There’s a heated (not really… more like “warm”) debate on this forum about whether a ground-level tram (like LÉEO) is a better option for the “Taschereau Axis & beyond” than the REM technology.
There are valid arguments for both, but one recurring difference in opinion is what the purpose of public transit along the Taschereau axis, and how it will develop in the future. I can only speak to my opinion, and I can mostly speak about the stretch between REM and Metro Longueuil, but:
What is the current state of Tasch. Boulevard?
→ Currently, Taschereau (between REM and Terminus Longueuil) is a long, concrete stretch of commercial property, with brief periods of hospitals, clinics, and occasional residences
→ Car traffic is extremely high, as all of these commercial properties are designed to be accessed by car, and Taschereau is used as a connective traffic artery between bridges and highways
What difficulties would a tram face?
→ If you put a ground-level tram down the centre of this path it would need to stop for fairly frequent traffic intersections
→ It would have passenger platforms that load/unload in the middle of 6+ lanes of traffic, and then must wait for this 70+ km/h traffic to stop before crossing to reach their destinations (most frequently work or shopping trips)
→ It would be slow and likely require drivers, winding through the concrete prairie of Taschereau, just like buses already do, but without the ability to peel away into the adjacent neighbourhoods to collect folks from population centres
Why might a REM make more sense?
→ Elevated, so can avoid the rat race of Taschereau and efficiently keep a schedule without stopping for traffic or intersections; elevated also means that the stations could avoid centre-loading, keeping pedestrians out of at-level crossings
→ The population around Taschereau is not a uniform municipality or density, AKA between Candiac and Vieux Longueuil you have: Candiac, La Prairie, Brossard, Greenfield Park, Lemoyne/LaFleche/St-Lambert, Boul. Desaulniers, Terminus Longueuil/University, Old Longueuil, etc.
→ Many of these areas have a “downtown” or denser area, as well as separate zoning rules and local development partnerships, they cannot be expected to coordinate on developing and densifying uniformly down Taschereau, they will more likely - in my opinion - densify out from their own “nucleus” / administrative or population centres
Therefore, I would suggest that it would make more sense to plant a REM station at key points along this axis, where the municipalities and communities will naturally be open to densifying, and then they can use that transit connection to plan their developments, densification, or commercial hubs
Once there is a REM station at Greenfield Park or Lemoyne or Desaulniers (as examples), then there is pressure off of the RTL to serve this massive provincial boulevard, and the local bus system can improve, BIXI stations can appear, and populations on the South Shore and the surrounding areas can count on buses to run local circuits around a structuring “spinal column” of the REM, rather than a tram trying to be a bus
After that, there’s so much incentive to buy property and build apartments/condos that the developers will be throwing themselves at the communities along this axis to build.
Other than that, the Greater Montreal Area suffers from a lack of developed regional train service. I’m from the GO corridor in Ontario, and if exo had developed for over half a century like GO has, we may be able to support regional communities better… but the MSH line is a mess…
St. Hubert is nearby me, and a bustling little community… but the St. Hubert exo station is comically hard to reach for the surrounding communities (despite the airport becoming a bigger and bigger deal with every year that passes).
Station St. Bruno is so far from where people actually live in St. Bruno, and only accessible by a winding country road, that even if they wanted to take the train they’d be hard-pressed. I lived in that town for a couple years, and it was practical to take the train precisely once.
The only stations (in my opinion) that are decently located are St. Basile and St. Lambert. The former being a sparse suburb and the latter being so close to Montreal that you might as well take the bus/metro.
Yeesh. Maybe some federal and provincial money will come down the pipe when St. Hubert airport gets beefed up, and we can service these communities better. Even a bi-hourly, bi-directional service with fewer cars would make this more legitimate than the rush-hour service and then 8 hours of dead rails.
Is the Victoria Bridge wholly owned by CN? Sorry for the naïveté, but couldn’t the feds step in and mandate transit priority to passenger trains over the bridge (ownership of the tracks notwithstanding)? It’s gotta be easier than doing so on subdivisions within the city.
It is wholly CN owned. The federal government has transport rights over it, but that’s it. There’s an entire federal by-law covering those traffic lanes.
In my mind, it’s high time that those traffic lanes get removed and interurban or REM tracks reinstalled. Now, a Jacques-Cartier REM A branch, a Tachereau REM, and a yellow-line extension to Cégep Édouard-Montpetit, that would be transformative!
