News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5K     0 

My concern w/the OL for the purpose of the comparison is that it removed capacity (potential capacity) from the Lakeshore East Corridor, without allowing for a service model that included HFR/HSR and/or dramatically ramped up VIA service.

The 4-tracks (reserved to GO) should be sufficient for their purposes, subject to service model and how Scarborough Junction is handled. But looking at what I understand DB is proposing for GO, even with with more sophisticated signalling on the way, I don't see enough room for maxed out corridor service that isn't perpetually stuck behind GO Trains.

My assumption which I have shared privately in the past, but will do so publicly here is that HFR/HSR will end up using the Don Sub, then CP Mainline to Havelock sub.

This is viable, but comes with some Billion dollar choices if you max out service options, a new trestle across the Don may be necessary (Leaside Rail Bridge) and that would be $$$; the 1/2 mile bridge over Bayview requires total reconstruction, and there a some other added costs vs the option of running up Stouffville.

Even then, the residual corridor service operating with Kingston as a hub may be challenged to find slots that allow smooth flow into Union Station particularly with growth from existing service levels.
I am probably the only one here who has been lucky enough to have seen at some point VIA’s plans and how Metrolinx (or ONxpress) plans to accommodate them in their own ambitious expansion plans. While I of course can’t comment on the specifics, I feel confident to say that I have absolutely no worries that whatever Ontario plans to build and operate in the GTHA might hinder or impede the ambitions of VIA or HFR/HSR.

I assume it’s easy for non-rail-simulation-analysts to overestimate the capacity consumed by intercity trains operating at (near metropolitan cores) relatively low speeds and the interference between them and urban/regional rail services, but I’ve seen quite a lot of plans and believe that they make the apropriate tradeoffs rather than suboptimizing for one service type at the expense of the other.

The contrast to Montreal could hardly be any starker…
 
I am probably the only one here who has both seen at some point VIA’s plans and how Metrolinx (or ONxpress) plan to accommodate them.

You are not the only person here to have seen those, there are at minimum three.

My comment was based on discussions with one of those others.

I have not read the plans for myself though, and would not wish to engage third-hand as it were.

I assume it’s easy for non-rail-simulation-analysts to overestimate the capacity consumed by intercity trains operating at (near metropolitan cores) relatively low speeds and the interference between them and urban/regional rail services, but I’ve seen quite a lot of plans and believe that they make the apropriate tradeoffs rather than suboptimizing for one service type at the expense of the other.

VIA does get stuck behind GO trains now, at a much lower service threshold.
 
Last edited:
VIA does get stuck behind GO trains now, at a much lower service threshold.
But that's also in a situation today with a much lower capacity available, too.

Once pairs of tracks are available for both local and express stopping patterns, it will greatly increase capacity for all of them.

Dan
 

The tram's downtown segment through Notre-Dame has been cut back. New price tag is 18B. 31 stations over 38km

City segments are expected to have a speed of 30km/h and certain segments along the highway can reach 100km/h. Whether signal priority will exist if not has not been mentioned.

Hope for opening date is 2036.
1717218013051.png

1717218198414.png


1717218214567.png


1717218327763.png

Worth mentioning that the REM East would have cost [the taxpayers] about 10B for 32km of fully grade separated right of way and 24 stations. (And the target date was 2029, if I remember correctly)
 

Attachments

  • 1717218176246.png
    1717218176246.png
    471.9 KB · Views: 11
Last edited:
Worth mentioning that the REM East would have cost [the taxpayers] about 10B for 32km of fully grade separated right of way and 24 stations. (And the target date was 2029, if I remember correctly)
No infrastructure project ends close to its initial estimates, just compare the current (not even: final) pricetag and timeline of the original sin REM with the lofty promises at the time of the go-ahead decision.

Same is of course true for this tram proposal…
 
No infrastructure project ends close to its initial estimates, just compare the current (not even: final) pricetag and timeline of the original sin REM with the lofty promises at the time of the go-ahead decision.

