Leo_Chan
Senior Member
- I’d say the Canada Line is slightly underbuilt.
- Too bad Toronto is bordered in the south by Lake Ontario and downtown wasn’t at Yonge and Eglinton, otherwise lots of potential for new lines.
- Lease not sell ownership.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Ansem
- Start date
nfitz
Superstar
The media have consistently been calling it an LRT. The Caisse's website calls it a "light rail network" right on the homepage and then again in their "REM in brief" page.
Excellent! Hmm, though I'm a bit disappointed on the up and down in the connection to Metro Edouard-Montpetit. I wonder if that's what the MUCTC envisioned in the 1970s and early 1980s?
p_xavier
Active Member
Well a city objective is usually against the suburbs' motives.
It's not in French media, the CDPQi even asked the SRC (CBC French equivalent) to call the REM a light metro system and stop calling the REM a "train léger", which is the translation of LRT.
begratto
New Member
I guess they have not updated their English web site. In French they've been using "métro léger" for a while. On Facebook it's always métro léger too.
begratto
New Member
The connection is indeed much more complicated than it should have been. I'm quite sure the original 1970's plan called for a direct connection from the métro platform to the
train station below.
p_xavier
Active Member
Why it doesn't sound good? The REM price per km includes financing, vehicles, operating costs and construction. And the price per km is still cheaper than a suburban bus or commuter train per user for just operating costs. If anything it shows how inefficient public transit is in general. Usually a province finances a transit project and cheapens it (most LRT projects instead of light metro) because it will not have to fund the operating costs; the cities will.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
We were explicitly discussing Toronto's role in the LRT lines. You said that "It was city hall that proposed the initial LRT lines thus city hall shouldn't even be allowed to do such planning in the first place". All the same suburbs that were in Metropolitan Toronto are now in the City of Toronto.
As we are having this discussion in English, I don't see any relevance in what the French media is calling it. The Caisse is very clearly calling it "light rail" and not "metro" or even "light metro" on their own English website.
It seems rather odd and prickly to be coming here and saying that we shouldn't use the same term that the Caisse is using, but instead translating a term being used elsewhere in another language!?!
Last edited:
p_xavier
Active Member
It was the easiest/cheapest way to build, plus STM operations are not affected, which was a requirement of the latter.
p_xavier
Active Member
Richmond Hill wants a Subway extension, city of Toronto wants a city expension. Studies are paid by the city of Toronto, city of Toronto has thus an influence where a provincial asset should not.
Light metro is LRT but LRT is not Light metro. Both languages are correct but one is more precise. If you want precision you call it a light metro system. Regular usage of LRT in Anglo media is generally a right-of-way system but with crossings. Vancouver calls SkyTrain RRT and not LRT.
begratto
New Member
The CDPQ/REM's functionning language is French, not English, so I'd trust their French version more than the English one. And in any case, here's an example of a recent communication in English where they use "metro" instead of "light rail"
Neutrino
Senior Member
Will the deeply suburban REM stations have at least half way decent local bus connections?
begratto
New Member
The STM and RTL bus networks are supposed to be reorganized before the REM opens. The plan is to provide efficient connections to the REM stations, in the same way that almost all bus lines in the central part of the city connect to the métro stations.
The STM has also discussed increasing bus frequencies, with 300 additionnal buses (which will arrive in 2020 and 2021) and a re-deployment of buses currently affected to lines that will become redundant due to the REM. The RTL has also announced that they will adopt a similar approach on the South Shore, i.e. better frequencies across the network and connections to the REM stations.
Last edited:
p_xavier
Active Member
They are actually required contractually to connect to the REM.
nfitz
Superstar
The Regional Municipality of York has been paying for and leading the extension along Yonge Street into Richmond Hill (and Markham and Vaughan) - not the City of Toronto. Part of the reason that the designis further advanced, and the EA as approved years earlier.
Oh, we could argue that one for years - I'm simply going with the language used on the Caisse's own website - which contradicts comments above that the Caisse wants to call it something other than what their website is calling it!
That "recent" communication also says "light rail" further down the page. There's no indication how old it was - I thought I'd seen that render some time ago ... ah yes, here's the earlier version from a year ago - https://rem.info/en/news/montreal-trudeau-airport. It's kind of irrelevant what term they use on the French version of their website, as we are not having this discussion in French!
A Caisse press release only 2 weeks ago is again calling it "light rail" - https://rem.info/en/news/pivotal-year-south-shore - which is the same term ATM was calling the south-shore line for many years, while calling it metro in French.
Still seems prickly to be objecting to using the term that the Caisse uses currently, prominently, and more often than not. Light Rail is frequently used in English instead of Light Metro - it's far more common. It's also the same term that's generally used in Ontario - even for fully grade-separated lines like the Light Rail in Ottawa.
nfitz
Superstar
Hang on - something isn't adding up. 600 passengers every 2 minutes is only 18,000 passengers an hour. Greater than 25,000 passengers an hour would require a train less than every 85 seconds.
While a peak capacity of 25,000 passengers a day, is starting to cross the line past light rail, 18,000 passengers a day is not.
How long and wide is each car? How many cars per train?
There's been a tendency for private companies to seriously exaggerate the operating capacity of transit cars recently, that don't reflect the reality of Canadian transit operations with passengers in bulky clothing with briefcases, backpacks, or strollers - and sensitive safety devices on doors that you can't lean against without bringing the train to a halt!
They also ignore that a crush capacity for a car might work fine for reporting the capacity of a line with infrequent service (such as every 10 to 15 minutes like that proposed for the Kitchener LRT, or the late-night service on the Montreal Metro) but it doesn't work when you are trying to get a vehicle through a stop every 90 to 120 seconds, as the crush conditions significantly increase the dwell time, reducing capacity on the line!