Don't Sleep on the REM

 Pun in the title aside, I did get to go to Montréal and I do like the REM, their new "light rail" that is really just an automated metro like Vancouver's SkyTrain. I've talked about it a bit comparatively before, but I wanted to take a moment to talk about it on its own--because I think it's a great system and one that more cities should emulate. 

Heck, Montréal should emulate it itself, since it didn't opt into the REM de l'Est, which would have been a big expansion of the system that they should still totally do--especially if they can do it at REM prices, rather than at the prices they're spending on expanding their Metro at the same time (as Reece Martin has written convincingly about). 

So let me tell you why the REM is such a great system, from the user's perspective at least, and why I'm so excited that the REM is going to the airport soon. 

1. Great Signposting and Information

Look, I don't usually focus on signposting and information, since I tend to copiously research my transit plans in advance of going somewhere, just because I enjoy doing that.

But the REM blew me away.

Clear signage of where you are and what there is to do around there (in this case, not much, but the clarity was good).

These great indicators (which timed up with my camera lens so that it looks striated here, but I promise they look solid in real life) show how empty or full the car that's coming is. It wasn't that useful at the end of the line where I took the photo (they're...all empty) but it will age well with the system as ridership hopefully increases, and it is useful in the more central areas.

Even clear signage in the surrounding areas telling you how connections to the REM are being created and modified by the changes to bus routes around them.

"On se connecte au REM" (roughly, we connect to the REM) indeed.

The little system maps above the doors are a nice touch too, though I can't wait for that A2 extension to the airport to come online...

2. Really Solid Ride

The riding experience on the REM is also excellent, from the stations (spacious, well-lit, platform screen doors) to the actual seated ride. 

I am converted to the idea of the platform screen doors: much quieter and less draughty than the equivalent on the Montréal Metro, which doesn't have them.

The interiors are much less tramlike and much more metrolike than I was afraid of, and frankly feel capacious and comfortable.

Nice open gangways through large parts of the train (though not the whole train like say the Toronto Subway's new cars).

I liked riding REM cars, in contrast to their Metro and other systems I've ridden recently.

3. Opening Up Montréal

Fundamentally, what these elements of a good system mean is that the REM opens up new angles on Montréal, even for locals, that weren't available just from the buses and the Metro. It produces new links, both with and in separate complement to the other systems, and connects areas that were disparate before. Climbing over Mont-Royal is a slog. Taking the bus over it isn't even an option. Going around is a bit annoying.

Taking the REM under it is easy-peasy.

This view is great, but it's not exactly an efficient way to get around town. The REM slides underneath this like it doesn't exist.

And that's only one example.

It opens up areas to the west (and if they ever re-commit to the REM de l'Est, the east too) that aren't served by the Metro or regional rail, and it really does create new options.

Unfortunately, these aren't shown on the maps in the regular Metro, which haven't been updated since I first visited the city decades ago.

But they exist, nonetheless.

And that's really exciting for the city. I think the REM is the best transit expansion I've been on in a city since I first rode Link light rail in Seattle--with all due respect to the Elizabeth line in London.

Now hopefully they can keep building on it, and not letting it stagnate.

Finch West Feedback

Since I talked about the Eglinton Crosstown, I figure I should also say something about the Finch West light rail, which I rode during the same weekend.

This line has already received some negative feedback, especially in urbanist circles, to the point where there were immediate changes proposed after it opened. 

So today, I want to focus on the positives. Yes, I think it's less-well-implemented than the Eglinton line. But I think there are good bones there and for many cities I've been in the Finch West would be a major upgrade. Just...not Toronto. But let's look on the bright side today!

1. Clear, Effective Advertising

One critique I have of many transit expansion plans and implementations that I've seen is that there may be very good reasons for the expansion and the expansion may be great on the ground, but it's not clearly communicating to the public what all this disruption and money and time was about.

Finch West, ironically for a project so bedeviled in the implementation, does not have that problem.

