Montreal’s Tram Obsession and Why It’s So Dangerous
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/vide...
After the cancellation of the second REM and a hilarious $36B suburban subway proposal, Montreal has discovered its newest transit solution - a tram. Unfortunately, it doesn't make much sense.
Quebec City Tramway article: rmtransit.subs...
Paige Saunders | NIMBYs vs REM: • NIMBYS vs REM
Oh The Urbanity! | Elevated Trains Are Good, Actually: • Elevated Trains Are Go...
Marco Chitti's plan for Montreal: / 1493001149208797198
As always, leave a comment down below if you have ideas for our future videos. Like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon so you won't miss my next video!
=PATREON=
If you'd like to help me make more videos & get exclusive behind the scenes access and early video releases, consider supporting my Patreon! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.
Patreon: / rmtransit
=ATTRIBUTION=
Epidemic Sound (Affiliate Link): share.epidemic...
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
Map Data © OpenStreetMap contributors: www.openstreet...
=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=
Discord Server: / discord
(Not officially affiliated with the channel)
=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Website: rmtransit.com
Substack: reecemartin.su...
=ABOUT ME=
Ever wondered why your city's transit just doesn't seem quite up to snuff? RMTransit is here to answer that, and help you open your eyes to all of the different public transportation systems around the world!
Reece (the RM in RMTransit) is an urbanist and public transport critic residing in Toronto, Canada, with the goal of helping the world become more connected through metros, trams, buses, high-speed trains, and all other transport modes.
The problem is your average politician doesn't understand the purpose of transit. Most politicians just think of trams or metros as just big capacity buses. Concepts like frequency, travel speed, loading times, walk times, lack of transfers, grade separation, transit not stuck in traffic, etc...don't mean much to them. To them the only different in transit is the vehicle size, which is a dangerously ignorant mindset. NY's metro succeeded where many other metros did not, because it does value all of the above. Imagine if NY tried to switch their metro system to a tram system with transfers.
Politicians just think of transit as a travel mode for the poor and they don’t care about the poor so they often choose the cheapest, shittiest option that not only doesn’t solve any problem but also becomes a tax burden on all citizens because of the poor transit option chosen.
I think the more concerning thing is that politicians shouldn't really need to be experts of this - they should be able to rely on the advice of agencies for this.
A huge part of the problem is the bureacracies that they should be able to rely on for objective information often have preferences. In the 1990s in Toronto the bureaucracy and the advocacy groups were absolutely bonkers obsessed with light rail. As a result a very large public consensus in favor of subways -- and spending for them -- was wasted.
@@Conellossus- That definitely isn't the attitude towards transit in Toronto: people of every single class like and use the subway and want more of them.
NY had a massive tram network, they tore it up and put it underground for the reasons you mentioned haha
Its funny how metros are nor socially acceptable but 8 lane highways dividing the city fabric are😂
The put a metro line next to the highway by lane diet method?
The biggest issue here is jurisdictional wars between three different institutions. The CDPQ forces municipalities to shut down any service that might compete with the REM through its contract with the provincial government. The ARTM is constantly trying to centralize control around itself despite never having accomplished anything good since the Liberal party created it and the STM is constantly struggling to get funding from the auto centric provincial government, which makes the notion of any ridership transfer to an infrastructure it doesn't own and derives no fares from scares it.
The provincial government is literally the one that pushed for this program.
@@ZontarDow What part of my comment are you replying to exactly?
@@jerQCote this wasn't the comment I posted that as a reply to, what he heck is going on?
I agree with you… these are internal fights between gouvernemental entities and gouvernement officials that work 30h per week and think only of themselves… the REM de l’est should go from city’s outside of MTL and have many transits into the local metro. And we should all be able to pay with one pass and have access to all
@@carlsonpakapala No, I meant the ARTM has been a roadblock for all project developments and has even dragged the STM to court to stop a payment consolidation project. Meanwhile, the CDPQ is designed to put profits first so they pushed for the transit monopoly. This has nothing to do with individuals. The institutions are the problem.
Berlin went through a tram-obsession phase in the 1990s/2000s, and although trams are a great thing, this would have been bad. That's because trams were already built out in the east (where they had never been withdrawn) but not the west, so new tram lines would benefit West Berlin, which is already well served by the U-Bahn, while East Berlin is not. Exactly one new U-Bahn station has been built in East Berlin since German reunification in 1990.
Tram plans sound a bit like the "We could build a monorail" nonsense one often hears in the States (Canada, fortunately not so much) as a way of doing nothing at all. Berlin has several gaps where the U-Bahn needs to be extended a short distance to connect to another line, but the possibility of trams was often mooted to avoid doing anything, even though changing modes to travel a few hundred meters is the wrong approach.
Some places where trams are touted as a forthcoming mode have been unbuilt for 30+ years. To travel from Friedrichshain to Kreuzberg - nowadays both parts of the same district - means taking a tram to the Oberbaumbrücke and then (after several hundred meters of walking, depending on the line) transferring to a bus or U-Bahn, despite tracks being laid across the bridge three decades ago. But the possibility of this being done has made it harder to get that same U-Bahn line 1 extended the short distance needed to connect with the U5 at Frankfurter Tor or even to the S-Bahn at Ostkreuz.
We have a similar problem in Brussels, but here it's mainly ecologists lobbying against the metro projects and wanting tramways instead. This, totally ignoring the fact that Brussels' tramways are narrower than those in most other cities and therefore carry less passengers per vehicle, or per hour. (and of course, are slower than metros).
