FrodoMTL

This. Amen.

Something like this would do nicely: But no, in Canada, we have to have super special treatment and demand that everything is done according to "our unique local conditions" in order to appease the 298,989,098,023 local interest groups that are constantly demanding things to be done their way.

Or even closer to home, try out the new subway extension in Toronto Line 1 from Downsview to Vaughan. Extremely smooth ride aided by ATC. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/2017/12/15/trudeau-wynne-tory-on-hand-to-cut-ribbon-on-32-billion-subway-extension.html?rf

Thank you for this. Appreciate the time you took to respond. I agree that in Montreal (and in Canada/North America in general) we should all try to strive for a "higher standard" when it comes to our public realms, whether it be public parks, public transit, bike lanes, technology access in public spaces, etc. But to realize that "higher standard", I think we all need to be more open-minded and more creative about solutions implemented elsewhere around the world. Too often, we critique public projects with a narrow vision solely focused on comparing on what's done next door (aka some U.S. city), when in fact there very well could be similar projects being built at this very moment in another city in Asia or Europe or South America. We often discount those options using the excuse that we (Montreal) are "unique", and have "unique local conditions that need to be met". To me personally, that just sounds like close mindedness and tunnel vision. Prime example of the above is all the local opposition towards REM-B's aerial structure, and the overwhelming conception from many local associations, politicians, and media that "underground is good, elevated is bad". To be fair, this sentiment is not unique to Montreal - in neighbouring Toronto there was also overwhelming local pressure to extend the Subway Line 1 deep into the suburbs - which indeed happened with the extension of the Yonge-University Subway to Vaughan in 2017, but at a staggering cost of $3.2 billion for just 5 additional subway stations deep into the suburbs. It begs the question - does a sparcely populated residential suburb really need an expensive underground subway system? How about a BRT, an elevated train, or even a grade separated LRT? I think we in Montreal should also be asking these questions as well.

I think we are exaggerating a bit here. Sure, it's a long transfer from Metro Blue to REM (up stairs, through a tunnel, and back down an elevator to the REM platform). There's some walking involved, but there is also an underground walkway that connects the Metro and REM, so you don't have to exit the station or walk to street level. Also, do we actually know for sure people will need to exit/re-enter fare gates between Blue Line and REM-A? With the underground walkway and future fare integration between STM and REM, it's totally conceivable that they can forego this. Further, there are plenty of modern metro systems in North America and around the world that have far longer transfers, especially between 2 independently operated systems: - Toronto Union (transfer between GO and TTC Subway is far more convoluted than Eduard Montpetit, yet it still manages to handle 72 million riders each year transferring between GO/VIA and TTC). Is it a lot of walking? Yes. Are there a lot of stairs and turns? Yes. But it works and people have gotten used to it. - Toronto Spadina Station, which involves a 150 m tunnel walk between Line 1 and Line 2 subway. Is it long? Yes, it's a long walk, but once again, people have gotten used to it and Spadina has become one of the busiest stations on the TTC network (1st image below) - Shanghai People's Square Station - which involves a massive underground transfer hall. On average each transfer takes at least a 5 min walk between one line to the next. Oh and that doesn't include mandatory security checkpoints and bag scans at all fare gates to prevent terrorist attacks... - Lastly, even the transfer from Orange to Blue line at Jean Talon isn't exactly "smooth" - it's a lot of escalators, stairs, and walking (if the escalators were not under constant repair)... And once again, we've all gotten used to it. What I'm trying to say is that the interchange design at Eduard Montpetit isn't perfect - far from it. But it's far from being the "all that bad" especially when looking at examples elsewhere. As a future prospective user (as I live near that station and will need to commute downtown daily), I'm more than happy with the current design and won't complain.

Surprise surprise.

I think we all want to avoid a situation where the system is half finished, especially having the airport terminal station unfinished due to a budget squabble between Quebec and Ottawa. This wouldn't look good on anyone, especially the political leaders at the top. At least Montreal won't end up with the "Honolulu-situation", with a metro system that is half finished due to budget over-run and won't be completed until 2033...😥 Honolulu Rail Transit (currently in construction pause): https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-20-mile-train-line-swelled-into-a-9-billion-debacle-11553270393

I don't think anyone ever implied that UPX was funded by private entities. AFP is simply a procure/finance/build model that governs the responsibilities between the government (the client) and private contractors. The source of funding is still public. Anyway, now we are way off topic. Back to REM station in YUL.

