Public meetings of the STM Board of Directors

[Tranzit]

No more excuses? No more excuses like poor soil conditions, not enough density, too many anglos etc etc.

According to Marc Dufour (a sure source), Hampstead blocked the extension by expressing its disapproval of having a metro station. You can blame those snobs of the 1970s for not allowing the people further to the southwest of enjoying a metro.

Are you sure this is the correct topic? The STM can't extend the metro - the AMT can with government money. The STM is the operator of metro extensions. Maybe this should go in the fantasy thread.

A Metro station in Hampstead was never on any future project map that I've ever seen. The nearest one west of Snowdon would likely be somewhere near Somerled and Cote St. Luc Road, and the next one on the southwest corner of Benny Park (Cavendish and Monkland), followed by Montreal West on the reserved empty lot next to the Elmhurst bus terminus, conveniently north of the train station.

Hampstead can vanish into thin air as far as I'm concerned.

[mtltransitguy]

They should have just skipped Hamsptead if that were the case, and give people that actually realized what a blessing it would be, the metro stations they deserve.

[Tranzit]

According to Marc Dufour (a sure source), Hampstead blocked the extension by expressing its disapproval of having a metro station.

This is nothing more than a red herring.

No one can block a Metro line from going underneath "their" territory, thus denying other neighbourhoods from accessing public transit.

Can you imagine the uproar should such a precedent ever be permitted by the courts?

Not even during the Cold War did the GDR (the authorities ruling East Berlin) attempt to prevent West Berlin's U-Bahn trains from gliding through the "ghost stations" which the GDR had bricked up at street level.

[SMS]

A Metro station in Hampstead was never on any future project map that I've ever seen.

Take a look at this: http://img76.imageshack.us/my.php?image=plan19750tq.jpg

Please don't forget this as I spent a LOT of time trying to research this in the cesspool that is the MdeM forums...

[Tranzit]

Take a look at this: http://img76.imageshack.us/my.php?image=plan19750tq.jpg

Please don't forget this as I spent a LOT of time trying to research this in the cesspool that is the MdeM forums...

Close, but this is a deliberately vague and misleading blueprint, made by a draftsman who mingled facts with imagination--although I don't criticize you in the least for posting it.

If you zoom in on that circle and transpose it over a detailed street map, you will clearly see that it rests over where the existing Blue Line fire escape is located on the median adjacent to the corner of Dufferin and Queen Mary Rd.

In fact, I have a friend who lives on Finchley Rd. who watched the workmen build the thing and who asked them what it was for.

Even given the fact that the tunnel beneath is where extra Metro trains are shunted and wait to be rolled into service, the property directly above is all private, certainly expensive housing whose owners would hardly sell, in which case it would be so easy to move such a proposed station to where I always predicted it might be, namely the Somerled, Clanranald, Cote St. Luc general area, and all within Montreal's city limits.

Surely the bigwig snobs of Hampstead could never have seriously believed that Montreal would ever force an expropriation order to demolish buildings within their territory when Montreal could simply move it a short distance south--the exact spot which I will leave entirely for speculation at this point.

Continuing further west, the logical and ideal next Blue Line station would be in Benny Park (requiring no building demolition), and, of course, the shabby-looking, Elmhurst Depot block which the city surely owns and is wisely retaining for its future Metro/Train station to be built sometime before the end of this century.

Who knows: with luck, your grand-children may yet use those stations some day.

[SMS]

Close, but this is a deliberately vague and misleading blueprint, made by a draftsman who mingled facts with imagination--although I don't criticize you in the least for posting it.

[...]

Even given the fact that the tunnel beneath is where extra Metro trains are shunted and wait to be rolled into service, the property directly above is all private, certainly expensive housing whose owners would hardly sell, in which case it would be so easy to move such a proposed station to where I always predicted it might be, namely the Somerled, Clanranald, Cote St. Luc general area, and all within Montreal's city limits.

[...]

Surely the bigwig snobs of Hampstead could never have seriously believed that Montreal would ever force an expropriation order to demolish buildings within their territory when Montreal could simply move it a short distance south--the exact spot which I will leave entirely for speculation at this point. [...]

