Public meetings of the STM Board of Directors

[SMS]

From June 2008 - adjustments of service midday for the following lines:

159 MB: 20 mins midday in both directions.

173 MB: 20 mins midday in both directions. Two directions midday only.

190 MB: 20 mins midday. Unidirectional with directional change towards the flow at noon.

199 MB: 20 mins midday in both directions only between Cadillac Stn and Armand-Bombardier/Perras without serving the industrial park sector. Two scenarios will be tested in this borough to determine the return route of buses on local roads. To be determined.

420 EX: 20 mins midday. Unidirectional with directional change towards the flow at noon. EHLALA Steve!

430 EX: 20 mins midday. Unidirectional with directional change towards the flow at noon.

268 TB: Extended to Cote-Vertu Stn all day. 30 mins midday. Two directions midday only. One stop at Grenet/Poirier for Bombardier factory and addition of same stops westbound to match eastbound stops on Gouin between Grenet and Roxboro Stn, since the 268 PM currently starts at this station.

The new Planibi for the forthcoming board period:

159 midday service

http://stm.info/bus/planibus/159.pdf

173 eastbound service ends before PM rush; westbound service starts after AM rush

190 eastbound service ends at noon; westbound service starts at noon http://stm.info/bus/planibus/173.pdf

199 midday service

http://stm.info/bus/planibus/199.pdf

210 new midday service

http://stm.info/bus/planibus/210.pdf

268 eastbound service ends after start of PM rush; westbound service starts late AM rush and ends during PM rush

http://stm.info/bus/planibus/261.pdf

420 eastbound service ends at noon; westbound service starts at noon http://stm.info/bus/planibus/420.pdf

430 westbound service ends at noon; eastbound service begins at noon http://stm.info/bus/planibus/430.pdf

505 R-Bus becomes 505 Express Pie-IX

http://stm.info/bus/planibus/139.pdf

210 and 219 have modified trajectories

[Tranzit]

(SMS Quote) Keep the Trolleys - Lose the Hybrids! (Unquote)

Huh? I thought you were anti-tram and anti-trolley?

[SMS]

I don't have to justify anything to someone hiding behind a pseudonym but since you have called me an anti- , then open your eyes: I am against frivolous tourist tramways that do not serve the greater good, and as for the anti trolleybus remark, I will ignore that seeing as how I spend my hard earned money to go visit them in Edmonton... wow... any more assumptions and slander to go around?

[Tranzit]

I don't have to justify anything to someone hiding behind a pseudonym but since you have called me an anti- , then open your eyes: I am against frivolous tourist tramways that do not serve the greater good, and as for the anti trolleybus remark, I will ignore that seeing as how I spend my hard earned money to go visit them in Edmonton... wow... any more assumptions and slander to go around?

Well...um...then why include (and keep on repeating) in your posts that large font message in the first place?

Anyone reading it would automatically assume you are making that specific statement for a reason.

Not sure why you don't like hybrids, though.

Anyway, no offence was intended. Hope you enjoy your trolley rides.

[SMS]

A trolley is a trolleybus I don't know why people call streetcars/tramways/LRT trolleys but let me put that misnomer and any other to rest here and now.

Hybrids... hah... do a little search in the Toronto and Edmonton section to see just how "effective" their hybrids are... minimal fuel economy for a premium priced bus?? Please!

Since you've meant no offense then I am pleased, hope everyone here has read the clarification.

[Tranzit]

Remember the Edmonton Trolleys!

Are they soon to be de-commissioned?

Remember the Montreal trolleys!

[SMS]

It's over

[L.M.]

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!

Oh, my explanations were not intended to provide a justification for the cancellation of the project! Nor that I wanted to imply that soil problems would pose a decisive obstacle to tunnel builders.

Many explanations can be given why line 5 was stopped at Snowdon (lack of justification, of estimated patrons, high cost…) but I think one word can resume best what happened: timing. SMS said that only the eastward extension of line 1 was built according to original plans drafted in 1971 and he’s right. But if the plans weren’t changed for the tunnel heading for Beaugrand terminal, it could also simply be explained by the fact that this extension was priority number one and that people didn’t really have time to question it! In addition, many contracts were already attributed for this specific extension when costs began an escalation that never really ended after oil crisis erupted in 1973. Estimated total cost for the project then changed for 430M$ (1971) to 1596M$ (1976), including some additions to the original plan (like westward extension of line 5 in NdG). l really liked the interview given in 2004 by ex-BTM executive director Gérard Gascon to Benoît Clairoux (see Info-STM, February 15th, 2004) where the engineer said that he thinks maybe the complete plan with line 2 ending at Cartierville and line 5 running from Lachine to Montréal-Nord would have be achieved if construction had started in 1967 or 1968… And don’t forget that line 5 was phased in fourth (and last) position in BTM’s planning.

