FrodoMTL

13 hours ago, Born between the rapids said:

A TGF service connecting Toronto to Quebec via Ottawa and Montreal would be better than nothing; however ...

1) The investments that should be made for this project could have the effect of delaying the construction of a TGV line between Montreal and Toronto until much later . However, I still think that a TGV is the only way to compete effectively with other modes of transport, for the majority of travelers on this route.

I overall agree with that assessment. If HFR is green-lighted by the federal budget in 2021, we will likely have to wait for another decade or more to see true HSR service between TO and MTL (HSR meaning 300 kph or higher). At the same time, depending on the final recommendations made by the HFR Joint Project Committee (to be released later in April or May), HFR could still become a "higher speed" project (averaging 200 kph). That puts it on par with similar intercity services currently offered in the UK, Germany, etc.

Also, let's be honest: the HSR / TGV project has been delayed for decades already. Politicians and activist groups have been pushing for HSR / TGV for decades, and the only thing we now have are tens of thousands of pages of "HSR / TGV Studies" done by consultants. 

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/the-mayors-high-frequency-rail-service-from-quebec-city-to-toronto-is-a-sustainable-economic-recovery-project/wcm/b1556d52-fa7b-42e1-9f20-251bf094846e/amp/

The mayors of Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec City have come out to unanimously endorse VIA Rail's HFR project in the upcoming April 19 Federal Budget.

Quote

"As mayors of the largest economic centres in Ontario and Quebec, we call unanimously on the federal government to invest in high-frequency rail (HFR) to support Canada’s post-pandemic economic recovery and long-term environmental objectives."

18 hours ago, Decel said:

Edit2: Can't we do like Texas and outsource the project to the Japanese to have our own Shinkansen?

We already have a publicly-owned operator - VIA Rail - I don't understand why this needs to be "outsourced" to a foreign third party and add another layer of complexity.

Also, a bit more background on the Texas Central HSR proposal: the Texas state gov't has been trying to attract private companies to build an "HSR" since 2012 for the last 9 years, and it's still nowhere near construction due to:

1) lack of funding commitment from Texas state legislature due to lack of public appetite for HSR

2) the HSR proponent hasn't secured any permits to plan or build along the route

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/17/houston-dallas-bullet-train-permits/

https://www.texastribune.org/2012/08/15/private-firm-planning-bullet-trains-texas-2020/

18 hours ago, Decel said:

Controversially I'd rather have nothing instead of burning money for an HFR on that segment, which will cost an arm and a leg to implement, and cost even more to operate.

Edit: And it will do practically nothing to remove drives between the cities.

Edit2: Can't we do like Texas and outsource the project to the Japanese to have our own Shinkansen?

The main competitor for VIA Rail in the corridor service is not drivers. There will always be drivers on the 401. The main competition is with the airlines - Porter, Air Canada Express, Air Transat, and Westjet - which collectively operate over 60+ flights between Toronto (YUL/YTZ) and YUL pre-covid on a daily basis, while charging twice as much on average as a VIA Rail ticket. Even if VIA Rail manages to capture an additional 10-20% from this market alone, it'll be a win for HFR.

As for driving, there will ALWAYS be drivers traveling on the 401 between TO and MTL. You won't change with a TGV/HSR. Even in France/Germany/China - where HSR services are well established - you still have millions of single occupancy drivers per year commuting between the major cities. Nothing is going to beat the convenience/flexibility of driving, especially if you are traveling with kids or a small family. With HSR/TGV, that's not going to change - in fact you'll end up with even less intermediary stations between TO and Montreal, effectively cutting off service to everyone living in the giant suburbs and smaller towns between MTL and Toronto. No one currently living in Brampton, Ajax, or Peterborough traveling east to Quebec is going to drive for 1-2 hours west to downtown Toronto and take a TGV. That doesn't make sense when they could just simply get in their car and head east without turning back.

Lastly, I want to say that I support both HFR AND HSR. I think both are needed in the immediate and long term. Whatever the ultimate choice is on the April 19th federal budget, I only have 1 wish: just get it built. Stop debating, just do it.

19 minutes ago, montrealgoalie said:

It's a sad state of affairs when a regular TGV between the two biggest cities of a G7 nation is considered perfectionism.

