News   Nov 28, 2024
Wallace Emerson Community Centre Growing Beside Galleria on the Park
 497     0 
News   Nov 28, 2024
27-Storey Tower on Queen West Proposed North of Future King-Liberty GO
 971     2 
News   Nov 28, 2024
Drone Flights Capture Sub-Grade Construction at Cielo Condos
 779     0 

Montréal Transit Developments

chinesehorse said:
Kind of off topic, but does anybody know why the REM project would be considered light rail? The vehicles being used are used on heavy-rail rapid transit lines elsewhere and I can't see an obvious difference between the ones REM will be using and say, the ones the Sydney Metro are using (both Alstom Metropolis family vehicles).
Click to expand...

LRT and Metro etc are just buzzwords. And as such they can overlap.

The REM trains are lighter than typical heavy rail systems like the Toronto Rocket, New York subway etc. Plus they use overhead pantograph for power, something more common with LRTs.
 
ViveleCanada said:
I looked more into the Metrolinx site and they do not claim that any of the light rail projects are on par with Subway/Metro.
Click to expand...
Is Line 3 on par with the subway? A full 4-car Line 3 Scarborough train (51 metres long) only holds 220 people, compared to 490 on a 3-car Line 5 Eglinton train. Meanwhile the undeniably subway Line 4 Sheppard trains are about the same length (about 93 metrse) as the Line 5 LRT trains (91 metres_ and hold 670 people.

Metrolinx have recently said that ''the light rail transit line will be considered part of the subway system''.
 
chinesehorse said:
Kind of off topic, but does anybody know why the REM project would be considered light rail? The vehicles being used are used on heavy-rail rapid transit lines elsewhere and I can't see an obvious difference between the ones REM will be using and say, the ones the Sydney Metro are using (both Alstom Metropolis family vehicles).
Click to expand...
Because it was originally called a light rail project by the QC government (AMT) to not confuse with the existing metro system. Well it was more precisely actually called a SLR (système léger sur rail or light rail system). After the announcement of the rebranded REM in 2018, the CDPQi used métro léger (light metro) in its annoucement in French because French media kept calling the REM the Caisse suburban electric train. People on the Deux-Montagne line didn't get, at the time, why the Caisse would replace an electric commuter train (exo line) to another electric commuter train. They never modified the English moniker on their page because a PR guy (which I had contacted on the subject) thought that the English equivalent of métro léger (light metro) was LRT.. A couple of months later, the main PR guy of the Caisse actually sent a memo to the media to call the REM a light metro system. Most media keeps calling the REM a suburban electric train which is still confusing people.

The light comes from its intermediate (relative) capacity with trains of up to 100m (80m at first). But with trains having a capacity of 1000 people with 5-car trains at a 90s headway, you're in pure metro zone at a maximum of 40 000pphpd. Thus, the Caisse has started in the last few months to call the REM a metro system without the light in front. This was to state that the REM is just as good as the normal STM metro.
 
p_xavier said:
I participated on a panel on how to address that.
Click to expand...
LOL ... I was on a Presto panel at the Metrolinx offices on the Presto devices for silver UP columns .. a few years ago. There seemed to be panel opinion they were confusing ... look at how that turned out. :)

Will be interesting to see how it's done ... though with a 2021 opening, surely they'd be starting signage not long from now. They must have an approach near-finalized by now ... we've seen lots of renders of Line 5 and Line 6 signage already, which open in 2021 and 2023.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Shouldn't this thread be renamed "Montréal to have the largest rapid transit system in Canada"? Not really "subway".
Click to expand...
Probably should just be closed, given that Toronto is still going to have far more rapid transit stops even when the REM opens ... and will continue to have higher rapid transit ridership as well, with much of mileage being gained by converting an existing suburban commuter rail into an RER-like service not substantially different than what the David government promised with the GO ALRT conversion of the Lakeshore line back in the 1970s and 1980s.
 
nfitz said:
Probably should just be closed, given that Toronto is still going to have far more rapid transit stops even when the REM opens ... and will continue to have higher rapid transit ridership as well, with much of mileage being gained by converting an existing suburban commuter rail into an RER-like service not substantially different than what the David government promised with the GO ALRT conversion of the Lakeshore line back in the 1970s and 1980s.
Click to expand...

