- Thread starter WislaHD
- Start date
WislaHD
Superstar
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I don't know very much about this proposal, so forgive me for the basic question. Can someone explain to me how this project is not Regional Express Rail? Other than the REM using smaller automated trains, the characteristics of this project seem more or less like every RER project I've seen. Especially because of its wide stop spacing and relatively low train frequency on the branches.
This basically seems identical to what Toronto would get if GO RER were running subway or light rail vehicles rather than double decker EMUs.
This basically seems identical to what Toronto would get if GO RER were running subway or light rail vehicles rather than double decker EMUs.
aquateam
Active Member
This thread is kind of dead but I'm going to post this anyway.
The AMT (now RTM) had plans for something like RER. The REM is not like RER because it's incompatible with all the existing commuter rail lines... It's kind of like if you were to rip up some GO lines including the USRC, build a brand new skytrain system instead, and add a new branch on the 401.
It's actually a death knell for any RER proposal, since it A) replaces the most successful AMT line B) monopolizes the Mount Royal tunnel, preventing the other AMT lines (St. Jerome, Mascouche, VIA rail) from having a direct route to downtown and forcing transfers on to the new system C) cannibalizes ridership from existing lines (Vaudreil-Hudson) to the point where they will enter a death spiral and no longer be viable.
You should this fascinating deposition from a transit nerd to the BAPE about the REM proposal, it's over 100 pages but it's riveting. It may be a big part of the reason why BAPE did not give its approval to the REM proposal, but the province is bypassing BAPE anyway.
He proposes a few changes that make complete sense:
1) Upgrade the signalling system for the existing commuter lines and let them share the tunnel with the REM.
2) Delete the ridiculous, circuitous, expensive, tunneled connection to the airport. Instead, connect to the airport through the Vaudreuil-Hudson line, with some upgrades.
3) Shift the West-Island branch further north to the hydro corridor, where it can be combined with a proposed burial of the hydro lines.
4) Some specific improvements to the alignment and station locations, for improved network connectivity and better TOD/fewer park and rides.
There are some things I disagree with, where he suggests some cost savings that would reduce the effectiveness of the network. Single tracking through environmentally sensitive areas, for instance, or avoiding certain grade separations to save on cost. But overall I think it's a huge improvement, especially since the existing REM proposal (and most of Montreal's transit network) seems to be oriented around how to find the most indirect and circuitous way to get from point A to point B.
The AMT (now RTM) had plans for something like RER. The REM is not like RER because it's incompatible with all the existing commuter rail lines... It's kind of like if you were to rip up some GO lines including the USRC, build a brand new skytrain system instead, and add a new branch on the 401.
It's actually a death knell for any RER proposal, since it A) replaces the most successful AMT line B) monopolizes the Mount Royal tunnel, preventing the other AMT lines (St. Jerome, Mascouche, VIA rail) from having a direct route to downtown and forcing transfers on to the new system C) cannibalizes ridership from existing lines (Vaudreil-Hudson) to the point where they will enter a death spiral and no longer be viable.
You should this fascinating deposition from a transit nerd to the BAPE about the REM proposal, it's over 100 pages but it's riveting. It may be a big part of the reason why BAPE did not give its approval to the REM proposal, but the province is bypassing BAPE anyway.
He proposes a few changes that make complete sense:
1) Upgrade the signalling system for the existing commuter lines and let them share the tunnel with the REM.
2) Delete the ridiculous, circuitous, expensive, tunneled connection to the airport. Instead, connect to the airport through the Vaudreuil-Hudson line, with some upgrades.
3) Shift the West-Island branch further north to the hydro corridor, where it can be combined with a proposed burial of the hydro lines.
4) Some specific improvements to the alignment and station locations, for improved network connectivity and better TOD/fewer park and rides.
There are some things I disagree with, where he suggests some cost savings that would reduce the effectiveness of the network. Single tracking through environmentally sensitive areas, for instance, or avoiding certain grade separations to save on cost. But overall I think it's a huge improvement, especially since the existing REM proposal (and most of Montreal's transit network) seems to be oriented around how to find the most indirect and circuitous way to get from point A to point B.
Attachments
skahhigh
Active Member
A few points:
There never was and never will be an RER proposal in Greater Montréal for the simple reason that all tracks belong to either the CN or CP. The only trackage the AMT owned (hence the only place where RER was possible) is on Deux-Montagnes, the line being replaced by light metro.
