Comments on: More transit ideas: tram-train link to the airport and beyond

By: patty t

patty t — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:47:02 +0000

Looks like the Walrus realizes Toronto's noot the only city in Canada with Traffic problems. - http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/2008.01.18-traffic-wars-rem-knew-it-all-too-well/

By: Tim FitzGerald

Tim FitzGerald — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:17:31 +0000

Mark: you beat me to the punch, I was about to post the same, and providing the same example. The difference in Toronto's case is that the company managing the Union corridor is actually private, half-owned by CN, half by CP, the Toronto Terminals Railway http://www.ttrly.com/USRC.htm. Thus Union station is a union of Canadian Pacific and (then) Grand Trunk; as opposed to Montreal where separate stations were managed by CP (Windsor) and GT/CN (Central).

For the past few years I've thought of a nationalization of main line tracks in the Greater Montreal Area; a government agency would manage traffic just like it does for air. The pooling of trackage would add capacity for all stakeholders (CN, CP, VIA Rail and AMT). To make the pill easier to swallow for Big Rail, I'd be willing to sign some kind of contract that promised to maintain the proportional traffic between CP and CN.

By: Mark Dowling

Mark Dowling — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:53:03 +0000

Fagstein - the best thing would be for the Province of Quebec to buy up or if resisted find a way to expropriate all four tracks and integrate them into a corridor so all services could use whatever trackage would be most efficient, in a similar way to the Union corridor (itself too short) in Toronto.

By: Michael Gordon

Michael Gordon — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:54:42 +0000

Hey Olivier, sorry for being a little prickly there, you do raise good points and I hope Montreal gets its rail line to the airport. I love going to Montreal and it would be great to go to Central Station and get on a train rather than the bus.

By: Olivier

Olivier — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:46:14 +0000

I agree that I don't now much about the RAV details, but I also already conceded in my post that there were valid demographic reasons for placing the line on Cambie- I just think there were other factors motivating the decision as well. I would especially take information on the vancouver.ca site with a grain of salt. Municipal politics is about more than numbers and facts, and Vancouver's development projects are no exception. With all the hype surrounding the Olympics and Vancouver's growth, I just think it's important to point out what we're losing as a city as well.

By: Michael Gordon

Michael Gordon — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:03:05 +0000

Interesting how people love to cling to mythologies. Olivier, I suggest you go on line and read the reports and become more informed. They are all available on the vancouver.ca web site. Ultimately, the decision to go down Cambie was based on employment, population density and most important it was the shortest route. YVR would not put in their share of the capital dollars unless the line could deliver passengers in a prescribed minimum time frame. The arbutus line swings west and results in a longer time frame for yvr to downtown train trips.

By: Olivier

Olivier — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:14:28 +0000

I don't know much about the skytrain expansion, but I do know that the RAV line had the same problem with the NIMBY folks in the richer areas of West Side Vancouver. Arbutus street has a de-commissioned railway running pretty much from the airport to downtown, but Cambie street was chosen instead. While it is true that Cambie is higher-density and more accessible to most Vancouver residents, I'd still guess the main factor was the wealthier Arbutus residents refusing the plan. How else can you explain ignoring an already-laid track in favour of creating an entirely new line on a much used commercial artery? I think Chris makes a good point in terms of the need to stimulate high-density transport, but in a city like Vancouver which has next to no ability to maintain any sense of history, continuity, and community-oriented commerce, the loss of some of Cambie's distinctiveness is a huge blow to the city.

By: walkerp

walkerp — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:18:43 +0000

I know Vancouver fairly well and I have to say it really blew my mind that they had the foresight to actually expand the skytrain system. Obviously, if you are going to put a brand new metro system in that goes right through the middle of town, it's going to cause some disruptions. As far as traffic goes, I couldn't give a ****. If you're driving in Vancouver, you deserve whatever you get.

For the businesses, yeah that's rough. We had the same thing here in Montreal. A two-year long road repair and sidewalk expansion project on St. Laurent killed and drove away some near landmarks on that historic street (Mondo Fritz, S.W. Welch). So count yourselves lucky out there in the west that you have contractors and contract structures that encourage work getting done in about half the acceptable rate rather than a quarter as it was seems to be generally accepted out here.