I really hope the REM de L’Est is built
An lrt is pretty much an discount metro I mean as long as you build them like Calgary 😂
Yay, finally some Montreal content
In the US, we are only cabable of building "Light Rail". I'm not sure if a new heavy rail system will ever be built. They say its b/c of cost even though LR projects often go way over budget. The future seems hopeless.
Honolulu Skyline has opened recently, even though it uses light metro trains it still has metro style service
The lack of willingness for the metro expansion is killing me. We have one of the best systems in the world but the only plan for the next 20 years is 3 new Blue line stations. But no. Instead, we get the overpriced REM de l’Est. Which is underground? M8 just expand the existing metro system its the obvious superior solution.
The first phase of the Metro i.e. : Green Line 1 Atwater to Frontenac, Orange Line 2 Henri-Bourassa - Bonanventure and Yellow Line 4 Berri -de-Montigny to Longueuil (Berri-UQAM to Université-de-Sherbrooke-Longueuil), was built for 247 M$ Canadian between 1962-1967. 10 Miles / 16 km.
1976 Green Line east Extension Frontenac to Honoré-Beaugrand just in time for Montréal Olympics
1978 Green Line western Extension Angrignon to Atwater delayed by the cave-in of the street in Verdun.
1982 Orange Line western Extension from Bonaventure to Côte-Vertu aka Line 3-Bis
Line 3 was Gare Centrale to Val-Royal and Ahuntsic Metro Conversion was abandonned because of Canadian National (CN) Mount-Royal Tunnel Owner did not want to sell yet.
1982-1988 Blue Line 5 from Snowdon to Saint-Michel
2006-2008 Orange Line 2 Extension from Henri-Bourassa to Laval (Cartier, De la Concorde - Montmorency) 845 M$
That's cute. ETS says Hold My Beer in the most Albertan way and shows us why low-floor trams are the worst idea, at least when implemented in a real-world 21st century context compared to the alternatives... Why? Again the weird obsession with European-style trams and urbanity which itself isn't a bad thing but when used as a panacea it was never meant to be? It is... internal bets amongst Edmontonian's is will be see Valley Line open this year at all... Or not. My bet is not...
The ARTM was just pissed that CDPQInfra could do what they could not.
Excelente video genial 😃
The REM subsidizes sprawl and requires inordinate amounts of cement, both terrible for one of transit’s supposed priorities: reducing ghg emissions. It would be nice to hear more from you about your aversion to tram-trains - if you are able to tone down the hyperbole (everything is crazy?) and let your arguments do the convincing.
This whole cancellation of the REM and the STM "hit piece" REEKS of good ole mtl corruption.
RM noise, stay out. yes, line 5 of metro started toward east. I hope it goes west. -- security is never good anywhere. Tram in Montreal is mostly for tourist and business area. If I remember well it will go as the trolley bus, just closer to surface
I do agree with almost everything you said in the video and that's why I don't get why you said the tram project in Quebec is a good one.
As you said yourself, building a tram just to replace bus line is not good and the project in Quebec City is doing exactly this.
It will have practically the same route or two busiest bus lines in a very small portion of the city. It's also the center of the city, so will face heavy traffic. The places without services will stay the same.
That's why I hate so much the protect in Quebec. Will cost a lot and without giving benefits. My fear this will fail and give me to fuel to NIMBYs.
At this point, using electric busses with exclusive lines would be better
Japanese have the best train system in the world. Their train service has local train, express, rapid express trains and Romance train just pay a few dollars more, ride in luxury. It’s the best.
The obsession is even worst at Quebec city... I don't know what is in the water in the province but mayor want TCHOU-tchou...
Day 11 of me asking rm transit to make a video about San Diego’s Transit network
London's Docklands Light Railway (DLR) system serving a huge swathe of long-derelict ex-industrial east (and now south) London is hugely successful. Most of it is elevated. Nobody seems bothered. Since first opening in 1987 and continuously expanded since, it has spurred a massive amount of new construction including the Canary Wharf financial district.
Objections to elevated rail based on images of the noisy originally-steam hauled Victorian elevated lines in places like New York & Chicago, etc, are ridiculous. The new systems are almost silent and are also very popular with users as they're outdoors.
It's a very viable alternative to underground metros which are wildly expensive to build and street-running trams which get stuck in traffic so aren't really suitable for long journeys.
None of the DLR viaducts go down the centre of roads.
Exactly .. no running down road centres, no street running (originally planned for part of the system). The DLR runs over streets, empty spaces, parking areas, on steel structures, old brick railway viaducts ... all types of construction & locations. Nobody seems to mind being near the elevated structures ... hugely successful. The DLR has spurred massive development along its routes, especially in and around Canary Wharf. @@jack2453
Reece! Do you think you'll ever get involved in a city politics/transit agency to help guide them make better rational decisions?
Or do you think its better to just promote transit rationality through youtube videos instead?
I don’t see why Trams are a bad option. The system in Dublin works well in urban areas and can reach pretty impressive speeds when travelling long distances. I feel like Montreal is capable of building a good tram network.
Trams are slow and have weak capacity compared to heavy rail. The longer the distance they are asked to cover, the more those problems compound. But hey they are "cheap" to implement and the people who decide to implement them are typically not public transit users themselves. So why bother about a problem they'll never have to suffer from eh?
A metro system that doubles as a tram line is as bad as a tram line that doubles as a metro …
For short trips, metros are cumbersome.
Good thing in sprawling areas short trips are few
@@RMTransit - In sprawling areas, I’d rather use a car … It’s in high density urban environments that transit is most needed, IMO.