OK well... that was a scan of an official BTM document. I don't think it was hogwash but since the thing never came to fruition... you can believe this but I don't think it's wholly imaginary. I am not offended. The fact of the matter is that this is an alternative to the proposed routing that everyone loves to quote. Mind you, this is the only instance that I've seen this idea. However consider the following ideology and alternate proposed routings:

Hampstead doesn't want the metro because they don't want "loot rail" (google it). It has nothing to do with expropriation in large scale. Do you think they'd do it cut and cover the whole way to NDG?! I doubt that my fine friend... Snowdon was built wholly in tunnel, and it is my firm belief that it will continue as such until at least Benny Park. They can tear the park down as much as they choose... because a park is a park. The only cut and cover sections necessary are station entrances and ventilation shafts which don't require all that much land in truth. Agree?

I have documents in my possession proving that the metro line five terminating at Lafleur was not the only option considered. Please consider the following two propositions:

What if I told you that only TWO stations were planned west of Snowdon (Cote-St-Luc/approx Wilson or Melrose, and ultimately Cavendish/Somerled)?

What if I told you that the following three stations were proposed: Clanranald/Queen Mary (to be built within existing tail tracks), Fielding/Grand, and Walkley/Cote-St-Luc, with a garage under Gilbert-Layton Park?

Gentlemen, I have now offered you no less than four variants of blue line west:

- the popular well-known one to Lafleur,

- the U-shaped idea featuring three stations (Clanranald, Grand/Somerled, and ultimately what appears to be Walkley/Cote-St-Luc with the tail tracks going NORTH!)

- the cheap two station option

- the more westerly option and a garage at the end

Tranzit, if you like, I am willing to meet with you and prove these documents and these ideas, as I am unwilling to scan them.

[Tranzit]

Not necessary to prove anything, as I'm quite aware that there have been many Metro Line proposals going back decades; most of which were likely deliberate "trial balloons" published only to generate a reaction--positive or negative.

Anyway, name me a single major proposed project for Montreal which hasn't run the usual gauntlet of pressure groups and political posturing. It's wonder we ever got anything major completed here in Montreal, but we can thank Drapeau for most of it (the "Big O" excepted, of course).

Glad you like maps and charts, though, as I do.

Ha...during the crazy years and months leading up to the excavation of the Decarie Depressway (and it's proposed, completely-underground plans of which only the puny "Sherbrooke Tunnel" exists today) there was one wild and crazy "proposed plan" in the newspaper showing an alternate route suggesting the entire demolition of all the buildings down Coolbrooke or McLynn/Earnscliffe instead, after Decarie Blvd. residents complained that they didn't want all the noise and air pollution replacing the existing, and comparatively quiet, double-roadway with the streetcar right-of-way down the centre.

Can't say I blame them in the least, considering what a blight to the neighbourhood that damn trench has become! What a huge difference it would have been if it had been built according to its original plan with a tree-lined, green space over the top with bike paths, etc.

Boston finally built something like it, but hey, they got more cash to spend!

[SMS]

Not necessary to prove anything, as I'm quite aware that there have been many Metro Line proposals going back decades; most of which were likely deliberate "trial balloons" published only to generate a reaction--positive or negative.

Yeah NW orange line has had it's fair share of changed itineraries... blue line east is in contention... honestly guys the only thing I can tell that the BTM wanted was the green line east! Not west. That was slightly in contention thanks to the history books. But east was evident only because of where the Olympic Stadium was to be located. Even the metro in Laval was supposedly to follow the Highway 335 axis.

[L.M.]

Close, but this is a deliberately vague and misleading blueprint, made by a draftsman who mingled facts with imagination--although I don't criticize you in the least for posting it.

If you zoom in on that circle and transpose it over a detailed street map, you will clearly see that it rests over where the existing Blue Line fire escape is located on the median adjacent to the corner of Dufferin and Queen Mary Rd.

In fact, I have a friend who lives on Finchley Rd. who watched the workmen build the thing and who asked them what it was for.

