FrodoMTL

On 2021-02-24 at 10:33 AM, Spiter_01 said:

PR nightmare without a doubt but I persist in saying that the vast majority of the population has a lot more common sense than the media types that get to voice their opinion in their daily/weekly columns (go have a look at the comments on reddit). I personally believe many of the people that signed the open letter against the elevated structure in mid-january did so only because they saw it as an opportunity to push for a more desirable solution but if it came down to choosing an elevated REM-B vs none at all they'd be the first to do a quick 180. 

Let's be honest here the entire controversy is simply about the IDEA of en elevated structure not even a design or proposal, we're still at the idea phase of things. It's pure ideology. If you want to be fair and level headed, then anyone that's saying that multi-billion dollar construction costs and technical difficulties can be overcome should be equally as willing to entertain that maybe it is possible to build a non-ugly elevated structure. Otherwise I don't want to ever want to hear the likes of Marc-André Carignan talk about montreal building it's own version of the high line (ugly concrete elevated structure anyone?) ever again (as he's been doing for over a decade) because that's just rank hypocrisy.

This. Amen.

21 hours ago, SameGuy said:

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!

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

17 hours ago, Kodun said:

Thanks for your time to elaborate your point of view. It's the kind of discussion needed in this era of complacency and polarization.

It's ok to compare with other transfer stations around the globe but it needs to be put into perspective as they all have their own set of reasons and might only compare on some metrics and not the overall. My idea is to look at the actual situation of ÉMpetit, what could've been reasonably done and what was chosen and depicted as the best solution.

The main advantage of ÉMpetit blue line station is that it was built on top of the mountain tunnel, moreover at the location of (one of?) it's ventilation shaft. This, in comparision with many other transfer stations around the globe, is a major advantage as it limits the necessary corridors or horizontal movements. What's not advantageuous is, of course, the vertical distance. There is no perfect solution and the use of fast elevators is probably the only reasonnable solution. But why make them all stop at the top and impose going down the rabbit hole once again? Why not build a level at the blue line bridge between platforms? It's like extending your house with only outdoor access but, hey, you saved on a door! Not the wisest move unless it's for a captive tenent that has no other choice but to rent it after.. Which brings me to the fundamentals of this whole affair.

I do exagerate some times, usually to highlight what i consider to be underlying, getting out of the comfort zone when i know something bad might be brewing and was sadly predictable.

For me, it's crystal clear that the decisions they take are not for what they brag for, which in this particular case is offering a good transfer, but just to give an "opportunity" of it. It might not have been that much hard and expensive to offer a more direct option, but we will never know. It's important to remember that this tranfer was not originaly planned, they were forced to and it seems legitimate to ask if they really worked on offering the best solution or just give the minimum so they can go on? Seems to be a question that answers itself if you ask me.

On the full scope of this "bout de la marde" partnership, what really grinds my gears is the way the government bypasses it's own rules and seems to have no moral in doing it. They look like that boss that promotes employees that are good at their position to another where they have no qualifications by overly minimizing the tasks and responsibilities, creating dependancy as the promoted will do anything to please and keep it's unbearable position since he's not qualified for it. Nowadays, that would be a total wreck for any private company, but seems to still be totaly viable with the government, moreover when they feel they can do whatever they want.

We should seriously ask ourselves if it's responsible, as a society, as Montrealers, to accept and sign eyes closed blueprints that are drawn like urban planing is a joke without having a single finished and working product? Furthermore, that should be the way or the highway? Is mandating the owner's meth head son for renovating the whole house respectuf of ourselves for years of negligence by the owner's dad? Shall we let him finish the house when the first room he's in is not done and shows signs of tacky rounded corners and he's already decided that he's gonna build a wall in the middle of the kitchen cause that's the only way he's gonna bring a pipe to the second floor?

The future transfer might not be "that bad" but certainly nothing more than the soulless solution drawn on a napkin by the bothered coffee guy of the complain department in the second basement by the water heater, something that impedes the less the original plan, which was no transfer at all.

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.