Invite someone onto your channel from the other side and hear him out about what actually sucks about both REM lines. We’re not as dumb or as evil as urbanist TH-cam seems to think we are. We might even know a lot about the place where we actually live.
hey, never let the 'perfect' get in the way of the Good.
Build more transit like rem.
I just don't understand this weird North American thing of building a single line and calling it a network... Where is the fucking réseau in REM?
There are 4 branches to the network spanning 70km. The first branch just opened in July 2023. Try to read up a bit on the project before commenting….
@@kiddo817 I know about the branches... Branch lines are just that: branch lines. Calling them a network is very generous...
Never would i have imagined a dangerous tram obsession
My niece had a potentially dangerous tram obsession. Fortunately she was 3 at the time, reins were a thing, and she grew up.
Everything in QC is dangerous.
@@123benny4 Dangerously beautiful that is
The issue is the net impact on transit is often negative when the wrong mode is used, people perceive transit as slow, or potentially ruinously expensive!
😂, but also 😢
One of my grad school professors came up with a methodology for problems like these - he was referring to IT projects, but this would work just as well for transit. I named it Hemphill's Protocol, in his honor.
1. What do you need to do? Make this as high level as possible, ignoring tools, budget, er c. For example: get people from the north part of the city downtown for work, shopping, and entertainment.
2. What software will do what you need in #1? Prof H was thinking computers: in transit, you'd think in terms of ridership numbers, frequency, destinations, the need to avoid major disruptions, politics, budget & timeline, placating NIMBYs, et c.
3. What hardware will run the software to do #1? In transit, only at this point do you decide on the type of vehicles, elevated or underground, and so on.
Anyone who says "let's build a tram!" has the entire process backwards.
This is really good, having a consistent methodology also helps make these decisions less political!
Add in another step 0, look at the resources that are already there. In the case of the east end of the island, there are extensive wide road ROWs with good interchange points with multiple lines headed west. Step 1a is look at what is missing: frequency and span of local service, north-east to downtown connectivity, reliability in congestion, speed to downtown, then 1b, prioritize.
Even the REM de l'Est fell significantly short on these issues due to it's technology-first stance, but it certainly helped more than a tram system would.
@@fbfree1 This would actually be step 2. It's a constraint to solving the primary problem, which is transporting people.
For transit (but not for software) you need to ask a 4th question, 4. What are the constraints imposed by existing infrastructure, buildings and geology.
@@Alex_Plante Actually, it's a constraint for software as well. Remember the 640K limit on PCs, imposed by not only the price and size of the memory available at the time, but also by the combination of the segmented 20-bit addressing on the 8088 and the use of some memory space for I/O? Or the original non-expandable 128K Mac?
I figure a couple years of the REM running and being a success will win people over.
I am holding out hope for this!
It happened with the UPE in Toronto. It went from being an unmitigated disaster during development to a grand success once running.
yep, I also entertain the same logic for the tram it Quebec City. The CAQ government politicized it and its current version is a hobbled version of the proposed version. However, I am sure it will demonstrate its efficacy. People will see the light one day.
Happened with the Elizabeth Line.
Yeah, best case scenario could be that they dither and don’t do anything for a couple of years and then do a REM east expansion in 2030, perhaps with a REM west or Blue Line west extension.
France has tons of smaller and very compact cities, it makes sense, that trams are THE mode of transport for french cities. But Montreal is maybe a little too big, to predominantly rely on trams? Even in Paris, trams are only there for the outskirts of the city to bridge gaps in the metro and RER systems.
Exactly, an approach that is a hybrid of Paris' and Lyon's tram systems probably makes the most sense!
Helsinki's and Copenhague's planned tram systems is the same as in Paris. Bridging the metro gaps in the outskirts.@@RMTransit
the 121 sauve/cote vertu bus gets 30,000 riders a day, a several other lines move over 25,000 a day. these lines should be upgraded to tram or at the very least, BRT. urban transit customers shouldn't have to settle for subpar service.
I take the REM daily to go to school and I have one word to describe it: RELIABLE (something very rare these days). I never wait more than 3 minutes, it’s quick and there’s always security in the stations. Hope REM de l’Est will not be canceled 😢.
THREE minutes?!?! THat's amazing!!
It will be down to 2.5 once the rest of the network allows the trains to through run at Gare Centrale.
@@andrewweitzman4006are there no plans to increase the frequency further? I mean it's an automated metro...
I guess the ridership will increase so much that they will be forced to do it.
They could easily go down to a 2 minute headway, so every 6 minutes on each branch
@@nicolasblume1046 2 minutes is for the Brossard to Bois Francs section during rush hour when the rest of the system opens. Right now, the trains have to turn around at Gare Centrale, which adds some time as Gare Centrale is supposed to through run rather than act as a teminus.
Theoretically, you can have 90 second frequencies.
@@nicolasblume1046 I think there's a plan to have one every 90 sec during peak hours once the network will be almost fully finished (so, everything done exept the branch to YUL)
The best way to deal with thsi s to send a team from Montreal down to ride the trams in Toronto for a day, that'll cure them.
🤣 Yes! and we should put the NIMBYs with them so that they hear how much louder than the REM they are
There is not nearly enough exchange between the cities, Toronto could learn a lot from the Metro!
I bet not a single NIMBY would take the time to visit the TTC because...you know... Toronto is not in their backyard...
@@ianweniger6620also some Montrealers don’t like Toronto anyways
I think a lot of city planners see the modern tram/light rail model as a "jack of all trades" transit system and that's why they like it. What they want is something that can be like a tram in the city centre with slow speeds and frequent stops, and like regional rail outside of it with higher speeds and less frequent stops. They want one system with one kind of vehicle and built as cheaply as possible. This results in a system where crossing the city centre can take nearly as long as the suburban portion of the journey because the vehicles are going much more slowly and stopping much more frequently. Thus it doesn't attract as many people from the suburbs as it could unless their destination is on the right side of the city centre.
