Ils vont l’avoir avec la ligne bleue! Bon, next!
Merci pour le comentaire, Luvtrain. Pour revenir à Lacordaire, comme je disais, l’idée était d’accélérer le parcours des autobus, voire à rajouter du service. Parce que présentement, du métro Cadillac à Henri-Bourassa ça prend plus que 30 minutes, parfois 40.-45 min. Je crois qu’avec mon idée, le parcours se ferait en 15 minutes.
Avec un autobus aux 10 minutes pour la grande majorité de la journée, il suffit largement à la tâche…
Tu parles de Lacordaire ou Pie-IX? Parce que le SRB sur Pie-IX est actuellement aux 10 minutes hors-pointe et c’est plein à craquer dans les bus. C’est certain que le service s’améliorera lorsque les stations Jean-Talon et Bélanger seront ouvertes, mais en période de pointe ça restera plein si on n’améliore pas le TC à Montréal.
Je parlais de Pie-IX. La STM pourrait facilement quintupler la fréquence au besoin: il y a donc largement de capacité excédentaire, c’est loin d’être saturé, la fréquentation et la fréquence sont entre loin de la capacité théorique du SRB.
Hors-pointe, oui. En période de pointe par contre, même un service aux 3-5 minutes n’arrivent pas à satisfaire la clientèle. Et je doute que la STM puisse augmenter davantage le service.
Les lignes 139 et 439 avaient un achalandage semblable au SRB Pie-IX (avant sa mise en service) en plus d’avoir toutes les deux des autobus articulés (19 mètres), ce qui explique sa pleine capacité.
En période de pointe, la ligne 32 a une fréquence aux dix minutes et la 432 aux 15 minutes.Toutes les deux lignes ont des autobus réguliers (12 mètres).
Le SRB Pie-IX a des bus de Laval à desservir, chose qu’un SRB sur Lacordaire n’aurait pas. Admettons que la 432 pourrait quadrupler son service dû au SRB.
Personnellement, je crois que le segment Pointe-aux-Trembles à Viauville devrait se faire en métro, surtout avec en considérant la possibilité de prolonger vers Repentigny. Si on fait l’autre portion du trajet en tramway, la question est alors où on met la ou les stations de transfer. On met la dernière station pour la ligne Pointe-aux-Trembles où?
Peu importe le choix qui sera fait, je pense qu’il est important de considérer le maillage du réseau. Je ne suis pas fondamentalement opposé à l’idée, mais je pense que ça nécessite plus de réflexion. Une des choses qui doit être considéré est que Laval et la Rive Nord continuent de grossir et que la demande de transit au nord de l’Île va augmenter. Il n’y a pas grand chose au nord de la orange à part quelques lignes d’autobus et le SRB Pie-IX.
Tu patines vite. Tu es déjà rendu à Pointe-Aux-Trembles. À ce que je sache, P-A-T peut bien avoir son service indépendamment de celui de Rivière-Des-Prairies. Sinon, le point de correspondance entre les deux sections pourrait tout aussi bien être la station Assomption comme Cadillac de la ligne verte.
Il n’y a pas grand chose au nord de l’autoroute 25, Enalung. Des champs et des fermes. Cela serait suffisant que le SRB Pie-IX puisse faire son parcours à Laval toute la journée et 7/7 (chose qui n’est pas présentement). Sauf que pour que cela se fasse, il faudrait un service parallèle, que ce soit un SRB ou un tramway sur Lacordaire pour alléger le SRB Pie-IX et laisser la voie libre pour Laval sur le pont Pie-IX.
Une autre idée alternative!
Celui ci est assez imaginative. J’imagine un réseau de train SLR comme celle de Calgary, Edmonton, Francfort, Dusseldorf ou Dallas, qui integre le projet de PSE, ligne rose et tramway de lachine en un. Il y aurait 3 branche, un vers Rivière des Prairies, un vers Pointe-aux-Trembles et un vers Lachine. Les trois auraient un tronçon commun entre la station Loyola et la station Viau (à l’intersection Beauvien-Viau). Les trains seront de type plancher haut, ce qui permettra un operation assez similaire a un metro, comme à Calgary. Les stations à Rivière des Prairies pourraient être semblable à celle de Long Beach
tandis que les stations à Pointe-aux-Trembles et Lachine, ou l’emprise est plus grand, pourraient être plus similaire a celles d’Edmonton
Les stations souterrain serait identiques à celles d’un metro, comme on voit à Edmonton et Francfort. (Enterprise Station et Station Miquel/Adickesallee
There’s absolutely no way that you can exit a tunnel at Lucien L’Allier. The station is at least 7-8 meters off the ground and the street going under that. If you keep it under René-Lévesque, peoples would have to walk 225 meters to transfer which is still well within the realm of what I would consider reasonable. It is a very similar distance from Gare Centrale to the orange line. Besides, for a shorter transfer, you’ve also got Vendôme and Sherbrooke on your map. There is absolutely no need to worry about cutting it that close to Lucien L’Allier and increasing massively costs. It just isn’t worth it.