Hi,

First post in broken-english in cptdb! I've never seen detailed plans of he proposed extensions of the blue line, but my opinion is that the tunnel path was changed a little bit by the BTM when the Quebec government cancelled the extension in December 1979 and when the BTM had to plan the little extension of the tunnel necessary for the new Snowdon terminal (the tunnel digged in 1975 stopped approximatly at Clanranald and they needed some extra tunnel).

The next proposed station prior to the cancellation was Côte-Saint-Luc and the BTM had planned two exits on each side of Côte-Saint-Luc at the corner of Wilson street. The north exit would have been located in Hampstead. I think the tunnel path going to this station from Snowdon would have been a little different (a little more to the south, to intersect Côte-Saint-Luc/Wilson intersection). I my opinion, a reorientation of the tunnel under Queen-Mary permitted to dig the exit shaft in the medium lane of the street, a better option for the residents! If they ever extend to tunnel westward, the tunnel will have a sharp curve to reach Côte-Saint-Luc/Wilson, or they'll choose an alternative site for the next station... But, as SMS wrote it, blue line extension westward is some sort of fantasy!

Hampstead doesn't want the metro because they don't want "loot rail" (google it). It has nothing to do with expropriation in large scale. Do you think they'd do it cut and cover the whole way to NDG?! I doubt that my fine friend... Snowdon was built wholly in tunnel, and it is my firm belief that it will continue as such until at least Benny Park. They can tear the park down as much as they choose... because a park is a park. The only cut and cover sections necessary are station entrances and ventilation shafts which don't require all that much land in truth. Agree?

I have documents in my possession proving that the metro line five terminating at Lafleur was not the only option considered. Please consider the following two propositions:

What if I told you that only TWO stations were planned west of Snowdon (Cote-St-Luc/approx Wilson or Melrose, and ultimately Cavendish/Somerled)?

What if I told you that the following three stations were proposed: Clanranald/Queen Mary (to be built within existing tail tracks), Fielding/Grand, and Walkley/Cote-St-Luc, with a garage under Gilbert-Layton Park?

Gentlemen, I have now offered you no less than four variants of blue line west:

- the popular well-known one to Lafleur,

- the U-shaped idea featuring three stations (Clanranald, Grand/Somerled, and ultimately what appears to be Walkley/Cote-St-Luc with the tail tracks going NORTH!)

- the cheap two station option

- the more westerly option and a garage at the end

As for the supposed opposition of Hampstead to a subway extension in its territory, I read a lot of documentation about the works and studies involved by the extensions of the 1970-1988 period and I had never seen anything about this, but it can't be excluded... If you look carefully at the plans that SMS is referring to, you'll see that the Côte-Saint-Luc/Wilson station appeared in the plans in 1975. Prior to this change, BTM had planned stations at Clanranald and Grand, both in Montréal territory. I read in the Comité d'aménagement de surface minutes (detailed discussions of BTM, MUC and municipality employees about the location of every planned tunnels and stations) that expropriation of the lots needed for the construction of the Clanranald station was declined by the MUC Council in 1975. Planners were neither not satisfied by the 1974 plan where the terminal was located under Cavendish heading north. They looked for an alternative plan and then proposed this long diagonal under NdG to Lafleur terminal near Ville Saint-Pierre. Other minutes revealed that the soil conditions were pretty bad for the BTM engineers, so the proposed Cavendish station was very deep (as much as Charlevoix). There are no details for further west where planning was at the preliminary stage...

[Tranzit]

Not sure how "problematic" these alleged "soil problems" truly are, but I take them with a grain of salt, since there are subways elsewhere with variable sub-surfaces: volcanic, sandy, clay, etc. Don't worry: there is always a possible work-around if the engineers put their minds to it.

I can't imagine cut-and-cover being utilized, really, because tunnelling has definitely improved in recent years. A quick check of Swiss mountain rail and highway projects, for example, boggle the mind.