Yes, the "premium service" branding was a spectacular failure for the Ontario government. The one way ticket was $27.50 at launch (which isn't the most expensive considering that a taxi/limo ride is easily $60+ to downtown). To be fair to Ontario/Metrolinx, it was a pretty decent "premium service" - custom-designed seating, magazines in seatback pockets, good onboard amenities (free wifi, USB outlets, tray tables, onboard bathrooms). It even has its own "custom uniform" and a bar/lounge and boutique cafe at the Union Station terminal... Since then, I think every transit agency in the country, including REM-A, has learned to NOT follow the UPX launch model. And to be fair to Metrolinx, it did correct the pricing issue (now down to about ~$10 one way), and since then, UPX has become quite a popular service not just with airport travelers but also local transit users (I know quite a few colleagues of mine who use it daily to commute from home to work just like how they would use GO or TTC), especially since it now offers RER-like service every 15 minutes (pre-covid). Also, UPX's rollingstock choice - Nippon Sharyo DMU - is highly questionable from the beginning. I don't think UPX is a grand failure, but it is a good case study for the future because: - it just goes to show that the "premium airport link" market is really a niche market for vast majority of cities - things like rollingstock choices can have long repercussions down the road - even when it became a failure, there are creative ways to "rebrand" and "redeploy" the service for other transit needs, which is exactly what Metrolinx did with very good results The very likely future of UPX is that it will be rebranded and incorporated into the general GO RER program, with electrification and new higher capacity rollingstock.

Metrolinx is the owner/operator of UPX. Infrastructure Ontario is the entity that was responsible for the original tenders and deciding on the financing model. It used Ontario's famous "Alternative Financing and Procurement Model" (AFP) meant to "de-risk the project by offloading all project risks to the private sector" (which sounds great on paper but comes with lots of issues in practice). Like I said earlier, I couldn't find any publicly available info on the cost contributions from each entity (between Infra Ontario and GTAA). https://www.infrastructureontario.ca/Request-for-Qualifications-Issued-Union-Pearson-Express/

Several key differences between REM-A and Union-Pearson Express: - UPExpress cost a total of $500 million (the entire project, not just the station) - it's a bargain because it only required upgrades 2 existing GO transit stations and the addition of 2 new stations (Pearson and Union), along with a new aerial spur. There isn't even electrification, which should've been included from day 1. - The Pearson Airport station is tiny compared to the underground REM infrastructure proposed for YUL. UPX station at Pearson is essentially an elevated platform that is an extension of the old Pearson LINK Train to Terminal 3. There really isn't much new infrastructure added, and for those that have used it in the past, the UPX station integration with the actual terminal building isn't optimal for passenger experience, and clearly feels like it's a quick build rather than something that integrates seamlessly with the rest of the Pearson airport transit (you have to exit the train, go through the old LINK platform, down escalator, turn left through the parking garage, turn right onto a pedestrian bridge, and climb another escalator up to the departure terminal) - I cannot find info on how much GTAA contributed to the UPX Pearson station, but you can bet that it's a tiny fraction of the $600 million that ADM needs to put up.

Also another reason the public transit agency Translink doesn't like to admit: because that part of Broadway sees some of the highest single family property values in Vancouver, with an average house priced at $ 3.48 million in the Kitsilano area of Vancouver West along Broadway along with some of the loudest (and most well funded) neighborhood associations. Like Canada Line on Cambie , Skytrain became a subway in Vancouver because of very loud NIMBYism by some of the richest residents in the country (in order to preserve a 6-lane auto corridor surrounded by million dollar suburban mansions). Very few people who live in $4 million dollar homes in Vancouver need to take the Skytrain (or any transit for that matter). On the other hand, Translink had no trouble building elevated Skytrain through Vancouver East / Chinatown in the 80s, which unsurprisingly also happened to be an ethnic low-income neighborhood back then. I'm not opposed to tunneling under RL at all, but just wanted to point out that Vancouver made their decisions due to a variety of factors, with very strong pressure from rich NIMBY's in a few key Skytrain corridors that should otherwise have been elevated.

Maybe it's just me, but I never had the impression that RL was "prestigious" or "grand". If anything, I'd give that to Sherbrooke or St. Catherine. As it stands, RL is nothing more than an east-west auto-centric corridor. Nobody likes to bike on RL. Nobody likes to walk on RL. Only cars go there. Let's not kid ourselves - RL isn't at the level of 5th Avenue or Park Avenue in NYC. Even University Avenue in Toronto has a more "grand" feeling than RL as it stands today.

