geraldshaw

13 hours ago, SameGuy said:

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)?

Drivers going  into London's "Congestion Zone' pay 15 pounds sterling, or $C 25  every time they enter that zone.  After some initial tearing of shirts, the tax, collected electronically and billed to drivers,  has been a great success -- boosted public transportation usage and new construction.

PS Re London's Congestion Zone tax -- it raised  200 million pounds sterling  last  year, equivalent of nearly $C 350 million.

At first glance, I thought the photos were taken in  Griffintown.  I remember when these CSL apartments were cheered on  at  their opening. Now some 50 years later they are seen as  ugly tenements / U. S. style "projects" for social housing. There  is still time to mitigate this being the opinion for Griffintown as their buildings age.

1 hour ago, SameGuy said:

But I agree with @Né entre les rapides and @Enalung that it has become unnecessarily divisive in tone over the past few months, veering from the discussions of design and construction to that of politics and ideology — ie opinions about which government should be ponying up to rescue the station. While discussion of financing projects forms a very natural part of discourse regarding a major project, it too often invites ideological barbs to be thrown into the mix that do not actually help further that conversation. If the mods/admins see it differently, then carry on, but I wouldn’t be astonished if this gets forked to a different thread in the off-topic forum.

At the same time this site has become a vital opinion influencer with a  growing impact  -- it  is  being seen or heard about or read  by private and public  urban planners, powerful architectural  firms, the media, and yes by   political  advisors  and by infrastructure forces at  all 3 levels of government.  Differing opinions are far more important than unanimous cheerleading. I have seen very little in the way "ideological barbs".

Debate is not divisive but rather it is  a good thing that in the end creates better projects. This site succeeds  in that effort to help create a better Montreal, the city we all love.

4 hours ago, Enalung said:

Yes, the financing of YUL is political, but the fact is that most of those reading this just don't have the power to do anything about it. Regardless of it it's over the line or not, it's a pointless argument. It does not add anything of value to the thread. Worse, the fact is that theses politically charged discussions are very divisive. I do talk politics quite a bit on other social websites, but as much as possible, I try to avoid those arguments on this forum. It's not the reason why I come here. It's basic common sense and basic social etiquette. Most of us have a guinine interest in those projects and just enjoy sharing knowledge and ideas. I said it last time and I'll say it again: take more time to read some of the threads in this forum. Read enough and you'll notice that there are some lines that most members do not cross regardless of forum rules.

To ignore the critical   dynamics of the timing of financing and the deadline to secure that financing within 60 days -  March 2021, when said  financing is 100% from various arms of the state, and when  concurrently  there is a March 2021  federal budget with  1many  billions of new infrastructure  money for Quebec on the table to  be delivered  by a federal minority govt., is to ignore the elephant in the room.

The 3 options for the timing of that financing is (1) before the budget   i. e.,  in February 2021 - or within the next 30 days (2) as part of a March 2021 budget that is passed in May 2021  (3) or after the election say in the summer or worse the fall,  by a re-elected  Liberal  majority government.  (1) is most like likely because it  gains the most political points in Quebec in the fastest possible way. To ignore financing timing options  makes them  elephants in the room.

This business above you say  "those reading just don't have the power to do anything about it"  is a "pointless argument" and  "does not not add anything of value to the thread" is "politically charged discussions are very divisive"  is like  saying that this site of supposedly important opinion influencers is for you,  just a site where contributors "just enjoy sharing  knowledge and on ideas" . I am happy for you. But please, give others who contribute a little more credit. The site has important influence on key decision makers for each project.   

44 minutes ago, Né entre les rapides said:

Déplace ton message dans le forum  portant sur les Discussions Politiques si tu espères poursuivre sur ce sujet.  Dans les discussions précédentes sur ce fil (Ouest-de-l'Île-Station YUL), l'emphase était sur le financement de cette station: acceptable. Ton dernier message est toutefois trop centré sur la politique fédérale pour justifier sa présence ici.  J'essaie de m'en tenir aux règles.  