I guess it's a by product of continuously setting the bar so low that the smallest of results is satisfactory.

We all realize it's a "sad state of affairs". For decades already. I just don't see how continuously screaming about "HSR/TGV or Nothing" is going to get you any better results.

And that's exactly why getting the current HFR plan approved during the April 19 federal budget is so important for passenger rail in this country, because it is the most feasible, concrete, and fundable passenger rail expansion plan that we have seen in decades. Having a successful high frequency intercity rail service (at "higher speed") is critical when you are trying to get buy-in from the public to fund HSR down the road. I'd much rather that we improve our immediate service levels on the corridor - track straightening, grade separation, electrification, level-platform boarding, upgrade station facilities, modern European EMU rolling stock capable of 200-250 kph and hourly or even semi-hourly departures (by owning all tracks from Windsor to QC). There's no "ribbons to cut" for the HFR, because it's not one project but a collection of many different projects like the GO RER in Toronto, but at the end of the day, it'll vastly improve the overall passenger experience on the corridor.

24 minutes ago, montrealgoalie said:

I completely disagree, I'd rather have nothing than a half-measure project where the costs will inevitably skyrocket and become a fiasco project like it always does, just to end up with the same train with slightly more departures and a society that doesn't want to hear about the TGV anymore because of how S**t the TGF project was.

While you may be fine holding your breath for another 50 years for your elusive golden goose TGV/HSR, the rest of us are a little less "perfectionist" and think a proper HFR between Windsor and QC is perfectly adequate to serve this market.

Enjoy having "nothing" then, if that is what you truly prefer.

44 minutes ago, Marc.PMR said:

Oui, le titre du reportage que j’ai cité était trompeur et j'aurais pu choisir une source bien plus crédible.

Entièrement d’accord ! On peut bien admirer les exemples de Madrid-Barcelone ou Paris-Bordeaux, mais c’est loin d’être la norme en Europe. Si on se fie au temps de parcours, la vitesse projetée pour le TGF entre Montréal et Québec est comparable à la vitesse moyenne de l’ICE entre Berlin et Cologne et dépasse celle du Thalys entre Amsterdam et Bruxelles. Bref, pour le débat TGV vs TGF, je dirais qu’un tiens vaut toujours mieux que deux tu l’auras.

Yes, I agree. While people like to cite examples like Spanish HSR (very impressive I agree for such a small country) or Deutsche Bahn's ICE, they forget that the vast majority of successful intercity rail service in Europe and Asia are operated by "higher speed" services (~150 - 200 kph), which form the backbone of any successful intercity passenger rail network.

Even the often cited Chinese HSR didn't just appear out of nowhere. Before China inaugurated its first true HSR service between Beijing and Tianjin in 2008, the system operated a vast network of high frequency but lower speed intercity network and overnight sleeper services. Even today in 2020, over 60% of China's rail passengers are still serviced by lower-speed (sub 200 kph) regional trains or overnight sleeper trains, because fares are on average 50-70% less than on HSR routes. The same can be said for Amtrak's Northeast Corridor between Boston and DC, which offers 2 distinct services (Northeast Regional and Acela, where NE Regional is still the backbone of the service).

These international experiences should teach us 2 things:

1. Before jumping to HSR/TGV, one needs a reliable network of high frequency, "higher speed" rail and ridership (the public needs to buy into an existing affordable and reliable high frequency service before introducing HSR).
2. Even after the inauguration of HSR, one still needs a lower-speed local service that compliments the HSR service, such as the Amtrak Northeast Regional, Deutsche Bahn's IC service, or China Rail's D-, Z-, K-, or T-Trains which all operate between 120 - 200 kph (far below HSR standards). That is what VIA Rail's current Corridor and HFR services are intended for, before the future upgrade to true HSR.