The TTC's branding and advertising around the new line are, to my eye, attractive, positive, and direct.

They are not afraid of telling you that this is good, that this is useful, or that this is an improvement for the whole region.

The branding is even directly imposed on the LRT trains themselves, not just in stationary stations where you would need to already be there to see the ad.

And I think it's a friendly, welcoming font and general color palette as well. Seeing this branding made me want to take this particular train (as opposed to my general orientation that I want to take any and all trains, of course) and that's to the good!

2. A Pleasant Experience

Look, speed is and remains an issue. But actually being on the train itself was a positive experience: that "1 smooth ride" branding isn't just talk.

The seats are comfortable and I like the colors. It's a pleasant LRT/tram/streetcar experience. Is it a metro? No. But for what it is trying to be, it does the on-ride experience well.

The stops are simple, but that helps keep costs down and they are certainly equal to or better than most surface-level tram stops I've encountered. And I like trams! 

There's decent cover, clear signage, and a decent waiting experience even in the rain when I took these photos.

Overall the physical experience of the system is a good one, and I think that that's something to build on.

3. Good Final Station

The Finch West LRT runs right into the main subway system, with a good connection at, unsurprisingly, Finch West.

The final stop is underground in a facility connected to the Finch West stop on the subway, and it's both easy to find and easy to get to.

I know this is a repeat picture, but again: very clear.

Now, it's not currently connected to any other part of the network (other than buses). But the potential exists for such connections--in theory it will hit GO trains and maybe even line 5 at the airport. And the fact that the final station is a good one is a sign that if the expansions to the network are done well, there's nothing that means that the other complaints about Line 6 have to be permanent. It could speed up; it can connect better; it can run faster and more often.

The potential is there. As I said, I know of other cities where the speed and frequency of this line would be desired. It's not at the level of Line 5 or the actual metro-type subways in Toronto, but it is, for example, much better than the TTC streetcars downtown.

It's something to build on, and I had a good time on it--even if I'm not going to pretend that it's a perfect system.

Eglinton Crosstown Considerations

When I recently visited Toronto, I found myself staying just off Eglinton Avenue, and thus primarily utilizing the Eglinton Crosstown extension of the TTC: a light rail that in many ways (including on the TTC maps) wants to be a subway.

Because where I was staying was directly on Line 5 (as it's designated) and my destinations largely weren't (shoutout to the Center for Renaissance and Reformation Studies at Victoria University, University of Toronto and to Snakes and Lattes), I took Line 5 a lot, including transfers to other lines and buses. And I have thoughts!

1. Seattle-Like

My first and dominant impression was that the line reminds me heavily of taking Sound Transit in Seattle. It's a light rail that operates more like a subway in terms of demand and frequency, but lacks the grade separation it should have for part of the route and has some weird variations in stop spacing and thus speed.

Also, visually, both involve cars that are a little less efficient at what they should be doing (carrying a ton of passengers) than they should be, because of their more tram-like design.

Both are/were also a single line (yes, I'm both aware and very happy that Seattle's is not anymore and that it's been a big boost to ridership, and obviously Toronto has other lines) that seems to fall a bit below expectations while still being awesome.

The stops that aren't underground could be a bit more physically protected from the elements, for instance, and definitely spaced further apart.

Basically what I mean by saying it's Seattle-like is that I'm so so glad it's open, but I have minor critiques of how it was designed and implemented that do not overall detract from that gladness.

2. Good Connections

Of course, where it's massively distinct from the 1 line or even the 2 line in Seattle is that it is the 5 line, and that means its intimately connected to a lot more transit than anything in Seattle is.

The connections to the 1 Line (Yonge-University) are pretty straightforward and generally well-marked, and allow the 5 be a fully-integrated part of the larger Toronto transit scheme. 

This is clearly and appreciably indicated at the stops as well, and honestly extending a lot further down Eglinton is a big boon to the overall transit health of the city/metro. Is it the full vision of Transit City? Probably not. Is it a meaningful upgrade? Oh yes.

