[nfitz]

I was in Paris in May and I can say in all honesty, that Montreal stations looks better than Paris.

Indeed. But much of the Paris Metro is over 100 years old. If those same old lines had been built in Paris in the 1960s through 1980s, instead of 1900 through 1940, they may not look as tired. May of the Paris RER stations however are very depressing - and perhaps reminiscent of New York in some ways. I'm not sure if it extends to the suburban stations or not, as my travels have kept me more central.

Though Montreal has done a better job of individualizing the stations ... other than the unfortunate similarities between Bonaventure and Mont-Royal. They've also done a far better jobs of consistency over the decades. The stations are all very different - but somehow comfortingly similar in many ways. I'm no designer, so I'll stop there.

 

[James]

Yes, keep in mind that even though the Montreal Metro system is ~50 years old, they are still much newer than the Toronto TTC, the Paris Metro or the NYC subway.

 

[nfitz]

Yes, keep in mind that even though the Montreal Metro system is ~50 years old, they are still much newer than the Toronto TTC, the Paris Metro or the NYC subway.

On the other hand, the oldest Montreal stations are about the same age as the oldest Bloor-Danforth stations. And yet the Montreal stations look in far better shape.

A lot of it comes down to money. TTC receives an operating subsidy of 78¢ a trip. In Montreal it's about $1.16. If the city and province would fork over another 40¢ a ride in Toronto, I bet you the stations would look cleaner. Though long term capital maintenance is an issue. Remember that under Mayor Miller and Adam Giambrone TTC had started a rehab program for subway stations, starting with Dufferin and Pape. This ground to a halt after Mayor Ford and Karen Stintz took over.

Sadly, there's about 2 decades of neglect to fix.

 

[Filip]

Architecturally speaking, I have never seen a more impressive 'modern' subway system as Montreal's. The designs of each stations are fantastic!

Operationally leaves a lot to be desired. The trains were narrow and uncomfortable, the ride is bumpy (lots of jostling side to side - which is odd given the rubber tires) and the noise. Oh my God.. THE NOISE! It's like being in a wind tunnel. When the train pulls into or out of a station, the noise is unbearable.

Also, the frequencies suck (I'd routinely wait about 10 minutes for the train on the weekends).

 

[simply Dan]

Many of the Montreal Metro stations are also very deep underground, taking quite a lot of time to get from street level to platform level... and most are not barrier-free.

 

[ehlow]

For whatever reason the TTC has seen fit to emulate NYC in many respects. This includes the cramped, dirty and utilitarian stations, the horrific signage and the dull livery of the vehicles. NYC has a solid, efficient and expansive system but aesthetics are not their strong point so I have no clue why the TTC has followed their lead all this time.

Other Canadian cities have a much better grasp of the importance of visual design. Vancouver for example recently hired a design agency to overhaul everything from signage to their website, and it definitely shows. Unfortunately, probably due to nonexistent funds, the TTC always cobbles together some inadequate, slapdash in-house solution as we have seen with the current wayfinding pilot.

Yes I've always speculated that Toronto copied NYC's cramped & dirty station design. It also makes sense if both early TTC lines and NYC were cut & cover lines where the stations were close to the surface.

I also always assumed that it's also because Montreal's subway was built later, since TTC's newer lines are also roomier and nicer (Sheppard, northern Spadina). I'm guessing Montreal's area all machine bored so they're deep?

 

[ShonTron]

Yes, the Montreal system is almost entirely bored rather than cut-and-cover, which was the majority of the 1954-1968 constructed system in Toronto (every section of tunnel except parts of the University Line). Having a completely underground system also protects it from the elements, part of the reason why the rolling stock remain in such good condition despite their age.

Interestingly, at many, if not most Metro stations the tracks rise just before entering a station, and descend on the other side of the station. Assists with acceleration/deceleration.

 

[aquateam]

I live in Montreal but I'm from Toronto and I have a few observations:

Why Montreal is better:

1. The stations are much larger and more impressive (and so pretty!).

2. Crew changeovers don't seem as noticeable as in Toronto (the train doesn't seem to stop for 3 minutes until a driver strolls in with a coffee).

3. Lionel-Groux has a really convenient transfer. I can just walk across the platform to change lines.

4. I almost always get a seat, even at rush hour.

5. Contactless Opus card.

Why Toronto is better:
1. Montreal doesn't so much have a metro system as it has a series of failed attempts to dig to the centre of the earth (of varying degrees of success) that they decided to link together by tunnel and run a few trains in. If you don't believe me try getting off at Place St. Henri or Du College. My legs have gotten stronger from walking up all the escalators.

2. The off-peak service is not as frequent in Montreal, trains come about every 8-9 minutes instead of every 5-6.

3. The Opus cards are quite convenient, but since every station seems to only have a single recharge machine there is always a lineup, especially at the beginning of the month or when someone elderly uses them.

4. The montreal trains are loud, don't have AC, and blast air at your eyes if you're standing.

5. Drivers/staff can be rude if you speak english.

6. The automated announcements really help on the TTC, with the display and the audio (both buses and metro). I've missed my bus stop a couple times in Montreal (and it's difficult to know where to get off if you haven't been there before). This is one area where the TTC is far ahead. In fact, frequently I find the announcements aren't even working on the metro cars.

7. This is a silly thing, but the doors on the metro are unpredictable (sometimes they chime, but more often than not they don't so you have no idea when they're closing.) I think drivers have received specific training to slam the doors in front of people rather than let them enter, from what I see on a daily basis. One time during my commute I entered a train that had been stopped, and without chiming the doors slammed on me mid-entry. My newspaper made it into the train but not me. It was quite painful.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

The cross platform transfers at Snowdon and Lionel Groulx work well enough, can be confusing for new riders. Don't like the transfer at Jean Talon, and the transfer to Line 4 at Berri UQAM is abysmal.