That being said, I can already hear the howls of protest by west-enders in NDG, VSP, and Lachine should such excuses persist and the powers-that-be decide willy-nilly to run a new tunnel into Nuns' Island or some other "more deserving" place beforehand!

If west-enders really want their Metro, they'll damn well get it--someday!

[SMS]

Thanks M.L. for the detailed reply of the metro, of which you certainly know a great history thanks to the old documents, but back on topic to today's meeting

http://stm.info/en-bref/ordre-du-jour_CA080604.pdf

Only items of interest, personally, are the following

- 74 Bridge to receive all day service soon (go Griffintown!)

- 11 Montagne to receive modified itinerary and operation times?!

[Tranzit]

Thanks M.L. for the detailed reply of the metro, of which you certainly know a great history thanks to the old documents, but back on topic to today's meeting

http://stm.info/en-bref/ordre-du-jour_CA080604.pdf

Only items of interest, personally, are the following

- 74 Bridge to receive all day service soon (go Griffintown!)

- 11 Montagne to receive modified itinerary and operation times?!

How will they modify route 11? Run it around the edge of Beaver Lake? Or do they plan to run it to the CDN Metro as I have suggested?

And what about the proposed new route for Old Montreal--presumably along de la Commune Street?

I caught the end of Marvin Rotrand jabbering about this on the evening news.

[SMS]

I have a feeling that the 515 will be very close to what the 26 was.

[TrueNorth]

Todays Gazette had a map of the new bus line through Old Montreal on page A6. It looks like it will run circular, along Berri St., de la Commune St., Peel St. and René Lévesque Blvd., will also cross the Griffintown neighborhood south of downtown. They say it's a precursor to the proposed tram line.

Some tidbits in the link...

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...a1-2e688a75d1db

[SMS]

This is a dumbass move!

Give the tramway to overcrowded bus routes that need a high capacity solution! Not a freaking tourist tramway that will never see the load of a route like Park Ave, Cote-des-Neiges, even Papineau!

[Tranzit]

This is a dumbass move!

Give the tramway to overcrowded bus routes that need a high capacity solution! Not a freaking tourist tramway that will never see the load of a route like Park Ave, Cote-des-Neiges, even Papineau!

Actually, Montreal needs a tourist line again, considering it has been several decades since they took away the popular 11 tram route over Mount Royal.

Many major cities have such tram or light rail lines focussing on the tourist trade. Why shouldn't we--again?

Personally, I can't see us ripping up major, busy streets like Park Avenue to re-install tram tracks, whereas the new proposed line will rejuvenate a long-neglected part of town.

Some merchants will always whine about new plans because they fear their livelihoods will be threatened. Remember all of the opposition to the Loblaw's being built next to Park Avenue Metro? That neighbourhood has been transformed for the better.

In hindsight, Toronto was wise to keep many of their tram lines intact. New Orleans, San Francisco, etc.

[SMS]

If the tourists are the main beneficiaries of said line, then let THEM pay for it and let government tax money go to the locals, I mean come on... you have to see it this way... why should the crushloads on Saint-Michel suffer in unventilated vandalized buses while the old Montreal tramway runs quasi-empty at the same exact time. Unless they run the damn thing every 20 mins so that it IS crushloaded and then can be seen as a success by the ignorant media. Also what service levels can we see with this thing. No streetcar in Toronto runs inferior to 10 mins last I recall. Our service standards blow/suck comparatively so how frequent service will be seen? The whole way this project is marketed is for suckers. For example saying it goes to Berri passing the new CHUM(bucket) superhospital. No one wants to walk two blocks south of Berri-UQAM Stn? This is an aberrant fantasy... which I hope will never come to realization and I would sign any petition blocking it. Some of you guys are proponents of walking and all points served by this tramway are no more than a 10 minute walk away from the orange line...