On 2021-02-19 at 2:14 PM, Kodun said:

Honnestly, it's two separate stations that are connected on top, an integrated station would've offered transfers as close as possible to the platforms, ideally onto it. I get that where they dug the new shaft it's probably more realistic for technical reasons but they could've mitigate the negative impacts and not worsen them.. Whats tragic is that they sell it as a perfect transfer, the cash will be long gone when users realize they got framed in another poutine.

Imagine transfering from green line to yellow line, or the other way, but through the ticket floor, exit and reentering the gates, that's most probably the taste of what the ÉMp experience will be.

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.

1 hour ago, swansongtoo said:

Est ce que il fallait s'y attendre?  

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/petition-launched-against-elevated-train-lines-in-east-end-montreal

 

Petition launched against elevated train lines in east-end Montreal

The REM expansion will see 23 stations along two routes serving eastern and north-east Montreal by 2029.

Author of the article:

Presse Canadienne

Publishing date:

Feb 17, 2021  •  4 hours ago  •  1 minute read

Québec Solidaire on Wednesday launched an online petition on the National Assembly’s website aimed at convincing planners of the Réseau express métropolitain to drop the idea of running the commuter train on elevated tracks in Montreal’s east and north ends.

The provincial opposition party argues that the present plan will have harmful consequences on the daily lives of those living alongside the route of the trains.

Petition launched against elevated train lines in east-end Montreal

The petition, which can be signed until April 5, is addressed primarily to the Legault government and the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, which is overseeing the project, and is an initiative of the Coalition pour un REM socialement acceptable.

The petition also calls for the creation of an independent advisory board that will examine the fallout of the train network.

The REM expansion will see 23 stations along two routes serving eastern and northeast Montreal by 2029.

QS MNA Ruba Ghazal, who represents the east-end riding of Mercier, acknowledges that regions are in need of pubic transit infrastructure but adds the elevated tracks will cut off communities and leave a scar on the landscape.

Ghazal thinks an independent advisory committee will ensure that the expansion of the REM network will be durable, pleasant and safe.

Meanwhile, the Comité citoyen REM Ville-Marie fears the expansion will lead to problems of noise and vibrations as well as the presence of dark concrete and steel installations that will add to the feeling of insecurity in the sector.

 

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

1 hour ago, andre md said:

we play with words it's not really a private entity. It ended up being financed by public funds. 

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.

21 hours ago, SameGuy said:

Thanks for this. I’ve been meaning to respond to the past whataboutisms referencing UPX. The funniest part about UPX is that it’s called a “premium” service! I think that’s because of the fare price more than anything. 😂 The original ADM proposal for the YUL Aéroport Express that James Cherry was promoting was going to be a similar to UPX: a spur to the A20 corridor with express shuttle service direct to Central Station for a premium fare. The proposed YUL Express wouldn’t serve the needs of any local transit users.

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. 

15 hours ago, SameGuy said:

Yes, the provincial entity.

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/

40 minutes ago, greg16 said:

I think it's worth taking a moment to remember the reasons why Vancouver's future SkyTrain extension, in a neighborhood outside of downtown , will be underground:

“This is a unique area that competes in a global market for employers as well as the best and brightest talent. Broadway lies at the heart of this job center and has the potential to become a street that effectively balances transportation needs while maintaining an urban realm that attracts businesses to the area. Negatively impacting the Broadway streetscape could make Metro Vancouver less attractive to the talent pool, and employers may choose to set up in other regions such as Seattle, San Diego, Toronto, or London. ”

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/millennium-line-broadway-extension-elevated-skytrain

Wouldn't we be doing a little too much aplaventrism?
Shouldn't we instead do as in Vancouver and demand that things be done well?
Why are we always so afraid of doing things the right way?

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. 

14 hours ago, Né entre les rapides said:

True. But not along their Grand (most prestigious) Boulevards.  

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.

48 minutes ago, SameGuy said:

One big change I was sorry to see was the “underwater” Bassin station. I  get  the technical and financial reasons why it had to go, but the thought of what benefits it could have brought to the area - and no monstrosity over the Canal! - make it an unfortunate victim of reality.

I'm really hoping changes for REM-B go the  othe r way, deciding to tackle the more technically difficult challenges and finding the financing to do it right.

