begratto
New Member
Sadly, you did not.
The old Voyageur bus terminal is supposed to be demolished and replaced by some project in the future (yet to be announced), and then there will be a convenient interior connection to the métro.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Ansem
- Start date
Sadly, you did not.
The old Voyageur bus terminal is supposed to be demolished and replaced by some project in the future (yet to be announced), and then there will be a convenient interior connection to the métro.
nfitz
Superstar
I think they missed something there ... though into ultimately into the great Hall from the subway will be quick, like it was before the construction.
Oh, I thought it had closed already. Can't be much quicker than before! The Toronto trek or subway ride up to Bay and Dundas becane annoying back when I used to travel from Montreal to Kitchener as a student, after the Conservatives cancelled many of the Toronto to Kitchener trains ... though perhaps that will change with the new terminal on Bay south of the east teamway.
p_xavier
Active Member
The feds have officially asked the infrastructure bank to study how to connect the Airport REM station to the Dorval station.
p_xavier
Active Member
The new terminal is a fiasco in every aspect, it nearly ruined the UQAM.. I enjoyed the older one much more. The STM wanted to look into building their new HQ there but the city wants social housing.
nfitz
Superstar
That sounded optimistic until I opened the article and saw that in addition to extending the REM 700 metres, they are also considering a tram or buses. I really can't fathom how this wasn't part of the original plan - surely with the great expense already in place, adding a station that would draw significant commuter ridership from Dorval would provide a lot of revenue to the Caisse.
Here's a better URL for the article - https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/...ment-combler-le-kilometre-manquant-au-rem.php
I'm not sure how one screws up a bus terminal - it's not complicated! And the old one was such a simple design.
But how would it impact UQAM?
Why couldn't it be everything? Buses on the ground floor, STM HQ for a few floors over top and then towers of social housing on top? I'm surprised there's not been more development at that location, where 3 metro lines meet!
Looking at Google Streetview - gosh some changes since last time I remember walking along there - about 1989 - that convenient parking lot due south of the terminal is now a park!. I see the new bus terminal with relatively short towers of housing above (only 8 stories on top of the 2 story terminal?). But gosh - what happened? You can see that construction had started in 2007, with already 6 stories on top of the new terminal ... and then it moves very slowly until about 2016, where they are finally putting windows in the first 6 stories and adding 2 more floor on top, with some finishing work going on still in 2017. I assume there is quite a story here ... and I'd guess they'd have had to have started in at least 2005.
Hmm ... looks from the May 2019 photos that the back side still isn't finished, and doesn't seem to have progressed much since September 2007, with the hoarding unchanged since 2012 in one spot!
Last edited:
p_xavier
Active Member
The initial project which is the new bus station was initiated from the UQAM as a new residence for its students, dubbed the "ilôt voyageur". Bad management from the university.
La construction reprend à l’îlot Voyageur
Les travaux ont été interrompus au milieu des années 2000 dans la foulée du scandale immobilier de...
La partie abandonnée de l’îlot Voyageur intéresse Montréal
La portion abandonnée de l’îlot Voyageur, qui fait partie d’un fiasco immobilier qui a coûté 300 M$ à Québec, est en voie d’être vendue à Montréal.
www.tvanouvelles.ca
SFO-YYZ
Active Member
Back to REM... official groundbreaking ceremony today for the terminus station at Trudeau Airport. Boring machine to be delivered in the first week of August to begin tunneling @YUL.
REM Trudeau Airport Terminus Groundbreaking - CTV Montreal
REM Trudeau Airport Terminus Groundbreaking - CTV Montreal
nephersir7
Active Member
It seems like the station design has evolved since these early renderings. Now it's side platforms instead of an island platform.
p_xavier
Active Member
Looks like longer platforms than 76m too.
begratto
New Member
I noticed that too. Maybe having two separate platforms is more convenient if they continue the line to Dorval, past the airport?
Urban Sky
Senior Member
But that is exactly why we need to define the different transit categories and differentiate between them: because you will only be able to find the best trade-off between the achievable ridership increase and the required taxpayer involvement. Choosing the right transit category is like choosing between a van, a pick-up, a Smart (i.e. mini-sized city car) and a sports car - there are not that many circumstances where two of these choices are equally desirable and appropriate. What happens if you don't care about what transit category is proposed and whether it is an appropriate choice for the identified problem and the desired task, will become hard to deny once its built, which is why I believe that we should use clearer and more distinctive definitions for them, such as those I’m going to present in this post.
