[Hopkins123]

More than five years ago, on a contract living in Ottawa, I frequently spent weekdays in Montreal, living in Montreal for 5-day stretches at a time for many parts of the year (lived one-third of the time in Montreal, overall). I commuted so often (usually a first train Monday, late train Friday), that I became a VIA PREMIER (LEVEL 3) from all that train travel between Ottawa and Montreal!

Through this, I got the chance to experience Montreal's subway system through all four seasons. It sums up to three huge takeaways:

1. Great distinctive/artsy station design, makes it easy to know when to get off without needing to see the station name.
TTC's York extension will have six much-more-artsy stations already taking a note from Montreal, and I believe the Crosstown LRT will up the station game.

2. Lovely toasty warm in the winter, stations and trains. Essentially heated subway stations, thanks to being completely underground.
Also, Montreal's RESO -- La Ville Souterraine -- is pretty big too like Toronto's PATH. You could easily live with a T-shirt in the winter if you don't need to step out of the RESO and RESO connected stations.

3. Horribly hot in the summer. Sometimes hotter than failed air conditioning on Bloor-Danforth, every hot summer day, every train, with no escape.
No contest. Toronto wins. I'll take air conditioning over station design, but I'd rather have both.

All that matters when comparing the two metro systems is which city's system offers better coverage. Montreal is a country mile ahead of us in that regard, I'd think.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

At the end of the day, the key difference IMO is that Montreal’s metro network has much more depth to it and was mainly built at a time when the city was thinking big and decided to build a real system.

I'd venture to say that that "thinking big" spirit is still present to this day, for better or for worse:

1. The REM
2. The Pink Line

Everyone knows that the latter has a slim chance of ever coming to fruition, but the very fact that a Montreal mayor is pledging her entire legacy on a project with 29 stations covering half the city is quite breath-taking. True, it will definitely be over budget. True, it will likely take a decade or even more. But we can all agree that it's a flashy headline grabbing strategy that will get Quebec and Federal governments' attention. Even if nothing gets built in the worst case scenario, it will likely result in more transit funding for the Montreal area.

As for the REM, does anyone know its current status? I have a friend who's part of the project management team for the new Champlain Bridge at the end December 2018, and my understanding is that the REM infrastructure will be delivered as part of the new bridge.

 

[aquateam]

This probably contributed to their APTA award, too.

I thought the APTA award was a participation trophy. "Transit System of the Year" rotates between their members.

As for the REM, does anyone know its current status? I have a friend who's part of the project management team for the new Champlain Bridge at the end December 2018, and my understanding is that the REM infrastructure will be delivered as part of the new bridge.

I would be surprised if it is delivered, considering the Champlain bridge consortium has already pre-emptively sued to get its deadline extended. It would make sense to include the REM infrastructure as part of the bridge, but they have a very tight deadline with stiff penalties so unless the contract is reopened, they will likely be closing off the bridge for construction as soon as it opens.

 

[smallspy]

But I think most people are okay with waiting in a clean and temperature controlled station (with wifi or cell signal no less). I think it's more psychologically soothing for passengers to wait in the station (but be informed of the exact ETA of an upcoming train even if it is 5 or 10 min) than being stuck on a halted or slow moving train, in a tunnel, with no apparent explanation.

Perhaps. But what about the psychology of wondering if you can or can't get on your train?

Granted, we already have that in Toronto - and that's despite our bigger trains and tighter headways. Having been in the situation of fighting to get onto a Métro after an event - and not even that big of one - I'd rather the Toronto situation of knowing that with only very limited exceptions you can always get on a train.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[DSC]

Perhaps. But what about the psychology of wondering if you can or can't get on your train?

Granted, we already have that in Toronto - and that's despite our bigger trains and tighter headways. Having been in the situation of fighting to get onto a Métro after an event - and not even that big of one - I'd rather the Toronto situation of knowing that with only very limited exceptions you can always get on a train.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Yes, when we moved here 16 years ago my parner and I always ran for a train if we heard one because in Montreal trains are far less frequent. We soon learned that here it is really not necessary, if you miss one you will wait maybe 3 minutes.