When a moratorium was imposed by (a liberal) Québec government on subway extensions in May 1976, only the section between Clanranald and McKenna streets was in the construction phase for line 5 (tunnel builders were currently digging between Namur and Plamondon for north-westward line 2 extension). In 1977, a study recommended to build line 5 in three phases: Amos-Parc first, then Parc-Snowdon and finally Snowdon-Lafleur… In 1978, Québec gave the GO for tunnel digging between Parc and Saint-Michel and, finally completely changed its mind and the contents of the whole project in December 1979 with cancellation west of Snowdon and a major reorientation of the route east of Saint-Michel. Time was for « surface metro » but these grandiose views never materialized…

But this was a long time ago. As for the possibility to extend line 5 west of Snowdon in 2008, I’m far from being sure that this project would be able to compete with others (line 5 to Anjou, line 2 to Bois-Franc, SLR A-10, Dorval Airport Shuttle, etc.). Joël Gauthier (chairman of the AMT) confirmed in a speech given earlier this spring that there was definitely not enough money for all transit projects currently planned (I doubt that the west extension of line 5 is part of those) and that AMT was working on indicators to help planners and politicians to make appropriate decisions.

Anyway, arguments like "okay, let’s build it as it was planned in 1979" or "we westerners deserve a subway extension" are not enough. From a strict technical point of view (excluding the social and political debate), we would have to go back at the drawing board, use new data and our modeling tools to develop a new project with a couple of alternatives. Costs would be assessed. Network and transit modeling would give us some results (estimated transit patrons on each line during rush hour for example), so we would be able to do some cost-benefit analysis. Using some indicators (like: cost for each hour of travel time saved), we would be able to assess the utility of the project and of other alternatives. After that, we would make our recommendations and leave the ground to social and political debate…

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! :angry:

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.

À plus long terme, d’autres prolongements méritent de faire l’objet d’études d’opportunité, notamment des prolongements vers l’ouest des lignes verte et bleue sur l’Île de Montréal et des prolongements à Longueuil et à Laval.

Oops. A blue-line westward extension is not completely phased out after all. I agree we’re a bit far from construction though. But never forget that every project has to start with that kind of examination (and besides, we planners need some work to do!)…

Sources:

Interview with Gérard Gascon, http://www.stm.info/info/infostm/2004/040205.pdf

Plan de transport de Montréal, p. 69.

[SMS]

Thank you!

[Tranzit]

All the gobbledegook aside, I won't hold my breath.

[SMS]

Face it, L.M.'s arguments are solid and proven... you would do well to acknowledge them since he did the research for it vs speculation, hearsay, and assumptions typical to all message boards worldwide.

[Tranzit]

Face it, L.M.'s arguments are solid and proven... you would do well to acknowledge them since he did the research for it vs speculation, hearsay, and assumptions typical to all message boards worldwide.

Who says I don't acknowledge them? And does it mean I have to like them?

Politicians can (and do!) argue over whatever they wish; despite their promises, and too often to the detriment of what the public needs and deserves.

All anyone has to do is read this: http://www.stm.info/English/en-bref/leading.htm

to learn all they need to know about how such major projects get kicked around ad infinitum until someone in authority finally sees the light and steps up to the bar to initiate the inevitable--usually a visionary like Mayor Jean Drapeau.

Unfortunately, however, there hasn't been anyone like him in City Hall or Quebec City for quite some time, and until that happens, we can all forget about a Metro Blue Line extension within the next twenty years at least.

In any event, I am hardly "alone in the wilderness" about this, and simply because I get annoyed about it and post my concerns in a public forum only proves that most everybody else directly affected by it has been too polite on this subject.

Do you believe a similar situation would occur in the U.S.A? Can you imagine, say, Brooklynites sitting idly by if Subway lines routinely went elsewhere? Ha! The public would be in an uproar, talk show switchboards would light up, and Larry King would regularly have guests hammering home their points until they got what they wanted. Believe it.