Golden mean fallacy in a nutshell: Assuming an idea is the best of both worlds only for it to end up being the worst of both worlds.
So then why don’t they make high-floor citytrains like in Edmonton? Low floors look pretty, but they are usually pretty slow.
@@Abrothers12 Vehicle design is usually not the limiting factor when it comes to tram/light rail speed, high floor can perhaps go a little faster but then your city centre has to find room for lots of raised platforms. What determines speed is mainly a combination of track geometry, stop frequency and safety considerations to pedestrians and other vehicles. A tram usually has to negotiate tight corners, stop distances are fairly short and you've got people, cars, bikes and other trams milling about which means being able to stop on line of sight of an obstruction, and since steel on steel means long stopping distances, that means going slowly. Metro systems have shallower corners because they don't have to follow road infrastructure and can go underneath buildings, stops are generally much further apart, and there's no people, bikes or cars to get in your way (at least there shouldn't be!) which also means you can use block signalling or CBTC instead of relying on the driver's eyes and reaction time.
For sure, you can have something faster by building a city centre tunnel, but that raises whole new issues - which is why I am skeptical of trams for routes like this!
Here in Cologne we have a large LRT system and the things missing are just more city center tunnels. The parts with street running and so on are not that large problems, but the frequent congestion in the city center kills the whole network...
You have no idea how much I appreciate your voice of reason. The original REM de l’Est plan was the right solution. It aimed at helping bring people from the far eastern end of the island and off island into the city core. Trams just aren’t designed for that kind of distance. It was so disappointing to see that project cancelled. Hopefully when people see how great the REM is they will resurrect it.
Vote in next elections for the right people
@@PiotrPavel who ? communiste solidaire ? liberal party ? 🤮 PQ ? they are bad or worse than caq
maybe for city we can see change, but Balarama Holness left city politic and i dont see who will oppose against la plante verte
@@PiotrPavel It doesn't work. In Quebec, the electoral system favors voters/suburban voters over urban voters meaning the Montreal area produces 55% of Quebec's economy but struggles to have political power. This makes public transit projets nearly impossible to promote as rural/suburban voters favor cars.
In short, even if Montreal votes for left wing parties, nearly exclusively right wing parties can get elected.
@@vkobevk "communiste solidaire" lmao, touch some grass dude
@@NapoleonTrotski you should inform yourself on this party if you want to sell your soul to them
The NIMBY's killed REM de L'EST.
The main issue is there are some "mass transit expert" in Montréal that think that Tramway is the only solutions to all transit problem. Since they are university teacher, they get a lot of attention. They wanted a Trams instead of the REM and said it would have been better.
Tramways are nice for place that need it. One on Avenue du Parc would be amazing. But doing long distance in tramways would be a pain.
The ARTM is not convinced right now about the Trams. But that do not really matter. ARTM is just a company that suck money from government without adding any values. There is no project that got out of the ATM or ARTM anyway. All project got out of the government because they are dysfunctional.
The hope in Montreal is to have a government that will be pragmatic and will go forward with a REM like project. The added benefits of the project will far outweigh the drawbacks.
A lot of those "no elevated rails", Tramways is better come from the leftist movement that is well rooted in the city. Not all bad things come from those people and their existence is probably one of the main reason Montreal do so much for bikes, walkable streets, etc. We just have to have a conversation and convince them.
It always comes down to money. You see it in Toronto too: they want to build what's cheap, not what's efficient.
It's the exact same problem as in Taipei! Tram lines feeding into crowded metro lines with horrendous travel time to the city center- no thought about regional rail. Tbh if you make a criticism video about Taipei it might actually work due to Asian face culture 😂😂😂 Some recent changes to pedestrian safety in Taiwan were only kickstarted due to criticism by western media
Those light rail lines are super odd
Saint-Michel, Pie-IX, Beaubien, Henri-Bourassa, Sauvé/Côté-Vertu, Saint-Laurent, Parc, Côte-des-Neiges, etc. These are the streets where we need to build LRT, not streetcars. For the east, we need the Pink line, because this line is all about equity and reducing segregation of Montreal-Nord. The pink line would be the only line that would be faster than cars 24/24, 7/7 because of the diagonal. Montreal-Nord residents are more diverse than most other boroughs, they currently have some of the most used bus lines of the STM network (67/467 Saint-Michel, 48/49/69 on Henri-Bourassa, 139/ now BRT on Pie-IX), but these lines are slow and not reliable compared to metro and REM, and they need better, faster, heavy transit modes and should have got them for decades. The Pink line could use the same trains and technology as the REM and could be extended on the ground or aerial to Laval and Terrebonne.
I absolutely think using the same trains as the REM (but six car and fully interconnected) makes sense for the Pink Line, you could even potentially interconnect them someday depending on how the various networks interact!
The trains should also absolutely NOT be underground or else they would cost wayyyy too much. The proposal of putting REM trains in the median of A25 is actually a good one because it will be cheaper, straighter, and will serve many important destinations like Radisson and Anjou
True for short term economics, but on the long term, the 100% underground pink line from downtown to Montreal-Nord would bring way greater benefits in term of equity/accessibility and may have a better modal share shift from car to transit because of the diagonal (some subway trips would then be faster than using a car, 24/24, 7/7)@@realadrieno
The irony is, had the province of Quebec extended the A720 freeway to the A25 freeway that continues across the St Lawrence on a bridge, building the REM de l'Est would be a no-brainer: just build it above the freeway!