The REM plans to use (or monopolize as many people say) the Mount Royal tunnel indeed, a tunnel which has been underutilized since it's opening in 1918. It was ever barely used by VIA Rail (briefly in the 80's I believe) and is now served by only 76 trains per day (less than 4 trains per hour over an operational day). During the weekend, it's about 18 trains in two days. The REM will finally use it to it's capacity by having trains entering the tunnel at Canora every 2min30 seconds at opening (48 trains per hour between Central Station and Bois-Franc). So basically, in a two hour period, the number of REM trains will equal the current commuter rail one for 18 hours. If you calculate the current daily capacity for Deux-Montagnes between Bois-Franc and Central Station (6 stations), it's about 68,400 users (38 daily trains times 1800 users per train) per direction. With the REM, that capacity will go up to 288,000 (480 daily trains times 600 users per train). It's impossible to say this isn't a massive improvement capacity-wise.
Concerning the other commuter rail lines being cannibalized, it indeed does kill the project of having the St. Jérôme Line using the tunnel, a project which was never seriously looked at in over 10 years. The fact that the SJ Line goes around the mountain adds 15 minutes but allows adding a future station at Côte-St-Luc (30,000 residents). The Vaudreuil-Hudson line will not be killed because the people living nearby and working downtown will still use it (commuter rail is perfect for people on a 9 to 5 Schedule). Ridership might decrease but I don't think this will 'kill' the line.
Regarding the transfer for Mascouche, well tough luck. I think most public transit users would tell you a transfer is part of their routine, including mine. The people in the East are shellshocked because they just got their shiny new direct link with Downtown (a train with 8 departures in every direction). What they don't realize is, the new McGill station of the REM will give an easier connection to Université de Montréal for Green Line riders between Berri-UQAM and Honoré-Beaugrand and the transfer at A40 will allow people from the East to go to currently unserved employment areas like the St-Laurent Technoparc, industries along A13 and A40 in the West Island and, mostly, Université de Montréal and McGill. I did calculations a few months back, and the REM actually saves between 10 to 35 minutes each peak for many people mostly everywhere on the Island. In a full day, that is an economy of between 20 to 60 minutes not spent in public transit but at home or doing other things.
Sharing the Mount Royal Tunnel between REM and heavy trains is mostly impossible not only because of regulations but because of the REM's frequency in it's peak service level of 90 seconds. Try inserting a slower VIA or AMT train in between. Especially that the REM stations won't be compatible because they will be rebuilt to rapid transit standards.
The Airport section is tunnelled from Technoparc because there is barely enough space along the A20 to insert rapid transit (there are already 6 rail tracks shared by the RTM, VIA and the CP). If you are coming from the A40, why would you go around the whole Airport just to come in from the South? Doesn't make sense... Less expensive and more logical to do a direct tunnel under the runways.
The Hydro corridor along Salaberry is touchy because of the proximity of existing residential areas plus the fact that this corridor is a good distance away from the industrial areas along the A40 I mentioned earlier. These are currently virtually unaccessible by efficient transit and represent tens of thousands of jobs.
I'm not saying this project is perfect or doesn't have any flaws. But this is by far the most ambitious and most efficient transit project in Montréal since the Metro. With an estimated ridership of over 150,000 (conservative figures IMO) in 2021 (and that was calculated without the addition of Edouard-Montpetit and McGill stations), this project's daily ridership will be double of the current ridership of the RTM commuter rail system.
Last edited:
aquateam
Active Member
There have been proposals for RER in Montreal since 1979... and I'd like to point out that the only trackage that GO owned was Lakeshore. Over time they bought track from CN and CP, and built their own track, until now they have the base required to seriously talk about RER. There's no reason why the RTM couldn't follow the same process as GO/Metrolinx. But with REM this will never happen.
Which, if they follow through and gradually replace these lines with Skytrain, isn't necessarily an awful thing, but I can't see these suburbs meriting Skytrain service anytime soon.
You've averaging over the course of a day. Rush hour isn't an improvement capacity-wise.
I live at a downtown stop of the Vaudreuil-Hudson line and work by a West-Island stop of the same line, but because of the schedule the line is unfortunately useless to me. It's a shame because it's the oldest continually operated AMT line, and it passes through some of the densest parts of Montreal.
Losing ~30% of the ridership of the line would likely result in service cuts, which would begin a cycle of service cuts and ridership losses. But the concerns about the western branch of the line are more that 1) it relies almost entirely on park and rides 2) it's far from where people actually live 3) the connections to major streets/bus routes are very poor and indirect and 4) it's in the middle of a highway.
