SameGuy

J'étais prêt à faire exactement la même analogie! Le catalyseur de ce renversement plus récent a été l'émergence d'avions plus petits avec une autonomie nettement plus longue grâce au développement de nouvelles technologies dans la construction de la cellule et l'efficacité des réacteurs. Northwest Airlines allait être le client de lancement nord-américain du 787 Dreamliner précisément pour bénéficier de telles efficacités d'échelle inversée; à l'époque, ils pilotaient le très inefficace 747-400 à moitié plein entre JFK et Narita car c'était leur seul avion capable de voler dans les deux sens sans escale. Le Dreamliner transporterait le même nombre de passagers et consommerait globalement 30% de carburant en moins, et environ 60% de moins par siège-mille. Finalement, le Delta beaucoup plus grand a suspendu la commande parce qu'ils étaient capables de remplir systématiquement le 744 sur n'importe quelle route donnée, mais le paradigme des routes longues et minces a été chaleureusement adopté par d'autres transporteurs alors qu'ils commandaient les nouveaux aéronefs larges ainsi que les plus petits qui entrainaient une évolution eux-mêmes. De même, des modes plus légers devraient être envisagés pour les itinéraires en TEC longs et minces (et souvent de point à point) qui évitent le paradigme radiale des lignes de trains de banlieue du XXe siècle.

Platform screen doors are a relatively new device in transit systems; many ultra-busy metros the world over have employed narrow central platforms for decades without the use of such doors. IMO they are beneficial for numerous reasons, and it’s expected that the new stations will be built such that they can easily be added later on, but they’re certainly not a necessity for a staffed metro to function safely (NB even the driverless SkyTrain doesn’t employ such doors at most stations).

🤜🏼🤛🏼

I’m not sure I understand your point.

This is entirely debatable; REM-A is their prototype of this business model at this scale.

People who claim a modern tram is “too slow” seem to be confused. What are you looking for, an express train that ignores local needs? Or local transit that helps develop the area? A tram en site propre is faster than automobile traffic any day of the week, even on a superhighway like Taschereau. Somewhere along the line since 2016, we’ve lost focus about our different transit needs and decided that speed and eliminating the train driver should be prioritized over everything else. This explains REM-B: it’ll go 100, and there won’t be some dude on board making a hundred grand a year to push a button at the front of the train, but it’ll be a train about the same length and capacity as most automated airport people movers, it won’t go where it’s most needed, it’ll disfigure neighbourhoods, and, oh yeah, it’ll cost (at least) ten billion dollars to do all that. Does Longueuil want better rapid transit that serves local needs and fosters an overhaul of the Taschereau corridor? Or does Longueuil want a massive express people mover high above the autoroute to whisk people from the hospital to a different REM?

Or fully modernizing and electrifying exo1 Vaudreuil, with money to spare.

The various levels of government are paying more than half of the bill for REM-A, let’s not forget that part. $4 billion could fund several projects that make a hell of a lot more sense than running a metro in Ste-Dorothée and the swamps west of Kirkland.

Well, if a “REM-Sud” does end up being a street-level tram, the wires will certainly be much less obtrusive.

And it’s like we are talking in circles. Better planning for the integration of the new system with the old systems would have taken care of improving the connections between the three modes. CDPQ Infra is not a transit authority, it’s just one arm of a for-profit 800-pound gorilla.

There are a few points @reecemartin makes in the video with which I don’t (or only somewhat) agree. However, the observation that REM is an express service like RER — “express” is in both their names! — while Métro is local transit… is spot-on (and a point I’ve made on these forums).

Isn’t it the opposite? Won’t the height limits go down with reference to MSL? If MSL rises by 2.4 metres, the height of Mont-Royal will be 230.6 metres AMSL. Regardless, the absolute limit will remain the same. 😉

That’s one of our brand-new CRRC cars destroying/getting destroyed by the caducous CN porticos at Bassin Wellington.

Cela semble être le scénario le plus plausible, et le consensus atteint dans les discussions ailleurs entre les umarels. 🙂

Lol

Please credit our peripatetic @Chuck-A for the video.

Asked and (speculatively) answered numerous times in the first 49,385 pages of this thread, then addressed in a FAQ issued by CDPQ Infra after public information sessions last year.

It’s a cultural focal point of the entire area, and has been so since the early 1980s (I was Prez of the John Abbott Rock Climbing Club in 1985).

Haven’t we spent a LOT of words and electrons on how a metro (of any kind) might separate the neighbourhood from the river? Marco Chitti just raised the same prospect on the Twitters. An aerial guideway is much less divisive than a talus (like exo5 Mascouche).

Very very excellent point.

Or put it somewhere it’s both needed and wanted.

Indeed

No pics because: My car is filthy The lighting conditions are crap There wasn’t a great place to park All of the above But the “central emergency platform” is being installed from Kirkland to Fairview. I’ll try to get some pics the next sunny day.

Tarps and wraps are working. Getting excited to see major progress on this segment!

That’s not incorrect.