Yes, these principles definitely need to be applied to the downtown network. There are however a few inconsistenties between the principles of enhanced local connectivity, concentrated axes, and through corridors, and your proposal.
1. None of your routes provides through service on Notre-Dame. I would suggest that the CV1 provide this service, going from Berri through to Lionel-Groulx on Notre-Dame, with a deviation onto William/Ottawa to connect to the REM.
2. The Bleury corridor doesn't go all the way through downtown. To do so, it would have to follow either McGill or Saint-Pierre through to at least Place d'Youville if not to Rue Commune.
3. A high-frequency well connected bus grid does not imply that bus routes cannot terminate at the periphery of downtown. In your plan, the gratuitous use of line extensions that force routes to serve more than one natural corridor. This is exemplified in particular for the 45 Papineau, where most riders would be unlikely to continue through on the route past Papineau station. These types of extensions can severly affect line reliability. I would also class the 55, 78, 108, and possibly the 165 in this category.
4. A related argument can be made for the 90, which is a long route that already connects to both Metro lines. Further extensions of the 90 would hamper it's already marginal reliability without adding much to network accessibility. The other Westmount routes are significantly shorter than the 90, so this doesn't affect them as much.
Overall, this gets rid of most of the services terminating at the south loop (save the 14 and 30), and reduces the frequency on any given section of Réné-Lévesque and Notre-Dame to 8-10 buses per hour, about half of which leave the corridor at Peel.
Si on voulait être plus efficace et offrir un meilleur service, les lignes 80, 165, et potentiellement 24 seraient ou des tramways, ou des trolleybus
Merci beaucoup pour la version en français.
Très intéressant.
Je fais circuler...
...mais aucune information concernant le transport sur rail avec les tramways! 🙁
Yes, these principles definitely need to be applied to the downtown network. There are however a few inconsistenties between the principles of enhanced local connectivity, concentrated axes, and through corridors, and your proposal.
1. None of your routes provides through service on Notre-Dame. I would suggest that the CV1 provide this service, going from Berri through to Lionel-Groulx on Notre-Dame, with a deviation onto William/Ottawa to connect to the REM.
2. The Bleury corridor doesn't go all the way through downtown. To do so, it would have to follow either McGill or Saint-Pierre through to at least Place d'Youville if not to Rue Commune.
3. A high-frequency well connected bus grid does not imply that bus routes cannot terminate at the periphery of downtown. In your plan, the gratuitous use of line extensions that force routes to serve more than one natural corridor. This is exemplified in particular for the 45 Papineau, where most riders would be unlikely to continue through on the route past Papineau station. These types of extensions can severly affect line reliability. I would also class the 55, 78, 108, and possibly the 165 in this category.
4. A related argument can be made for the 90, which is a long route that already connects to both Metro lines. Further extensions of the 90 would hamper it's already marginal reliability without adding much to network accessibility. The other Westmount routes are significantly shorter than the 90, so this doesn't affect them as much.
Overall, this gets rid of most of the services terminating at the south loop (save the 14 and 30), and reduces the frequency on any given section of Réné-Lévesque and Notre-Dame to 8-10 buses per hour, about half of which leave the corridor at Peel.