The problem is that you are having massive double decker AMT trains emptying out into half-full REM trains that are less than a quarter the size. But in general, that isn't a big gripe of mine because I think the Mascouche line is a white elephant built in the Montreal tradition.
I'm not sure where you did those calculations, but I hope you didn't use the figures from the CDPQ for them:
There are ways around that, like giving the AMT trains newer signalling. And the REM is supposed to be every 3 minutes. Anton's proposal addresses that by adjusting the scheduling so not every train stops at every station. It's doable, it's more a question of will and a desire by the Caisse to have the REM as a self-contained privately owned system than a complimentary part of the existing network.
Is the purpose to get people from the airport to parking lots north on highway A40 or is it to get them from the airport to downtown? The answer to that may be why you think it's "more logical" to construct a 4.5 kilometer tunnel/viaduct looping under the runway than a 300 meter connection south.
In fact, the current routing that the REM takes from the airport raises serious questions about potential conflicts of interest. The REM, paid for at taxpayer expense, would provide a direct link between the airport and the Caisse' real-estate investments (e.g. Eaton Centre, Queen elizabeth hotel). It seems more like they are trying to maximize the value of their real estate holdings than the utility of the transit investment.
The industrial areas will need good connecting bus service, since they are sprawling and cannot be served by a single stop. By moving the stop locations to be along arterials, the proposed modifications would reduce travel time for those buses.
At the same time, for a transit service to be successful it should be close to existing and planned sources of density, which is not possible when it runs in a highway median.
I think there are a lot of amazing aspects about this project. One of the major deficiencies of rail-based transit in Montreal is the frequency: as a frequent, driver-less service this would be convenient both off-peak as well as peak.
I like that it uses ICTS, although it remains to be seen how that handles Montreal winters.
I like the ambition and timeline of the project. It is depressing reading these articles from a decade ago about all the planned transit in Montreal that was "guaranteed" but still hasn't been built. We are still waiting for bus lanes on Pie-IX. E.g. everything below was supposed to be open by 2020 according to Mayor Tremblay and Premier Charest:
But at the same time, it's as though this project was presented from the top of Mount Sinai (Mont Royal?) engraved in stone tablets and is being rammed through (e.g. the BAPE process being circumvented) in order to keep the schedule, when it could really benefit from some adjustments.
skahhigh
Active Member
I will start off by definitely agreeing with you on the fact that the project could have adjustments. You seem to know your stuff and I respect that. To answer to your points:
There have been proposals for RER in Montreal since 1979... and I'd like to point out that the only trackage that GO owned was Lakeshore. Over time they bought track from CN and CP, and built their own track, until now they have the base required to seriously talk about RER. There's no reason why the RTM couldn't follow the same process as GO/Metrolinx. But with REM this will never happen.
Which, if they follow through and gradually replace these lines with Skytrain, isn't necessarily an awful thing, but I can't see these suburbs meriting Skytrain service anytime soon.
Which trackage do you suggest the RTM buys? The only one the AMT could buy they did. There's a reason why the AMT hasn't bought Vaudreuil-Hudson, or Saint-Jerome, or why Mascouche is limited to 8 daily trains... The corporative kings of Canada that are our national railway operators... As the rail geography is different in Montreal, the CN or CP will never sell off their beloved tracks... And they'll always prioritize freight over transit even if they have an agreement with the AMT (nothing happens when thousands of commuter rail users are stuck because of a "freight train on the tracks" during the AMT peak period). It's just the way it is unfortunately.
I live at a downtown stop of the Vaudreuil-Hudson line and work by a West-Island stop of the same line, but because of the schedule the line is unfortunately useless to me. It's a shame because it's the oldest continually operated AMT line, and it passes through some of the densest parts of Montreal.
Losing ~30% of the ridership of the line would likely result in service cuts, which would begin a cycle of service cuts and ridership losses. But the concerns about the western branch of the line are more that 1) it relies almost entirely on park and rides 2) it's far from where people actually live 3) the connections to major streets/bus routes are very poor and indirect and 4) it's in the middle of a highway.
