Comments on: Montreal Tram Study – Going About it the Wrong Way?

By: Ted K

Ted K — Sat, 27 Jul 2013 23:53:04 +0000

The whole “planned” tramway project for Montreal is a real idiot’s proposal. I cannot understand why such money is being spent on studies when the whole concept is fundamentally flawed. There should be only one reason to have an electric tramway system, and that is to move people from point A to point B efficiently, quickly, and reliably. That means that any tram system must have its own right of way, separated from car traffic. That was the whole problem after the second world war, when people wanted cars to be the primary people mover in the city. You could not have both operating on the same street because of the density of car traffic that was allowed. The density of cars has even increased since 1959 when the last Montreal trams left the streets.
Yes, Pie IX should be the first consideration for a tram system, on its own right of way as the street is wide enough. It can extend to Laval on the north, and tunnel to a subway station on the south.
Ironically Henri Bourrassa used to have a rapid transit tramway system with its own right of way, scrapped in the late 1950’s in favour of a wide boulevard filled with modern cars. That street is still suitable for a tramway system on its own right of way.
I am afraid that the same mentality still persists in Montreal that gave us the Metro: it was a showpiece more than a practical form of rapid transit. Rubber tires that are even more noisy than modern steel wheel on rail vehicles, inefficiency of rubber that produces heat in the tunnels, high maintenance costs for constantly replacing those tires, and incompatibility with other systems that would otherwise make bids cheaper than the Alstrom/Bombardier ripp-offs.

By: simval

simval — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:35:27 +0000

Yogi, first of all, the claims that tramways struggle in snow is quite wrong… or rather, they don’t struggle in it as much as buses. MontrÃ©al and QuÃ©bec had tramways for 50 years and they kept running in the winter, tramways were very popular in the USSR, so even Siberian cities have tramways that keep running in winter without major problem. And that’s with 1950s Soviet technology.

Here is a video of a modern Oslo tram running in snow, not only is it not much affected by the snow (it seems to have no problem braking and accelerating), but as they run on tracks, snow needs be removed only on the tracks, which is easy maintenance enough… just run tramways all night when you expect snow or icing conditions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aphdlIJ9l2U

In France, with tramways that are not necessarily made for much snow, tramway lines are more reliable than bus lines when it is snowing.

You’re entitled to your opinions on tramways, but please don’t spread falsehoods about their supposed inability to deal with snow. Tramways are a tested technology that can deal with most snowfalls as long as basic maintenance is done.

Of course, tramways aren’t as good as subways or passenger heavy rail (commuter trains), they’re not as fast, they’re more susceptible to obstruction from cars and the like, but they offer a better quality and higher capacity than buses. They’re nice for areas where subways aren’t really justified, but buses are overwhelmed, making transit unattractive. Building subways as a default is a huge mistake, subways are extremely expensive and should be put only when there is extremely high density. Otherwise, we get things like disaster that is the Sheppard line in Toronto, a subway line that cost a billion dollars, took 8 years to make and is used by 46 000 people every day, which is a ridership reached by some bus lines. If money and time was no object, okay, subways it is, but money and time are limited. For the price of a subway line, you can get three or four times as many tramway tracks, and can offer better transit options to a lot more people.

Plus, tramways do attract a lot of investments in urban settings. In Portland, they made a short streetcar line, not even a proper modern tramway, and they realized that while before 20% of investment dollars used to go to the areas around where the streetcar line would be before it was built, after its construction, 55% of the investment dollars spent in all of Portland was spent in a one block distance from the streetcar line. The new developments were also much denser and efficient.

By: Yogi

Yogi — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 00:03:40 +0000

I don’t believe in the trams. If you want to run it securely and efficiently (not bothered by the other chaos in the street, such as badly parked cars and accidents blocking the way), it really needs a separated area to run through and downtown just doesn’t have that space.

There were comparisons with Germany, France and The Netherlands, however a huge difference that is overlooked it climat. The cities with the successful tramlines simply don’t have as much snow as Montreal does (seriously, as soon as there’s a tiny bit of snow and ice, the tramlines start having trouble).

As stated, this will just be the next technology to be implemented, thus wasting tons (euh… millions) on development, construction and backup capacity (extra trams, in case of breakdowns) costs. Why not extend the metro lines, even apart from AMT’s 2020 plans? Okay, the initial construction cost is huge, but we already have the rolling stock (since the trains on the orange line will already be replaced soon), the trained personnel, the technology, etc. People have been talking about the Pie-IX line, or extending Yellow-4 further into Montreal island. AMT studies also showed a huge need for public transit to downtown in Montreal-Nord and Ahuntsic. The “train de l’est” is surely not going to cover the load, since the distances between stations will be to big. They should rather skip some stations and have it run as an express train and serve smaller stations by light rail, all on parallel tracks.