 

[Bogtrotter]

Service is still frequent and very efficient, they stop pick-up and are off quickly- they don't mess around. For me its major failing is the lack of accessibility. Very few stations have elevators and given their size and depth that is a big problem for people with mobility issues. Really like the Metro overall- the spacious station designs are indeed bold and impressive.

 

[mdrejhon]

Service is still frequent and very efficient, they stop pick-up and are off quickly- they don't mess around. For me it's major failing is it's lack of accessibility. Very few stations have elevators and given their size and depth that is a big problem for people with mobility issues. Really like the Metro overall- the spacious station designs are indeed bold and impressive.

This too. When I was in Montreal, they were only finally making the interchange stations accessible

Montreal Metro won't be fully accessible until year 2038.

In contrast, TTC Subway will be fully accessible by 2025 -- a mere 8 years from now.

 

[felix123]

Perhaps. But what about the psychology of wondering if you can or can't get on your train?

Granted, we already have that in Toronto - and that's despite our bigger trains and tighter headways. Having been in the situation of fighting to get onto a Métro after an event - and not even that big of one - I'd rather the Toronto situation of knowing that with only very limited exceptions you can always get on a train.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I'll have to disagree on that one. After living in Montreal for years, I found that even at rush hour during winter at my busy station (Mont-Royal), I nearly never had trouble getting on a train. Since moving to Toronto, every day is a anxious struggle to get on a train at Lawrence, and I do let one or occasionally two go by at least once a week.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

I would be surprised if it is delivered, considering the Champlain bridge consortium has already pre-emptively sued to get its deadline extended. It would make sense to include the REM infrastructure as part of the bridge, but they have a very tight deadline with stiff penalties so unless the contract is reopened, they will likely be closing off the bridge for construction as soon as it opens.

With that said, what is the current status of the REM project? Indeed it's a tight timeline, and it will probably undergo some significant design changes (maybe additional stations)?

 

[smallspy]

I'll have to disagree on that one. After living in Montreal for years, I found that even at rush hour during winter at my busy station (Mont-Royal), I nearly never had trouble getting on a train. Since moving to Toronto, every day is a anxious struggle to get on a train at Lawrence, and I do let one or occasionally two go by at least once a week.

That's fair. I've not spent much time on the Métro at rush hours, so admittedly I don't know just how crowded their trains get. My only experience with crowds there was after this event at the Big O.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[aquateam]

I'll have to disagree on that one. After living in Montreal for years, I found that even at rush hour during winter at my busy station (Mont-Royal), I nearly never had trouble getting on a train. Since moving to Toronto, every day is a anxious struggle to get on a train at Lawrence, and I do let one or occasionally two go by at least once a week.

That mirrors my experience, although I counter-commute at rush hour, I normally only have to wait a station or 2 to get a seat. Going downtown at rush hour I've only passed up a train once.

With that said, what is the current status of the REM project? Indeed it's a tight timeline, and it will probably undergo some significant design changes (maybe additional stations)?

It has all its funding lined up ($1.283 billion Provincial, $1.283 billion Federal, $100 million municipal, $2.67 billion CdP), which is impressive enough. The DRL has been on the books forever and all they were able to fund is studies.

The contracts were supposed to already be issued and a bidder selected, but that has been delayed "until the end of the year." Supposedly that doesn't impact the timeline.

There was a court challenge launched in March over the fact that the BAPE results were ignored and consultations rammed through. I think that judge has been hearing arguments over the last two weeks, but I don't know if it has gotten anywhere (maybe this lawsuit is why the tender was delayed?)

In terms of significant design changes, it has already had a few, the biggest being the addition of 3 "optional" stations a year ago, which were really the 3 most useful/expensive stations which allow you to connect with other Metro lines, instead of the REM being completely self-contained. Edouard Mont-Petit will be very interesting, since it is so deep below the existing station and they will need to build high-capacity elevators. McGill station will be a great addition, right in the heart of downtown connecting to the Eaton centre, McGill university, a number of financial hubs, etc.

The rest of the changes have been fairly minor.

This article gives a description of the timeline.