Many, many public transit stations in this country rely on park and ride. The REM's park and ride lots are only massive (over a thousand spaces) in 4 or 5 stations. The rest are normal sized (about 500 spaces). Our Metro doesn't have much park and ride because it is located in already dense areas. Every REM station will have some connections to local bus routes and the ones that have big park and ride facilities will have more than ten bus lines and a bus terminal serving them. I don't know what more can be accomplished. Let's take an example from the Toronto subway, which, I think most will agree, is a pretty useful system if you take out the Sheppard Line (lol).
Wilson station: 1500 parking spaces
Yorkdale: 1010 parking spaces
Kipling: 1465 parking spaces
Islington: 977 parking spaces
Warden: 1071 parking spaces
Those are just five random stations a distance away from downtown I looked at. I'm sure there are a few others with more than a thousand spaces.
What's so wrong with park and ride? It's a huge part of mass transit. Yes, they're about 10 times worse than having connecting bus routes but not everyone wants to take the bus to get to a rapid transit station. Some people want to buy groceries on their way back, or pick up their kids at school...
The problem is that you are having massive double decker AMT trains emptying out into half-full REM trains that are less than a quarter the size. But in general, that isn't a big gripe of mine because I think the Mascouche line is a white elephant built in the Montreal tradition.
I don't know if you knew this but empty trains will wait at A40 and be inserted into the system when a Mascouche train arrives. They won't be half full.
I'm not sure where you did those calculations, but I hope you didn't use the figures from the CDPQ for them:
I did my own calculations using Google Maps and the Transit App (Anton's app). I'll try to find my calculations (did them a while back) and post them here.
His revised travel times board is actually pretty mishonest in itself as he calculates from different destinations (he calculates the 747 with no traffic from Lionel-Groulx when the CDPQ calculates from Berri-UQAM during rush hour). You shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet, especially coming from people who oppose the REM completely and will do anything to discredit the project and the CDPQ (Anton Dubrau is a member of Trainsparence, the group opposed to the REM).
In fact, the current routing that the REM takes from the airport raises serious questions about potential conflicts of interest. The REM, paid for at taxpayer expense, would provide a direct link between the airport and the Caisse' real-estate investments (e.g. Eaton Centre, Queen elizabeth hotel). It seems more like they are trying to maximize the value of their real estate holdings than the utility of the transit investment.
CDPQ Infra and Ivanhoe Cambridge (the owner of these real-estate investments) don't work together. Think of them as two separate entities. Plus, talking about transit investment, how can they expect to make a profit with no ridership? Getting ridership is in their best interest. Hence why they need to build a solid transit system. The argument that the REM is only there to make money instead of actually transporting people is ridiculous (I know this isn't your argument, but some have brought it up).
I think there are a lot of amazing aspects about this project. One of the major deficiencies of rail-based transit in Montreal is the frequency: as a frequent, driver-less service this would be convenient both off-peak as well as peak.
I'm glad you have the same opinion as me... Transit isn't just about getting people to work on a 9 to 5 schedule on weekdays... It's about moving people where they want to go, and fast. Be it for someone who wants to go shopping downtown on a sunday or go to a Habs game on a saturday night. I live near the Deux-Montagnes line and use it everyday... On weekends I have to either take a 40 minute bus to downtown, take a 20 minute bus ride to a Metro station or walk 25 minutes to the nearest station. It sucks. Same for off-peak hours, such as going out downtown on a weekday night. And it's the same story for people in the West Island and South Shore.
There have been proposals for RER in Montreal since 1979... and I'd like to point out that the only trackage that GO owned was Lakeshore. Over time they bought track from CN and CP, and built their own track, until now they have the base required to seriously talk about RER. There's no reason why the RTM couldn't follow the same process as GO/Metrolinx. But with REM this will never happen.
Which, if they follow through and gradually replace these lines with Skytrain, isn't necessarily an awful thing, but I can't see these suburbs meriting Skytrain service anytime soon.
Which trackage do you suggest the RTM buys? The only one the AMT could buy they did. There's a reason why the AMT hasn't bought Vaudreuil-Hudson, or Saint-Jerome, or why Mascouche is limited to 8 daily trains... The corporative kings of Canada that are our national railway operators... As the rail geography is different in Montreal, the CN or CP will never sell off their beloved tracks... And they'll always prioritize freight over transit even if they have an agreement with the AMT (nothing happens when thousands of commuter rail users are stuck because of a "freight train on the tracks" during the AMT peak period). It's just the way it is unfortunately.
I live at a downtown stop of the Vaudreuil-Hudson line and work by a West-Island stop of the same line, but because of the schedule the line is unfortunately useless to me. It's a shame because it's the oldest continually operated AMT line, and it passes through some of the densest parts of Montreal.