Canadians, I am sad to say, have a tendency to take it on the chin by their politicians.

Whimpering dogs don't get fed. They get kicked.

[SMS]

Are you of the following mentality? I have saved an e-mail received from a guy on a transport mailing group to which I belong. Maybe you feel this way. I find the comments interesting enough to question if this is indeed the case:

"I will tell you this about lack of subway service to

NDG and points west from a fromer elected official

with experience in the 1970s who will remain nameless.

When the original subway lines were built and opened

in 1966, the green line ended at Atwater station, the

western-most station at that time. A westward

extension to NDG along Sherbrooke West would have been

natural and logical. To determine the route of a line

extension west beyond Atwater Station, planners did an

origin-destination of the users. Since the users were

predominantly working class (read: lower) and without

cars, the green line was extended east to cover

Hochelaga-Maisonneuve BELOW Sherbrooke East instead of

running under Sherbrooke East after Frontenac Station,

while the other end was extended to Verdun and

Ville-Emard, which had a similar socio-economic

profile. That was a product of leftist thinking

prevalent in the early 1970s. Today we know this

customer study method is flawed because by targeting

the working class neighbourhoods, it positioned public

transit as transport for the poor, not for the public

at large whatever their socio-economic class. When

those 2 neighbourhoods de-industrialised in the early

1980s, the working classes there became the welfare

class, and ridership from those areas dropped. In

recent years, cheap housing in the east end, due to

its poverty, resulted in its gentrification, with

condos now becoming a substantial part of the housing

stock. Condos in Verdun and Ville-Emard came on board

only a few after the east end.

What do I mean by this? Omitted in the official

records about going to Verdun and Ville-Emard was the

difference in profile between Verdun and Ville-Emard

and NDG. To do the Verdun slalom is to really get out

of the way to spite someone. No one now will admit to

its existence, but it was mentioned at that time in

hushed tones. What profile is that? Anybody want to

guess?

People in the west end and the West Island have always

been on the short end of the deal when dealing with

the provincial government or the Island-wide MUC.

This is why they prefer do de-merge from Montreal

rather than perpertually fight for their fair share

and against insults that have nothing to do with the

issue at hand.

You will recognise, but I will rarely say this again,

that a rapid transit corridor between Dorval and

Atwater station under Sherbrooke West, so obvious and

simple then as it is today, will correct a fundamental

error in subway extension of so long ago..."

While there can be some truth in statements like this, we all need to face a simple fact - the money ran out and the priority projects got pushed on ahead first. I think we're lucky to have the metro we have after the ill-fated moratorium.

Don't talk to me about Drapeau, I think he was a bully and barely a visionary... copying the ideas of other greater cities... Saulnier and L'Allier are the brains behind the metro... read Clairoux (2001).

Comparing Montreal to Brooklyn... Montreal will never have the system Brooklyn has although they will probably never have light rail, MTA being bus lovers.

Mind you, I feel that the metro would have benefited NDG better by going under Girouard than Northcliffe... too late to change that unfortunately.

[L.M.]

Are you of the following mentality? I have saved an e-mail received from a guy on a transport mailing group to which I belong. Maybe you feel this way. I find the comments interesting enough to question if this is indeed the case:

"I will tell you this about lack of subway service to NDG and points west from a fromer elected official with experience in the 1970s who will remain nameless.

When the original subway lines were built and opened in 1966, the green line ended at Atwater station, the western-most station at that time. A westward extension to NDG along Sherbrooke West would have been natural and logical. To determine the route of a line extension west beyond Atwater Station, planners did an origin-destination of the users. Since the users were predominantly working class (read: lower) and without cars, the green line was extended east to cover Hochelaga-Maisonneuve BELOW Sherbrooke East instead of running under Sherbrooke East after Frontenac Station, while the other end was extended to Verdun and Ville-Emard, which had a similar socio-economic profile. That was a product of leftist thinking prevalent in the early 1970s. Today we know this

customer study method is flawed because by targeting the working class neighbourhoods, it positioned public transit as transport for the poor, not for the public at large whatever their socio-economic class. When those 2 neighbourhoods de-industrialised in the early 1980s, the working classes there became the welfare class, and ridership from those areas dropped. In recent years, cheap housing in the east end, due to its poverty, resulted in its gentrification, with condos now becoming a substantial part of the housing stock. Condos in Verdun and Ville-Emard came on board only a few after the east end.

