Aller au contenu

Ant6n

Membre
  • Compteur de contenus

    12
  • Inscription

  • Dernière visite

Informations sur le membre

  • Location
    Montreal
  • Intérêts
    -
  • Occupation
    -

Visiteurs récents du profil

Le bloc de visiteurs récents est désactivé et il n’est pas visible pour les autres utilisateurs.

Ant6n's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

10

Réputation sur la communauté

  1. @nephersir7 I called you a jerk because of your dismissive attitude about my work trying to understand this project. You claimed bias when it actually goes the different way (i.e. I removed costs from the expensive branches rather than adding it). You called my analysis an "analysis". But it _is_ an analysis in the dictionary sense of the word: "Analysis is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts in order to gain a better understanding of it." You didn't engage at all with the content, instead just engaged in a flat attack. As opposed to you, I'm for example not calling the REM project a REM "project". And you don't see me gloating about anything like you are. I wish as much critical thinking was applied to the project proposing to spend billions in public assets as there is to the guy with a blog who's clearly just interested in getting the best transit project for the money.
  2. I wasn't trying to be confrontational. I really didn't like how the situation worked out. It's just that he flatly claimed that that 'this is the best trajectory'. And I simply responded, well every new station is along a highway. That's already the start of the discussion, and kinda went down from there. Firstly he dismissed that it's true (but technopark pointe saint charles is along Marc-Cantin!) and then he just said, 'well, what's the problem with that'. As a transit expert, this total lack of considering place making, urbanism ... walking access, it just seems bizarre. Building giant condo projects along the highway is not urbanism. Andlauer is dismissive of criticism, it has to be his way. Anyway, I said that a station the highway means every passenger has to come by car or by bus and he just says "welcome to North America!". Does that mean in North America we can't build transit that is within walking distance of people!? So that's where the discussion continued onto the routing in downtown, where I claimed that if the CN corridor was re-used, the station labelled Bridge-Wellington could actually be at, well, Bridge-Wellington. And then we could get that Old-Port station, that he didn't know about. ... I think Andlauer may have been defensive because he recognized me. I spoke to the marketing guy and he told me after my very detailed accounting of the Saint-Laurent townhall meeting I wrote, they were asking among themselves 'who is this guy?', and figured it out from my descriptions. Right of the bat the people seemed much more uncomfortable around me compared to the first time, so it was difficult to keep the discussions even.
  3. I was at the Nun's island event as well, I had asked about why they didn't use the CN passenger rail corridor up to AMT Pointe Sainte Charles center, and extend using an aerial structure, in order to 1) be able to place station actually Bridge/Wellington, closer to Griffintown 2) still have the chance to build the station along the old port, like in the SLR study from 2007 (where it was called media city). Andlauer didn't even know about this station or study, just like he didn't know about the old AMT study to build a station at Edouard-Montpetit when I asked him at the townhall of St-Laurent. 3) avoid the expensive peel basin tunnel (also the ramp cutting through downtown) They said that that an aerial structure over the polluted land implies having pillars go down 18, 20, 25 meters, but a tunnel would be less deep, and could be better protected somehow. I don't know whether this is a good response, I'd rather have my concrete pillar foundations in the polluted ground rather than myself. Anyway, at this point the discussion was I guess a little too uncomfortable, so the big director guy stepped in (Jean Marc Arbaud), he basically took over the conversation I guess so that Andlauer wouldn't have to deal with me anymore. He's pretty big and intimidating, and not very interested in engaging. That evening, I didn't get to ask questions to Andlauer again. Jean Marc also said that going across CN yards is impossible. I hear this a lot, just like when asking about routing along the Mascouche line -- working with CN is impossible. Except that for example Trudel told me that CN offered to sell the passenger rail spur South of Gare Centrale. Surely it must be possible to pay CN to allow them to build a bridge across their yard? I pointed out that the AMT is building a bridge across the CN yards do reach their maintenance center which is South of the CN yard in Pte-Sainte-Charles. I tried to say that if the AMT can build a bridge across a CN yard, then why can't the CDPQ and also, given that the CDPQ will take over the Deux-Montagnes line and make that yard pointless, why not actuallly use that infrastructure. First Jean Marc said that it's never gonna happen; so I tell him it's in the AMT documentation that they're build a bridge, he insists, so I ask him whether he thinks the AMT is like lying or something. He then says that that's what the AMT does and the CDPQ does something different.
  4. @nephesir7 Your point makes no sense. The most sensible projects according to my analysis (not "analysis") are clearly 1) Brossard 2) Deux-Montagnes 3) West Island & Airport. An actual cost-benefit project would consider the project as a set of separate projects providing incremental improvements building on top of one another, and considering the marginal cost/benefit of each. The Deux-Montagnes upgrades would always have to be done _before_ building the West Island branch. But regarding your point, considering those two branches separate from the Deux-Montagnes line biases _towards_ them, because all the costs associated with the upgrades on the common trunk are assumed to be associated with the Deux-Montagnes branch, and are not apportioned to those bad branches. It makes them appear cheaper, and thus improves their cost-benefit. Regarding the rest of your "points", I invite you to re-read what I wrote. I also invite you not to be jerk.