Losing ~30% of the ridership of the line would likely result in service cuts, which would begin a cycle of service cuts and ridership losses. But the concerns about the western branch of the line are more that 1) it relies almost entirely on park and rides 2) it's far from where people actually live 3) the connections to major streets/bus routes are very poor and indirect and 4) it's in the middle of a highway.
Many, many public transit stations in this country rely on park and ride. The REM's park and ride lots are only massive (over a thousand spaces) in 4 or 5 stations. The rest are normal sized (about 500 spaces). Our Metro doesn't have much park and ride because it is located in already dense areas. Every REM station will have some connections to local bus routes and the ones that have big park and ride facilities will have more than ten bus lines and a bus terminal serving them. I don't know what more can be accomplished. Let's take an example from the Toronto subway, which, I think most will agree, is a pretty useful system if you take out the Sheppard Line (lol).
Wilson station: 1500 parking spaces
Yorkdale: 1010 parking spaces
Kipling: 1465 parking spaces
Islington: 977 parking spaces
Warden: 1071 parking spaces
Those are just five random stations a distance away from downtown I looked at. I'm sure there are a few others with more than a thousand spaces.
What's so wrong with park and ride? It's a huge part of mass transit. Yes, they're about 10 times worse than having connecting bus routes but not everyone wants to take the bus to get to a rapid transit station. Some people want to buy groceries on their way back, or pick up their kids at school...
The problem is that you are having massive double decker AMT trains emptying out into half-full REM trains that are less than a quarter the size. But in general, that isn't a big gripe of mine because I think the Mascouche line is a white elephant built in the Montreal tradition.
I don't know if you knew this but empty trains will wait at A40 and be inserted into the system when a Mascouche train arrives. They won't be half full.
I'm not sure where you did those calculations, but I hope you didn't use the figures from the CDPQ for them:
I did my own calculations using Google Maps and the Transit App (Anton's app). I'll try to find my calculations (did them a while back) and post them here.
His revised travel times board is actually pretty mishonest in itself as he calculates from different destinations (he calculates the 747 with no traffic from Lionel-Groulx when the CDPQ calculates from Berri-UQAM during rush hour). You shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet, especially coming from people who oppose the REM completely and will do anything to discredit the project and the CDPQ (Anton Dubrau is a member of Trainsparence, the group opposed to the REM).
In fact, the current routing that the REM takes from the airport raises serious questions about potential conflicts of interest. The REM, paid for at taxpayer expense, would provide a direct link between the airport and the Caisse' real-estate investments (e.g. Eaton Centre, Queen elizabeth hotel). It seems more like they are trying to maximize the value of their real estate holdings than the utility of the transit investment.
CDPQ Infra and Ivanhoe Cambridge (the owner of these real-estate investments) don't work together. Think of them as two separate entities. Plus, talking about transit investment, how can they expect to make a profit with no ridership? Getting ridership is in their best interest. Hence why they need to build a solid transit system. The argument that the REM is only there to make money instead of actually transporting people is ridiculous (I know this isn't your argument, but some have brought it up).
I think there are a lot of amazing aspects about this project. One of the major deficiencies of rail-based transit in Montreal is the frequency: as a frequent, driver-less service this would be convenient both off-peak as well as peak.
I'm glad you have the same opinion as me... Transit isn't just about getting people to work on a 9 to 5 schedule on weekdays... It's about moving people where they want to go, and fast. Be it for someone who wants to go shopping downtown on a sunday or go to a Habs game on a saturday night. I live near the Deux-Montagnes line and use it everyday... On weekends I have to either take a 40 minute bus to downtown, take a 20 minute bus ride to a Metro station or walk 25 minutes to the nearest station. It sucks. Same for off-peak hours, such as going out downtown on a weekday night. And it's the same story for people in the West Island and South Shore.
Last edited:
aquateam
Active Member
I'll admit that I'm not an expert in CN/CP's operations, so I can't point to a section of track and say what is dispensible and what isn't. The Deux-Montagnes line was created when CN sold off its track to STCUM.
GO has followed a slow and gradual process to develop its own lines: buying track, adding track, grade separating junctions. Sometimes money they spent on adding track/sidings has even benefitted CN/CP and worsened passenger service. One of the more ambitious projects under consideration involves building 20 km of entire new trackage for CN and CP to use in order to free up track for passenger rail.
