I was on the green line one time and they emptied out an entire (pretty sure it was overloaded... every car was STUFFED) train and again blamed it on blocked doors.

It makes you think about their other claims... like how fraud loses them X-million dollars of revenue a year therefore they have to hire security guards to to give out tickets... when they could easily have solved their fraud problem once and for all by making the turnstiles un-jumpable, like those in Japan. It makes a lot more sense economically to lay down a few million for better turnstiles than it does to hire jackbooted thugs and pay them a salary in perpetuity. Make no mistake, those guards ARE thugs, they threaten, intimidate, pick on black kids, and dress up like cops to keep us afraid.

Granted, the various network extensions are a good reason for ordering extra-equipment, but the fact that the oldest cars in service (and htye will be be retired soon) were built in 1974 is a testament to the fact that either Toronto does not maintain it’s rolling stock as well as Montréal does, or that the rolling stock wears down much faster.

Air-conditionning is a luxury in Montréal. It would be needed for 3 weeks at most anyways. And trains in Montréal are also always underground, a cooler environment as they are never exposed to direct sunlight.

I would rather pay a cheaper fare than have air-conditonning in the subway.

And Montréal may be “the cheapest transit system”, but salaries in Montréal are much lower than elsewhere in Canada, too (for some reason, this is never mentionned when one compares fares).

I don't care. I'd pay Toronto prices if I had air conditioning like they do, and if our commuter train system resembled tho GO system in terms of the frequency of trains and area of coverage

Well said! Unfortunately, the STM is staunchly against A/C because it's not "green."

Metro service saw a significant increase in 2008

The train intervals are still unacceptable on the orange and green lines. The maximum waiting time on these should be 6 minutes. During rush hours far too many people are left on the platform unable to get on.

In fairness to the STM, they are making MUCH more of an effort than they were 10 years ago, and on certain routes (though none of the ones I ride) schedules are better, but they still have a long way to go, and I'm really tired of people saying "Look how much better things are!" when my transit experience hasn't changed significantly in the 20-odd years I've been riding the system except that I'm paying them more than ever.

(Cue people saying Montreal's transit system is one of the cheapest in North America... I don't care. I'd pay Toronto prices if I had air conditioning like they do, and if our commuter train system resembled tho GO system in terms of the frequency of trains and area of coverage)

"with NO corresponding increase in the level of service"

Perhaps you missed the part of this post that discusses the three new bus routes that have been created. Metro service saw a significant increase in 2008, and many bus routes have seen their schedules expand over the past couple of years.

You may not consider the increases significant enough to match the price hikes, but they have been making improvements.

They've sure added a glossy coat of paint (Opus, green initiatives, their advertising rebranding) to the STM lately but it's still the same old crap. Packed in stinking trains like sardines. Verbally abused by clowns dressed up like cops. Paying more for monthly passes every year with NO corresponding increase in the level of service.

Plus ca change...

They can also have a political etc sense of a precarious seat at the table.

It is a great word.

- Same number of seats
- Place all the seats in rows
- Add several "tripodes"

Et voilà, you now have enough space to cram more people in, problem solved.

However, bus service around the island will not be foreseeable for a long while, because the road is too narrow for buses and it would be a crime to widen it as this would call for great disfigurment of the countryside. No, the solution would be to use small buses, à la 251 (no, not that kind of 251).

It seems the more it goes, the more the STM wants to discourage people from riding transit. Removing seats is a good way to do so.

The latest buses, including the articulated, are horrible in that respect, especially more so that they introduce the much hated and stupid saloon in the back where people are prohibited from looking outside the bus thanks to the inward facing seats (who wants to look at other people???*) and with those horrible pointless decals that completely block the windows.

The STM could have saved a bundle by buying trucks instead.

With the new low-floor buses until 2008, the STM had finally got the absolute perfect buses: with very few side-seats and a great number of front-facing seats, most people had a great view outside of the bus. And with the wheelchair entrance at the back, the view ahead was not marred by the big honking ugly cushion.

Alas, all that good work was irremediably lost with the extremely stupid seat plan of the new buses.

* «L’enfer, c’est les autres!» — Sartre.

Finally, isn't it great how the boroughs that stuck with Montreal have better transit service? (think Pierrefonds, Lachine, Ile-des-Soeurs for previous examples).

I don't think there's any serious evidence of favouritism here. Île Bizard stuck with Montreal and it has horrible transit service.