In other words, let's not over-engineer parts that could be solved with simple, off the shelf solutions, while focusing on finding solutions for high priority sections (such as the downtown RL segment and key interchange stations) that ought to deserve better design, money, and attention. I think REM-A got most of this right, by focusing on key interchange stations like McGill and Édouard-Montpetit - despite their technical challenges, these engineering feats will benefit future generations for decades to come.

You are right. A picture is worth a thousand words. A picture can also be part of a selection bias via cherry picking of facts and figures to support one's own argument. Also, I assume that you ending each of your post with the Latin acronym "QED" is just a fancy way to show off that you've just logically proven something with a random copy/pasted image from Google Images? Wow, sir, we are very impressed with your superior command of diction and Google search skills 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ To paraphrase you: "Imagine the below along RL and the value of Ivanhoe's downtown core properties." QED QED.

Are we really having a discussion about the efficacy of an automated rail system in 2021? Ever since a certain poster entered this thread, I've seen a rapid decline in the quality of discussion on here. 🤮🤮

I mean, for everyone of these pictures, one could easily find a counter example. It's called selection bias, by selectively sampling data to support a pre-determined conclusion. Elevated rapid transit in the Hague (someone posted earlier one if you cared to even read prior posts):

Oh boy, I see that you are like 60 pages late to this conversation. The above-ground/underground Vancouver comparisons have already been discussed over and over back in early December... Try to take some time to read the previous 164 pages of this thread before rehashing the same topic again?

Here comes the change requests. This is why projects always go over original budget estimates - local politicians adding on their pet projects causing both cost and timeline extensions. Certain change requests are definitely justified and needed (for example the change request for the extension of REM-A to Dorval, which is money well spent even), but random requests like this to an otherwise low-density suburb makes one wonder otherwise. For example, if we are going to spend hundreds of millions extending a high frequency rapid transit line deep into the suburbs, wouldn't that money be better spent expanding Rivière-des-Prairies-Pointe-aux-Trembles' local bus service instead (e.x. a few high quality bus lines to the nearest REM station), thereby benefiting a larger group of people in that community?

I think this would look beautiful on RL, no? The glass and concrete are very sexy in my opinion 😍 RL could even become a future tourist attraction.

It could be something like this, tall and imposing, a monument to the future dwarfing everything else on RL 😎😎 (this is the new Brentwood station on Vancouer Skytrain, possibly the largest station structure on the whole network with 80 m platforms and 15 m high...)

I know.. it's been that way since 2016... I blame the translators working for CDPQ. The precise translation should be "light metro", because the moment you say "light rail or LRT" in English, people think it's Toronto streetcar or Portland trams.

It's a similar layout to Canada Line on No. 3 road in Richmond city center. Obviously lower density and building height than RL, but you can see it's also on the side of the road with wide sidewalk and leaving 4 lanes for auto traffic. However, in Richmond's case, the line is a lot closer to the building (almost touching the facade) than the Hague. I also like the fact that in Richmond's case, there's a lot more greenery, vegetation around the base of the elevated structure, which could help the aesthetics (slightly).

"Caisse’s heavy hand" - gotta love all the drama the media is stirring up, they make it sound like the REM is being rammed down people's throats by Stalin and the Politburo. You want to see real "heavy hand"? Go to China and see how the Communist Party builds transit there - no BAPE, no environmental assessment, no public consultations, and no need for property acquisition (because all properties are state-owned anyway). "Indeed, both the REM and REM de l’Est could endanger the viability of existing transit systems" - by "endangering" you mean enticing more suburban users onto the transit system and providing rapid transit coverage to places where there is none at the moment? Pleeeeease... And for the life of me, please English-media, stop calling REM an LRT...😣😣 On the other hand it's a good sign a national daily like the Globe is paying attention, as REM-B will need lots of attention and funding support from Ottawa.

I agree. While these look lovely, I don't think they have the same urban setting as RL. If you notice, all of them have wide clearances between the track and surrounding buildings. The Riyadh line is basically surrounded by 3 auto lanes on each side plus a lane of diagonal parking spaces... clearly not comparable to RL. Also, in all of the pictures, the urban setting seems to be newer or redeveloped areas with newer buildings (and much more space between buildings).