Frankly this line unlocked a great deal of the eastern part of the city that I had previously found annoying to access, and the concomitant changes in bus service also made general access around the city better. Maybe Toronto should edge out Vancouver if I ran CityBracket again...but this line wasn't open yet, and we didn't know how it would turn out.

That's right, this actually opened this year, 2026: it's brand spanking new. And so it's good that it hasn't had quite the growing pains of its cousin, the 6 Line, which I'll get to in more detail than last time someday soon (yes, I rode that too). 

3. A Good Experience

That's the thing: overall, this is a good line. It's a good experience. Quick dwell times, even on weekends; quick transportation, unless you're literally going end to end; a good vehicle experience, though I do think they could be more subway-like and less tram-like and do a better job of throughput.

It would probably also help if they could be full walkthrough and if they were a bit clearer on the outside stops about where the trains will actually stop: they future-proofed the line to larger trains, but that means that the back of the stop usually doesn't actually have train doors.

They're good at indicating this at the underground stations (and the wayfinding in general is better than most North American transit I've seen) but not so much outdoors.

The trams are pretty, too.

The seats are comfortable, if again it would likely be even better if they were more subway-style, leaving more standing room around them.

And they are often faster than the traffic--though it would be nice if they didn't have to stop for the same lights.

Overall, I really enjoyed taking the Line 5 Eglinton Crosstown, and I highly recommend it to anyone visiting or transiting Toronto.

A Tale of Four Light Rails

 I recently had the opportunity to visit Toronto, which in turn recently opened two new light rail/tram/streetcar lines--with a distinction in branding that marks these lines as more intended to be part of the metro/subway network than the existing tram lines. Today I wanted to talk a little bit about my experience, and how these three different light rails (together with the also fairly new Montréal REM, which Google Maps has decided to also mark as a light rail) show very different sides of what we can mean when we say something is a "light rail"--and what makes a "light rail" effective.

1. Priority Matters

The single biggest difference between these various light rails is the degree of priority that each receives in relation to other transit modes serving the same space.

The regular Toronto trams (the 500 numbered streetcars) get no signal priority at all and are indeed just...on the street (with a few exceptions like the Queensway tunnel).

The Finch LRT, line 6, does better, because it mostly exists in a separate center lane, but it doesn't get signal priority at all and is mostly on the street surface, so it still stops at red lights--sometimes right in front of a station--and famously isn't necessarily faster than a person on foot.

The Eglinton LRT, line 5, is faster, not because it actually has signal priority, but because (despite the above picture), it spends a lot more time underground, and thus grade separated from the traffic.

This makes it act more like a metro, and therefore faster and less at the whims of traffic, lights, or anything but its own passengers and track.

And then there is our friend the REM, le Réseau Express Métropolitain, which is, despite Google's claims, actually an automated system like the Vancouver SkyTrain and maybe "light rail" but not a streetcar or tram at all in the way that the other systems are. It doesn't run on the street, because it's automated so its entire length is grade-separated to allow for that. It therefore needs no signal priority over cars because it doesn't even bother with them. I don't have a picture of just a train of it, because it has platform screen doors (above) which means that it's actually more advanced than most North American metro systems.

Yeah, it's basically just a second metro for Montréal, and good for them.

2. Capacity Matters

Here's where the REM is most like the other systems: they do all run "tram-like" vehicles, without full gangways between the cars across the whole train (unlike, say, the TTC Subway or some lines of the Montréal Metro). But the capacity differences are still surprising. Here the almost-entirely roadbound TTC streetcars fall woefully behind.

Even when they're grade-separated, like here, they're really just a couple units long, and combined with the slow speeds created by the lack of separation from cars, that means that you can't really get that many more people on them than you could on a bus line. 

Finch West LRT is a bit bigger, and the rolling stock also seems (subjectively to me) to have a bit more space on it.

Same for the Eglinton, which I would bet moves more people per hour than Finch West LRT but only because of speed, not necessarily actual max train capacity.

