard to miss a cross-platform connection, but all too easy to miss a VIA-REM-VIA connection. Your aunt missed the C-d-L station, and now she's waiting 55 minutes in a station in an industrial park for the next departure.
VIA's in a tough spot with this whole tunnel/transfer business. It has to balance passenger time, and passenger experience. Whether they go for a Dorval connection (faster but less seamless) or an in-and-reverse scenario (slower, but seamless), they've gotta pick a trade-off. But no matter how I turn it in my mind, the double-transfer scenario just doesn't seem to offer either simplicity or speed. I'm very open to new perspectives on it - maybe I'm missing some solutions that could make it work better.

EDIT: I realize that I'm assuming that you're talking about a scenario where TOM trains terminate at Centrale, and MQ trains operate out of C-d-L. Re-reading your post, you might also be talking about running TOMQ trains via C-d-L, in which case a lot of my post wouldn't apply. Although I still have some reservations about the second scenario. Let me know whether I got it wrong.
 
^While I would much prefer a direct path to Central station, I’m reluctant to say that a north end station with excellent public transit connections is all that bad.
While many travellers will indeed be headed to the “downtown”, I imagine that a fair number will have a last-mile connection by transit or cab anyways. Not that many need to step off VIA at Central and walk to their destination. So a north end stop may open as many doors as it closes. Also, it is closer to an awful large amount of suburban Montreal, so might actually be favoured by some who don’t want to go all the way downtown to catch a train.
I agree that a direct route all the way to Dorval may be a big plus over a route thru Central.
It’s not ideal, and I don’t know if any future proofing is contemplated to assure that a new tunnel might be bored some day in a Phase 2+ Project. But it’s the only option, it seems. Sharing the existing tunnel with REM just isn’t on.

- Paul
.
 
ManyQuestions said:
The big issue with moving the VIA rail north of downtown is that it forces another transfer to public transit or a longer uber ride for many trips into Montreal. While I don't have access to data to back this up, I do understand that the majority of people choosing to take the train from Ottawa to Montreal instead of driving do so because it is more convenient than driving if your destination is in downtown Montreal. If HFR is going to attract more riders it will need to compete with driving to gain additional ridership from people who would have otherwise drove. This would require playing towards the strength of the train, easy access to a downtown that is accessible without a car. Addition an additional transfer to a crowded metro train or a need for a moderately long uber ride makes the entire process less appealing and makes it less likely that drivers choose to buy tickets instead of just driving to Montreal. This gets worse when you consider how many people could be going to destinations off the REM route and would therefore need to make two transfers in Montreal to get to their destination. Transit gains ridership when it is made more convenient. While adding frequencies and improving speed does improve convenience, relocating stations and splitting services risks negating these benefits.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the same can be said with Ottawa where you have to transfer to the O-Train to reach downtown. Sometimes you just have to take your Ls.
 
ARG1 said:
To be fair, the same can be said with Ottawa where you have to transfer to the O-Train to reach downtown. Sometimes you just have to take your Ls.
Click to expand...
There are many cities around the world require you to transfer from Rail to Transit to get downtown or the city centre. Cities were built first to the point they prevent rail reaching the city centre/downtown. To do so would require tearing down buildings and roads.

Toronto have the waterfront fill in to allow trains from one side of the city and then across the whole waterfront. Front St was the water edge before Grand Trunk built their Weston Subdivision. This started the infilling of the water edge to where it is today.
 
ARG1 said:
To be fair, the same can be said with Ottawa where you have to transfer to the O-Train to reach downtown. Sometimes you just have to take your Ls.
Click to expand...

Very true. The Ottawa station's connection to transit after the new LRT construction is disappointing to say the least. It's certainly passable but the Ottawa station isn't close to as convenient as Montreal's Gare Centrale. Especially once the REM opens making the Gare Centrale accessible by transit from the north and south in addition to the Orange line and taxis/walking.

In my ideal scenario that doesn't involve boring a connection from Gare Centrale to Ave du Parc station T-O-M trains would still go into Gare Centrale while trains from Quebec all stop at a new northern Montreal station that connects to the REM before either continuing to Gare Centrale or Ottawa. Maintaining trips to Gare Centrale ensures that trains are able to easily access the Montreal maintenance center in addition to enabling one seat rides to downtown Montreal.
 
Aylmer said:
[...]
EDIT: I realize that I'm assuming that you're talking about a scenario where TOM trains terminate at Centrale, and MQ trains operate out of C-d-L. Re-reading your post, you might also be talking about running TOMQ trains via C-d-L, in which case a lot of my post wouldn't apply. Although I still have some reservations about the second scenario. Let me know whether I got it wrong.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's what I was talking about: Having the northbound trains operate from Côte-de-Liesse (Exo St-Jérôme, Exo Mascouche, VIA Mtl-TR-QC, VIA Senneterre/Jonquière) and the south/west bound trains operate from Gare Centrale or Lucien-L'Allier (Adirondack, Océan, HFR TOM, Exo Hudson, Exo Candiac, Exo Saint-Hilaire, Mtl-QC trains via the South Shore).

The HFR trains that go through from Toronto and Ottawa to Québec City via Montréal (I doubt there would be that many) could simply go through the CN yard. However, there is currently no connection between the eastbound CN line and the Côte-de-Liesse REM stop, so people who would want to stop in Montréal on those trains would have to transfer at Dorval.

Obivously it would be nice to have every line reach Gare Centrale quickly and easily, but I doubt we have the capital required for such a project. I think this solution is the most effective way of splitting services between two terminals without too much impact to the travelling public.

Also, while a lot of people who originate in Ottawa and Toronto would want to reach downtown Montréal, people from Québec City probably have much more diverse destinations on the Island (or around it).
 
Seems mostly generic.

On the question of where it would stop, it dodges it with "With stations proposed between Toronto, Ottawa, Montréal and Québec City—some new, some relocated, some rehabilitated and some existing—".... though it later name checks Peterborough and Trois-Rivières.

The map we've seen before is much higher resolution. You can click on the image below.
https://tgf-hfr.ca/wp-content/uploa...ite-2022-02-10_HFR-Central-Map-English-TC.png
 
nfitz said:
Seems mostly generic.

On the question of where it would stop, it dodges it with "With stations proposed between Toronto, Ottawa, Montréal and Québec City—some new, some relocated, some rehabilitated and some existing—".... though it later name checks Peterborough and Trois-Rivières.

The map we've seen before is much higher resolution. You can click on the image below.
https://tgf-hfr.ca/wp-content/uploa...ite-2022-02-10_HFR-Central-Map-English-TC.png
Click to expand...
No Havelock or Sharbort Lake Stations?
 
Bordercollie said:
No Havelock or Sharbort Lake Stations?
Click to expand...
Who knows ... they go on to say:

To identify the optimal location and number of stations along the proposed HFR route, the HFR Project Team will consider how best to achieve shortest journey times while still meeting other key objectives of HFR (e.g., improved connections and connectivity to other modes of transit).
Click to expand...
 
nfitz said:
Seems mostly generic.

On the question of where it would stop, it dodges it with "With stations proposed between Toronto, Ottawa, Montréal and Québec City—some new, some relocated, some rehabilitated and some existing—".... though it later name checks Peterborough and Trois-Rivières.

The map we've seen before is much higher resolution. You can click on the image below.
https://tgf-hfr.ca/wp-content/uploa...ite-2022-02-10_HFR-Central-Map-English-TC.png
Click to expand...

Look forward to the scaled civil engineering version of this one day.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top