Montreal is criss-crossed by rail lines, and while its geography is different from Toronto I can see no compelling reason why it should be impossible here to add track, consolidate freight, etc. as was done in Toronto. The Mascouche line is an example of that, despite its faults.
Taking your examples from Toronto, let's compare the number of parking spots to the actual ridership of those stations:
So you can see that Park and Rides, even with all those spaces, are responsible for only a fraction of the station's ridership.
The problem with Park and Rides is that they take up a phenomenal amount of space in valuable real estate, for the very unproductive purpose of car storage. And as the service becomes more popular, in order to meet demand for parking spaces, you need to build expensive parking garages (which cost on average ~$50 000/ parking space). Park and Rides are meant to be a last resort for stations located in flood plains, industrial areas, low-ridership commuter lines. Once you have a frequent, high capacity route they no longer make sense.
Park and rides are bad because they still rely on cars for the first and last mile, all you've really done is allow the driver to park somewhere cheaper, when the objective should be to have the stop accessible enough (by being located closer to where people live, or by being accessible by bus/bike) that they can leave their car at home. With the current route, the only way to access the stations will be by driving, which just reinforces the driver-centric urban form in the West Island. Providing a reliable, frequent, high capacity rail line means that you can enable a denser urban form where people are not captive to their cars to go to work, get groceries, or pick up their kids from school.
The funny thing is, he started off supporting the project until he started looking into the details. See his initial post, "THE REM IS THE BEST TRANSIT PROJECT MONTREAL HAS SEEN IN 30 YEARS":
This ties in to what I was saying about Park and Rides. There is no transit service in the world that pays for itself just based on fares. Even a century ago when private companies operated streetcars and interurbans, they made their money through real estate speculation where they would build houses along with the transit (so-called "streetcar suburbs"). In Hong Kong and Japan, where you can find the rare examples of profitable rail lines, they own the land around stations where they build malls, apartments and office towers on top of the stations in order to capture the increased land value and to provide the main source of income other than fares: rent. This has a positive feedback for ridership since it provides riders and destinations along the station itself.
One of my most traumatic experiences on transit was racing from visiting a friend by Bois-Franc to try to catch the last Deux-Montagnes train downtown, realizing I was out of zone 2 passes as it was pulling into the station, then boarding anyway just to find a dozen fare inspectors... I am looking forward to seeing a frequency boost on that line as well.
Attachments
Last edited:
skahhigh
Active Member
Sorry, I hadn't seen your response.
I agree strongly with your paragraph on park-and-ride. The only thing with the West Island is, it's not dense. Which is why placing park-and-ride in addition to connecting bus routes was necessary for the REM to work. However, this is something that would be needed with pretty much any rail transit in that area given the low density. This will change (the West Island will densify with better transit) but it'll take years. Hence why the urban sprawl argument by some people is ridiculous; urban sprawl is bad yes, but transit-based densification isn't.
Regarding the Toronto subway stats, I think we should measure by average daily ridership rather than weekly stats, since park-and-ride is a daily thing. Very surprising to see that 3% of a station's daily usage is linked to park-and-ride, especially when there are a thousand and more spaces. So, essentially, I divided the numbers you gave by 5 and did the same proportion calculations (I added Finch for good measure). The results:
It's not as much as I thought (my guess was around 25%) but it's more realistic than the 5% figures from earlier. So, in Toronto, a city that's not very dense outside the core but is getting better, park-and-ride makes up between a fifth to a third of the ridership of some stations. That's huge. It's probably much worse with Toronto and Montreal's commuter rail (due to the suburban lifestyle where everyone drives everywhere and bus service is limited).
Attachments
Last edited:
aquateam
Active Member
The complaint given about the West Island branch alignment is that transit-based densification isn't really possible when the stations aren't easily accessible by foot or bus. Would people really want to live next to the pollution and noise of the 40, in order to cross a highway to get to a metro station? That's why the Salaberry alignment was suggested: so that this REM can be a catalyst for dense development.
I think you've misunderstood the statistics, that was the weekday ridership (i.e. the ridership per day on Monday to Friday). But that's my fault for not posting a link to the data. Weekday ridership is higher than weekend ridership, since most people don't need to commute to work on weekends. I should have provided a link to the data: here is weekday ridership per station, here are parking spaces.