And once again, the REM trains kick everyone's butt, because while you can't walk down the length of the whole REM train, there are multiple units connected together that each equal the other LRTs' size.

In real terms, then, the REM is both faster and more capacious than the other systems, and the main difference between the lines 5 and 6 in Toronto is how well they actually let the system run as opposed to letting cars get in the way. And then the streetcar is basically a bus on rails.

3. Common Experiences

What these do have in common is that they're all pretty comfortable to ride, and in very similar ways because they share a lot of that "tram-like" body.

I'd suggest this is the best aspect of the streetcars in Toronto: they do feel better than a bus to sit on, and their comfort is much closer to the others in this study.

The Finch and Eglinton LRTs felt very similar to me, with the main difference being the color palette where the Finch (above) and Eglinton (below) are very similar to each other but distinct from the red of the streetcars.

And then there's the REM, which I got fewer pictures of the interior of (because there were more other people and I tend to avoid taking too many pictures of people in public), but which is a bit more spacious and "metro-like" but still clearly the same tram-style overall space. As you can see in the picture in the last section, it has more space for standing and less comfortable seats--with more emphasis on capacity than on fabric.

This is perhaps the only way in which I'd "prefer" to be on the other systems than the REM: the seating is legitimately more comfortable on all 3 Toronto lines.

But overall, this should speak to the wide variety of what we mean when we say "light rail." It can cover everything from a fully separated, fast, capacious system like the REM to something that is basically a bus like the Toronto streetcar--and a lot in between, as we see at Finch and Eglinton. 

Perhaps we could use some better definitions...or at least a wider array of terminology for the systems we already have.

And perhaps also we could consider building more of our "light rail" to a REM standard than a TTC Streetcar.

Better Buses

 Vancouver is improving their bus network. The key elements are these: more frequent services across more of the city, and particularly filling in the pattern so that there is frequent service pretty evenly spread out across major arteries all across the city (and indeed much of the Metro area). Not all of this (indeed, not even most of this) is Bus Rapid Transit, but it is bus frequent transit in a way that matters a lot to making a city's transit operate more effectively.

Acknowledging the value of this kind of work has actually been somewhat difficult for me, personally, in the past, because for me it has always formed a kind of assumed baseline in a major city's transit mix. I grew up in Seattle, visited Vancouver often, and have particularly distinct memories of visiting Toronto in the early 2000s and feeling like all these cities did this well: wherever you wanted to go in the city, you could take a fairly easy to figure out set of bus routes (or in Toronto's case, also trams in some areas) to use the general city grid to find your way around.

As the above link indicates, I wasn't actually right about that: Vancouver is only filling in that grid now, and Greater Toronto and Metro Seattle both have serious gaps in such systems as well. But it always seemed just like what a city does, to me--which has made it hard to acknowledge how important actually doing it well is.

So today I want to talk very briefly about why this is important, and what it brings to the table.

1. Clarity 

As I said above, I have distinct memories of visiting Toronto and noticing that my family could get around very effectively, even without knowing the city well, because of how clear it was to move from place to place. Yes, you could use the subway, and we did, but if the subway didn't go where you wanted or you didn't want to (or couldn't efficiently) get to it, you could just take a bus up and a bus over (or a bus over and a bus down, or whatever combination) to get where you wanted to be.

Or, as mentioned above, on some of those streets you could take streetcars/trams. I think that the trams are probably why it stuck in my mind so much more than Seattle, where I still had the same assumptions. This kind of system provides clarity for those who may not learn a system well or want to memorize or consult maps. If you know you just need to go up one street until you hit the right cross-street and then over that street to the place you want to be, your path is clear. It may not be optimal, but it doesn't have to be: it will get you there and it frees up mental space for considering other factors rather than trying to compute how to get from point to point.