What do I mean by this? Omitted in the official records about going to Verdun and Ville-Emard was the difference in profile between Verdun and Ville-Emard and NDG. To do the Verdun slalom is to really get out of the way to spite someone. No one now will admit to its existence, but it was mentioned at that time in hushed tones. What profile is that? Anybody want to guess?

People in the west end and the West Island have always been on the short end of the deal when dealing with the provincial government or the Island-wide MUC. This is why they prefer do de-merge from Montreal rather than perpertually fight for their fair share and against insults that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

You will recognise, but I will rarely say this again, that a rapid transit corridor between Dorval and Atwater station under Sherbrooke West, so obvious and simple then as it is today, will correct a fundamental error in subway extension of so long ago..."

Many the ideas exposed are interesting, but I don’t share the main point: that the planners made the wrong decisions by extending the network where workers and jobs where. It’s like to blame them for having put service where demand (transit patrons) was! Okay, transit use is not the same in 2008 in these areas as it was decades ago. This phenomenon is very well documented since 1970 when the first origin-destination survey was done. But if the modal split had diminished for transit in Verdun or the east end the same occurred elsewhere, including in NdG, the west island or the suburbs... If there are less people using transit, the fact that poorer people use more transit that people with higher income is also well known… I don't know exactly how they planned the extensions fourty years ago, but the tools and the data we use today for transit planning are much more sophisticated. Large scale surveys are done regularly and models are used to assess the impact of new infrastructure and service. Planners at the MTQ also developed tools to forecast the evolution of mobility based on analyses of census and origin-destination surveys and urban development and planning. I don’t say that planners are now gods who can predict the future use of roads and transit lines, but I think they have what’s needed for a good assessment of the situation and to provide advice to the population and those who are in power. For our predecessors, I think they did the best they could with what they had...

As for the westward extension of line 1 in the south-west, I don’t have the numbers, but it is commonly known that transit users didn’t come in the numbers expected. The main reason for that seems to be related to the ‘slalom’ of the tunnel between Atwater and Angrignon: the 180° curve between Atwater and Lionel-Groulx and the detour via Pointe-Saint-Charles set the pace for the rest of the ride: curves! By trying to go everywhere, you loose time and subway travel is not that competitive with bus or car when you live in LaSalle, Ville-Émard or Côte-Saint-Paul…

True: a straight line from Atwater toward Lachine under Sherbrooke Street seems attractive and I would bet this option was probably evaluated by BTM planners after 1967. But I don’t know the details and clearly, other scenarios prevailed. If you look at the numbers in Le transport public : un bond en avant published in 1970, the BTM was expecting a cost of 37 cents for any new passenger travelling on the extension of line 2 in the north-west, compared to 52 cents for possible Lachine (line 5) and LaSalle (line 1) extensions… Besides, extending the subway toward Dorval airport would have been a non-sense in the seventies because Mirabel was under construction and that the federal government had projected to transfer there most of the flights. A high speed train was envisioned between downtown and the new super airport. Well, you know what (did not) happened since…

Mind you, I feel that the metro would have benefited NDG better by going under Girouard than Northcliffe... too late to change that unfortunately.

Ha! I can tell you that there was a lot of debate over this in 1972 and 1973. Urban planners were in favor of Girouard, engineers favored Northcliffe. Guess who won? Technical problems involved by the Girouard option were huge: soil conditions were bad for tunnel builders and a 105' deep Girouard station was envisioned... or a viaduct over Décarie expressway and Sherbrooke Street! Conditions were better in the north and urban planners were very interested by a station at Guillaume-Couture (Côte-St-Luc). Engineers objected that this station would be too close to the one projected at Queen-Mary and Clanranald... Sometimes, I dream of using a time machine to visit these fellows to tell them some stories about the future.

[Tranzit]

What is perceived to be true is often more important than what is true...

Although interesting points have been made in the preceding analyses, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to look at a map of Montreal to see which districts have sufficient population density to require Metro service. Notice I use the word require not deserve.

