After 20 years of stagnation, the metro is back in an expansionist mode: two new stations will be added to the system by 2013, joining the three new stations that were added last year in Laval. According to Radio-Canada, the AMT has announced that the blue line will likely be extended one stop east from Saint-Michel to Pie-IX and the orange line one stop north from Côte-Vertu to Bois-Franc.
On the orange line, this will allow the AMT to create an intermodal hub between the metro and the existing Bois-Franc train station; it will also serve as a hub for high-density residential and commercial development. On the blue line, the new station at Pie-IX will better serve the densely-populated east end of Saint-Michel while also connecting the metro to the new BRT line that is planned for Pie-IX Boulevard.
After that, what should be next? The official plan is to extend the blue line all the way to Anjou. Laval mayor Gilles Vaillancourt wants to spend $1 billion buckling the orange line loop, connecting Montmorency station with Bois-Franc. Transit fans have long suggested that the blue line be extended west into NDG and Lachine and that the yellow line be extended from Berri-UQAM to McGill, providing a direct downtown route for South Shore commuters and relief for the green line. I’ve always thought that service on the Montreal-Deux Montagnes commuter line, which is already electrified, should be upgraded to metro standards, which would be a cheap way of creating a metro line that serves Côte des Neiges, TMR and Bordeaux-Cartierville.
Photo: passengers waiting for the metro in 1966. Courtesy of the STM.
15 comments
For me, it’s obvious: we have a Dorval train station and a Dorval STM bus terminus a stone’s throw from Dorval airport, but all virtually inaccessible from each other.
Minor road modifications and a free shuttle bus and could make an aiport rail link (and improved bus link) a reality NOW, without spending a fortune.
You’re right. Currently, anyone taking public transit to the airport must wait at Dorval station for the 204 bus, which only comes every 30 minutes. The aiport authority is constantly running buses between the airport and its parking lots, so why can’t it dedicate a bus to shuttle passengers to and from the train station/bus terminus?
Mr. De Wolf,
I always appreciate your articles and photos. It could be feasible to extend the two lines you mention, particularly for urban development and network completion reasons. However, your ideas about long distance metros at 100M+ per km is complete nonsense. The Montreal metro, because of its technology, must be limited to very densely developed areas. It is now more or less at its limit. The service quality it offers can only be provided in low-medium density development by tramways.
Since your articles are, I am sure, read by lots of people, perhaps you should document yourself more on modern tramway technology
Great news! I love seeing this incredible Metro system grow. It is pretty obvious that the orange line should be linked – I think I imagined it when I was 15 – creating a circle line of-sorts.
As for Metro extensions west of the Decarie: long overdue.
In my more paranoid moments, I sometimes wonder if people are not being paid off to drag their feet on simple things like this.
Obviously, I have no proof. But when you add up all the $35 + tip cab rides, plus the parking revenue, there’s a huge cash incentive not to connect the airport up to nearby public transit.
Or perhaps its just simply due to Quebec’s obsession with “Grand projets”. We’ve heard about a monorail link — like Newark — or the train line has to be tunneled underground with a station connected to the terminal. Those are fine ideas but I don’t see why we have to wait for some Big Fix, when the train and bus infrastructure is there and underused?
BTW, as for the ‘closing of the loop’ in Laval. I understand that Laval metro ridership has exceded (modest) expectations but is there really the population density there for all those extra stations? I think not.
If you dig around in the documentation you find some interesting information. According to the AMT the metro is the most energy efficient mode of urban transportation (joules/passenger/km).
The problem with comparing the automobile, buses and the metro at joules/passenger/km is that it ignores that passenger trips would tend to be much shorter with the metro than the bus and even more so with the car.
Energy importations are likely to be increasingly expensive in the future.
Also – half of greenhouse emissions in Quebec are from automobile usage.
Simply throwing a fancy bus at airport passengers doesn’t solve anything. Buses don’t capture users at the economic margins the way rail travel does. The bus service is notoriously unreliable in far-flung quarters. And they get stuck in traffic as well. The airport rail shuttle would provide an attractive service, bypassing automobile traffic, reducing greenhouse emissions and energy importations.