2 hours ago, ToxiK said:

Le titre de TVA est un peu trompeur; ce n'est pas un TGV qui risque de dérailler, c'est le TGF, une patente qui au bout du compte ne sera pas concurrentielle côté vitesse face à l'avion, côté prix face à l'autocar et côté flexibilité face à la voiture.  On est mieux d'investir dans un vrai TGV même si ça veut dire délaisser le segment Montréal-Québec.  Via Rail ne voulait pas vraiment de ce segment car il ne serait pas rentable mais a plié face aux plaintes de Labaume.  On a besoin d'un vrai TGV Toronto-Montréal.  Si jamais on se rend compte qu'u  prolongement vers Québec serait  rentable, on pourra toujours le faire (en format TGV ou TGF)

Nothing is getting derailed, and HFR is still the only intercity rail project (the Canada Infrastructure Bank already invested $70 million into project planning). Cabinet Minister Champagne came out yesterday to clarify: https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1783540/train-grande-frequence-vitesse-quebec-toronto-gouvernement-budget

These news articles from JDM / TVA are nothing but sensationalist journalism.

The point of HFR is not to compete with driving per se. For those who live in the suburbs with 2 SUVs, big McMansion, and 2 kids and a dog, driving will ALWAYS trump any sort of bus, train, or transit for short to medium length trips. It's the theory of sunk costs - you've already put up tens of thousands towards your car, insurance, maintenance, etc. - so you'll always be compelled to use it to the maximum extent even when there are equivalent alternatives.

I used to take VIA corridor service between MTL and Toronto Union almost every 2 weeks for work, and can tell you on many days the train was easily sold out. VIA HFR's biggest proposition is to make TO-Ottawa and TO-MTL more attractive than air travel. There were well over 50+ flights between YUL, YYZ, and YTZ everyday precovid, many of them priced 2-3 times higher than even VIA's business class. If VIA HFR is able to even capture just 10-20% of additional TO-MTL air traffic, that's already a huge win. VIA HFR aims to deliver TO-MTL under 4.5 hrs, TO-Ottawa under 3 hrs, and most of all - hourly service and guaranteed arrival times with dedicated tracks and ability to upgrade to HSR in the future.

If I could travel from my office in downtown TO to downtown MTL in 4.5 hrs, that already beats air travel because I could work, relax, sleep, eat / drink, and watch 2 netflix movies uninterrupted during those 4.5 hrs, vs. flying:

- 20 to 60 min to Uber to YYZ or YTZ (from downtown TO office, vs. a 10 min walk to Union station)

- 20 to 30 min to pass thru security 

- 45 to 90 min waiting at airport lounge (assuming no delays or cancellations, which happen often at YTZ airport)

- 15 min lining up to board plane

- 30 min for plane to taxi/take off (assuming there's no de-icing or random delays)

- 60 min inflight

- 15 min to taxi to gate

- 15 min to get off plane, get taxi

- 35-50 min taxi to downtown MTL

Flying may be marginally faster, but it's a lot of "hurry up and wait" and you end up wasting half your day going through the hoops and end up totally exhausted by the time you land. I'm sure everyone who frequently flies short distances between MTL-NYC, MTL-TO, MTL-BOS can relate to the above.

And yes, I agree that driving between cities should incur additional costs. E.g. tolls on the 401 like in Asia or Europe. 

On 2021-03-28 at 12:08 AM, Rocco said:

Safe to say Ville-de-Mont-Royal got a substantial upgrade with over what they had before with Exo. The enclosed/heated platforms alone make the whole thing worth it.

2 hours ago, SameGuy said:

I’m very glad that the Caisse helps keep my Hydro rates low, that nobody’s at fault in a hit-and-run, that the liquor from the SAQ keeps flowing, and makes sure that there are plenty of opportunities for me to spend my after-tax income on government lottery schemes (aka Stupidity Tax), but the bottom line is that REM, as a concept, was never about helping Montrealers get around.

Speaking for people in my neighborhood - Outremont / Edouard Montpetit, REM-A will most definitely help a lot of folks here get around:

- Our commute times to downtown offices will be cut down drastically, from 40-50+ min (1-2 metro transfers) to a mere 10-20 min going to downtown with REM-A. This will benefit a lot of folks living along the Blue Line between Snowdon and Jean-Talon.

- My commute to the airport will drastically cut down. Before it was a minimum 1 hr 30 min on the 747 + metro transfers, now it's a single ride to the airport terminal. I travel a lot for work pre-covid, and so do thousands of airport workers who will benefit from this everyday.