[Tranzit]

If the tourists are the main beneficiaries of said line, then let THEM pay for it and let government tax money go to the locals, I mean come on... you have to see it this way... why should the crushloads on Saint-Michel suffer in unventilated vandalized buses while the old Montreal tramway runs quasi-empty at the same exact time. Unless they run the damn thing every 20 mins so that it IS crushloaded and then can be seen as a success by the ignorant media. Also what service levels can we see with this thing. No streetcar in Toronto runs inferior to 10 mins last I recall. Our service standards blow/suck comparatively so how frequent service will be seen? The whole way this project is marketed is for suckers. For example saying it goes to Berri passing the new CHUM(bucket) superhospital. No one wants to walk two blocks south of Berri-UQAM Stn? This is an aberrant fantasy... which I hope will never come to realization and I would sign any petition blocking it. Some of you guys are proponents of walking and all points served by this tramway are no more than a 10 minute walk away from the orange line...

Spoilsport!

C'mon, it won't come out of your paycheck, and besides, this is all part of the entire Old Port upgrade outlined long ago by the Federal, Provincial, and Municipal gov'ts. Much still needs to be completed around there, particularly at the foot of Peel where they spent a lot of money re-excavating those old flour basins just south of the railway overpass near the bike-path. A tram line beginning at Dorchester Square would be perfect, as it would definitely rejuvenate that neighbourhood with its abandoned buildings and empty streets.

As for "crushloads on St. Michel": I thought the fleet of artics was going to be the solution to such issues?

For years I've been walking down Peel to the Old Port along virtually the exact same route the proposed tram line will take, so I can clearly envisage it, and it will be a welcome change from the Victoria Square Metro/Place d'Armes Metro routine.

Anyway, the advent of a Common Street bus route/tram line will hopefully begin the process of eliminating much of the ridiculous and unnecessary traffic which crawls along Old Montreal's narrow streets which were obviously built for horse wagons. All of those smug-looking bozos showing off their gas-guzzlers is not what I go down there to see--nor do the tourists.

Having said all that, I still think they ought to run route 55 to the bottom (and to the top). Hope Marvin is reading this.

[dj.surf.lfs]

I'm all in for a tourist BUS route in Old Montreal, maybe run by a retro-looking trolley that some cities like Hamilton have... But as for building a REAL tramway, I would suggest putting it on the Parc/CDN corridor. Or make the downtown area Ride Free Area, the tourists AND the locals would REALLY appreaciate that. (I must be dreaming again...)

[SMS]

Griffintown competing with St. Catherine Street will mean someone loses. Expect one of the two to go the way of St. Cath between Atwater and Guy immediately after the forum closed because that's what you'll get when you have competing commercial centres a mile apart from each other. I'm not in favour of killing downtown.

Well... it sure won't come out of my paycheck. It might come out someone's pension fund though... quick, everyone, to the Caisse de Depots et de Placements!!

Anyway I refuse to hear any of this. This will only serve a minority of Montrealers and commuters for such a large capital project. Ironically when the line goes dead you will need to bustitute it. See Toronto and how it works there.

Questions:

- where will the tramway division and maintenance facility be located?

- how will it be integrated into the rest of the tramway network or will it stand alone and be isolated? no one has mentioned anything

- will the tramway be in reserved lane or be stuck in vehicular traffic? once it's stuck, try getting out...

- how many passengers per hour does the tramway hope to carry during maximum usage? compare this to other heavy duty lines

- will there be turnaround loops along this trajectory to short turn vehicles? if there is no provision, you can paint yourself into a corner very easily

Hah! I'd sooner suggest a tramway to replace 105 Sherbrooke before I hear anything of a tramway for the spoiled tourists who go into the fake and expensive reality of Old Montreal, replete of chiffons bleues just for the Yanks!

[Tranzit]

The fact that it seems to be taking forever to get this project rolling is probably due to the very questions you are posing, i.e., the basic infrastructure, land purchasing, loop tracks, rights-of-way, etc.

I can only assume the project management has taken all of this into consideration. There is much unused space in Griffintown where a spur track and tram garage can be built--especially near Bridge and Wellington where a section of the old rail yards can be put to good use once again.

As for the the Ste. Catherine Street corridor: it is well-established and secure. Yes, the old Forum area needs some rehabilitation, but it will happen soon enough. If anything threatened downtown commerce, it would be the suburban malls.