The next problem with your map is that you want to run along the Westmount sub. I’ve said it a number of time, and I really feel like I’m repeating myself… The slope between Vendôme and Lucien L’Allier is almost at the maximum that a train can handle the entire distance between those 2 stations. That means that the nearest place that you can exit is on the other side of Décarie. Since you also need to go under Décarie, that pushes a tunnel portal along that alignment at least a kilometer further. At that point, you’ve almost reached the location on your map where you need to diverge and go onto Saint-Jacques.
That part of your map needs some serious rethinking. I’ve got a few version of that alignment on my map. One solution is to dead end the Lachine portion at Lucien L’Allier. That’s probably the least expensive solution. Another is to exit along A-20 rather than along the Westmount sub, just beyond the Turcot Interchange. You could exit just besides rue Pullman and go from there, or you could exit on the south side of the interchange, just beyond the highway ramp that allows A-20 eastbound traffic to get onto A-15. The solution which I have chosen on my last map is to just keep it into a tunnel. There’s just so much infrastructure above ground in that alignment that it feels like it is the path of least resistance.
I’ve also given my opinion of American styles of SLR before. I consider them to be a bottom of the barrel transit solution that is not worth the money you spend on building them. The public transit numbers of several large American cities make a rather compelling case for just how bad of a transit system SLR are. Their maximum frequency is dictated by the on street portion. That increases wait time for users which makes the service less attractive. It also reduces maximum capacity since you can’t get as many vehicles on the line. That means that if you want to provide the same capacity as a metro, you have to use longer trains. That means that you need to build bigger stations, which increases costs. Since there are on street portions, you can’t automate the system, so you have to pay a driver. By the time everything is said and done, your typical American SLR ends up costing you as much as a properly grade separated metro. The costs and expenses are just a bit less obvious, so it looks good on paper initially, until you start digging. Please spare Montreal that kind of horror.
Lets be clear, I’m not against street running systems such as a tramway, but they need to be used in the right setting. For exemple, I do feel that a short line starting at Berry-UQAM serving the old port and ending at a new REM station at Bridge Wellington could make sense. It would service a new high density development at Bridge Wellington and the old port which draws in a lot of tourists. Street running systems excel when they are used as a means to get peoples to and from a high capacity system like a metro or a train. They serve a role that is similar to that of the bus, but with a higher capacity.
There’s absolutely no way that you can exit a tunnel at Lucien L’Allier
This is true, I failed to account for the orange line, bell centre and the road being so close, It would make it impossible to dive there. However, there is 300m of flat, CP maintenance yard between the rue guy exit and the rue guy, which would be plenty for a tunnel portal for any mode other than mainline rail. There’s also the option of diving under the rue guy exit, which would cut straight into the 10m cliff between the Vendome sub and the park, which would require only a very short tunnel. The edge of the Ernest Cormier esplanade may however be in the way.
Citation The slope between Vendôme and Lucien L’Allier is almost at the maximum that a train can handle the entire distance between those 2 stations
The grade between these stations must be the maximum for a heavy rail train, 2-4%, but not the max for a light rail or metro train. Light rail and metro trains regularly climb 5-7% grades (see Portland). The difference between these grades (2-4% and 5-7%) would be large enough that a tunnel portal could be build, it would just be long, 300 metres or more.
The Westmount sub is a very busy corridor but, along most of the length there is enough room to add 1 track each side, similar to the original plan for the ontario line in Leslieville. This would allow for a very cost effective grade separated transit line to be built.