From the very beginning, it was perhaps impossible to separate the political aspects of such a major project as the Metro from the geographical, but setting all of that aside, it is a matter of history that neighbourhoods change their demographic from generation to generation, so it matters little who is going to need and use that Metro line today, as it will most certainly change in the years ahead.

Is one to conclude that because the traditional perception may have been that NDG is "mostly English" or that "Lachine is mostly French" at any given point in time will forever set in stone who is rightfully "entitled" to a Metro line? Does it matter what language they speak, anyway? Won't their fares still count in the city coffers? Their taxes certainly do!

Mayor Tremblay's squabbles with Westmount, Dorval, and Beaconsfield, etc., should have absolutely nothing to do with residents of NDG and Lachine, anyway.

Historically as well, Montreal has predominantly been a city of renters with many districts consisting of apartment buildings--just as in NDG and Lachine--tenants who would without question take advantage of a Metro service rather than drive their own cars--a prospect which has even more recently become prohibitive, in any case.

The tentative Metro plan of 1944, by the way, did indeed propose a line running under Ste. Catherine St. and further westward and closer to NDG-- not swerving south into Verdun and LaSalle. Of course, the political climate was quite different then! None of this "us versus them" mentality.

In the years ahead, one can only hope that influential members of the city council who are supposed to represent the interests of NDG, VSP, and Lachine will make their voices heard loud and clear, otherwise we can only expect more of the same indifference.

No reasonably-populated district ought to be denied a Metro line, whether it be in the north, south, east or the west. What irks me is that the west continues to be bypassed every time some so-called "Master Plan" is announced. There always seems to be that inevitable undercurrent of, "'No, no, it's needed more in the east...no, wait, let's do Laval...gee, let's make an extension to Pie IX.", etc. One cannot see this attitude as anything less than petty politicking. How do you think the residents of Ville d'Anjou would feel if they were to be ignored for the next 20 years?

I say: be fair and even-handed when it comes to Metro extensions. Do not continually ignore one area over another.

Erratum: The reference by one forum member to Guillaume-Couture being associated in someway with Cote St. Luc has to be in error. My street directories show two streets with that name and they are nowhere near Cote St. Luc.

[L.M.]

Erratum: The reference by one forum member to Guillaume-Couture being associated in someway with Cote St. Luc has to be in error. My street directories show two streets with that name and they are nowhere near Cote St. Luc.

Sorry Tranzit, but place Guillaume-Couture really exists. It’s not well known though and I apologize for not being clearer in my previous post. Place Guillaume-Couture is a very little green space located at the intersection of chemin de la Côte-Saint-Luc and de Terrebonne / Earnscliffe streets, east of Girouard.

The best way to find any place in Montréal is to use the “Navigateur urbain” web page of the city of Montréal. That’s the “official site” for anything related to streets, services, district boundaries and so forth... Look at: http://www.navurb.com

Huh. I read again your message and I understand now what you mean: you actually thought that I was talking about the city of Côte-Saint-Luc! Nah, I was referring to the street. Those who studied to build a subway line under Girouard street looked for Sherbrooke and Place Guillaume-Couture (near Côte-Saint-Luc as we know now) as the possible locations for stations. Another argument against the Girouard corridor was that it would represent an additional detour for users coming from the north since it was established very soon that Victoria Street was a much more interesting corridor than Décarie, north of Queen-Mary road… The MUC executive committee finally took the side of BTM engineers and chose the Northcliffe/Décarie corridor in 1973. End of story for a Girouard subway.

[Tranzit]

Sorry Tranzit, but place Guillaume-Couture really exists. It’s not well known though and I apologize for not being clearer in my previous post. Place Guillaume-Couture is a very little green space located at the intersection of chemin de la Côte-Saint-Luc and de Terrebonne / Earnscliffe streets, east of Girouard.

The best way to find any place in Montréal is to use the “Navigateur urbain” web page of the city of Montréal. That’s the “official site” for anything related to streets, services, district boundaries and so forth... Look at: http://www.navurb.com

Huh. I read again your message and I understand now what you mean: you actually thought that I was talking about the city of Côte-Saint-Luc! Nah, I was referring to the street. Those who studied to build a subway line under Girouard street looked for Sherbrooke and Place Guillaume-Couture (near Côte-Saint-Luc as we know now) as the possible locations for stations. Another argument against the Girouard corridor was that it would represent an additional detour for users coming from the north since it was established very soon that Victoria Street was a much more interesting corridor than Décarie, north of Queen-Mary road… The MUC executive committee finally took the side of BTM engineers and chose the Northcliffe/Décarie corridor in 1973. End of story for a Girouard subway.