I misinterpreted the ridership myself too, it looks as though the data is boardings + alightings, so that means each parking space would represent 2 trips instead of 1 person. If I assume an occupancy of 1.3 people/parking space and full utilisation (generous assumptions), this is what I get:
I've included all 15 stations with commuter parking. Note that only 22% (15/69) stations have any parking, and of those only Wilson and Ellesmere get more than 10% of their ridership from parking. Ellesmere is a very low ridership station, which is being decommissioned and replaced with an "express" subway extension that completely bypasses it. Wilson station is getting its parking spaces redeveloped into condos and offices.
Attachments
skahhigh
Active Member
Thank you for your rigorous analysis. I misread Weekday ridership for Week ridership. This explains a lot. I guess most people in Toronto get to the Subway by bus.
If you take a look at Yorkdale Station, which has ample park-and-ride, good ridership, a bus terminal, low urban density around and a highway near it (seems a lot like Pointe-Claire), I don't see how some stations along the A-40 in the West Island can't be successful:
Here's Pointe-Claire's situation. We can assume that green plot of land will be densified eventually:
The REM stations are actually accessible by foot for future TOD developments (directly around the stations, not necessarily on the other side of the highway). There is plenty of space at Des Sources (by demolishing the old industrial buildings around it), Pointe-Claire and Kirkland stations to densify eventually. Sainte-Anne won't be densified because of the natural setting around the station, but there is a low density project planned just north of the station on Ste-Marie Road. There's also the proximity of John Abbott College and the Macdonald Campus which is interesting near Sainte-Anne. Some other stations (on Deux-Montagnes) are already dense or densifying (they're building condos near Bois-Franc station, I believe it gets denser as you get closer to the station). I see park-and-ride as a temporary measure for rapid transit in low density areas until the area is densified or TODs are built, which doesn't happen overnight as you know.
The only REM stations that are not prone to future densification (IMO) are Technoparc, Île-Bigras and Sainte-Anne. The rest of them I can see densifying in the next 15-20 years. An interesting recent case in Greater Montreal is the area around De La Concorde Station in Laval which has been densifying ever since the Metro was inaugurated in 2007, even though there was already some medium density around it. Montmorency Station is also in the process of densifying with the Urbania and Espace Montmorency projects (Laval's new downtown is basically being built around the station).
2007:
2016:
Attachments
Last edited:
skahhigh
Active Member
Here are the numbers I mentioned earlier. All times are for public transit itineraries and calculated during morning rush hour (8 AM) using Google Maps.
It does not take into account the time spent out of public transit or getting to the station (for REM timetables), but I believe it shows how well mobility in Montreal will improve for some (plus I added a 10-minute bus transfer time to some West Island timetables for good measure). Time gains are compared to the transit option only.
Lecturer traveling between ÉTS and Polytechnique (two engineering schools)
By transit: 35 min
By car: 20 min
With REM: 10 min
Time gain: 25 min
Technoparc worker living in Brossard near the Panama Terminus
By transit: 1h20
By car: 1h
With REM: 25 min
Time gain: 55 min
If you add a 10-minute bus ride for someone living further from the station, it's still a 35 minute improvement.
UdeM student living near Honoré-Beaugrand station
By transit: 43 min
By car: 1h
With REM: 30 min
Time gain: nearly 15 min
McGill student living in Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue
By transit: 1h
By car: 1h10
With REM: 35 min
Time gain: 25 min
Again, if you add a 10 minute bus ride from say the town center to the station, it's still a 15 minute improvement with much less transfers (only one).
UdeM student living near Sunnybrooke station
By transit: 30 min
By car: 35 min
With REM: 20 min
Time gain: 10 min
Person working Downtown living near future Pointe-Claire station (morning departure, destination is Bonaventure station)
By transit: 1h10
By car: 1h
With REM: 30 min
Time gain: 40 min
With the 10-minute bus ride for someone living further from the station, it's still a 30 minute improvement.
It does not take into account the time spent out of public transit or getting to the station (for REM timetables), but I believe it shows how well mobility in Montreal will improve for some (plus I added a 10-minute bus transfer time to some West Island timetables for good measure). Time gains are compared to the transit option only.
Lecturer traveling between ÉTS and Polytechnique (two engineering schools)
By transit: 35 min
By car: 20 min
With REM: 10 min
Time gain: 25 min
Technoparc worker living in Brossard near the Panama Terminus
By transit: 1h20
By car: 1h
With REM: 25 min
Time gain: 55 min
If you add a 10-minute bus ride for someone living further from the station, it's still a 35 minute improvement.