What does the number of stops have to do with anything? REM phase 1 is a 67 km expansion of the Montreal region rapid transit network. That alone nearly doubles their coverage area which currently is 69.2 kms; so instantly by 2024 it'll be 136.2 kms vs our 75 kms+19 kms (94 kms) when Line 5 opens. And with talk of further expansion to as far flung areas as St Jean-de-Richelieu near the Vermont border and replacing the Exo-Mascouche line with REM; it'll likely expand the total network coverage area to well over 200 kms. And of course, all the existing metro lines except Green are currently under consideration for expansion or are even nearing construction in the case of Blue Line Anjou extension. And Ligne Rose/Pink?...

Unless subways and grade-separated light rail are sleighed to stretch from Brampton/Oakville over to Markham/Pickering, I sincerely doubt Metro Toronto will ever be able to catch up to Metro Montreal's momentous expansion within our lifetimes.
 
nfitz said:
Is Line 3 on par with the subway? A full 4-car Line 3 Scarborough train (51 metres long) only holds 220 people, compared to 490 on a 3-car Line 5 Eglinton train. Meanwhile the undeniably subway Line 4 Sheppard trains are about the same length (about 93 metrse) as the Line 5 LRT trains (91 metres_ and hold 670 people.

Metrolinx have recently said that ''the light rail transit line will be considered part of the subway system''.
Click to expand...

I think it's apt to call Line 3 a subway. Other names or attempts to subdivide it are too confusing. According to Metrolinx (at least in the past) it's an AGT (automated guideway transit). This can be found on their glossaries. And then there were decades with TTC calling it RT or ICTS. Then the company that manufactures them calls it ART. Subway is much easier for the general public. We all know it's puny in scale relative to Line 1 and 2, but still it has other attributes that make it on par, and other cities operate short subway trains.

p_xavier said:
Because it was originally called a light rail project by the QC government (AMT) to not confuse with the existing metro system. Well it was more precisely actually called a SLR (système léger sur rail or light rail system). After the announcement of the rebranded REM in 2018, the CDPQi used métro léger (light metro) in its annoucement in French because French media kept calling the REM the Caisse suburban electric train. People on the Deux-Montagne line didn't get, at the time, why the Caisse would replace an electric commuter train (exo line) to another electric commuter train. They never modified the English moniker on their page because a PR guy (which I had contacted on the subject) thought that the English equivalent of métro léger (light metro) was LRT.. A couple of months later, the main PR guy of the Caisse actually sent a memo to the media to call the REM a light metro system. Most media keeps calling the REM a suburban electric train which is still confusing people.
Click to expand...

This explanation and lost in translation PR situation makes a lot of sense. Following it for the past few years it seems to have shed much of the LRT moniker, which was needed.
 
nfitz said:
Is Line 3 on par with the subway? A full 4-car Line 3 Scarborough train (51 metres long) only holds 220 people, compared to 490 on a 3-car Line 5 Eglinton train. Meanwhile the undeniably subway Line 4 Sheppard trains are about the same length (about 93 metrse) as the Line 5 LRT trains (91 metres_ and hold 670 people.

Metrolinx have recently said that ''the light rail transit line will be considered part of the subway system''.
Click to expand...