In a perfect world Montreal would have both. There are jobs that trams can do well, and there are jobs that metros can do well.
A good city of that size can and should have both.
Hasn't anyone done modeling as to how much ridership the REM de l'Est would divert from the Green Line? Sounds to me that it could possibly be exactly the right amount to relieve its congestion without making it so redundant that service would need to be reduced.
“Tram Obsession.” “Find a mode and then make it fit to the project.” Sounds like the IBX proposal in NY City.
As a British person I think the the UK is a great example of dangerous tram obsession. Manchester and Birmingham in the UK substitute tram-trains for a proper metro/underground rapid transit system and they're just too slow for the trips they cover (and most of them were already national rail lines as well).
Absolutely, I think it's a shame the UK never replicated the Tyne & Wear Metro in other cities, instead going for tram systems. The fact that Birmingham's "rapid transit" network comprises of a single tram line is just pretty insane.
@@pacerclarathey even have the audacity to call it the Birmingham Metro
@@pacerclara Especially when considering the sprawl, the high rates of car-ownership and how long it's taken to implement just a second line...
@@marsillinkow It's both stupid and muddying the definitions even more.
Manchester in particular as its trams are high floor and not suited for a traditional (i.e. mixed traffic) operation.
The "disadvantages" of REM expansion are so wierd to me, since Prague use the same point as advantages on Metro D line. It´s northern expansion from Pankrác to Náměstí Míru (and potencionaly further to historical downtown including transfer station on Main Station) main pitch it take some ridership from line C that is the most used. It allow to people switch between mode of transport on more places making all of them less crowded.
I thought exactly that, how weird is it that taking people away from a different line could be considered an argument against a new transport line. It literally makes zero sense
This makes me think of the St. Louis North South Metrolink plan. I am worried that a street running, albeit on its own guideway, plan like STL has will result in us building a project that's to slow and will make this the only major transit expansion we get for decades to come. I would love to see your take on this plan.
Would this be using the same high floor trains?
@RMTransit unfortunately it looks like they want this line to have low floor trains. If this goes through, I can only hope that they at least match the supplier to whoever is building the new trains for the existing system to help with parts commonality.
@@bobsled3000I do think the only thing they could probably do is a dedicated right-of-way and signal priority (I am dubious of whether it would happen tho)
@@bobsled3000Metrolink (and probably also the City of St Louis) explicitly said that it was to replace the bus services and also the communities that have a relatively
low car ownership, but if serious TODs could happen around it it could still be “good” I would say. It’s not a long line anyway, so I guess it’ll be fine. Also I’m not sure whether the Jefferson Ave looks like a place that is good to build heavy rails so that’s another problem. If that line went into the County (OK I really hate the NIMBYs in the county) then a more heavier-ish rail might be needed.
@yizhouwang3645 I'm also just not thrilled with the Jefferon alignment but unfortunately the grand alignment I'm a fan of is dead
I always thought it ridiculous that some people thought that building the REM de L'Est as originally proposed would take ridership away from the green line. For riders coming in from further East or North this is immaterial, for people who live close to the green line they would continue to use it, and if there is some number of people who take this REM instead, they are doing so because it will be a more efficient way to get to where they are going. What we need is more and better transit for everyone, worrying about a temporary drop of ridership on the green line misses the point.
Thank you so much for making this video Reis. Im so frustrated as I saw the news unfold about the project getting worst and worst. We definitely need CDPQ infra back on the project. I hope Montreal wakes up and brings them back because ARTM are not the best planners.
I hate when NIMBYism and degrowth mentality holds back badly needed progress to decarbonize the economy. Vetoing elevated tracks, wth. Smh
I live past Montreal est and anyone that proposes a tram here clearly doesn't live in the area. Trams require well maintained roads with no potholes, and Rue Sherbrooke is anything but that. I have to take the bus all the way down Sherbrooke to Honrore Beaugrand and the trip is bumpy and often times crowded. The crowds that filter in to the metro every morning are a human traffic jam and there is no way that is sustainable. I am so dissapointed by the nimbys in anjou and hochelaga that pressured to cancel the Rem de l'est. They had no idea what they were protesting.
Green line already more or less follow Sherbrooke so it would not really do much. Tram is better suited in downtown area as a way to force the rebuilding of Rene Levesque for example.
To be fair you don't necessarily need good road conditions for trams (Toronto doesn't have them), but you're certainly right - the long uncomfortable journey is a big problem!
You can avoid the need for well maintained roads with no potholes by running the tram in a median reservation.
the problem with Sherbrooke it the the road is kinda small and badly maintained.. honestly, extending the green line, would be a viable solution
It's hard to not have NIMBYs when the city is obsessed with increasing its population year after year. The Montréal island doesn't get any bigger.
Here in Valencia the government seems to have an obsession with the words "tram" and "metro". There are 4 tram lines in development (3 new and 1 expansion) and they recently added plans for 4 metroTRAM lines that are neither metro, or trams and they don't even have tracks.
metroTRAM will be suburban BRT lines using electric buses that looks like trams (for example the Irizar ie tram)
I mentioned this a couple times already but I see the "metroisation" of trams critical as it means building only one single or at least few lines instead of a coherent network as well as a danger of overbuilding them.
Hamburg is a pretty good example of a city which would benefit from a tram as well but one approach, namely stopping the U4, is definitively a step in the wrong direction because a) of the reasons you mentioned (capacity, speed, etc.) and b) ignores Harbug (i.e. south of the Elbe) which still has pretty bad rail service. There are similiar issues around Germany (e.g. Frankfurt and not trying better grade separation in Höchst, Berlin and adding rail service for the Tegel redevelopment) but Hamburg is IMO the most notable one given the imbalance between both sides of the river.