If I’m going to make this a long comment any way, I can’t leave out the fact that tunnel stations have always been constructed in way that doesn’t leave much room for elevators in Montreal (except for Lionel-Groulx). Why not have a single platform in the middle of the tracks? You’ll save on those elevators, escalators, signs, etc. Most metro stations in Amsterdam are constructed this way.

To close this down: if people still want to have that tram in Montreal, connecting Chemin de la Cote-des-Neiges and Parc Avenue will have my vote. But why not letting it run through Ste-Catherine’s? We want to have those awful cars away from the core, make it safer (and nicer) for the shopping public to be in the street and during festival season, having it turn up De Bleury will surely de-congest the metro stations after the last concert of the evening at Place des Arts. The empty patch of land on those corners could make a nice little terminus with RESO (metro) access. The main challange here though is what to do with the other traffic on The Bleury, because it’s a main axis for north-south. Space might be too limited to think tunnels here. Also on big parts of Parc Ave, it’ll be impossible to isolate the trams from other traffic, making it more vulnerable to get stuck. Or is this just another argument for a new metro line under Parc, possibly having a last station in front of Quai Jacques-Cartier? Maybe even a new metro technology that could run above the ground and have it act like the short-stop service next to the Train de l’Est?

…but maybe I’m too much of a dreamer.

By: Gauephat

Gauephat — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 09:39:51 +0000

This is just more developer fodder. It’s incredible how these overbuilt-yet-not-very-useful systems continue to be proposed and built. I have absolutely zero faith in the city of MontrÃ©al or any of its agencies to deliver reasonably priced and useful projects. They make the folks at Metrolinx look like savants.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if transit/rail planning was just outsourced to RATP or Deustche Bahn or someone who actually has the ability and exists outside of the system.

By: Ant6n

Ant6n — Sat, 18 May 2013 03:28:25 +0000

….and completely irrelevant to anybody thinking about building modern trams.

By: Peter Laws

Peter Laws — Sat, 18 May 2013 03:20:09 +0000

The perfect streetcar picture:

http://urbanist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83454714d69e20147e2bb641c970b-800wi

By: Ant6n

Ant6n — Sat, 18 May 2013 02:17:53 +0000

Effiency is almost irrelevant. Concentrate ridership along a good number of corridors so that the buses won’t run empty, and get people closer to where they work so that they travel fewer km, and you’ll get gains that are an order of magnitude more meaningful than Diesel vs Trolley vs Battery Electric.

Battery powered buses are mainly because of noise and local pollution issues; also potentially operating cost; and possibly thirdly cuz of the smaller relative impact.

By: Peter Laws

Peter Laws — Sat, 18 May 2013 01:47:57 +0000

I just don’t like Diesel fumes! 🙂

I don’t think battery buses are any better than Diesel (or other liquid-fueled buses), because they still have to carry their own fuel. I suppose I need to actually dig up some studies to see the actual efficiency numbers.

You are quite correct, of course – just get people the hell out of their cars whatever it takes.

By: ant6n

ant6n — Tue, 14 May 2013 22:04:15 +0000

And the AMT fails its regional planning: their focus is on expanding commuter rail into the exurbs – just look at the St Jean train study. There’s 4 million people needing transit, and they focus on a train to nowhere that will get maybe 5K riders. It’s prototypical symbolic transit, drawing lines on a map.

By: ant6n

ant6n — Tue, 14 May 2013 22:02:10 +0000

Wherever you want to invest that much money in transit infrastructure, you want a separated right of way. Already for buses, with near zero investment in infrastructure, we are painting rush-hour-only lanes. Thus I think the obstacles argument is moot – if you pay that much money, make sure there won’t be obstacles. I sometimes think this argument comes from Torontonians who are frustrated their dinky trams are stuck behind a broken down car, but can’t muster the political will to just give the tram its own lane.

Also, trolleys use trolley poles – 2 at that – rather than pantographs which are the norm for modern trams; so there are more problems for that.

I don’t see trolleys as a stepping stone towards tram – I see them as technology lock-in. The requirements on the infrastructure are so different that upgrades seem unlikely. Do you know of any example where the upgrade path was bus -> trolley -> tram?

A more reasonable upgrade path is bus -> 10 minute bus -> limited stop 10 minute bus on separated right of way (brt) -> tram.

The point about wanting transit to be electric is valid, although maybe not important as people believe. The relative impact of full diesel buses is minor compared to individual cars (even if those cars are electric). But then I believe that electric buses are in the process of becoming technically viable — so I see trolleys not only as technology lock-in, but locking into technology that is right now in the process of becoming obsolete.