Personally, I'd like to see them make a few more design changes (note, many of these images are taken from Anton Dubrau's BAPE deposition)

1) Change the south downtown alignment to improve coverage

The current alignment just has a single, underwater station at Peel basin, with exits at both ends, to serve Griffintown and Point Saint Charles. This isn't great because 1) it's expensive, 2) it means that Ottawa street, which was slated for BRT, will have to be closed and 3) the ridership potential at Du Havre station is very limited because it is a sliver of incredibly toxic land in between a railyard, highway, and river.

If instead of being tunneled, the REM were elevated using the existing rail viaduct (which has room), you could have separate stations to service Griffintown and Point Saint Charles, maintain Ottawa street for BRT, and have a better catchment area. This would also avoid tunneling through incredibly contaminated land.

2) Connect to the airport from the south instead of the north

The current connection involves tunnelling under an active runway, when the airport is only 500 meters away from a railway. There is a pre-built station in the airport, which is pointing south (the logical direction for a connection)

By going south you could avoid all that tunneling, which is the most expensive part of the REM route and also one of the lowest ridership sections.

If the desire is to have the airport connection as part of the REM and not as a stand-alone line, I see two options that would cost about the same but would provide much better coverage:

Option A: Turcot/CN routing

This is more or less the routing originally anticipated by the ADM study (which was also supposed to be SkyTrain), but now it's able to connect with the REM at Point St. Charles instead of terminating at Central station. The 2010 study priced this alignment at $1.1 billion. The benefit to this alignment is:
1) It provides coverage to many new areas while being almost entirely above ground.
2) The province has already spent $136 million reserving space for a train along the Turcot corridor, currently under construction.

The disadvantage is that it is a bit indirect, and it awkwardly serves Ville Émard/NDG because it wedged between the St. Jacques Bluffs and a highway.

CP/Pink line routing

I've drawn the fantasy map above to show what is under consideration. It's a combination of the AMT "Train de l'Ouest" proposal and Phase II of Projet Montréal's Pink line. The idea is that the CP ROW would be used, which is on top of the Bluffs and much closer to where people live. Rather than terminate at Lucien L'allier (like the AMT proposal) or continue northeast (as part of phase I of the pink line, which is unlikely to be built anytime this half century) it would be a branch of the REM from downtown. This way, we would be doing the tunneling in places that make sense (downtown, under Rene-Levesque) instead of under a runway. Tunelling may not even be necessary, since there is extra room in the decked-over Ville-Marie expressway.

The REM vehicles would allow for new stations in NDG, including one at Cavendish (very useful connection, especially with the Dalle-parc cyclist/pedestrian connection south to Ville Emard and the planned Cavendish extension north at Cote-St-Luc.

The advantages is that this serves many population centers and destinations, and is a much more direct route downtown than the REM routing. The disadvantages are the unknowns about the shared ROW with CP/AMT, and how the tunneling (if any) would be done downtown.

3) Move the west island branch north and bury it with the hydro lines

I'm not completely sold on this change, but the idea is that the current middle-of-a-highway alignment isn't great because A) nobody lives next to a highway so almost all the ridership is from Park n rides, B) densification is almost impossible (and not desireable because of pollution/noise) next to a highway and C) the station locations result in lengthy bus tours.

If the west island branch were built along the hydro corridor, it could be trenched and decked over, and combined with a proposed burial of power lines. Then it would be much closer to where population centers are, you could have intensification along the corridor, and the stations would be directly under north/south arteries for better bus connections. This would also reduce competition for the Vaudreil-Hudson line, which dies with the REM along with the Mascouche line, and avoids urban sprawl because it doesn't extend as far into sensitive areas/wetlands.

I'm not 100% sold because 1) even though population density is greater along Salaberry, there tend to be more jobs located near highways because of office parks 2) although there exists the potential for densification, west island communities have an awful track record of actually allowing it so you would still end up with SFH next to rapid transit 3) you get less coverage than with elevated transit.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

That mirrors my experience, although I counter-commute at rush hour, I normally only have to wait a station or 2 to get a seat. Going downtown at rush hour I've only passed up a train once.



It has all its funding lined up ($1.283 billion Provincial, $1.283 billion Federal, $100 million municipal, $2.67 billion CdP), which is impressive enough. The DRL has been on the books forever and all they were able to fund is studies.