If I'd blinked, I'd have missed the place! Place Guillaume-Couture, eh!

It would have been nice if the city had taken public consultations to choose a name more representative of this district, of course, but I suppose it could have been worse, when you consider how they had to embarrassingly backtrack on Nelson and Winnie Mandela Park--the "Winnie" name having later been filed completely off of the park's metal plaque! That afterthought was so obvious, you'd think they have simply replaced the plaque completely...but no!

Yes, I am familiar with the spot to which you refer (if not having paid attention to the name they arbitrarily christened it with!), as it was where the original tram line curved east and then north onto the private right-of-way just west of Earnscliffe. That oddball junction has seen many alterations over the years. A good enough spot for a future Metro station, I suppose, yet only one of many possibilities. More than likely they'd have expropriated one of the nearby gas stations or other commercial establishments instead, but, needless to say, all such speculation is academic at this stage of the game.

The Orange Line's eventual course was logical and reasonable, however, considering the density of apartment buildings it serves, even going so far as to recognize that same higher population density as it swerved further east of Decarie from Snowdon Metro and then up through the Cote des Neiges district, Plamondon, etc., and then back west again at Namur.

But rather than spend our time speculating on where the Blue Line will eventually run, it would be preferable to be more demanding to our local politicians like Mr. Rotrand who, although like a chameleon he has somehow managed to maintain his position in city hall through several administrations, he has largely been ineffective; unable or unwilling to stand up for his constituents when it comes to Metro extensions in his district. He should do his job or get out, in my opinion.

I remember in the archives seeing a 1940s newspaper cartoon showing a man looking down an open manhole in the street. On the sidewalk are two other men watching him, one of which says sarcastically: "He's looking for the Metro."

[dj.surf.lfs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Plan-métro-Dorval.jpg

Just found this... Is this the blue line west extension that they were talking about??

[SMS]

That thing is a pipe dream and whoever who uploaded that should be ashamed of themselves for misleading the public. This is indeed one of those cases where Wikipedia should not be trusted.

[glaframb]

SMS is right ! Think about it for a moment! The plan says that the metro will be in surface along highway 20 . I don't think the ministère des transport du Québec (MTQ) want to see the metro using the same path as the Highway 20! Remember what happened in Sao Paolo, Bresil.

Secondly, People who goes to airport have more baggages than regular folks who take the metro. In most cities in the world, Yes, they had special transit service to their airport but the use separate line with adapted materials. That's why! it is making more senses to use a 150 m$ train shuttle between Downtown and Dorval Airport with limited stop along those two end than a 2 billions dollars metro extension to Dorval.

[SMS]

Merci Ghislain! Right on brotha! What an idea... no one has seen any blue line projections west of Ville-St-Pierre. What YUL will receive on the other hand is heavy rail. And that is what I favour big time!

[SMS]

Back on original topic for a change.

http://stm.info/en-bref/ordre-du-jour_CA080703.pdf

Items of interest:

- Old age shuttles to return, new sectors though - Montreal-Nord, Rosemont, St-Michel.

- Itinerary change for route 12

- Longer hours of service for routes 29, 31, 61, 78, and 138

There might be more, depending on your interests.

[stm_5307N]

- Longer hours of service for routes 29, 31, 61, 78, and 138

It's about time they run the 138 passed 8pm! That gives me more options now to get around in NDG by bus.

[M. David]

It's about time they run the 138 passed 8pm! That gives me more options now to get around in NDG by bus.

I've been saying for years that the 138 and several other routes should have their hours extended to at least midnight. I guess the STM finally realized that it was time to do so.

Now, if only they could increase the frequency on this route, the 104, and the 162 as well, then everything would be great.

[kellergraham]

[*]NEW ROUTE ALERT! "220-Kieran"..something about a partnership agreement. Map of "Kieran" Street

Without much fanfare or many departures, route 220 began service July 2nd. Only 2 departures towards Kieran street (at around 14:30 and 22:30) and one return to Du College at around 23:15. Times might be off as I very quickly glanced at the "Avis" at Du College.

EDIT: Stop is twined with 175 at Du College.