It has to be said, over and over, If you aren't building an automated metro, you are building the wrong kind of metro. Trams for all intents, are inflexible buses, impaired by road infrastructure. At least a bus can route around an accident. Automated Metro's, be it above or below grade, eliminate all the inherent traffic snarling and human right-of-way trespassing that results in the vast majority of delays on un-automated systems. Transit vehicles last much longer when not driven by humans, because humans treat trains like they treat cars, high acceleration, and hard braking, which results in a lot of wear on the vehicles and accidents in stations and rail yards.
In Canada we need to keep pointing to Ottawa's sheer incompetence as example why human rail vehicle drivers make us less safe, and the Edmonton Traffic Snarler as to why not to build rail vehicles that cross road infrastructure, because it 's a bad experience for both transit and car drivers alike.
Current trams are light-rail vehicles for people-scale infrastructure, you can only build these in places that have no vehicle infrastructure (eg tourism and "bar-hopper" infrastructure) to compete with. That's why they work better in Europe, they already rolled out their commuter and big metro's decades ago at people-scale. Trams and Light rail are not for North America's car-first infrastructure, it will always fail because it doesn't meet the high frequency, high speed needed to move people to places they want to go with an experience better than driving.
Cars suck, but what sucks more is having to wait more than 3 minutes for a train in wet+cold climates.
Trams on saint laurent, park avenue and papineau street would be great tho. Obviously with dedicated lanes for them.
Any transit to east and north should be REM style for sure
Metros have two advantages over trams: speed & capacity.
In Europe, cities are dense and trips usually short, so speed isn’t really important. Which means the determining factor is capacity: metros are used on trunk routes, where most of the city lives and works, and tend to be short (often
This is a great comment, and I wholeheartedly agree - city size is a huge huge factor!
I am of the age where I remember trams in Montreal, as idealistic as they may seem to the present-day politicians, politicians of the late fifties saw them as cumbersome, traffic dependant and inflexible sluggish people movers.
When there is a traffic accident, drizzle or freezing rain or an unruly pedestrian, the tram stops and is stuck there, and the whole line is out because one tram can't overtake another.
And if you know Montreal, you know just how unruly Montreal pedestrians are.
The only trams that escape this quagmire are those in dedicated ways, completely seperate from any car traffic, which implies massive expropriation costs.
The REM model, with elevated rails in well-placed locations is the only efficient solution to bring people from the city edges to the downtown core.
BTW, if you noticed, in Page Saunders' video, most of the NIMBYs present at ANTI-REM rallye came by car, so, to me, they don't represent the voice of the actual future users of the potential REM-DE-L'EST.
I feel like it's the same with my home city Bergen. A small light rail is just too small, being super crammed and too slow to be a better alternative to a bus.
Tramways seem to have this charm that other mass transit systems lack. I get it; even though, when I studied in Toronto, I used the metro more often, and I was very conscious about the problems of the Toronto trams, the trams seemed to have this strange pull on me. I think this charm makes it so much more attractive to residents, even when a tram is not the logical choice for transit mode
haha finally someone I agree with. If only because I prefer them too busses, send in the trams!
Building of rail should be the responsibility of independent departments controlled by engineers, independent of government control. The government should maybe give it goals (ridership, system condition, areas to reach, etc.), but only professionals should decide how the infrastructure gets built. Imagine if the military was controlled by direct involvement, or if fire departments were controlled by direct involvement -- it would be disastrous. NIMBYs being a problem is just a sign of a dysfunctional system that needs fixing.
Indeed, what the REM de l'Est offers and trams don't, is quickly connecting the east and north ends, to the city center. This would make it easier for people from the east and north end to work at, and go out to, the city center, which is the best use of that project (IMO but I think objectively as well). That's the vision we should aim for.
I got a hunch that there's a labor factor at play with REM East, considering that it goes through a working class sector of Montreal and that none of these trains will have unionized drivers and operators.
People in the SF Bay Area are against systems like Honolulu Skyline and Vancouver Skytrain, or adding platform screen doors on BART (which is mostly automated) because of this policy position.
The working class part of Montreal it goes through either voted for the CAQ or the Liberals, both of which aren't pro-union. Only pro-union part it goes through is the rich part of the core that voted for the fascist party.
I think the concern was perhaps that the REM would not look aesthetically pleasing because it was above ground and also the impact of the noise to people who would live close to the tracks. Hopefully, the Caisse is able to convince the government to get the green light and build a track that runs from Berri to Pointe aux trembles.
This whole video just reminds me why the TTC is so terrible in so many ways.
RMTransit can you talk about the Kuala Lumpur Metro System? Thank you :)
Solution: bury the originally proposed REM de l'Est alignment like the NIMBYs wanted, but make the NIMBYs that wanted it buried pay for the difference vs elevated.
North America be like, let’s build transit but do it wrongly and wonder why ridership is not higher
this video should be put in a time machine and sent to Edmonton circa year 2000. (it's too late now)
I've been watching the de-industrialization and abandonnement of track in Montreal. I'm probably the only one sad to see the disappearance of switchers and rail. The industrial neighborhoods are now condominium neighborhoods with street parking and bike lanes. The urban planning mock-ups show flying vehicles, elevated routes and buildings covered in vegetation. The planning includes all the utilities and transportation, but somewhere like Griffintown has delayed access to REM.