But wasn't there also an issue with the SkyTrain expansion in Vancouver where the Shaugnessy residents fought it going through their tony area? Did that cause some changes to the original plan?

By: Neath

Neath — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:50:54 +0000

Concerning the Donny Spur here is this from the Green Coalition's web site.

"Green Coalition Verte member Avrom Shtern asks the Agglomeration Council about activating the Doney Spur
and mass transit serving the West Island of Montreal. March 1, 2007."

And the McGill School of Urban Planning put together a plan for integrating the Donny Spur into an expanded train service for the region in 2002.

They might be able to save a fair chunk of that 200K if they were to actually get together with people who have been talking about that for quite some time already.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:11:50 +0000

Ed > Chill out. I don't think it's ignorant to suggest that its okay to sacrifice a few small businesses in the short term for the long term gain of thousands and thousands in the region.

By: Ed

Ed — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:01:22 +0000

Chris, thats because it is insensitive, and quite ignorant. You should think before you post.

By: Fagstein

Fagstein — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:16:19 +0000

Just to clarify, in the west island there are actually four sets of parallel tracks: two used by CP and two used by CN.

The AMT commuter trains use the CP tracks up until Lachine, at which point the commuter trains break off into a dedicated branch through Montreal-West that ends at Lucien L'Allier station.

The CN tracks, meanwhile, are used by VIA Rail for its Montreal-Ottawa and Montreal-Toronto passenger lines. This includes a stop at the Dorval train station.

It's very difficult arranging three different types of train service in two directions on four tracks run by two different companies. Solving this problem with another track (one track? How will trains pass each other?) would allow the AMT to add more trains on the Montreal-Dorion/Rigaud line, which sees very little use outside of rush hour.

By: Mark Dowling

Mark Dowling — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:59:27 +0000

A tram train would be like the O-Train - it would not be able to run on the same track as a CP/CN or commuter train - either the tracks would have to be segregated or as in Ottawa the track would have to be closed entirely to "heavy" traffic while the light rail used it.

By: Christopher DeWolf

Christopher DeWolf — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:56:15 +0000

In the case of Vancouver, don't forget the RAV line also goes to Richmond, where it's already stimulating new high-density transit-oriented development. It sounds insensitive, but making Richmond and Vancouver less car-reliant is well worth the cost to small businesses on Cambie.

By: YD

YD — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:25:25 +0000

It would be amazing and fairly easy to establish some kind of tram train system a bit similar to the berlin s-bahn, using the cpr and cnr right of way on the Island. We could have a downtown loop (using the tracks in the old port, the ones that fowllow Jean-Talon and end in Hochelaga, and the ones from victoria bridge going norht-west of the mountain, also attached to the old port line) and give a service close to the one we get from the Metro at a fraction of the cost. The system could also run 24hrs, because of the little maintenance the train tracks need.

By: Olivier

Olivier — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:43:33 +0000

Having just returned from christmas break in Vancouver (my hometown), I have to throw some caution on Walker's view of airport-downtown linkages. While I agree it is a great idea in theory (and maybe in long-term practice as well), the Vancouver RAV line has imposed enormous short-term consequences on the inhabitants and commerces of Cambie street (where the line is being constructed). Many small-business have been shut down due to mammoth construction, and traffic has been atrocious during the several years of construction. While downtown-airport links are important, the Vancouver example shows that large-scale projects have significant negative side-effects. That said, this Montreal proposal would build on existing infrastructure, as opposed to Vancouver, where the rail line was started from scratch (and sub-terranean in certain areas), so perhaps it could avoid similar pitfalls

By: walkerp

walkerp — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:26:04 +0000

It is such an absolute no-brainer that there should be a public transit line between the airport and downtown of every major city. It is slowly starting to happen (New Jersey, San Francisco, Vancouver) but I really don't understand why this isn't just a basic foundation of any major city. It's truly bizarre.