FrodoMTL

47 minutes ago, SameGuy said:

Ah, but then the next question becomes: if a true BRT line on RL - segregated right of way down the center, traffic signal control, NO left turns - would be acceptable, how come a tram (or the street corridor portion of a longer -distance tram-train) wouldn't? IMO a low-floor tram-train is the best compromise for the REM-B - provided that the mistakes of OTrain don't get repeated.

I disagree. OTrain is not comparable because despite it using Alstom Citidals low floor-LRTs, O-Train is fully grade separated at all points along the line, with elevated and underground segments very much like the current REM. The major difference is that it has longer platforms and different rollingstock.

What you and some others are proposing - a tramline down RL with elevated segments outside of downtown - is more akin to Toronto's Eglinton Crosstown. Essentially it's a "hybrid" LRT that runs at grade in certain sections and fully grade separated on others. I think this is a big mistake - if you look at the Eglinton Crosstown that is under-construction - the line has 90-m platforms yet only a maximum capacity of 15,000 passengers per hour per direction. A big constraint on capacity is that the eastern segment of Eglinton Crosstown is not grade separated and run in mixed traffic, at an operational speed of only 25 kph and 4 minute frequencies  (it can be upgrade to ~ 3 min if there is further signal prioritization at key intersections).Further, the moment a left turning vehicle, a pedestrian, or a drunk Toronto driver blocks an intersection, the entire "rapid transit" line is paralyzed. This is a very real scenario that already plagues many of Toronto's streetcar routes on a weekly basis and puts a big constraint on future scalability (see below 510 St. Clair LRT in midtown Toronto). Given the amount of auto and pedestrian traffic on RL, the probability of collisions can only increase. 

What's even more exasperating is that the Eglinton LRT in Toronto now cost a whopping price of $ 12.58 billion (2019 dollars), and what Toronto is getting is essentially a glorified LRT line that doesn't even have grade separation and by no means "rapid transit ". You can read all about the Crosstown LRT's design flaws and delays in Steve Munro's excellent analysis . 

What I'm trying to illustrate with the above example is that whatever the final alignment of the REM-B is - whether it's underground or elevated - the worst case scenario is a "hybrid" compromise solution where you build it with no grade separation. If we need to spend $ 4-5 billion more to tunnel it under RL or another street, I'm all for it - I'd rather have a real rapid transit network that than a compromise solution that seeks to appease different interest groups. Future generations will thank us for not repeating the same mistakes that Toronto is making.

On 2020-12-28 at 1:11 PM, samuelmath said:

What about China? They build a bridge in 43 hours at low cost. I don't know about its quality though. And it's China... right?

I was born in China. There is a running joke among Chinese people - "the life span of any government-built infrastructure usually equals 1-2x the construction duration" - so if a highway bridge took 6 months to build, it'll last maybe 6-12 months before you starting seeing quality issues, such as the example below  

On a serious note, the scale of corruption in Chinese government and infrastructure sector makes Quebec look like child's play. When my Chinese friends heard about the SNC-Lavalin scandal and how in 2014 SNC gave $200,000 payments to some government officials, their first reaction was like "is this even worth reporting??" Because in their mind, billions $$ of public funds routinely disappear in Chinese infrastructure projects. In 2013 alone, the Chinese Minister of Railways pocketed $255 million USD in public funds because he demanded a personal 4% "finder's fee" on all Chinese high speed rail contracts. I think you can safely multiple the above number by 5 or 10, given that the government media always under-report these numbers. Anyway, I digress. 

Yanmingtan Bridge in Harbin (northern China), which collapsed 8 months after opening...

15 hours ago, Rocco said:

Whatever we say and whatever we do with the elevated structures, our beautiful REM will always have this metal forest along the tracks .... Imagine on René-Lévesque 😏  Note that the Vancouver Skytrain has no catenaries (see the previous videos), but a third electrified track on the ground. Not badly prettier! In Montreal we stayed in the 19th century.

I don't know about y'all, but I find the catenaries beautiful. Also, what exactly is "19th century" about running electric trains with overhead wiring? Virtually all of the largest cities today around the world have similar setups for their metro and high speed rail lines - Singapore, Shanghai, Beijing, Sydney, Budapest, Barcelona, Lima, Istanbul, Amsterdam, Nanjing. Here in Canada, Toronto's regional rail operator Metrolinx is electrifying 200 km of regional rail with catenaries along 6 rail corridors across the GTA (not to mention the new Ontario Line metro in Toronto which will be built the same as REM). There is virtually nothing unique about this with regards to the REM because it is such a common sight around the world. Sometimes I feel that people need to pull their heads out of the sand and travel around the world more....