I found transfers between bus and metro to be really inconvenient at many metro stations.

Montreal's frequency is not as good as Toronto, but I like the early Sunday opening.

 

[nfitz]

Having a completely underground system also protects it from the elements, part of the reason why the rolling stock remain in such good condition despite their age.

Presumably their equipment is designed for longer life as well. I'd certainly hope so given the cost. The Toronto Rocket trains and the new Metro trains in Montreal were ordered over a similar time-frame. Their trains are a similar length, but narrower. However the Toronto Rockets came in about $13 million a train set (with the final 10-car addition made recently coming in at about $17.5 million a train set (inflation, built in ATC, etc.). Their train sets are coming in at $23 million each! This despite that once you factor in length and width, the Toronto trains are 14% larger than the Montreal trains.

 

[rbt]

Presumably their equipment is designed for longer life as well.

Montreal trains benefit greatly from being in 100% weather controlled environment. Even the storage yards are indoors. They never directly experience snow, rain, or even sun.

 

[Electrify]

RE: Their trains

While the rubber tires help to improve the acceleration, I don't think this means that steel wheels cannot possess such power. According to Wikipedia, their trains accelerate at 3.2 mphps. Meanwhile our streetcars accelerate at 2.65 mphps and our subways at 2.0 mphps.

However, our PCC streetcars accelerated at 4.3 mphps, faster than Montreal's trains despite using steel wheels. I can't seem to find a source, but I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that some older NYC trains accelerated at over 4 mphps!

One reason for Montreal maintaining their trains may also have to do with it being more difficult to get new ones built due to the rubber tires. Also according to the Wiki article linked above, they also did some major refurbishing of the trains, including "full-spectrum lighting system that provides therapeutic anti-depression effects for its passengers." Something tells me such a customer enhancing benefit was not considered when they put in the blast lighting into the TR trains...

 

[robmausser]

Here is a great photo showing the Montreal Metro single-bored tunnel.

The rubber tires allow the trains to be so close to each other.

I've often wondered if a rubber tire metro would be a good solution to Toronto's DRL:

1. The DRL needs to be entirely underground and it needs to be be deep, to pass under all of the high rises and buildings now occupying downtown. So a single bored tunnel through bedrock like they do in Montreal would be cheaper.

2. We will need a new train facility anyways, so changing technology is not a big deal.

3. The line is meant to supplement capacity off of the Yonge/Bloor line, so perhaps ridership will not be so much that the smaller trains are a big deal.

 

[P23]

The last thing Toronto needs is a new mode of technology, especially on a single line. Look to the SRT for an immediately relevant example.

 

[Long Island Mike]

The Montreal Metro - history and comparisons with Toronto's TTC Subway...

Everyone: This has become a interesting comparison between Canada's "big two" cities of Montreal and Toronto's subway systems
and I will add that Toronto's two prime lines and stations were originally designed with the 1950s/1960s utilitarian design while
Montreal used very imaginative designing for the Metro to become a showcase in its own right...

I have a copy of a 150 page hardcover book published by the MUCTC titled "The Montreal Metro" that dates from 1976 and
is a good overview of the Metro system as of that period...The METRO arrow logo is both on the hardcovers...

I will add here these mentions from the book: First-the Preface by Lawrence Hanigan - President of MUCTC's Executive Commitee
and President-GM of the MUCTC Transit Commission at that time...

"As of its introduction in the fall of 1966 the Metro became a element of pride for all Montrealers. This initial network of 13.7 miles
(22km) in length was built within the limits of the City of Montreal and has already transported more then a billion passengers.

Because we realize the necessity of offering to the Community residents a rapid and comfortable public transit system and also
because we were conscious of the economic repercussions of such a project,we have undertaken the construction of extensions
to the existing lines. The work that was initiated in 1971 will permit adding to the initial network 37.8 miles (60km) of line and 69
stations. Once this work is completed the Metro will serve ten municipalities and will allow the easiest of movement within said
part of the territory.

Since the decision was taken to build a Metro in Montreal at the outset of the 1960s the departments of the City of Montreal and,
since 1970 those of the Urban Community in collaboration with the Community Transit Commission,have not ceased carrying out
research so that our Metro will be the most modern in the world. The Montreal authorities had retained for the initial network the
technology known as being the most perfected and proven at the time. Since then nothing has been spared to define the improve-
ments to be implemented to this network and to the extensions underway. At the time of its construction the Montreal Metro was
at the forefront from the standpoint of safety. When improvements being instituted will be completed it again will be.

The studies undertaken in the last few years have in effect led us to the adoption of additional safety measures whose cost is
assessed at more then $100 million dollars. While being desirous of offering the most efficient service,the safety of our
passengers has always been and remains our first preoccupation."

CONCLUSION
Since 1966 the Montreal Metro has transported more then a billion riders without a single fatal accident to patrons. In 1970
a major extension program was launched. In 1976 the first length of these extensions is completed. It is for all purposes
a new Metro that sees the light of day,so numerous are the modifications and improvements implemented on rolling stock
and fixed plant in the interests of improving reliability and safety.

The whole of this work constitutes an exulting task for Commission personnel and for that of the Metropolitan Transit Bureau.
All are proud of the work undertaken and we are dedicated to its proper termination much to the satisfaction of public
authorities.

MY THOUGHTS:
In closing the Montreal Metro only adds to the thought of Montreal having a European flavor and has been overwhelming
successful since it was conceived and built...It is one of Montreal's most valuable assets...LI MIKE