I understand you are saying that is that CDPQ primarily intended this to be a development-driven project and not as a public transit project. That's true and I don't disagree. At the same time, it will most definitely make getting around MTL a lot faster and more pleasant for many. These two facts don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Quote

The crux of the problem is that the CDPQ will pay at most 49% of it, but they have the first word, the last word, and every decision in between, and they will be the ones reaping the benefits.

Referencing the article in the previous post, I think the real "crux" of the problem with these requests from local municipalities is that there is a lack of holistic coordination among local municipalities and transit agencies, to both plan for and invest for the long term along with sufficient funding mechanisms for these projects. When I say "plan for the future" I meant proposing big picture region-wide plans like the GO Regional Express Rail expansion by Metrolinx in the GTA (which consists of 12 sub rail projects upgrading all of its commuter lines in every GTA municipality including electrification, EMU rollingstock, and upgrades to 50+ stations), not piece-meal plans like "we want to add a bike lane next to ABC station or we want to rename XYZ station". That's not transport planning. That's called squeezing in your pet projects and asking others to pay for them so you can claim this as your accomplishment in the next local election.

We all know that's been a glaring void in Greater Montreal transit planning, which ARTM was supposed to fill. CDPQ simply filled that void with REM-A with 1) a shovel-ready project 2) a large sum of startup capital to get things going. Is it the best solution? No. But it's a lot more than what ARTM and the local political leaders are offering.

1 hour ago, JPG said:

Vue 3 foreuses le long de Notre-Dame et sur Sherbrooke près d’Honoré-Beaugrand. 
 

Études géotechniques en cours, ça sent les études préliminaires pour le REM de l’Est.

14 hours ago, SameGuy said:

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/st-laurent-calling-on-cpdq-infra-for-safety-measures-name-changes-for-rem-stations
 

St-Laurent calling on CPDQ Infra for safety measures, name changes for REM stations 

The borough passed a unanimous resolution with all of its demands at a council meeting on Feb. 2. 

Author of the article:

Montreal Gazette

Mar 18, 2021  • Last Updated 2 hours ago  •  2 minute read

Cars pass under the REM train tracks in Kirkland on Dec. 10, 2020. PHOTO BY JOHN MAHONEY /Montreal Gazette

The borough of St-Laurent is asking for safety improvements, pedestrian-friendly access and name changes for some of the stations being built on its territory for the Réseau express métropolitain (REM).

In a letter Thursday to Charles Émond, chairperson of CPDQ Infra, the owner and builder of the REM, borough Mayor Alan DeSousa reminded the company that it has been asking for years for the company to give consideration to pedestrians in its plans for the future stations in the Bois-Franc sector and in the Hodge-Lebeau industrial sector near Highway 40.

“Rather than opening a can of worms with the REM 2.0 (in the east end), can we at least solve the problems of the REM 1.0, which is currently under construction,” DeSousa said in an interview. “You can learn from these mistakes … before you move onto other projects.”

For one thing, CDPQ Infra’s design will prevent pedestrians and cyclists from crossing over the tracks at Bois-Franc station between St-Laurent and the borough of Ahuntsic—Cartierville as they have done for decades, the letter says. For another, the Hodge-Lebeau sector is filled with truck traffic, but the station planned next to a municipal snow chute surrounded by industries offers no sidewalk south of the Stinson St. entry and no safe pedestrian crossing, it says.

The borough, which passed a unanimous resolution with all of its demands at a council meeting on Feb. 2, is asking CDPQ Infra to install a free passageway at Bois-Franc station so that pedestrians and cyclists don’t have to pay the REM fare to enter the station on one side and exit on the other to cross the tracks or make a 300- to 400-metre detour to cross at the nearest intersection. The borough also wants CDPQ Infra to build a safe pedestrian west-side entrance to the Hodge-Lebeau station.

The borough also expresses concern about the future of its long-planned bike path, called a “Véloroute,” alongside the Deux-Montagnes commuter train line where the REM is now being built. Vélo-Québec confirmed the importance of the path in 2017 and a first section, between Toupin Blvd. and Bois-Franc station, was built the same year.

DeSousa’s letter also suggests CDPQ Infra’s decision to give the name “Marie-Curie” to the future station in the Technoparc industrial park, which houses 100 businesses, without including the name “Technoparc” is a mistake. As well, the station will be located about 500 metres from Marie-Curie Ave., it says. The name, it suggests, should be “Technoparc–Marie-Curie.”

