SameGuy

There are elevated metros all over the world above city streets much narrower than René-Lévesque Ouest. So we will spend money on study after study while not actually just visiting those other cities to learn how to do it well and how not to do it poorly. The height of orgueuil.

Four North American sized lanes each direction, a wide median and wide sidewalks. It ranges from 36 m to well over 55 m wide. It certainly isn’t too narrow for an elevated train. Hell, considering there was talk of MPB or even a regular surface tram until recently, the point is moot.

Et ça maillera pas avec les autres lignes... just saying.

Really wondering how skinny it’ll be that they can fit such large, mature trees between it and the Mansfield ramp with just 60 metres of frontage...

😁 Oui mais check-donc d’autres villes mondiales avec un coût de la vie généralement plus élevé qu’ici.

Slow speeds are among the many causes of problems encountered by the O-Train’s little Citadis Spirit LFTs during its first winter of commercial operations — and that somehow made it past the interminably long test phase. Perhaps running the REM Metropolis vehicles in this slop at 3-5 km/h will be a pretty good test!

LOL settle down there, Spartacus!

https://transitcosts.com/

Yeah I think somewhere upthread we speculated that because it will be integrated with the bus loop (according to the last illustrations, the loop will pass under the guideway), the station will be quite a bit closer to Gouin. That's reasonable, considering the bus loop and more nearby density that includes the apartments on Gouin and Meighen as well as newer MDUs going up on old commercial lots along Gouin. Edit: different thread

How much do we, the taxpayers, pay for the roads each year: maintenance and repairs, lighting, snow clearing, police and public security, etc etc etc. I find it ludicrous that we continue to claim and warn of outlandish “costs” of a social service like public transit, but nobody ever questions the amount spent on “free” roads. How many times have you heard the expression, “the fares don’t cover the costs” of public transit. Ok, who is collecting fares for the roads (and don’t tell me about fuel taxes, which go into the general coffers)?

Et pourtant ça marche très efficacement sur des métros bien plus achalandés, pour des aéroports avec quatre ou cinq fois le nombre de voyageurs et d’employés, dont JFK, Newark, Phœnix, Singapour, Jakarta, etc. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Basée sur...?

I also keep hearing “all the expropriations” as an excuse for the $1B/km except I don’t get how much they need to expropriate. I’d love to see a map of all the lots that need to be bought at fair market value to justify the costs. I mean, come on. But back to a Laval transit discussion: a 6.5 km extension would encounter far fewer expropriations on the long-proposed Cote-Vertu-Montmorency alignment, and likely at much lower cost. How much was expropriated for the Côte-Vertu garage? Total cost for this HUGE project, with several linear kilometres of tunnelling, will come in under $500M. I don’t wanna speak ill of my heritage, but let’s just say that the Blue line budget is paying for a LOT of swimming pools. I’m pretty confident that the 6.5 km extension into Laval could be built for a lot less than $1B/km, but again, the province made a Faustian bargain and it will never happen.

Ça ne me revient pas comment on a pu compléter l’extension de l’Orange il y a moins de 15 ans pour seulement 180$M (2021) par kilomètre. Même avec l’explosion des coûts en construction, ce serait quoi? 300$M? La Bleue, REM-B, ça ne fait aucun sens.

LOL that’s not my crayon, it’s based on the original proposals, 6.5 km and five new stations (Poirier, BF, Gouin then Chomedey and ND before the terminus). Map segment taken from Yonah Freemark’s The Transport Politic’s Transit Explorer.

I think I’d rather they commit $5 billion to extending the Orange 6.5 km towards Montmorency.

Une petite 20 minutes chez Métropolitain Antirouille bing bang boum. Faite.

Lol yup. Priorities here are so messed up. And the 20 over the Dorval Circle is closed. Half a billion and 13 years later, not even half of the original design implemented, and now the overpass is too dangerous to use. But go on, let’s throw the Caisse another $10 billion for a questionable image-booster. Des vrais projets-vanité.

Demande donc aux chauffeurs dans l’West Island comment ça c’est allé à l’échangeur de Dorval. Oy vey, demi-milliard et 13 ans plus tard et c’est toujours d’la marde, incomplet, mal faite... oh oui, et complètement fermé.

L’eau n’y est pas profonde. Plus facile à enfoncer des pieux que creuser un tunnel.

Oui une idée aurait pu être de redévelopper la défunte branche de Cartierville, mais là ils ont décidé de construire la nouvelle station à l’ouest de l’ancienne station, donc à l’ouest d’une possible branche. 🤦🏻‍♂️

But because of more frequent departures from DM made possible with the shuttle, this is less of an issue. I do see your point, though. That said, with a four-car train every five minutes during peak (compared to one 10-car MR-90 every 35 minutes or more!), crowding will seldom be an issue after rush-hour commuters adapt to “show up and go” transit. The reason those peak hour trains were always so crammed was because after 8:30, people didn’t want to wait an hour or more for the next departure. I was one of them: I often didn’t have to be downtown before 10 AM, but I’d get on the 8:08 AM train just to make sure I get there!

This idea has bugged me since the moment it was suggested in this forum maybe a year ago or more. Une scission avant Bois-Franc est une mauvaise idée: présentement, deux trains sur quatre en direction “ouest” iront vers DM, et un chaque sur quatre vers soit l’aéroport soit Anse... mais tous le quatre passeront à BF; embarquant à une station du tronc central, on est sûr de se rendre à BF, et si sa destination est sur une branche, il ne faudra qu’un simple attente à BF pour la prochaine rame vers cette destination. Avec un scission avant BF, là peut-être la moitié des trains ne se rendront plus à BF, et il faudra vraiment porter attention en embarquant. They are going to make it way more complicated and cumbersome than necessary, rather than just analyzing the needs and building the correct system.

I’m not sure what this means. All that is needed is a third platform for Bois-Franc. Ideally, convert the westbound platform to an island — there are likely to be more airport-bound passengers coming from east of BF. No extra guideways or tracks needed outside the station. The Aéroport shuttle would then depart on its own schedule, not affected by the need for downline or upline trains. Exactly as Singapore MRT decided to do with the Changi/Expo branch of the East-West line when it was realized that the splitting of frequencies affected the main trunk. Why would they need to rebuild the Airport branch to split elsewhere? Du Ruisseau is nowhere near the West Island.

Still smh I’ve said before that the only way I can see them splitting a third branch off the main DM trunk without degrading service along it would be to convert Bois-Franc station with an extra platform and run the airport branch as a shuttle — exactly what Singapore did. Because this possible extension is a decade or more away, that is not too far-fetched an idea. The higher frequency of Laval branch trains might come at the expense of a slight reduction in the frequency of DM or Anse trains, but not as big a drop as if there were three branches feeding the main trunk. But honestly, I think ridership for a Laval branch would be great enough that a 7.5 or 10 minute peak frequency would be too low, and we already know that peak demand west of Bois-Franc is there, so the 5 minute headways for the main DM trunk can’t be lengthened. As for Brossard, I’ve always thought the proposed frequency was a bit high for the potential ridership; I don’t expect a REM on Taschereau — which could be adequately served with a BRT or LRT — would need anywhere near the frequency of Brossard and du Quartier, so it would be similar to the West Island’s asymmetrical frequencies. This is a pity, because a train high above the centre of the boulevard that comes only once every 10 or 15 minutes off-peak is nowhere near as attractive for corridor redevelopment as a surface tram that comes every five minutes. I’m beginning to detest this Faustian bargain.