Same is of course true for this tram proposal…
Of course. But if the price increase is a percentage, the initial cost estimate is still important.

The tram proposal is costing 570 million per station (and 470 per km)

That compared to 416 million per station for the REM East (322m per km).

The REM will need at least a 37 percent cost overrun to reach the tram's initial cost estimate for example. Also keep in mind the CDPQ would have swallowed part of the overruns like they did with the REM.
 
Last edited:
If course. But if the price increase is a percentage, the initial cost estimate is still important.

The tram proposal is costing 570 million per station (and 470 per km)

That compared to 416 million per station for the REM East (322m per km).

The REM will need at least a 37 percent cost overrun to reach the tram's initial cost estimate for example. Also keep in mind the CDPQ would have swallowed part of the overruns like they did with the REM.
Correct, but the REM de l‘Est included a to-be-newly-dug downtown tunnel, which gives much more scope for cost overruns than the tram and even the original REM…
 
Correct, but the REM de l‘Est included a to-be-newly-dug downtown tunnel, which gives much more scope for cost overruns than the tram and even the original REM…
This feels like a reach. Yes, there are more places for construction to go wrong, but the initial per km cost is significantly lower, and even if it went to, say, $500 million/km, the downtown segment still provides a much higher benefit to the overall transit network than whatever this is.
1717264393440.png


There are very legitimate criticisms over handing control of Québec transit planning to CDPQi, but I have to wonder whether ARTM planning capacity is a "loss" when they're planning downtown-less tramways with an eleven-digit price tag ...
 
I'm familiar w/Montreal, but not the same was as someone who is/was a resident.

Ie. I know the transit system and street grid generally, but don't have a good sense of origin/destination travel patters and traffic levels.

Perhaps someone with a deeper understanding of the above can explain to me why any of the following would not be preferable?

1) Extend the Blue line further into the east end, possibly cutting over to the proposed tram route

2) Extend the Green Line into the east end along the tram route.

3 Convert the commuter line to RER/Subway type operation.

*****

In the case of the subways, I realize it would be costly to deliver a fully tunneled route of comparable length. But would it be possible to surface any of the alignment in a non-controversial way? Or alternatively, to simply build a shorter extension to which bus routes would continue to be linked?

*****

The overall shape/length of the proposed route baffles me, as it runs 2 or arguably 3 different directions, and feels like it doubles back on itself. I take it there is demand along that alignment, but it seems like a very convoluted way to meet that need.
 
I'm familiar w/Montreal, but not the same was as someone who is/was a resident.

Ie. I know the transit system and street grid generally, but don't have a good sense of origin/destination travel patters and traffic levels.

Perhaps someone with a deeper understanding of the above can explain to me why any of the following would not be preferable?

1) Extend the Blue line further into the east end, possibly cutting over to the proposed tram route

2) Extend the Green Line into the east end along the tram route.

3 Convert the commuter line to RER/Subway type operation.
One and two are mostly about cost of building it as full metro, and demand.

Until 1984, the Blue line (Line 5) actually was going to turn north on Pie-X (just west of Lacordaire) and follow pretty much that alignment. Then in the 1984 plan, they ended up closer to where they are today.

The commuter line was planned as more of an RER/Subway-type operation back then (as Line 6), and terminated at Metro du College. Line 7 (the White Line) would have been full metro. But the southern leg of this travesty (Line 8) was a relatively cheap more LRT-like mostly along the railway alignment. The Blue Line is pretty much unchanged, the sold blue was well under construction in 1984, and the dashed blue section is still what they are now talking about building now.

I'd think replacing the southern leg with the old Line 8 concept, and building a lot cheaper LRT up Pie-X or Lacordaire, and into Montreal-Nord would be better. At these type of costs, I'd think the money would be better spent on something like the pink-line concept that ignores the road grid.