The contracts were supposed to already be issued and a bidder selected, but that has been delayed "until the end of the year." Supposedly that doesn't impact the timeline.

There was a court challenge launched in March over the fact that the BAPE results were ignored and consultations rammed through. I think that judge has been hearing arguments over the last two weeks, but I don't know if it has gotten anywhere (maybe this lawsuit is why the tender was delayed?)

In terms of significant design changes, it has already had a few, the biggest being the addition of 3 "optional" stations a year ago, which were really the 3 most useful/expensive stations which allow you to connect with other Metro lines, instead of the REM being completely self-contained. Edouard Mont-Petit will be very interesting, since it is so deep below the existing station and they will need to build high-capacity elevators. McGill station will be a great addition, right in the heart of downtown connecting to the Eaton centre, McGill university, a number of financial hubs, etc.

The rest of the changes have been fairly minor.

This article gives a description of the timeline.

Personally, I'd like to see them make a few more design changes (note, many of these images are taken from Anton Dubrau's BAPE deposition)

1) Change the south downtown alignment to improve coverage

The current alignment just has a single, underwater station at Peel basin, with exits at both ends, to serve Griffintown and Point Saint Charles. This isn't great because 1) it's expensive, 2) it means that Ottawa street, which was slated for BRT, will have to be closed and 3) the ridership potential at Du Havre station is very limited because it is a sliver of incredibly toxic land in between a railyard, highway, and river.

View attachment 129459

If instead of being tunneled, the REM were elevated using the existing rail viaduct (which has room), you could have separate stations to service Griffintown and Point Saint Charles, maintain Ottawa street for BRT, and have a better catchment area. This would also avoid tunneling through incredibly contaminated land.

2) Connect to the airport from the south instead of the north

The current connection involves tunnelling under an active runway, when the airport is only 500 meters away from a railway. There is a pre-built station in the airport, which is pointing south (the logical direction for a connection)

By going south you could avoid all that tunneling, which is the most expensive part of the REM route and also one of the lowest ridership sections.

If the desire is to have the airport connection as part of the REM and not as a stand-alone line, I see two options that would cost about the same but would provide much better coverage:

Option A: Turcot/CN routing

This is more or less the routing originally anticipated by the ADM study (which was also supposed to be SkyTrain), but now it's able to connect with the REM at Point St. Charles instead of terminating at Central station. The 2010 study priced this alignment at $1.1 billion. The benefit to this alignment is:
1) It provides coverage to many new areas while being almost entirely above ground.
2) The province has already spent $136 million reserving space for a train along the Turcot corridor, currently under construction.

The disadvantage is that it is a bit indirect, and it awkwardly serves Ville Émard/NDG because it wedged between the St. Jacques Bluffs and a highway.

CP/Pink line routing
View attachment 129463

I've drawn the fantasy map above to show what is under consideration. It's a combination of the AMT "Train de l'Ouest" proposal and Phase II of Projet Montréal's Pink line. The idea is that the CP ROW would be used, which is on top of the Bluffs and much closer to where people live. Rather than terminate at Lucien L'allier (like the AMT proposal) or continue northeast (as part of phase I of the pink line, which is unlikely to be built anytime this half century) it would be a branch of the REM from downtown. This way, we would be doing the tunneling in places that make sense (downtown, under Rene-Levesque) instead of under a runway. Tunelling may not even be necessary, since there is extra room in the decked-over Ville-Marie expressway.

The REM vehicles would allow for new stations in NDG, including one at Cavendish (very useful connection, especially with the Dalle-parc cyclist/pedestrian connection south to Ville Emard and the planned Cavendish extension north at Cote-St-Luc.

The advantages is that this serves many population centers and destinations, and is a much more direct route downtown than the REM routing. The disadvantages are the unknowns about the shared ROW with CP/AMT, and how the tunneling (if any) would be done downtown.

3) Move the west island branch north and bury it with the hydro lines
View attachment 129464
I'm not completely sold on this change, but the idea is that the current middle-of-a-highway alignment isn't great because A) nobody lives next to a highway so almost all the ridership is from Park n rides, B) densification is almost impossible (and not desireable because of pollution/noise) next to a highway and C) the station locations result in lengthy bus tours.