2. Equity

When this system is extended as fully as Vancouver is doing it now, it also provides real improvements in equity. Yes, there are still areas where there is better or worse service: frequency matters, quality and age of vehicles matter, speed matters, the existence of other transit modes like rail matters. But when you have a baseline provision of quality, clearly intelligible transit options everywhere, it means that nowhere gets completely left behind. Yes, parts of Vancouver have SkyTrain. And it's awesome!

But buses feed SkyTrain stations, and even if SkyTrain doesn't come anywhere near you an effective bus system nevertheless means you still have mobility even if it's not identical.

I lived for a summer at the University of British Columbia, and it's not on SkyTrain but let me tell you that we still got out and around the city. And did I mention I wasn't even an adult yet? That's another key kind of equity that a good bus network provides: not only does it create equity between people who live in different areas, it provides equity between those who can drive and those who can't, whether the reason for that is age, cost, or something else.

3. Virtuous Cycles

You knew this was coming, right? I mentioned that buses feed trains. Good baseline bus systems across a whole city provide a matrix in which all kinds of good transit, density, and general urbanist outcomes can grow like crystals. 

I believe firmly that Seattle's Sound Transit Link light rail is only as effective as it is (especially since in a lot of places it really should be heavy rail) because it is embedded in a good bus system. Similarly, the TTC has gotten away with a relatively small metro in Toronto because of good bus coverage, though thank goodness they're expanding it finally.

And this is bus coverage which of course usually interacts with the subway.

A solid bus system is unexciting in the way that pasta is unexciting. We talk about sauces a lot more than noodles because the same noodles can work with a lot of sauces--but you don't want to be eating straight alfredo sauce no matter how much you like fettucine alfredo.

I love a subway but it needs to be part of a whole system--and a better bus network like Vancouver is putting in is perhaps the key element in that.

Optimism and Pessimism

 This excellent post on how trams and tramways can be built well or badly made me think more broadly about the significance of both optimism and pessimism for how we design, build, and think about our urban designs, especially in places like the Quad Cities. I want to propose that there is an odd mix of these two that manages to reduce our willingness to try transit, bike lanes, and other effective tools for reducing congestion, traffic, road deaths, and travel times--and that make slogans like the fifteen-minute city (as valuable as I think that concept would be in practice) counterproductive for some audiences.

1. Overly Optimistic Projections

Let's start with the point raised in the article: overly optimistic projections of tram speeds and thus travel time reductions. These occur not in the final stages, but in the planning and support-generating stages: no one in the final stages is denying that the Finch LRT in Toronto, for instance, is too darn slow. But as the first article I linked to points out, that wasn't true in the initial projections: it was supposed to reach speeds fifty-percent higher than it does on average! 

And that's where the optimism becomes destructive: when you overpromise and underdeliver. Yes, those projections may have gotten the Finch LRT built, but they now create conditions under which the average Torontonian is likely to be highly skeptical of claims for future transit projects (unless the mayor actually accomplishes the feat of speeding it up significantly, quickly). 

This is similar to some of the claims that come with vaporware transit: highly aggressive up-front assumptions about efficacy and speed, absolutely no follow-through. And as a result, there is either no transit or disappointing transit on the streets, which produces a potential for a cynical death spiral in transit.

Nor is this limited to transit: a bike lane that's promised as protected and signalized but doesn't deliver will poison-pill future bike lane building too, and the same with the shared street that isn't really shared, the bike share that doesn't work well, etc.

Don't tell me this is a bike lane and expect me to support building more bike lanes.

We could also add here overly optimistic estimates of cost and delivery timings, which then get bogged down in massive, expensive delays: both expensive in themselves and because they allow inflation to act on your costs, and delay your revenues.

2. Overly Pessimistic Projections

Of course, the flip side of this is when projections are kept low and that results in transit being delayed or never built because of an unwillingness to see a potential upside.

I would suggest this is highly often the case in the US, but because we don't build at all we never get to see that the projections were in fact pessimistic. But in the UK, they have recent evidence with the Northumberland Line and the Borders Railway that busted past expected ridership quite quickly.