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. 

1 hour ago, geraldshaw said:

A picture is worth 1000 words. A rapid transit station in Wuppertal above. Imagine this along RL and the value of Ivanhoe's downtown core properties. QED.

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. 🤮🤮

14 minutes ago, geraldshaw said:

OK, forget Chicago -  look at Skytrain Bangkok. Another old Turcot . Do we really want this in downtown Montreal?

 

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):

13 minutes ago, geraldshaw said:

The facts and the reality is that no part of Vancouver's Skytrain runs above ground on a dense core, above a boulevard as narrow as Rene-Levesque. In fact, much of the Vancouver Skytrain lines are now underground or being planned to be underground for future lines. Airport to downtown is over 1/2 underground. New Broadway line being built is underground. Why? For exactly the reasons that the urban planners in Vancouver have declared: that above ground lines in high density office towers and high rises locations are environmental and social failures. Vancouver urban planners often make comparisons to Chicago's LOOP. Good urban planning is not "fear mongering", it is good urban planning. 

 

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?

3 hours ago, Nameless_1 said:

Eastern REM: a motion calls for an extension to Rivière-des-Prairies

QMI AGENCY

 Wednesday, January 13, 2021 04:48 UPDATE Wednesday, January 13, 2021 04:48

The mayor of the Rivière-des-Prairies-Pointe-aux-Trembles borough is requesting the extension of the REM route east of Highway 25 to serve a population of over 50,000 people.  

A motion unveiled on Tuesday calls on the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ) and the Legault government to extend the route of the Metropolitan Express Network (REM) in a neighborhood surrounded by “physical barriers”, referring to highways 25 and 40 and the Rivière des Prairies. 

“The borough of Rivière-des-Prairies-Pointe-aux-Trembles officially asks the CDPQ and the government of Quebec to respond positively to the needs of the population of Rivière-des-Prairies by extending the REM route to the East from Autoroute 25 in order to serve this district ”, according to the motion that will be voted on by the borough council. 

"The current project will provide good service to the Pointe-aux-Trembles district thanks to a line to the train station, and we wish to sixize this opportunity to improve the route and open up the Rivière-des-Prairies district", indicated Mayor Caroline Bourgeois, by press release. 

"Extending the REM to the east of the A-25 means serving 50,000 additional people, and fighting congestion thanks to the potential withdrawal of thousands of cars from our roads," added Ms. Bourgeois. 

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2021/01/13/rem-de-lest-une-motion-demande-le-prolongement-vers-riviere-des-prairies

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?

2 hours ago, Rocco said:

Magnificent! It gives hope. The chairs are not two meters apart. Is this regulatory in 2021?😏

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.

12 hours ago, SameGuy said:

I suppose if they build the structure 50 m off the ground, Metropolis-style, nobody will complain about the view or the noise.

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...)

9 hours ago, SameGuy said:

Don't blame the media:

 

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. 

10 hours ago, Kodun said:

If we look closely, in The Hague, the structure is not in the center of the right-of-way but rather on one side, the motorized traffic lanes are on the other (and not on each edge of the structure). This may be the solution proposed by the CDPQi ...

RL needs to be redone anyways

 

Details of traffic lanes, only 2 lanes in each direction.

 

A station is certainly shading but much less worse than I imagined and more elegant than the shoe boxes they are laying for us:

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).

1 hour ago, IluvMTL said:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-caisses-heavy-hand-shapes-montreals-transit-future/

Caisse’s heavy hand shapes Montreal’s transit future

KONRAD YAKABUSKI

PUBLISHED JANUARY 5, 2021

UPDATED 22 HOURS AGO

 

The mid-December announcement by Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec that it would extend its Réseau express métropolitain project, currently under construction, to the eastern tip of the island of Montreal was like an early Christmas present for long-neglected neighbourhoods that have languished in the wake of deindustrialization.

Rather than playing Santa Claus, however, the Caisse sees the project as a way to earn rich returns for its depositors, which include the Quebec Pension Plan, at a time when its other real holdings in shopping centres and office buildings face uncertain postpandemic prospects.