If the west island branch were built along the hydro corridor, it could be trenched and decked over, and combined with a proposed burial of power lines. Then it would be much closer to where population centers are, you could have intensification along the corridor, and the stations would be directly under north/south arteries for better bus connections. This would also reduce competition for the Vaudreil-Hudson line, which dies with the REM along with the Mascouche line, and avoids urban sprawl because you get fewer kilometers of rapid transit.

I'm not 100% sold because 1) even though population density is greater along Salaberry, there tend to be more jobs located near highways because of office parks 2) although there exists the potential for densification, west island communities have an awful track record of actually allowing it so you would still end up with SFH next to rapid transit 3) you get less coverage than with elevated transit.

Thank you for the detailed explanations, much appreciated

I also think it's quite an impressive feat - nothing short of a minor miracle - that they managed to pull together nearly $6 billion in city/provincial/federal/private funding, less than 1 year after its initial announcement in April 2016.

For now, I believe the delay with issuing contracts is due to several factors - outlined in this Radio-Canada report (in French) http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1071019/reseau-electrique-metropolitain-couts-deuxieme-report:

- Cost: project to increase from $6 to nearly $8 billion. The Caisse has already reviewed submissions from 2 consortiums and both are deemed to too high (though some of the cost increase is attributed to the choice of rolling stock chosen by the consortiums, according to the CBC report)

- There is also the question of who will pay the additional cost of $1-2 billion, especially as la Caisse's main selling point on this project is cost and timeline containment

- Timeline: with the more expensive price tag and opening date potentially delayed by 1-2 years, will la Caisse still proceed with this undertaking?

 

[begratto]

The $8B figure is only speculation, it has not been confirmed by the Caisse. They are still having discussions with the consortiums to "optimize" their submissions and reduce costs. So we don't know if it is going to end up costing more than $6B in the end.

 

[aquateam]

- Cost: project to increase from $6 to nearly $8 billion. The Caisse has already reviewed submissions from 2 consortiums and both are deemed to too high (though some of the cost increase is attributed to the choice of rolling stock chosen by the consortiums, according to the CBC report)

Ah, I read that differently, the rolling stock is the only part that isn't seeing cost increases:

Dans son communiqué de vendredi dernier, la Caisse dit vouloir négocier avec les consortiums pour obtenir un meilleur rapport qualité-prix. Traduction : les soumissions des deux consortiums pour la portion ingénierie et construction du projet sont trop élevées. Une bonne nouvelle quand même, tout semble bien aller du côté du matériel roulant, qui ne constitue toutefois que le quart du coût total du projet.

My translation: In their communique last friday, the Caisse says they want to negotiate with the consortia to get a better value. Translation: the bids of the two consortia for the engineering and construction component of the project are too high. Some good news though, all seems to be well on the rolling stock side, which nonetheless only comprises a quarter of the total cost of the project.

If the cost increases to $8 billion, which is absolutely possible (although I would like to hope that the CDP has done their homework with so much money involved), that still amounts to $119 million/km. While most of the route is along an existing rail line, that's still much cheaper than any comparable project on the books (Blue/Orange/Yellow line extensions, Pink line, etc.)

The city is currently spending $4 billion on a single highway interchange, $4.5 billion on a bridge, $250 million on a roof for the olympic stadium... all that money just to replace what is already there without adding anything new. So spending $8 billion to double rapid transit coverage in the city is still good value for money... although as I said before, there is room for improvement in the route.

 

[KevinT]

Reportedly, they say air conditioning the Montreal subway is impractical due to already uncomfortably hot stations in summer. I wonder if decades into the future, a new kind of air conditoners can cool Montreal subway trains without heating up the stations even more uncomfortably warm. Basically, redirecting heat somewhere else (into rails, into electricity, or another form of energy, etc).

Platform doors and slight positive pressure in the stations could keep the heat in the tunnels, but you'd need all sorts of additional ventilation shafts for the trains to push/pull air from as they made their way through the tunnels, shafts to feed air into the stations to keep them positively pressured, and revolving doors at all station access points to hold that pressure. Doable, but not on any budget a taxpayer would be willing to foot.