I would love to see a calculation of how much money in energy and car importations the “crazy, too expensive” metro has saved Montreal since its inception. Not to mention medical savings.
Subway expansion has its practical and economic limits, but the criteria for determining where is too far, how frequent stops should be, how many lines downtown — aren’t exactly clear. In an era where privatization of transport has been encouraged, Montreal has probably erred on the side of caution.
I agree. I’m talking about a free shuttle bus to take passengers from the arrivals area to the train station, just a few hundred metres or so away. Right now, it might as well be on the moon.
Chris, aren’t there 2 addititional stations planned for the Bois-Franc extension? The Radio-Canada report doesn’t specify but everything else that I’ve read indicates that there is to be a station between Côte-Vertu and Bois-Franc.
I was looking at a Metro map yesterday and thinking the same thing: there’d have to be a stop between Côte-Vertu and Bois-Franc. It’s too long.
I have another question: can we reduce the construction costs by going to open pit (or whatever the correct term is) excavation instead of tunneling in out-lying, low density areas? There are still some open fields along Marcel Lauren on the Canadair property, for example.
That’s exciting to hear! Pie-IX definitely needs a second metro station and it’ll make the blue line less useless.
Shawn: The downtown core Metro was dug with cut-and-cover. It was pretty expensive there. I have no clue if it would be cheaper out on the edge of the orange line, but the tunnel already exists, so maybe that won’t cost so much. (Go see the metrodemontreal.com page for details).
Also, I often did walk from the 211 station (which is at the train station) directly to the airport. It takes about 15 minutes. It’s not fun with luggage, but I usually wear my luggage instead of rolling it behind me. That works quite well. Waiting for the 204 is just lame.
The objection by the taxi industry is a well-known reason why rail links (metro or otherwise) don’t go to airports. Montreal is just one example of this situation. Miami is another one that comes to mind.
Don’t forget that Aeroports de Montreal makes a lot of revenue from passengers parking their cars. They have just increased the size of the parking garage next to the terminal.
I’ve taken the bus from the airport before and it is a real hassle.
for those of you who are interested, I’ve done a bit of research about airport links on my blog:
http://transport514.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/airport-rail-links-around-the-world/
plam, was there at least a sidewalk you could safely walk along… or did you cut across the long term parking and hop a fence…?
There are several ways to get a metro line along a distance:
1) Surface, this is good in low density areas, where there are few roads that would need to be bridged or tunneled. Toronto uses this in several areas of it’s metro. This is typically cheapest.
2) Open cut, you dig a trench, and run the line along the bottom of the trench, advantage in areas of low density that have potential growth later on, in that you can build over it, Toronto also uses this in several areas. This is better when there are a lot of line crossings, in that it’s simple to bridge the line. More expensive then surface, but cheaper then bored tunnel.
3) Elevated, you basically build the line on a continuous bridge, one of the most famous is the Chicago ‘El” train, can also be used where there is a large change in land elevation, Toronto’s Bloor Viaduct is a good example. Most expensive, method.
4) Cut and cover, you dig a trench, build your line at the bottom, add side retaining walls and a roof, then bury the structure. Cheaper then elevated, was typical before the Tunnel Boring Machine, became cheap and reliable. Commonly still used at switching points, where a bored tunnel wall would be too thin, or not stable enough. Cheaper then elevated, more expensive then bored tunnel.
5) Bored Tunnel, these are distinctive, in that the tunnel is usually round, where as it’s usually square with other methods.
Sometimes transit properties will use the cheapest method that is practical, sometimes they like to use only one or two methods.
As for the airport, lots of ideas, first add another bus on that line, so it’s every 15 minutes instead of every 30, a lot more people would use it. Second a pedestrian tunnel, if it’s not that far, a direct pedestrian link might work. Third a tunnel trolley service, using an electric trolley coach, at each end you have a platform that is at the same level as the floor, so people can wheel luggage directly in, use fewer seats to allow space for luggage. The transit company could make a mint by allowing airlines to rent space in the station to allow for check-in at the metro station. They would probably make enough to pay for building the service in the first few years.
LOVE IT…
1 addition…
AC ? ? ?
That would be nice…
Its 2015, any chance you can tell me where those stations are? *sigh*