CDPQ Infra has named the future station in the Hodge-Lebeau sector “Côte-de-Liesse,” even though the artery with that name is more than 500 metres to the south. The borough’s letter says the name will create confusion and suggests the station be renamed in honour of Catherine Fol, a science documentary filmmaker for the National Film Board of Canada who died in 2020. The NFB had its landmark headquarters at the edge of the Hodge-Lebeau sector.

CDPQ Infra didn’t respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

I guess it's a good thing then that it's CDPQi (and not the ARTM) that's investing in/building/operating this project.

Also, if you want something added, pay for it. The sky's the limit if these local politicians can find the money.

21 hours ago, p_xavier said:

The ARTM is even MORE politicized. Stop thinking that because it's public that it's not politicized, it's exactly the opposite that happens when half of the board is mayors. The ARTM list of projects is not a global vision, it is lists of projects that the mayors have requested. The ARTM plan of the orange line made the minimum loop, without even going through the points of interest in Laval.  

The CDPQi has depoliticized everything because it offers the most cost effective solutions with the traffic that goes with it to optimize the investment. It is the complete opposite of populism. If it were populist the government would continue the REM in Chambly and the answer is now no. The East train, the blue line metro and SRB Pie-IX are populist projects.

ARTM reminds me of Metrolinx in Toronto, which was created in 2006 in Ontario to manage all public transport-related investments and operations in the Greater Toronto Area. Initially, Metrolinx was only responsible for fare integration (with the introduction of PRESTO which was a disaster in the beginning but now finally stable after a decade of work), and in 2009 Metrolinx took over GO Transit (commuter rail, bus, etc.). 

Just like ARTM, Metrolinx's mandate was to act as an "independent" crown entity that invests, plans, and operates region-wide transit. And just like ARTM, Metrolinx was never the "independent" entity it was meant to be from day 1, because all of its funding were at the mercy of the provincial government. At some point, the political interference became so extreme that Metrolinx made specific design decisions to the GO RER project, at the request of then Ontario Minister of Transport Steven Del Duca (who specifically pushed Metrolinx to build additional stations in his own electoral riding...). Later, Metrolinx's other projects like the Hamilton LRT project got cancelled as soon as Doug Ford came to power in 2018, and miraculously earlier this year the Hamilton LRT got revived again because Ford changed his mind. So, in the end, Metrolinx, like ARTM, basically became a political pawn of which government is in power.

19 hours ago, SameGuy said:

In other words, the city (and by extension, the province) should value its assets that are essentially “given” to Infra, and get fair compensation in return. As it stands, the province has given the keys to the city to Infra, and then agreed to pay many more billions in guaranteed per-passenger-kilometre charges. 

I'm curious, hoping some could help answer:

1. What assets are "given" or handed to CDPQi for free for REM-B? For REM-A, it was obvious as it had to take over existing rail corridors, but you could also argue that by doing that the government (and the public) all ended up paying less upfront (vs. asking Infra to build new rail corridors for REM-A from scratch). It'd be interesting to do an actual cost benefit analysis on this.

2. Does the government get any future surplus revenue generated from operation of REM and surrounding property development fees. For example, the present value of future net-new municipal property taxes from the new TODs, condos, office towers around REM stations would surely go to the government (which could be a very large figure). Curious to know the exact breakdown on future revenue sharing especially from indirect sources of revenue such as development fees, rent, etc.

7 hours ago, Elv13 said:

I live in Seattle right now (lets see what happens once Covid is gone, but stuck here for now) and Seattle mass transit makes no sense. It is fully oriented toward park and ride. There is no Subway and the current LRT services nowhere useful unless you work at the airport. Compared to the REM, they made every single bad decisions one could make. Most stations are either in industrial parks, under homeless people tent cities or near bungalows. It services nothing useful and is always empty.

The line lines under construction service Microsoft/Nintendo headquarter and follow 2 highways. That's actually kind of better since it has actually somewhere to go. The other line will eventually (2036, lol) follow another highway and reach Boeing Everett factory.  All this time, downtown will still be deadlocked (if people ever get back to work, downtown is a very unsafe homeless tent city right now, nothing people in MTL can imagine exist in North America).