In any event, despite all the naysaying, this is the best project proposed for the area in years. Indeed, it may even create a good excuse to get those great old trams out of the CRHA Museum's mothballs and run them on this line! I would definitely love to see that!

Other dumb proposals like the Hollywood-type studio complex (remember that?!) was ridiculous, and the idea of moving the Casino there met with stiff resistance from the local residents. That was a very bad idea!

So...bring on the trams!

[mtltransitguy]

Griffintown competing with St. Catherine Street will mean someone loses. Expect one of the two to go the way of St. Cath between Atwater and Guy immediately after the forum closed because that's what you'll get when you have competing commercial centres a mile apart from each other. I'm not in favour of killing downtown.

Well... it sure won't come out of my paycheck. It might come out someone's pension fund though... quick, everyone, to the Caisse de Depots et de Placements!!

Anyway I refuse to hear any of this. This will only serve a minority of Montrealers and commuters for such a large capital project. Ironically when the line goes dead you will need to bustitute it. See Toronto and how it works there.

Questions:

- where will the tramway division and maintenance facility be located?

- how will it be integrated into the rest of the tramway network or will it stand alone and be isolated? no one has mentioned anything

- will the tramway be in reserved lane or be stuck in vehicular traffic? once it's stuck, try getting out...

- how many passengers per hour does the tramway hope to carry during maximum usage? compare this to other heavy duty lines

- will there be turnaround loops along this trajectory to short turn vehicles? if there is no provision, you can paint yourself into a corner very easily

Hah! I'd sooner suggest a tramway to replace 105 Sherbrooke before I hear anything of a tramway for the spoiled tourists who go into the fake and expensive reality of Old Montreal, replete of chiffons bleues just for the Yanks!

That's what I was going to say, except with a little less sarcasm and toned down.

It's a joke, why should we suffer on ridiculously packed buses while visitors are spoiled like fat pigs?

Tremblay is the biggest idiot this side of the border....putting visitors before the citizens, he deserve a big royal F-U.

[TrueNorth]

It looks like there will be 3 Tram lines, I didn't catch all the details on CTV News but there looks to be one running from Jean-Talon down Parc, in addition to the Old Port line, I didn't hear where the 3rd line was, but they all go downtown & the 1st one is supposed to be running around 2013. A lot of this could be paid for by the controversial tolls.

Edit: OK it looks like there is a video here under Transport Plan here: http://montreal.ctv.ca/cfcf/news/cfcf#news_22686 this link is probably temporary. But the 3rd line is also from Jean-Talon down Cote-des-Neiges.

[Tranzit]

So, "...a shrug and a smile...", is reportedly all we've got from Mayor Tremblay regarding any hope of extending the Metro Blue Line into the west end.

Gee, thanks, Mr. Mayor! And, oh, by the way, did you you ever once consider that you and your party may lose upcoming elections which would, no doubt, throw all of your plans down the toilet.

Rest assured that given the time to complete any, much less all, of these proposals will require that absolutely nothing else interfere with or get in the way of them happening.

The opposition party has, needless to say, offered nothing less than some ridiculous Old Port plan to bulldoze everything east of Berri Street to Frontenac--which would require the railway and Molson to abandon their properties!

Yeah, right! Dream on!

[Tranzit]

Further to the above, I find it incomprehensible that Marvin Rotrand--a resident of the west end--as well as officials and residents of Lachine, Ville St. Pierre, have had virtually nothing to say about extending the Blue Line to their part of town.

Isn't it odd: year after year, the city trots out some "Master Plan" which blatantly ignores the west end and not a whimper is heard.

Now that the prospect of actually having the cash on hand to make important extensions, guess who gets left out--again!

In my opinion, it would be much more appreciated to extend the Blue Line west than to build a tram line from Jean Talon down Cote des Neiges. Would such a tram line really make a difference? I doubt it. This proposal came right out of the blue with little if any study or consultation.

Besides, anyone who knows anything about tram lines understands that they are more successful when they have total right-of-way (i.e. an exclusive median) and not have to battle vehicular traffic.