Whether this model of transit development is a good deal for residents and taxpayers is another matter altogether. Critics argue the Caisse has put its own interests ahead of those of the broader community by pushing governments to hand it control over major infrastructure without facing the same requirements for transparency as public transit agencies.

The $10-billion project unveiled last month, dubbed the REM de l’Est, would run for 32 kilometres from downtown to points in Montreal-Nord and Pointe-aux-Trembles. The project would be aimed at relieving congestion at downtown subway stations and encouraging the redevelopment of vast swaths abandoned industrial land in the city’s east end.

“We are putting forward a public transit system proposal that meets both the needs of [the Caisse’s] six million depositors, and the need for mobility in the eastern and northeastern sectors of the island,” Caisse chief executive officer Charles Émond said at the Dec. 15 unveiling of the REM de l’Est alongside Premier François Legault and Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante. “We call this constructive capital, since it allows us to combine performance and progress.”

The new project would be separate from the REM already under construction, with its three lines running 67 km west, north and south from downtown and a link to Trudeau International Airport. Budgeted in 2016 at $6.3-billion, the REM is behind schedule and the final cost is expected to exceed $8-billion once reinforcements of a century-old tunnel under Mount Royal and other municipal infrastructure improvements are taken into account. Most of the additional costs are likely to be borne by taxpayers, rather than the Caisse.

Like the REM, however, the REM de l’Est would be majority-owned and operated by the Caisse, which would put up about half of the cost of the project. The federal and Quebec governments would provide the remaining capital for project. The Caisse would receive annual operating subsidies from Quebec City and local municipalities to help meet its “profit” targets.

Under its 2018 financing agreement for the REM, the Caisse will receive 72 cents for each passenger-kilometre travelled on the light-rail transit system, with most of the funding coming from the provincial government (39.5 cents) and local municipal governments (11.4 cents). As with most public transit projects, ticket prices will cover only a fraction of the cost of the service.

The REM de l’Est would likely need much larger per-passenger operating subsidies, since much of the LRT’s trajectory would run through sparsely populated neighbourhoods whose redevelopment would occur over several decades.

If the Quebec government has been an enthusiastic supporter of the Caisse’s vision, it is at least in part because of its own inertia. Long-promised plans to extend Montréal’s underground Métro system remain unrealized. Regional and local transit authorities are bogged down by bureaucracy, while the costs of maintaining existing transit infrastructure suck up their budgets. The result is rundown Métro stations and an exodus of young families to the suburbs.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

At this point, the REM de l’Est appears to be more of an election promise by Ms. Plante and Mr. Legault – who will face voters later this year and in 2022, respectively – than a done deal. The promise allows Ms. Plante to claim credit for securing major transit investments for the city’s hard-up east end, while improving Mr. Legault’s chances of picking up more Montreal seats. The Premier’s Coalition Avenir Québec currently holds just two seats on the island of Montreal. One of those seats just happens to be Pointe-aux-Trembles, held by junior transportation minister Chantal Rouleau, whose riding would be the end point for the REM de l’Est.

Many urban planners worry the Caisse has shown heavy-handedness in imposing its vision for Montreal’s transit future in order to guarantee returns for its depositors, without regard for the efforts of regional public transit authorities to work in concert. Indeed, both the REM and REM de l’Est could endanger the viability of existing transit systems operated by the Société de transport de Montréal and l’Autorité régionale de transport métropolitain.

Perhaps the biggest knock against the REM de l’Est is that the proposed LRT would run on elevated tracks five metres above ground along René-Lévesque Boulevard, through the downtown core. While this is a cheaper option than an underground train, the massive concrete columns running down the middle of a major thoroughfare would be a colossal eyesore.

The Caisse has promised that the “elevated structure and stations will receive special attention in their architectural treatment, to ensure they endow downtown Montréal with a modern and symbolic aesthetic.” But judging by the portions of the REM already under construction in the city’s west end, aesthetics do not appear to the be the Caisse’s main priority.

"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.

4 hours ago, p_xavier said:

NoahB posted these on UrbanToronto as examples of inspiration for an elevated structure.

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).