Catenaries? Electrification? Automation? Yes more please! With that said, I do agree that we should be open to exploring underground options for the Rene-Levesque / downtown segment.

The new Sydney Metro (which runs elevated and uses the exact same Alstom rolling stock)....

Singapore Metro with brand new Alstom Metropolis rolling stock:

Xiamen (China) Metro which opened in 2017:

Shanghai Metro Line 9 (64 km of urban elevated rail that runs entirely on catenaries)

Reading through all of the comments, I think for any project of this scale there needs to be adequate public consultation, or rather a "cooling off" period to let the project sink in. I am absolutely sure the CDPQi has anticipated a strong response from both sides, and we should all know that the current proposal is nowhere near final. 

With that said, consultation for the sake of consultation doesn't do anyone service. If all you do is drown yourselves in studies and community consultations, in the end it just ends up being a waste of public funds, especially when nothing gets built (which is what eventually happened to cities like Brampton and Toronto that actually turned down funding $$ because they wanted to "fully study alternative options"). I've seen this happen too many times in transit and other public sector projects in Toronto, where I personally worked on several projects as an external consultant to Ontario's biggest transit agency (I won't name names) from 2016-18. The biggest beneficiaries of these delay tactics will always be the external consultants and "change management" agencies, who are hired by the government to gather data from different community groups, put them in nice presentations, and in the end reach the same conclusions. If the REM were left up to a public agency like the STM or TTC, I can guarantee you the above will happen, millions of $ spent on hiring consultants to do endless studies, before any decision is taken, because public sector agencies in Canada has a long and proud tradition of indecision (no middle-level public servant wants to take the blame for making a quick decision that goes wrong, because they are not incentivized to take quick decisions or risks). 

Whatever your personal opinion on the CDPQi may be, I think we can all agree that one thing they have done right with REM-A so far is to avoid the above trap that public sector agencies so frequently fall into.

Vancouver native here. It actually wasn't "jam packed" during the Olympics, at least not all times of the day during an international sporting event that lasted for over 30 days. Even on game days where you had an extreme crush load (Olympics opening / closing ceremonies, Canada-USA hockey final), you only had to wait 2-3 trains to get on because frequency was easily increased to every 90-120 secs on Canada Line. You never had to wait for more than 1-2 min before the next train. That's the beauty of a fully automated system in that you can ramp up capacity very quickly via a centralized control center. 

Also, 2010 Olympics and Para-Olympics lasted well over 1 month with international visitors arriving and leaving throughout that period. It wasn't just a 1 day event.

Furthermore, as Reece explained in his video, Canada Line is built with a final capacity of 15,000 pphpd. In 2020, Translink purchased 12 additional trains, which immediately increased capacity from 6000 pphpd in Jan 2020 to the current 8800 pphpd as of Dec 2020. Currently, 6 stations are already built to 50 m standards, and the other underground stations are built with false walls which can allow easy expansion to 50 m. When this happens in the distant future, Canada Line's final design capacity will double to over 15,000 pphpd (combined with 3-car trains). Not bad for a "toy train" system. For perspective, Canada Line's peak hour ridership today hovers around the 5500 pphpd mark (pre-covid), or just 1/3 of its final design capacity. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-line-maximum-frequency-skytrain

Lastly, note that Canada Line is the one and only North-South rapid transit line serving the core of Vancouver. Unlike Montreal, there is no overlapping "Metro" or heavy rail to offset demand during peak hours. - hence creating the perception that it may seem crowded during peak hours (but I ask, which successful metro system isn't crowded during peak hours? Isn't that a sign of a system's success?)  Montreal's REM-B has the benefit of multiple interchange points with Green / Blue / Orange line metros, as well as a large part of the Green Line metro that runs parallel to REM-B. A big role that I see for REM-B is creating redundancy in the rapid transit system, taking the load off some parts of the Orange, Green, and Blue Lines while ensuring that commuters have an alternative rapid transit solution in the event that the Metro Lines are down. 

People should stop spreading misinformation about Canada Line, because for what it is, it gets the job done nicely, far better some of the recent "rapid transit" projects around the country that are in fact nothing more than LRT tramways. As a Vancouverite, I was always happy taking with the service level.