^Not part of the argument, but the link you used is broken for some reason. You really didn't address the fact that I'm discussing the physical characteristics of the lines, not the size of the trains. Metrolinx made it "PART" of the system, but they never claimed it to be "A" subway. Again, I could argue now that Los Angeles has a larger "subway" system just because BRT and LRT lines appear on their map, or claim Boston's commuter rail also is a subway because they also appear on their map. This is purely for wayfinding purposes similar to how the "900 Airport Express" was included and no ones going around saying its a subway. Anyways Metrolinx, in their own glossary, describes LRT and Subways as such:

LRT (Metrolinx):
Light Rail Transit (LRT): Streetcar trains (up to three or four cars per train) operating on protected rights-of-way adjacent to or in the medians of roadways or rail rights-of-way. Generally at-grade, possibly with some sections operating in mixed-traffic and/or in tunnels. Electric power is normally via an overhead trolley or pantograph. Capacity of 2,000 to 10,000 passengers per hour in the peak direction, with higher capacities where there are significant stretches of completely segregated rights-of-way. Average speed: 15 to 35 km/h depending on station spacing and extent of grade separation. Examples: Calgary and Edmonton LRT systems.
Click to expand...

LRT (from the Ministry of Transportation for Ontario):

Light Rail Transit (LRT): Electric rail cars in grade-separated rights-of-way. They have lower capacity and speed than heavy rail and metro systems, but higher capacity and speed than traditional street-running tram systems. While LRT rails are usually separated from other traffic, they may also run in mixed traffic. LRT vehicles are usually given signal priority at intersections.
Click to expand...

Subway (Metrolinx):
Subway: High-capacity, heavy rail transit that is fully-grade separated from other traffic, predominantly underground. Capacity in the range of 25,000 to 40,000 passengers per hour in the peak direction, with frequency as low as 90 seconds between trains. Average speed: 25 to 50 km/h. Example: Toronto subway.
Click to expand...

And Environmental Assessments even use APTA's definition:
Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) – The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Public Transportation Fact Book, 2006 defines Heavy Rail as:

An electric railway with the capacity for a high volume of traffic. It is characterized by high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails; separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded; sophisticated signalling, and high platform loading. If the service were converted to full automation with no onboard personnel, the service would be considered an automated guideway.
Click to expand...

Under their own definition, LRT and Subway's are two different things.
 
ViveleCanada said:
Under their own definition, LRT and Subway's are two different things.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure anyone in the real world cares what APTA (or APTB) definitions are.

It's about about branding and language usage really.

I'm just amused the twist in Montreal where essentially a commuter rail line is being turned into an RER-like service with some new spurs including the Airport and suddenly makes Montreal's subway the largest ... ignoring the frequent 18-hour/day RER-like service on Toronto's 23-km line from Union to the Airport ... let alone the very-frequent RER-like service currently being implemented along the 100 km of track from Burlington to Oshawa!

I'm even more amused that point out these inconsistencies in usage seems to create such angst!
 
nfitz said:
I'm just amused the twist in Montreal where essentially a commuter rail line is being turned into an RER-like service with some new spurs including the Airport and suddenly makes Montreal's subway the largest ...
Click to expand...

2/3 of the REM, from Brossard to Bois-Franc in St-Laurent, will have service every 2min30sec at peak time, every 5 minutes the rest of the day. That's a métro service.

Service on the 3 northern branches is RER-likish though :

REM BranchPeak FrequencyNon-Peak Frequency
Brossard to Bois-Franc (main trunk)2min30sec (potential: 90sec)5min
Bois-Franc to Deux-Montagnes5min15min
Bois-Franc to Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue10min15min
Bois-Franc to Trudeau Airport10min15 min

Source : REM interactive map
 
Last edited:
begratto said:
2/3 of the REM, from Brossard to Bois-Franc in St-Laurent, will have service every 2min30sec at peak time, every 5 minutes the rest of the day. That's a métro service.
Click to expand...

Even the worst service (15 minute frequencies) is on par with large chunks of many US Metro systems (DC, Chicago, Boston, LA, San Fran, and even NY deep in the suburbs) which can be in the 12 to 20 minute metro frequencies isn't unusual during low ridership periods.

Is Staten Island Railway a metro service? It runs MTA standard equipment which has also been used on high capacity lines through Manhattan, same pricing, same oversight organization, appears on the map as equal to other major lines, but often has 30 minute frequencies.

We've seen numerous map comparisons but actual service varies widely between lines considered to be equal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top