I recently took the REM up and whilst looking past the Pharmaprix on wellington noticed the abandoned industrial building and lot. That would be a great place to have the REM station before moving onto Gare centrale. Not sure what the hold up is for this station.
The project of the ARTM has been made to be cancelled. It’s sad but it’s the truth. ARTM receive the order to kill the project, and the project has been killed. Great efficency…
I just saw sections of the REM are in the middle of highways with little if anything within a walking distance of
I see trams as having a place in an urban transit system but like buses they have their limits.
I share your frustration but also your hope concerning the REM de l'est, as a Montreal resident. Thank you so much Mr. Martin for being a strong supporter of beloved and desperately transit needing Canadian cities... And beyond (P.-S. : I really enjoyed the Stadler train factory tour, it was really inspiring)
Thank you Reece for a very informative video. This Englishman (Roger Sexton) was unsurprised when you referred to the huge enthusiasm for trams in Francophone countries, (and that in my book includes the ex-French colonies of Algeria and Morocco). Note that Brussels, which is largely French speaking, has a Metro, a large 'legacy' tram system and extensive bus services. However there seems to be a policy to 'tramify' (their word!) the busiest bus routes. That makes sense in environmental terms and economic terms (More capacity requiring far fewer drivers.)
Absolutely, Brussels has one of the most impressive networks out there! I need to do a video on it . . .
Brussels also has two premetro (underground tram) axes and one of them will soon be converted into a metro line
Red tape always kills good projects.
Montreal NEEDS more metro! I don't get how or why so many of our politicians are afraid of extending the metro. Sure, the REM is great, but Montreal's metro is the shining jewel of the city in my opinion. It needs more love! The REM and the Metro working together IS THE KEY
Its about that time of year for the annual Line 5 (Eglinton LRT) disaster update.
It's pretty much the same debate Toronto had a decade ago about Line 5 and Scarborough RT replacement. Maybe Montreal will repeat the same mistakes and scrap the $750M train de l'est.
That conclusion is really good, except various agencies here advocate for their own pet projects and undermine the "opponents'" pet projects, as if it's some kind of competition. In the end, we end up with nothing. Mind you, this is also the biggest push I've ever seen in the 21st century for transit in Montreal.
Realistically, without much political opposition, ARTM and exo could immediately improve train service on the Mascouche line that goes to the East end. If they really cared about transit, they'd do that. But they only care about their own pride. At the same time, so does CDPQ - for them it's REM or nothing.
If they all worked together, we'd be having metro expansions, trams instead of BRTs and RER style trains across the province. But that won't happen as long as the city's and the provincial governments think that they're inevitably working against each other for some reason.
Edmonton's Valley Line trams are going to ge pretty good. Its important that these trams have separation from car lanes, and integration to an existing metro is a must.
I have my doubts... Still optimistic but not hopeful especially for a pre-2024 opening at the rate we're going...
In some ways yes, but they won't be all that much faster than a bus in many locations - and in some places on the Valley Line West grade separation was even decided against despite the well known additional travel time.
I mean LA has an weird obsession with building slow light rail
If you want a good exemple of Tram obsession in France go check about Bordeaux … refuses to do a subway for 30years and adding only trams
I am no expert so stop me if i sound crazy but - I'd rather other parts of the city/island develop into their own urban centres, instead of make it easier for suburbanites to go into the core. I don't see how what is essentially the Go Train will stop suburbanites from getting cars? But if a Tram can get you up and down your busiest street and into the next neighbourhood, wouldn't more local business flourish, and less cars be needed to navigate those areas?
trams are such a bad idea for a city like Montreal, they took it down for a reason (might as well saying Quebec city as well but unfortunately, Leagult's administration is full of despotes)
honestly for the East, a Eastern REM or an extension of the green line would be the solution, I know the Eastern REM had flaws when it comes to downtown but still
I think the only place a tram would make sense is on Rene-Levesque. Having a tram there would force the rebuilding of this god awful boulevard into a more walk-friendly zones. It wouldn't solve the Montreal-Est problem but this is where a Tram is useful from my perspective. Having the Tram line from Notre-Dame until Rene-Levesque become Dorchester would be around 5km, a definitely fine distance for a downtown tram line.
I wouldn't be so sure, trams don't always lead to nice streets!
I was wondering if you were gonna talk about this. Good summary of the situation, although I would like to add some things from my perspective as a Montreal area resident who follows Québec politics. First, whoever was overseeing this project at the ARTM was quoted in an article in relation to some criticism about using a tram. He said that the tram would be... Faster than a REM train. I seriously couldn't believe what I read.
The previous suggestion for the 36 billion dollar project seems to make more sense though. It was clearly an attempt by the ARTM to instead substitute it with a tram network proposition, which I suspect is making someone at the ARTM richer. However, contrary to what Reece posits here, this tram project isn't happening. The mayor has already come out against it and the premier is also against. The Québec government is currently working on creating a new agency that is to be in charge of transit construction and planning, which would relegate the ARTM to only running the existing systems and giving their opinion on what they think is needed. It does seem like elected officials realize that a tram is not the solution. À suivre!
The ARTM is a complete failure, and if I'm being blunt I suspect the reason they are is in part ideological since the communities they serve are almost entirely CAQ and PQ voting with only a handful of Liberal ones and no fascist seats. If I was running it I'd day one increase frequencies, see about having a second track added to Saint-Jerome and Hudson where there's only one line, negotiate an expanded transit window with CN and CPKC, expand the Candiac line to Farnham, the Hilaire line to Saint-Hyacain, add branches to Beauharnois for the Candiac line, and Joliette for the Maschous line. Then when that's done go about rebuilding the old Granby line and start the process of electrification. And for good measure try to get the STM or CDPQ to revive the old Line 6 project.