The REM fits in neither of the two established transit categories (Metro and light rail), which is why I would rather classify transit systems by two different dimensions:
- Right-of-way sharing (segregated or shared): Almost all definitions for a "Metro" I am aware of refer to something like a "underground electric railway". I believe that most of the confusion comes from including the word "underground", because many metro systems operate at least partly overground (as seen in London, Paris and of course also Toronto), while its underground termini like at Union Station don't make the Toronto Streetcar a "metro". Therefore, I would rather define a "metro" as an "electrical railway, which operates entirely grade-separated and on dedicated tracks not shared with other urban or interurban rail modes". This makes the Métro de Montréal, Toronto's Subway, the Scarborough RT and the future REM network a Metro, whereas exo, GO Transit, UPX, the Toronto Streetcar, and any LRT scheme in planing or operation in the GTHA I'm aware of are urban or suburban rail networks.
- Train length (constrained vs. extendable): since a 12-car GO train is a very different kind of beast than the Toronto streetcar, a second dimension should reflect the relative size of the train. Certain rail-based transit systems like GO Transit (rail) or the Métro de Montréal (metro) have very long trains (12 or 9 cars, respectively) and this length is only limited by relatively soft constraints like the locomotive power (could be overcome by placing a second locomotive on the other end or by using EMUs) or platform length. Conversely, the train length of streetcars or LRT's is severely limited by the fact that they may share their tracks with other road traffic, whereas driverless systems like the REM depend on platform-screen doors and therefore a station infrastructure which is highly customized and in-fact integrated with the track infrastructure, which makes longer platforms (and especially the extension of existing platforms) very expensive. In reference to the relative size of the passenger load they may transport, rail and metro systems with an inherently constrained train length (such as Toronto streetcar, any LRT system, the Scarborough RT and the REM) should get the pre-fix "light", whereas all other rail or metro systems (such as the Métro de Montréal, the Toronto Subway, exo or GO Transit should get the pre-fix "heavy".
Consequently, there are four different categories of rail-based urban or suburban transit, which have unique advantages and disadvantages:
- Heavy rail is probably the most straight-forward transit category and refers to any rail-based transit system which can in principle operate at any train length and share its right-of-way with any non-transit heavy rail modes (like intercity or freight services) and comprise exo in Montreal and GO Transit & UPX in Toronto. Its main advantage is that its trains can transport massive numbers of people (GO Transit's 12-bilevel-car trains provide a seating capacity of already passengers, which might be a world record) at high average speeds while leveraging the existing heavy rail networks, making it the most cost-effective mode, but it allows for the lowest train frequencies of all modes, especially where the signalling and train control systems are outdated or where it shares tracks with other heavy rail services (such as intercity, regional or freight services). Its strength is therefore transporting medium passenger volumes over longer distances (20-60 km, e.g. intra-regional and inter-urban travel) along existing rail corridors.
- Light rail refers to any rail-based transit system which shares its right of way (at least in principle) with non-rail modes (road traffic or pedestrians) and typically only exists of a few cars, in order to not block intersections during its frequent station stops. This category comprises TTC's streetcars and any operational or planned light rail transit (LRT) project in Canada I'm aware of. Its main advantage is that it can have very low construction costs (especially where there the rails are simply built into the roads) and still a much higher capacity than any road vehicles, but any right-of-way sharing with road traffic exposes it with to the same road congestion, which results in a low average speed. Its strength is therefore transporting low passenger volumes over short distances (1-10 km, e.g. intra-urban and suburban travel) over the city's main road arteries.
- Heavy metro refers to any rail-based transit system which has a dedicated right of way and train length is only constrained by the shortest platform length along the line. This category comprises the Toronto Subway (only lines 1, 2 and 4) and the Métro de Montréal. Its main advantage is that it can transport a large volume of passengers (thanks to their relatively long trains and especially their very short frequencies) at much higher average speeds than light rail, but it is also the most expensive mode, especially when it has to be constructed underground (which is the norm in urban cores). Its strength is therefore transporting high passenger volumes over short or medium distances (5-30 km, e.g. intra-urban, suburban and inter-urban travel), preferably next to existing rail corridors or underneath large streets (which reduces tunnelling costs, thanks to "cut-and-cover").