(Line 10 and Line 11 were also LRT - which I guess some would call Transfer City - I'm sure Montrealers are relieved that they can still take buses to the Metro, rather than the forced indignity of having to change from LRT to Metro).

1717267131288.png
 
This feels like a reach. Yes, there are more places for construction to go wrong, but the initial per km cost is significantly lower, and even if it went to, say, $500 million/km, the downtown segment still provides a much higher benefit to the overall transit network than whatever this is.
View attachment 568707
Unfortunately, the most expensive segment of the REM de l‘Est was the one where it duplicated the existing Metro network…

There are very legitimate criticisms over handing control of Québec transit planning to CDPQi, but I have to wonder whether ARTM planning capacity is a "loss" when they're planning downtown-less tramways with an eleven-digit price tag ...
Remind me again what exactly is in the way which prevents the ARTM from planning a fast, frequent and convenient link from Repegntigny and Montreal-Est to downtown Montreal…?
 
Unfortunately, the most expensive segment of the REM de l‘Est was the one where it duplicated the existing Metro network…
And it would have relieved the (pre-COVID) overcapacity Green Line, which ran at just 2000 PPHD below its maximum capacity level, as well as preventing a SRT-style linear transfer.

Remind me again what exactly is in the way which prevents the ARTM from planning a fast, frequent and convenient link from Repegntigny and Montreal-Est to downtown Montreal…?
The collective incompetence of the ARTM and the politicians in charge.

We know you dislike the REM, but I would assign blame to the visionless politicians at the Assemblée nationale and Montréal City Hall who would rather make no plans and no provision for the plans that do exist. They approved the REM, now they complain that the Mont-Royal Tunnel has been used. Oops, should have thought of that before the project was approved, we knew they would convert the tunnel - this is why we desperately need coherent long-term planning that's not just easily dismissed crayons.
 
And it would have relieved the (pre-COVID) overcapacity Green Line, which ran at just 2000 PPHD below its maximum capacity level, as well as preventing a SRT-style linear transfer.
IIRC, the busiest segment of the green line is between Berri-UQAM and McGill, mostly caused by passengers transferring from the orange line. The most obvious fix would have been directing the Blainville and Mascouche line into the Mont-Royal tunnel, but we know why this is no longer possible. However, this would have provided a much larger area with a direct downtown connection than the REM de l‘Est - at a much lower capital cost…


The collective incompetence of the ARTM and the politicians in charge.
Not every government agency had the performance to show to allow its leadership to ignore the visionless business-as-usual mandate dictated by their political and bureaucratic masters, which allowed YDS to repeatedly tell TC „what are you going to do about it? Fire me?“ whenever they insisted that he could not pursue HFR…

We know you dislike the REM, but I would assign blame to the visionless politicians at the Assemblée nationale and Montréal City Hall who would rather make no plans and no provision for the plans that do exist. They approved the REM, now they complain that the Mont-Royal Tunnel has been used. Oops, should have thought of that before the project was approved, we knew they would convert the tunnel - this is why we desperately need coherent long-term planning that's not just easily dismissed crayons.
I fully agree, which is why I find it so disingenuous to blame ARTM or exo for the chainsaw massacre to which the REM has destined any future prospects for upgrading and extending commuter and intercity passenger rail networks towards the North Shore…
 
Last edited:
Remind me again what exactly is in the way which prevents the ARTM from planning a fast, frequent and convenient link from Repegntigny and Montreal-Est to downtown Montreal…?
I mean, the Port of Montreal surely has something to do with the fact that service from the east routes over the top of the City?
 
I mean, the Port of Montreal surely has something to do with the fact that service from the east routes over the top of the City?
Even if there were was a track connection allowing trains to move from the port to Gare Centrale, it is not conceiveable to route passenger trains through the dense tourist flocks which stroll around Vieux-Montréal and the Old Port districts…
 

Back
Top