All my homies hate l’ARTM
Out of curiosity, what happened to all the Edmonton videos? Was there some sort of copyright issue?
There seems to be some oversimplification in your assessment. I like the existing REM but it's far from perfect. They didn't built the Griffintown station and now riders that live close to the Terminus Chevrier and need to drop in Griffintown have they commute time double. Myself, my commute is a bit shorter so I'm happy. Pricing has drastically increased (for those that only needed RTL tickets)
CDPQ take lots of money to run the REM. RTL and EXO redid their network but some lines now has buses every 30 minutes even during rush hour. Unclear why because pre-Covid, over 400 buses where going downtown every morning so it's seems that imoroving travel time to REM stations should be fairly easy. Could it be because of the high cost ARTM has to give to the REM that RTL and EXO had to reduced service ? Unclear.
With the elevated tracks, there are still unacceptable high level of noise caused by the REM in Pointe St-Charles and Griffrintown. Unclear if they will fix that one day but CDPQ are kind of responsible for the cancellation of the REM East due to the ugly structure they used on the REM.
You keep saying that the original REM East was only 10 billion but with the existing REM, there are also cost overrun and CDPQ is not being very transparent with the cost.
The ARTM is a joke. We still can't pay with our phone or with credit card. STM was working on a similar project but the ARTM had them shut it down. They also didn't even put clear signs for the REM downtown when leaving the Bonneaventure station. A university student had to do that with his own money...
Another student found a way to charge his OPUS card using his phone. He build his code in less then 3 months.
The QC government is also very unhappy with the ARTM. I get that with the new PSE project, the calculation method is different from the REM and the government didn't let them evaluate other options then using what CDPQ (automated trains) had drawn but as you said buring 100% of the line underground that made no sense.
The TRAM I would have like it for the PIE-IX rabit bus transit (another project that took years to complete). For the east, I'm no expert but it doesn't seem to be a very fast way of transit compare for a light rail. What about building a similar light rail then the new Line 5 in Toronto?
Great video! One thing I have to point out is the REM didn't bring the South Shore closer to Montreal. South Shore cut many bus lines pushing residents to take the car to either the REM where there are few parking spots or drive directly to Montreal. This is why if you take the REM even at Rush hour, it is no more than half full. Pre REM buses would go directly to Montreal crossing Champlain bridge and would do Brossard to downtown Montreal in 15min.
I agree, Reece, multiple transit authorities in one region is bad especially when they fight like "enfantiscally" (maybe translatable as worse than childiishly)! Same here in Ottawa-Gatineau (NCC).
Oh I beg to differ - a tram line running the length of Sherbrooke Street sounds like a dream come true. For a very short time the old tram tracks were laid bare on the border of Westmount/NDG and it would be such a great swing from the road hell the place has become. Not sure what the Dangerous Tram Obsession nonsense is, but it's a great form of local transport that IF we clear the streets of so many commuters will be a breath of fresh air for everyone. Trams have nothing to do with language by the way.
'if we clear the streets of so many commuters' now here's one of the two disadvantages of trams compared to a light metro or a metro: far less capacity to do that
I still find it funny that REM started construction 5 years before the Eglington line in Toronto and managed to open before, for half the budget while being fully automated. Even if they don't get it right with REM-Est, Montreal should be extremely proud of what they have already accomplished with it.
Well the first branch did, the rest is set to open over the next 4 years
now now, they'll be too busy patting themselves on the back they'll forget to finish anything else
I don't understand this obsession with trams. Even ottawa went with a low floor tram style when running a fully separated grade and making their two lines not compatible. And ottawa got into problems with the wheel bearings in the super compressed bogey style.
I can’t help but think of New York City’s Interborough Express when I watch this. The modes chosen to be competing against each other (brt, lrt, and heavy rail) were all positioned as if they would provide fairly similar levels of service, which is simply not the case for the region-scale trips this project is aiming to provide. I still strongly believe that choosing light rail was a grave mistake, especially since it makes a future expansion into the Bronx much more challenging compared to if they chose heavy rail trains that could have used the Hell Gate Line. It’s painful to see how often transit proposals in the US compare different modes purely in terms of capacity and travel time, with no consideration for other factors.
Relaxxxxxxx
That $36 billion price tag still blows me away
Like it's literally costing Japan less than that to build a mostly underground maglev line! HOW ON EARTH CAN A GENERIC METRO LINE COST MORE THAN A STATE OF THE ART EXPERIMENTAL MAGLEV LINE THAT'S 10X LONGER?! WHERE IS THAT MONEY GOING?!
Australia has been choosing Light Rail where it shouldn't have, as well. In the Gold Coast, south of Brisbane, they have built a very long Light Rail from the Heavy Rail line down the coast to connect the metropolitan areas of the Gold Coast. However, because it is a tram it is very slow, and it is already running out of capacity. On event days, people can't even get on or off the tram because of how dangerously crowded it is. The trip takes almost 50 minutes to get from the Heavy Rail Helensvale Station, to the end of the line at Broadbeach. They're extending it far further too, to go to the Airport. It needed to be a faster mode, and it needs more capacity.
Since the line uses former railway tracks, there's a fair degree of separation from traffic. So, reduce the number of stops, and give the trams priority at intersections. Then buy higher capacity trams.
It also looks like the heavy rail extension to the airport is still in planning. Would a heavy rail branch to Southport to connect to trams work better than the current plan?
I would prefer underground metro lines for Montreal Est.
Let’s see how long it will take til nimby’s want the whole tram to be buried. 😔