Also, on american LRT systems, they have their issues, but those issues are mostly in relation to the operators, not the system. The frankfurt U-Bahn, an LRT system, has peak frequencies of 3-4 minutes on many lines that have both at grade and tunneled sections. The calgary C-Train had 4-7 minute frequencies in the peak pre-pandemic. When these networks are done right frequency is no issue. Having at grade sections does reduce maximum theoretical frequency, but the cost savings you can get from not tunneling suburban sections are enormous. For example, the current PSE plan under study is to have a tunnel from Rivière des Prairies all the way to Mercier Est, because of nimbys and a want to keep it fully automated. If LRT was built instead, only a short tunneled section between the Hopital Rosemont and the metropolitan would be needed. The rest of the alignment could be on viaducs, at grade, and in the middle of boulevards. Street running sections also dont have to be slow, with full signal priority (gates) trains can continue to move quickly on surface sections. You need to prioritise the train over traffic, and sometimes 2-4 lanes of traffic may need to be removed to keep the LRT moving quickly on boulevards. In railway right of ways, and LRT basically operates as a train, going up to 100km/h. In LA, the blue line which includes 2 street running sections, takes 58 minutes to cover roughly 45 km, where in Vancouver, the expo line takes 45 minutes to cover roughly 30km which is roughly the same average speed, despite one being grade separated. I think people conflate the system with the operator in the case of LRTs, the Americans may be poor at operating them, but the Germans have many good examples of LRT systems beating out whole metros.
There are 2 ramps above the railway, and 2 more under the railway. The two lower ramps go to Boulevard Georges-Vanier. They begin on either side of Centre Canadien d’Architechture.
Not an option. The Lucien L’Allier métro station is under Argyle street. The metro tunnels curves southward not too far from there. As I said, that right of way is really crowded with infrastructure, both above and below ground.
Again, remember that the existing grade is somewhere around 3 to 3.5%. That means that for every 100 meters, you would only be gaining about 3 meters on the existing grade. If your tunnel is 20 bellow grade, that means that your portal / entry trench will need almost 700 meters clear of obstructions. That’s asking for a lot along a right of way that is that crowded.
One option which still does not seem to have been considered is cut and cover. It is immensely disruptive during construction, but it usually costs quite a bit less than a bored tunnel. There are definitely long lengths along the right of way that would allow for such a solution. It is also notable that the cut and cover construction methods have evolved a lot since last century. By building the walls first and then pouring the roof slab before excavating, it is possible to minimise the amount of time that traffic is disrupted.
I feel that we are way too scared of NIMBY. While i do agree that it is important to listen to the concern of residents who are going to be directly affected by the project, I also think that we need to balance that against the needs of the rest of the population. Considering the needs of the population also means that we need to consider the cost benefits as it is ultimately going to end up being paid by everyone’s taxes.
The one compromise that I would offer Mercier is building the system in a trench instead of on a viaduct. Station location could have short covered segments to allow for the creation of public spaces, but otherwise, I would not spend the hundreds of millions required to build a tunnel from one end to the other. I just don’t think that it would be reasonable to ask the rest of the population to pay for that.
Les maires de Mascouche Terrebone et Repentigny auraient du poster leur carte ici plutôt que faire une conférence de presse, ils auraient eu l’air un peu moins ridicules
J’ai créer une ligne alternatif qui relis toutes les idées que l’on connais déjà. Ma proposition comporte 3 branches
La principale (A) a comme terminus la station Côte-de-Liesse du REM 1 et Mascouche en reprenant une grande partie de la ligne de train Mascouche. Entièrement en surface.
Le Branche B a comme terminus Cégep Marie-Victorin et Du Tricentenaire en passant sous Lacordaire et en utilisant les rails du CN sur Souligny. La partie entre le Cégep et Assomption est souterraine
La Branche C a comme terminus Côte-de-Liesse et Carrefour Laval en utilisant les rails de train de marchandise qui traverse Laval et l’autoroute Jean-Noel-Lavoie. La section entre les stations Montée Masson et Léger est souterraine pour passer sous le fleuve et ressort en surface proche de l’Hôpital Rivière-des-Prairies.
https://metrodreamin.com/edit/bmRTRG9BeFVPcldCbXc4RzRsaWJaYjNUTzN2MnwxMQ%3D%3D
Vous en passez quoi ?
Suivant les idées autour du sujet sur le PSE, si il n’y aurait qu’une seule branche? Suivant les voies du CP, du centre-ville passant par les stations Radisson (verte) et Anjou (bleue- projetée) et l’autoroute 25.
Juste un rappel que la motivation première du gouvernement de Francois Legault est de developper tous les territoires de l’Est de Montreal, particulierement les anciens terrains des raffineries, etc. Un trajet qui ne passe pas par Sherbrooke Est est donc impossible.
Message supprimé