- Light metro refers refers to any rail-based transit system which has a dedicated right of way, but seeks to reduce costs compared to a traditional (i.e. heavy) metro This category comprises the Scarborough RT, the future REM network in Montreal and the Skytrain in Vancouver. Its main advantage is that its construction and operating costs are lower than a heavy metro thanks to shorter train and platform lengths and (in most cases) driverless operation, but these factors result in a significantly lower capacity and thus cost-effectiveness than heavy metro (and heavy rail). Its strength is therefore transporting medium passenger loads over short distances (1-10 km, e.g. intra-urban and suburban travel), where high property prices and the lack of existing rail corridors make surface rail networks uneconomic.
I hope that these definitions help to finally settle the debate of which city has the larger rail transit networks, which will of course depend on which rail transport categories are counted:
- In terms of heavy rail transit, it's Toronto by a far and growing margin, as its network is growing (while the exo network is shrinking, thanks to the conversion of the Deux-Montagnes line and the truncation of the downtown section of the Mascouche and Saint-Jerome lines).
- In terms of light rail, it's Toronto again, as there is not a single light rail line built or under construction in Montreal.
- In terms of heavy metro, it's also Toronto (excluding the Scarborough RT), but with a thin margin (70.5 km vs. Montreal's 69.2 km) and Montreal will take the lead again once the blue line has been extended.
- In terms of light metro, it's Toronto today thanks to the Scarborough RT, while Montreal will take comfortably the lead once the REM network has been built.
That said, I also hope that this helps any debate of whether light metro is the appropriate choice for the future REM network and I would therefore like to challenge any of its supporters here in the forum to browse the list of light metro networks provided on the corresponding article on Wikipedia and to name a light metro line anywhere in the world which serves a network or corridor remotely similar to the REM and in a metropolitan area which is remotely comparable in size to Montreal...
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
Do we though. By defining categories, we reject the possibility that it's a continuum undefinable by categories. For example, one might claim that the REM is light-metro west of Bois-Franc, but is behaving more like a heavy-metro east of Bois-Franc.
Line 4 is heavy-metro - but it's got the same length trains and a similar capacity for the underground section of the Eglinton line between Mount Dennis and Laird. It may even be more frequent. And it's similar to the Montreal Blue line in terms of train lengths and capacity when the Blue line was exclusively used 6-car trains for many years last century.
Which, like all definitions, is going to require exceptions. Such as the pieces of the London Overground, which are surely metro, but use diesel. Or the Chicago El line with the level crossing. And isn't there track sharing on parts of Seoul Line 1 towards Suwon and beyond? And then, what if VIA does get it's way, and shared the Mount Royal tunnel with the REM (which I think is unlikely)?
I'm very suspicious of any scheme that labels the low capacity Scarborough RT (The Scarborough Skytrain!) as Metro, but labels the much higher capacity Line 5 west of Laird as something else!
The terms are interesting - though often academic. Wikipedia has been a battleground of terminology - particularly between North America and the rest of the world. The principle there is common usage prevails - the challenge is whose common usage.
But to follow Wikipedia's example - in local articles, you use local terminology and common usage. And this is not only a Toronto-based forum ... it's an urban Toronto (as opposed to suburban!) forum. So Toronto terminology should predominate, though with preference for local English terminology used elsewhere when discussing there systems. So Toronto and New York have subways. Montreal, Washington and Paris have metros. London has tubes and undergrounds (and trams and overgrounds!). Meanwhile Montreal has chosen to brand REM as light rail (though I can see it could also have been branded metro or RER), as has Ottawa. The jury is still out, particularly with the increasingly bizarre recent schism between TTC and Metrolinx, but it looks like they'll brand Line 5 as subway, like Line 3.
In Toronto, Metro is a grocery store, and Subway is also a sandwich shop!
If we ignore labels, and focus on capacity, frequency, and travel times, the discussion becomes simpler.
Last edited:
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
Just to throw another wrench in this, Glasgow calls their line a subway for some odd reason.
nfitz
Superstar
They do seem to - fixed. In my defence, I haven't been in central Glasgow since 1977, and I wasn't with locals. I'm pretty sure it was called an Underground back then.
Steve X
Senior Member
light rail vs light metro?
Every city likes to use this definition differently. There is no debate of telling who's wrong and who's right. All we can conclude is it carries less people than a regular subway.
Every city likes to use this definition differently. There is no debate of telling who's wrong and who's right. All we can conclude is it carries less people than a regular subway.