Point is, LRT are sometime not "by design" and are just the result of under investment. The LRT exists to serve a business need (bypass the traffic jams between airport and downtown) rather than be a useful public transport. Seattle citizens ballot-vetoed to /block/ a subway being built in the 70's. The federal government would have paid most of the bills, so it was just Nimbysm.

In many U.S. cities, the newer LRT/Streetcar projects are less transportation, and more used as "urban revitalization" projects that cities fund in order to attract real estate developers along the streetcar routes, with their primary purpose being to "revitalize" (aka gentrify) their downtown areas - e.g. Detroit Q Line, Atlanta/DC Streetcars, etc. - they serve no functional purpose as a viable transportation tool (since many of them operate as a downtown "circulator" with one-way service). As far as I know, projects like the above would never fly in Canadian cities. Even a "private" investor like CDPQi would never propose something as ludicrous as the DC Streetcar or Detroit QLine. Seattle's LRT lines are actually not too bad compared to the other newer streetcar lines in the U.S., but noticeably worse than Canadian counterparts like Calgary LRT or Toronto TTC Streetcar network which get far far higher ridership.

Detroit QLine:

15 minutes ago, SameGuy said:

At the same time, I also hope that our governments don’t lose sight of the fact that mass transit is a social service, and must be maintained, improved and expanded as needs arise, with no profit motive in mind. 

I agree overall with your sentiment.

Only differing point is that IMHO, when it comes to mass transit, it shouldn't be a crime to have a "profit motive". Specifically, I don't mean that transit operators should focus solely on generating surplus net income like a private corporation. But rather giving transit operators (whether they be STM, Exo, ARTM, or CDPQi) the freedom to create systems that incentivize future transit expansions, reward high quality customer service, and reward good management practices, that allow them to respond faster and more flexibly to future changes in transportation needs. And if there needs to be money involved to incentivize the above behaviours, then so be it. Transit agencies can't forever remain the clunky bureaucratic organizations that they used to be that survive solely on the whims of political leaders.

37 minutes ago, SameGuy said:

And one more time for the people in the cheap seats: $ 10 billion would purchase dedicated rights-of-way for every exo line, electrify and double or triple track the network, fully grade-separate every line at every incursion point, purchase a new EMU fleet, and rebuild every station in the exo system up to modern, accessible standards. That would serve the entire region, not just Destination Chantal Rouleau.

Has AMT / Exo come up with their own plan for modernization? Similar to Metrolinx's GO RER / GO Expansion plan released in 2015 and is now underway in Toronto? I'd be all for spending $ 10 billion + on upgrading the existing commuter network up to RER standards, but I have yet to see any credible / comprehensively regional proposal being put forth by ARTM or Exo, that are fully costed and shovel ready. So far the most notable project taken by ARTM is regional fare integration (ongoing). Oh and the Chrono transit app which basically replicates what Google Maps and Transit apps do already.

When the bureaucrats at ARTM / Exo manage to get their acts together and actually take a leadership role on regional transport planning and execution , I'd be the first one onboard. Metrolinx in Toronto has had a myriad of issues like political interference, but at least they've put forth very solid business cases since 2015 for 12 major projects that fall under the GO RER expansion project, including electrification which will be starting next year:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/benefitscases/GO_Expansion_FBC_ExecSummary.pdf

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/greaterregion/projects/go-expansion.aspx

22 hours ago, Born Between the Rapids said:

Precisely, the scenario invoked by @Internist included the heavy transport line (the REM B) over long distances (East and North East) to a point near the city center, from which short tram lines would run through various parts of the CV. This is not necessarily the ideal option, but the tune is needed.

I also take note of the remark of @andre md: perhaps buses (especially electric!) would replace trams with hp.    