What’s funny to an armchair engineer is that it’s probably structurally capable of supporting heavier weights and higher speeds, and the road traffic lanes could indeed easily support what we are wont to call “light rail.”
The “bassins de non-concurrence” clauses don’t restrict existing lines from being modernized. If anything, the lines could even be completely overhauled with countervailing regulations requiring full accessibility to all cars on all trains at every station, just like most of the rest of the Industrialized world has already done.
As seen here: “Ainsi, ces bassins de non-concurrence ne limitent aucunement le développement de projets de transport collectif ailleurs sur le territoire, ni la poursuite de l’exploitation et du développement des réseaux de métro, de trains et de services rapides par autobus dans leurs axes actuels.” [emphasis mine]
C’était un problème bien avant la clause de non-concurrence. Le problème, c’est l’ARTM qui se comporte comme une agence vraiment Montréal-centrique et qui ne semble pas avoir le désir d’améliorer l’offre de service vers les 2e et 3e couronne. Dans l’étude récente sur le PSE, disons que la manière dont ils ont tout simplement balayé du revers de la main la possibilité de bonifier le train de l’Est en dit très long.
L’ARTM et autres agences de transport de Montréal fonctionnent sur des budgets serré depuis tellement longtemps qu’ils n’y a absolument aucune volonté de prendre quelque risque que ce soit. Même avec des signaux clair que le gouvernement est prêt à investir, l’ARTM semble vraiment pris dans cette mentalité de comptable très conservatrice.
Yes, this we know, but I’m talking about modern light rail, which is basically heavy metro equipment in shorter consists; the Montreal Street Railway and its concurrents ran single street car vehicles that probably weren’t even as heavy as a modern Novabus LFS bus.
Il y a, à ma connaissance, des contraintes de masse sur les voies automobiles du pont Victoria. C’est pour ça, par exemple, que le RTL n’envoyait que des Classics (plancher haut) plutôt que des LFS à plancher bas sur la ligne 55, car les Classics sont plus légers.
Encore une fois, il y a une manque de volonté ici.
How have we not invested to improve one of the five strategic links to the south (east) shore? Oh, right, because CN has zero interest in helping the cities that keep it profitable.
Là ou il fait erreur, c’est de tout de suite mettre «Tramway» dans une case de «Tramways européens avec des arrêts aux 400 mètre». Les tramways européens ont des arrêts aux 400 mètres parce que la densité justifie des arrêts aux 400 mètres. Mais un réseau de tramway c’est pas un truc qu’on achète dans un catalogue; c’est du cas par cas.
Il propose un train dans l’esprit d’un RER, ou d’un S-Bah. C’est bien, je suis d’accord sur le fond, mais c’est très contraignant, très invasif, et donc très couteux.
Le tramway est le mode le plus flexible. Il peut être en tunnel, au sol, en aérien. Il peut circuler sur des voies clôturées comme un S-Bahn ou un RER aux mêmes vitesses. Mais il peut aussi rouler sur du gazon dans des zones plus urbanisées ou plus sensibles.
La ligne du Rhônexpress de Lyon est un bon exemple (parfois considéré comme un tram-train comme on en a déjà parlé, mais ça reste dans la famille du tram), il y a 4 stations sur 23km. Il va à une vitesse moyenne de 50km/h, soit beaucoup plus que le 20km/h dont on parle souvent. Il a tous les avantages d’un RER.
Ce sont des bons points. Par contre, il ne faut pas oublier un gros désavantages de ces systèmes de Tram par rapport à un métro automatisé: la nécessité d’avoir un conducteur de métro. Ces conducteurs sont souvent syndiqués et touchent à des gros salaires. Ceci fait en sorte que ça peut être très dispendieux d’augmenter les fréquences de lignes à toutes les heures de la journées.
Mais, le seule raison pour laquelle le Rhône express est rapide, c’est par ce que ça suit une emprise ferroviaire, ça n’a que 4 stations, et en dehors du centre ville sont insertion urbain est très similaire à celle d’un métro ou RER.
C’est trois choses sont très difficile a recrée en plein milieu d’un boulevard. C’est possible, mais il faut vraiment que l’insertion urbain soit très très lourd, comme la ligne bleue du c train a Marlborough station.