  5. I tried to do analysis of cost/ridership for the branches, based off the Caisse's numbers:http://www.cat-bus.com/2016/06/rem-a-look-at-ridership-and-costs/ TLDR: Brossard looks very good, the West Island Branch and the airport branch look like pretty bad investments.
  6. At the Saint-Laurent townhall meeting they assured me that they'd not remove any stations, and that they'd be at the same locations (http://www.cat-bus.com/2016/06/townhall-meeting-for-the-rem/)
  7. Back in 2011 the STM published complete opus card tap-in data for a couple of weeks of the year. According to that, there were about 880K tap-ins into the metro system per weekday. This does not count situations where people enter the system without tapping, or where that data wasn't recorded. Here's a summary table with bus lines and metro: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsudSIGbWEerdER3aTlQeU53c0o1RHgyZkRqUDJwZFE&usp=sharing
  8. This is not an RER. If it was, I'd be grateful. This is exactly the opposite - it's a system that will hinder regional integration, trunk line and branches, that the RER proposes, because the system is incompatible. It's also a medium capacity system, unlike the RER. As for station distances, consider that the RER in Paris is in a metropolitan area that's more than 10 million people, reaching out 50km from the city, so the stations downtown are at higher distances than they would be in Montreal. And the system goes somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 PPHD. Nevertheless the stations are actually in useful locations, RER stations are not in the middle of nothing serving a baseball stadium. And the RER lines are built along traditional rail corridors, connecting to populations; not along highways connecting to parking lots. The REM on the other hand, is an automatic light metro, propsing 12,000 PPHD when opening. It's modelled after the metro in Lyon or Lille (cities of 1 million people?), according to Andlauer himself. What we need is something in-between, for a city of four million people, whose urban area reaches about 25km out. This means we can have more frequent stop spacing the city, but we should aspire to the 40,000 PPHD right from the start, with more branches, and including existing longer distance regional rail in the same system. The model should be Munich, Berlin, Zurich, Vienna, and yes, the RER, but understanding the somewhat smaller scale of Montreal compared to Paris. And you can't just wave away the utter abysmal cost-benefit ratios of the airport and West Island spur. And you can't just hide behind the fact that the government gave them a 'mandate'. It was bad planning then; now they want to take over our infrastructure and reduce capacity; this _has_ to be fixed. Let's not make another mistake like the Mascouche line (7000M spent for 7000 riders per day).
  9. @arch Saying that downtown will be relieved by this suburban-centric project brings little solace to millions riding like sardines in buses. From an actual urban planner point of view, it makes sense to build transit line that strengthen cities rather than weaken them -- while at the same time spending _a lot_ of money on those projects. The numbers for the branches, actually 10K for airport, 11K for West Island, comes directly from the CDPQInfra (http://cdpqinfra.com/sites/all/files/document/cdpqinfra_briefing_technique_anglais_2016-04-22.pdf). Most of the riders will be coming from Brossard (80K) and the Deux-Montagnes lines (50K). And it's not surprising: airports are weak generators for trips, and three suburban and exurban stations in the A-40 will be as well. But we're working of the mandate from the government, a checklist of three items (Brossard, airport, West Island), so I guess we're getting a nonsensical project lacking regional integration and inadequately appropriating the existing Mont-Royal tunnel infrastructure.
  10. @Ron I don't think so. We've already learned about the strange suburban focus. The lack of a regional vision. The taking over our crown jewel of infrastructure to build a light metro serving few areas, focusing on Lille and Lyon as role models rather than Munich, Paris (RER), Vienna, London-Crossrail. This will cause lack of compatibility of AMT trains or potential long distance trains. Further all new stations are on highways. The issues with the downtown stations, that are all not part of the original funding plan and, with the south-of-gare centrale stations in really bad locations. The abysmal ridership on the West Island and Airport branches (10K each) relative to costs (1B each?). Meanwhile, ignoring riders from the transfer stations, coming from the Mascouche line, the St-Jerome line, and the Blue Line. Sure for some questions they have answers, some are even good. But overall there are many issues.
  11. Stadiums are unworthy of building a transit stop. In fact, hypothetical stadiums are several orders of magnitude worse than actual airports; and even then airport connectors tend to be questionable. They should use the CN corridor, then use an elevated line straight shot from Bridge/Wellington over the AMT maintenance center to get to Nuns Island. You could even have an elevated stop right on the center of the Pointe-Sainte-Charles peninsula, within a reasonable walk of the proposed stadium, but also within walking distance of many people.
  12. I went to the first town-hall in Saint-Laurent and talked with a bunch of CDPQInfra people and politicians. http://www.cat-bus.com/2016/06/townhall-meeting-for-the-rem/
×
×
  • Créer...