Some Thoughts on the Montréal Metro

 In addition to the REM, of course, Montréal has an older mass transit system, the Metro. 

I love the logo (that down-pointing arrow is very clear that we're talking about an underground system, but also visually distinct and identifiable). But I have other thoughts, and they aren't necessarily quite as complimentary.

1. Needs Updating

Montréal is spending a massive amount to expand the Metro right now, and while I think the costs are way too high the need for the system to expand and develop is certainly there.

But before spending billions on expansion (or while doing so) there are some more basic updates that would help a lot.

As I recently mentioned, there are details in these Metro system maps that I love. But one glaring absence is the entire existence of the REM. 

I know they're different systems built by different companies, but they share fares (thank God for that) and more broadly they're both crucial parts of the overall transit and urbanist experience in Montréal. They should both be on the maps. I realize these maps are older than the REM, but that's just a sign that the stations really haven't been updated in too long.

These maps, while again helpful in some ways, are also just as or even more out of date.

And that's before I get to the Blue Line, which is running rolling stock that the other lines would be embarrassed to see on their tracks.

Boxy, old, and while I love the retro aesthetic the contrast is really harsh with even the other Metro lines, let alone the REM.

It's not like the Metro doesn't have nice trains! They just are highly segregated by line, and that makes parts of the system feel laggard. Now, the extension is coming on the Blue Line and I believe that will bring new rolling stock too, but for now it's pretty stark.

Updating the station displays and the Blue Line rolling stock would make the system feel a lot more modern.

2. Lovely Stations, If Kept Up

That said, I really like the incorporation of public art into the stations on the Metro, and I think that with touch ups and updates (see above) they could really still feel pretty darn nice.

Little things like this concrete inset take the stations from "just Brutalist" to "cool Brutalist" in my opinion.

And this, at Jean-Talon station, is again retro but cool instead of just retro-and-old like the trains themselves.

And I have always loved the giant cubes at Namur.

3. Suffering by Contrast

The real thought I have on the Montréal Metro is that it's an OK system, even good, that suffers mightily by contrast with its new partner, the REM.

The newer rolling stock has nice interiors, clear gangways, and good lighting. Perhaps it speaks to the low standards for urban transit in North America generally that I think the Metro would actually rank quite highly in my personal system ranking for the continent (or rather Canada-US, excluding México; I should really visit there so I can talk more coherently about that) if I ever got around to doing them. But REM's existence casts its difficulties and weaknesses into starker relief, since they serve the same city. No platform screen doors (unlike REM); more expensive to build and (obviously) less extensive recent expansion; the older rolling stock and station signage; no airport link (which REM is eventually supposed to deliver).

It has weird and distinctive bits (like the above doors, which half-pivot rather than either being rotating or simply opening). These can be cool and distinct, or they can feel dated and annoying. Metro would, I think, fall more on the former if they didn't have the REM as a contrast.

And I think that should be more of a call to action than a condemnation. REM was just built in Montréal. There's no reason Metro can't build in Montréal, or update its current status in Montréal. 

And if it can, Montréal could really elevate itself over Toronto, Vancouver, and the various US cities with metros--because it has great scaffolding for that with these two systems.