UdeM student living near Honoré-Beaugrand station
By transit: 43 min
By car: 1h
With REM: 30 min
Time gain: nearly 15 min
McGill student living in Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue
By transit: 1h
By car: 1h10
With REM: 35 min
Time gain: 25 min
Again, if you add a 10 minute bus ride from say the town center to the station, it's still a 15 minute improvement with much less transfers (only one).
UdeM student living near Sunnybrooke station
By transit: 30 min
By car: 35 min
With REM: 20 min
Time gain: 10 min
Person working Downtown living near future Pointe-Claire station (morning departure, destination is Bonaventure station)
By transit: 1h10
By car: 1h
With REM: 30 min
Time gain: 40 min
With the 10-minute bus ride for someone living further from the station, it's still a 30 minute improvement.
Last edited:
aquateam
Active Member
It's being built!!! They've awarded the contracts! Construction starts in April!
Such a short lead time. This is something to be proud of. I just want to contrast this with in Toronto.
For $6.3 billion, Montreal is getting:
For almost the exact same amount ($5.3 billion, but different Year of Expenditure dollars), Toronto is getting:
I'm also really happy with the modifications that the Caisse has come forward with:
This means:
Such a short lead time. This is something to be proud of. I just want to contrast this with in Toronto.
For $6.3 billion, Montreal is getting:
- 67 kilometers of rapid transit
- The system will have platform screen doors, so it will not be delayed by debris on the tracks, people killing themselves, etc.
- The system will be entirely automated, saving significantly on operating costs and allowing very frequent service
- Seamlessly links the Airport, north shore, and south shore
For almost the exact same amount ($5.3 billion, but different Year of Expenditure dollars), Toronto is getting:
- 19 kilometers of rapid transit
- It will stop at red lights, as well as mid block
- Can be interrupted by traffic, people on the tracks
- Is marginally faster than the bus it replaces for the surface portions
- Requires a small army of drivers
- Might eventually link to the airport, but at-grade and in a slow and indirect way
- Doesn't connect at its end to another LRT as a single through line. Instead, they are spending $4 billion to mothball a functioning transit line and build an express subway to the exact same location.
I'm also really happy with the modifications that the Caisse has come forward with:
This means:
- No dumb expensive station under Peel basin
- Improved access to Griffintown
- No tunneling or stations in heavily contaminated industrial parks
Attachments
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Amazing news! The REM is an exciting project, I was always amazed how it appeared publicly so quickly out of nowhere and has progress so far, so fast. Sure there are a number of advantages - using existing corridors, Mont Royal tunnel, Champlain Bridge already underway with rapid transit accommodation planned - but the whole thing really only became widely public about 2 years ago. Crazy to think in 2021 the network could be open if it goes as planned.
Is there any particular reason / driver for why it happened so quick? What prevents other projects in Canada from moving that quickly? A strong funding strategy? Lower engagement requirements? Interesting to hear some thoughts.
aquateam
Active Member
I was really skeptical too when it was first announced! But by the time contracts have been awarded, that means that there's no turning back.
I mean, this project is exceptional within Montreal too. Think of those bus lanes on Pie IX that won't open until 2022! That was first proposed in 2007!
I think this project had a number of push factors:
- It was being pushed by the Caisse, which wanted to demonstrate that it could bring a major project like this to completion in a very short timeframe, as a showcase.
- The Liberal government passed a few laws and bypassed the BAPE process to shortcut the approvals and fast-track the public consultations. Even then there were some legal challenges.
- The Federal government was announcing a big round of spending on transit expansion and the REM was timed to take advantage of that (poor blue line)
- With an already balanced budget, the province didn't have any incentive to drag out the process to reduce spending commitments
Rushing the review process nearly resulted in a flawed proposal, since some of the depositions from the BAPE were just ignored. It's a good thing that the consortia intervened with their own suggestions, which resulted in the last-minute changes.
If it were refined a bit more, however, I would still change one thing. The airport branch is poor value for money. Why tunnel for several kilometers through sensitive wetlands to get to the airport when you could use the Turcot corridor (which has a reserved space for an airport train, built for $120 million) and space for a southern airport station (built for $35 million). If you approached from the south, you could have a better balance between branches (2 north and 2 south, instead of 3 north and 1 south), and you could improve coverage for the same cost. I.e. you could tunnel through downtown to the CP ROW and have an REM that looked like this:
Or for even less money, you could use the CN ROW and build an REM that looks like this:
