SameGuy

I'm one of those bemoaning the proposed long, exposed transfers of REM-de-l'Est, but while I've cited the examples of long transfers from REM-A to the other modes I've also said that as long as they are indoor transfers then they won't be so bad. My biggest issue isn't the long transfers in and of themselves, it's the assertion by CDPQi that these are singular transfer stations. They are not, any more than Bonaventure Metro and exo3 St-Hilaire at Gare Centrale are one single transfer station. Add to this that the proposed REM-de-l'Est "transfer stations" are actually just "walking outdoors on the sidewalk," and it becomes more annoying than simply a long walk and leaving/entering fare gates.

And while we are on it, even the Vancouver SkyTrain segments from the late 80s are smooth and quiet, thanks to modern, computer-aided radiusing of the rails and wheel flanges, and modern welded rail techniques. Our Metro will never have steel on steel, but the least I'm hoping is that future extensions use welded steel rollways like in Paris. Our REM will be wonderfully smooth if the Caisse didn't cheap out there as well and spec NouvLR to the barest minimum standards. Again, I'm hoping that because this will be a showcase for CDPQi for sales elsewhere, they have put as much into the system's engineering as they can (even if they went cheap on some design elements).

Try again. I think the Azur cars are fantastic, and a HUGE upgrade from the MR-63 and -73, but again, modern steel wheeled trains, even on "old tracks" are smoother and quieter overall. On new lines? You feel like you're on a magic carpet. MF-2000 (MF-01) in Paris:

Then you haven't been on a modern metro like Dubai, Shanghai, Singapore, Seoul, or any newer line in Europe, Asia or South America. Even our MPM-10 Azur with its air suspension is like a Mueller Belt from the 1940s by comparison!

I’m not sure what you’re trying to assert here. Pneumatic tires are only used on metros, and there isn’t one modern metro on rubber tires that runs as smoothly as any modern metro on rails. Take a ride on Paris Line 14’s MP-05 or MP-14, then try out Line 9’s MF-2000 — the difference is as stark as night and day. Regardless, pneumatics are more expensive to build and maintain, and much less efficient in operation, and are only adequate on lines that require quicker starts and stops, such as the RATP Métro with stations no more than 550 m apart. Notice that GPE and RER use conventional steel on steel. With regard to running outdoors, the weather we get here in winter would stop a rubber-tired metro dead on its rollways. There is no argument there. This isn’t fanboy speculation, it has been studied and discussed by engineers for decades, and there isn’t a city in the world that gets more than 10 cm snowfalls regularly or endures consecutive months of sub-freezing temperatures that has built or is considering building an outdoor pneumatic-tired metro.

I’m more interested if you saw any activity on the 750 Peel site!

Pour mes amis et moi, avant que le métro ne dépassait Villa Maria — et ben avant la bonification de la ligne DM — une bonne petite marche de 12 minutes à la 68 sur Boul. de Pierrefonds jusqu’à Spot Bowling a Cartierville, puis la 69 à H-B pour la ligne Orange vers le cœur de la ville. Good times.

I likely won’t ever need to use those two transfers, but I hope I’m wrong about them and they are quick and painless for users. They are direct and indoors even if long. The one transfer that does bug me is quick by comparison: Bois-Franc from the west branches to the airport (or vice-versa), longer than necessary because of the side platforms. Now that, I admit, is bemoaning 😂.

I these two are being vaunted as quick and efficient connected stations — as CDPQi is most certainly doing — then it’s not being “exceedingly harsh” to point out the exaggeration in this claim.

I mean, their intentions and objectives couldn’t possibly be more clear: “Service to 27 million vacant square feet in Montréal’s east end”

I find it fascinating how everybody always looks for the worst examples to reinforce their positions. We know an elevated structure can look much nicer than whatever it is they threw up over the canal and across PSC; as imposing as it may be, even the structure in the West Island is easier on the eyes. I look forward to whatever they come up with as a “signature structure,“ and will reserve judgement until I see sketches and mock ups.

That’s essentially the main issue with operating two entirely distinct systems that aren’t integrated. If REM-A was operated by the STM it’s likely the connection between the platforms would have been more direct.

BINGO

There is no direct connection between the systems — even though they are superimposed. One has to exit the metro station completely, walk over to the main entrance for the REM station, get through the fare gates, catch an elevator to go down roughly 60 m, and then walk all the way back to the tunnel and down to the platforms. It is the best design they could come up with, but it’s still not perfect.

This isn’t my map, nor is it from anyone speculating here; it’s from the Caisse: If the “plans haven’t been drawn up yet,” then how can they also be adamant that an underground route is not feasible? The statement effectively renders their “studies” meritless. As others have said, just tell us, “We’re not willing to spend the kind of money that the project would entail.” Don’t insult us by warning of collapsing buildings and metro tunnels. Please don’t compare a 3 km long, 8 m wide subway tunnel with the 12-lane Superhighway tunnel that included dozens of simultaneous projects and included additional mass transit, and was plagued with criminal ineptitude and negligence. The Big Dig was America’s Big O, complete with fraud and corruption and massive overruns.

I said, “I’m still not against an elevated guideway on René-Lévesque; I just can’t support it if it doesn’t integrate well with existing transit (REM-A, exo, and Métro), and by any interpretation of their plans, it will not.” “Bemoaning” is a definite mischaracterization of what I wrote.

Can you point out to me where there is one efficient connection in the plans? As presented, the downtown terminal station will not be connected to any other lines. Saying it is a transfer station is even more ludicrous than saying Centrale and Bonaventure are a single station, or the 300m hustle at McGill will be a quick connection, or Blue line users will flock to the 10+ minute “transfer” at Édouard-Montpetit. A station some 10m above René-Lévesque at Robert-Bourassa with no indoor/underground connection to anything simply isn’t well-connected.

Good point, but those “Crown” corporations don’t hide behind a guise of trying to guarantee a return to “shareholders” while robbing local governments and their own “parent company” (the Province) by holding us all hostage. I pay 5¢/kWh precisely because Hydro is efficient and invests profits through the Caisse, which generates healthy returns. I’m fully aware — and I vehemently argue with those who say the Caisse is actually private — that the reason I’ll have a good pension, pay low electricity rates and can access SAQs and VLTs on every corner is thanks to their placements with the Caisse.

Then they wouldn’t be proposing a $10 billion automated people mover with such limited capacity and no potential for accommodating future growth. As presented, REM-de-l’Est has too many shortcomings and few proven benefits. As presented, it’s a vanity project. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still not against an elevated guideway on René-Lévesque; I just can’t support it if it doesn’t integrate well with existing transit (REM-A, exo, and Métro), and by any interpretation of their plans, it will not. With a finite capacity of just 12,000 passengers per hour, it’s evident that there isn’t huge traffic demand along that alignment to the downtown core. So why will we disfigure the downtown core with an elevated guideway, or in an alternate universe, build an ultra-expensive tunnel under the downtown core, for such limited traffic?

It’s like the argument that “transit shouldn’t be privatized” sells itself. Public transit is a social service. Privatize social services and you get… Texas. 😳

How do so many other cities worldwide deal with worse conditions than they might confront here? Every time I return to Singapore there’s a new, underground, downtown line opening up. Singapore is more densely built, with taller buildings, dodgier soil conditions and a mishmash of older construction and infrastructure with which to deal.

Le mandat confié à la Caisse était de proposer un système de transit rapide sur rails pour desservir Brossard, et un autre pour desservir l’aéroport. Le système qui a été présenté a donc 20 stations au nord de Centrale, dont celle de l’aéroport parmi les plus importantes, et il n’y a que cinq stations au sud. That the Caisse chose to build the rest of the system and all those other stations doesn’t change the fact that even if they only built three stations, Aéroport would by mandate have been one of them.

Il y a un couple de raisons: premièrement, oui, la neige l’hiver; et deuxièmement, les véhicules du métro de Montréal ne sont pas construits pour faire face aux intempéries.

Yup. Similar to Paris indeed, about one-quarter ground level or viaduct, with closely spaced stations in the core. It was one of the best metros I’ve ridden, certainly the best I’ve used in the Americas -- clean, modern and really gets close to wherever one would want to go. And the roving vendors and musicians aboard the cars are great — something I wish we had!