Imagine if those had been built earlier! The demand was clearly there, but understated. 

These, I suggest, are cyclically behind the overly optimistic estimates above: a project comes in overly optimistic, then people reject it because it's genuinely not as good as anticipated, then future projects get lower projections. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Sort of like how people react to snowfall estimates, honestly: too many missed projections and everyone assumes it won't actually snow when the meteorologists say so.

3. Agency and Audience

But note a difference between what I'm claiming above about optimism and pessimism. Pessimism is about how the general public will respond; optimism is about things actually under the agency's and/or government's control (to some degree).

Basically, I suggest that these problems with pessimism and optimism are avoidable with proper practices.

Am I an expert who can specifically identify those practices? No.

But there are people who are. And their suggestions tend to be similar to what seems logical to me:

A. Standardize, as much as possible, designs: stations, roadways, intersections, vehicles, etc. Avoid extensive costs or delays caused by starting from scratch, and make your estimates of cost, timeline, and effects more consistent by reducing variables.

B. Establish standards for service and keep to them: a tweak to speed here, a concession to auto traffic there, and suddenly you're down to walking speed. That doesn't mean be inflexible, but it does mean standing up for the promised standard of service.

C. Build the right thing in the right place. This is the point of the initial article: don't build a tram when you want a metro, or an at-grade tram when you want a grade-separated one, or a bus when you want a tram (or vice-versa in each case). That will let you actually hit the targets you intended, or exceed pessimistic standards, by fitting the service to the use case.

But the key here is this: pessimism and optimism are a function of how we plan and what we build and how we advertise it. They're not inherent; trains don't need to be slow, costs don't need to overrun, and ridership estimates won't always be low (or high!). They're about what we do (our agency) and who we talk to about what (our audience).

We can and should build better--and I hope that isn't unearned optimism itself.

Competing Modes

 In response to this article about how Brussels' pedestrianized zone is now needing to (or at least choosing to) restrict bikes, because of pedestrian-bicyclist conflict, I wanted to think a bit more about how different modes do and do not compete for space.

Because I totally get where Brussels is coming from! But it takes a very specific mix of traffic to make that problematic, whereas, well, there are other modes that don't play quite as nice together.

1. Trams play better with people than cars

There is, of course, nothing wrong with a tram sharing space with a car.

But it does create some conflict, hence the above Toronto streetcars are notoriously slow. 

Trams play better on their own, of course (as, to be fair, do most transit modes, including cars): 

Or (as above in Amsterdam) shared with buses only.

But (as Berlin knows) trams and pedestrians can share pretty well, because the tracks are nice and visible, the trams are also nice and visible, and when there isn't a tram you can just...walk (as long as you don't use third-rail power I suppose). 

2. Bikes work best with pedestrians

Brussels aside, bikes tend to work OK with pedestrians, both working at fairly human speeds, though there's definitely a reason that the Netherlands has bike highways that are not walkways.

Note that for this picture I am not standing on the red.

What they really don't play nice with is the other forms of transit. Don't make me ride over train tracks, please! And please bar the cars from driving in the bike spaces!

Thanks for this protected bike lane, Toronto! 

All that paint is only so useful, Chicago. It doesn't actually separate the modes!

The tendency towards shared paths here in the Quad Cities (above) does tend to make it easier to get bike-type infrastructure built, but also means that you do produce some additional conflicts between peds and bikes by forcing them onto one path.

3. Trains (and pedestrians) are best alone

Look, I like trains. I love trains. Trains are my jam.

But they really work best when they don't share right of way.

Don't try to drive a car or ride a bike by these mainline trains in the UK!

Let alone getting something else down into the Tube!

But at the same time, let these people in Camden Town just walk without having to deal with cars and bikes and trains.

Basically, the two extremes (big fast thing that needs tracks and individual people who aren't in a vehicle at all) both do their best when you let them actually do their thing.

The TGV can't OuiGo if there's someone in the way!