If we are to go with a combo of bus / tram + REM-B, I think it should be the other way round:

- REM-B serving downtown core and parts of the eastern areas surrounding downtown (whether elevated or not)

- Augmented by one or multiple tramways / BRT branches further out to the east and northeast of the island where there is much lower population density

It's kind of illogical to serve the densest areas of downtown with a lower level transit mode (tram / bus) and the least dense areas in the suburbs with REM ... it should be other way round. I'm not against tramways in downtown areas, but before tramways, we should have proper "bones" in place such as high capacity rapid transit in the form of REM-A / REM-B / Metro. After that, tramways can then serve to connect those rapid transit routes with more local stops. This is one problem faced by Toronto - in that they have a fantastic high quality streetcar system serving the core but terrible subway / rapid transit coverage. Streetcars work great in local routes but they are terrible for slightly longer journeys (e.g. ideal if you want to jump on streetcar from Spadina Chinatown to Union Station ~15 min; terrible if you want to travel from downtown Toronto to Park Lawn or western Toronto, which could turn into an 1 hr+ streetcar journey).

Lastly, there's got to be a better solution if the only reason we are replacing REM on RL with a tramway is aesthetics ... At the end of the day, this isn't a public art project. This is a public transport project and the priority is to get people from points A to point B in the most efficient way possible. Aesthetics is important, but it shouldn't supersede the primary purpose of a transit network.

1 hour ago, acpnc said:

Pourquoi un tram est considéré comme un transport structurant pour Québec et ne le serait pas pour l'est de Montréal? C'était pourtant l'option dans les cartons avant que l'on parle du REM. De toute façon la distance sur R-L ne sera pas assez longue pour allonger substantiellement la durée des déplacements. Pour le reste du trajet plus à l'est on peut facilement accommoder le parcours sans créer d'entraves à la circulation.

En ce qui me concerne, on devrait vraiment analyser cette option qui m'apparait moins couteuse qu'un souterrain et moins dommageable visuellement parlant qu'un train suspendu et nettement plus efficace qu'un SRB.

Because CDPQ has explicitly stated since the announcement of REM in 2016 that their mandate is to implement REM (fully automated) rapid transit solutions. They are not in the business of building other modes of public transit (trams, BRTs, streetcars, etc) - and to be fair, that is the STM's job.

On the topic of tramway vs. elevated rail/rapid transit, please take a look at Toronto's current Eglinton Crosstown project, as well as Toronto's Spadina and St. Clair LRT lines - both of which have their own ROWs but suffer from service inconsistencies and speed restrictions due to lack of grade separation, especially in dense urban environments like RL (see 510 St. Clair streetcar). Usually, 1 accident on the line (pedestrian hit by a streetcar / a driver accidentally drives onto the track, etc.) will paralyze the whole 510 line. All of that increases the TTC's operating costs (LRT drivers, daily accidents and delays, due to lack of grade separation). Another example is Ottawa's O-Train Line 1, which was originally planned as a "tramway" but eventually went with full grade separation (a good decision that will allow them to operate at much higher speeds and capacity).

At the end of the day, it's a decision between: do we want a tramway that serves local transit needs (with lower operating speed/frequency and more local station stops) vs. a rapid transit system that is more geared towards regional transit needs at much higher operating speeds and frequencies. To be clear, I'm not against tramways or LRTs - I love taking trams and think a tramway in areas like the Old Port or Griffintown would be extremely beneficial to serve their local transit needs.

2 hours ago, danny12345 said:

Everytime I look at the confederation line in Ottawa, I wonder why they went with full grade separation (great) but tramways instead of a real metro?  Were the savings really worth it?   They can't have automation so it must be way costlier to operate.  Their low platforms must not have been cheaper to build than elevated ones, yet they can't be refurbished for metro cars so they're stuck with trams.

Because Ottawa's Confederation Line (soon to be "Line 1" as they construct and open lines 2, 3, and 4 in the next few years) was originally designed to be an at-grade line with street crossings, much like a traditional tramway. However, when the design was finally converted to full grade separation, they had already placed the orders for Alstom Citadis LRVs and could not back out of it. Hence, you have this weird combination of a metro-like infrastructure but operated with LRT-style vehicles (not uncommon in many of the new U.S. LRT systems like Seattle). The positive news is that Ottawa Line 1 at least achieves full grade separation, which is not something the Toronto Line 5 Eglinton LRT will get even with $12 billion + sunk into that project...

Just shows the importance of making the "right" decision from the start, because these things could have decades of downstream impact on the future usability of the system. And yes, I'm glad REM-A went with 1) full grade separation 2) full automation 3) metro-style rollingstock.