I beg to disagree, The state of financing of this YUL station is entirely a political one. There is no point going to the political strand - only to be told that my comments should go to the financing of this station strand. 

1 hour ago, Né entre les rapides said:

AB/SK/MB d'accord avec toi, mais l'Ontario compte encore plus, et ce ne sont pas tous des amis des Québécois qui y habitent.  Il vaut mieux ne pas susciter de grogne pour rien.  En ce qui concerne les électeurs québécois, je n'ai pas l'impression que ceux qui n'habitent pas dans la région montréalaise soient particulièrement préoccupés par la question d'une station du REM à YUL.  Or le PLC (Trudeau) obtient presque tous ses sièges québécois dans la région de Montréal, et bien peu ailleurs.  L'hypothèse d'un vote "massif" des Québécois en faveur du PLC doit être soutenue par d'autres facteurs qu'une intervention en faveur de YUL.

Aussi, indépendamment des considérations politiques, je pense que la BIC est un véhicule plus approprié pour soutenir le type d'investissement requis, ici comme ailleurs au Canada.

 

Minority governments managing a global health crisis as we are currently are almost always re-elected with a strong  majority - human beings do not like political change in times of a global crisis - "the devil they know" is safer, particularly ones that have spent $350 billion with much more to come. So far, British Columbia's  and New Brunswick's minority governments  were swept  back in,  with huge majorities.  If the opposition parties take the bait and defeat a March  budget with another proposed massive deficit, voters will punish the opposition parties for creating an unnecessary election - as in BC and NB.  A Bloc vote in a time of a  Covid and budget Communauté urbaine de Montréal   election  could  be translated into a view that a bloc vote  is a wasted vote and cause the Liberals to sweep Quebec. Regardless the airport extension funding is just weeks away.

1 hour ago, SameGuy said:

Erm it was ADM that decided to pay for its own station precisely because of the major land-side renovation project. A normal underground station would have added less than $150 million to the REM cost and would have been absorbed by the main partners (CDPQi, Québec and Ottawa). The issue now is that ADM isn’t looking for anyone else to pay for the station, but their mandate precludes them from raising funds from any source other than operations. They are asking to be able to borrow the needed funds at zero interest on very flexible terms due to the uncertainty of travel for the foreseeable future. In many ways, it is indeed the fault of various levels of government that we are in this situation, having completely bungled the health crisis response. How did Asia and Oceania manage to do it while we couldn’t? Anyway that’s off topic. But the status remains that while ADM is now racing the clock (and Alice) to get loan guarantees in order to  to proceed, the governments don’t appear to be in any sort of rush alongside ADM.

The Federal budget in March will be designed such that,  if defeated,  to be an election budget with massive infrastructure investments in Quebec with the REM / ADM airport extension  near or at the top of the list.  In the alternative, even more likely,  the required loan guarantee to ADM  by the feds will be announced in February by the Canadian infrastructure Bank.  Problem solved.

I am a certain I was not baited. SamGuy has been very strict insisting upon only serious, professional  posting. He would never bait another poster on such as serious subject as REM rolling stock  safety and winter testing of driverless  trains  some running 60 feet above ground.

LRT accident in snow. Montreal has 90 inches of snow in a normal winter so it is very good that REM tests are taking place in winter.

Just now, SameGuy said:

Don’t worry, the snow will come off quite easily when the trains derail and plunge to the pavement below.

Right on. I had not thought of that. Thx.

7 hours ago, SameGuy said:

I’ve never heard of a heated roof on a train. These things will be going 100 km an hour.

Because there are no drivers on the trains, and the system just needs to get rolling every morning, it also makes sense that they could store trains anywhere in the Mont-Royal or Aéroport tunnels. Aren’t there also storage tracks at Central Station?

This winter,  the wet snows in Montreal which have clung to trees have frozen hard and  stayed there longer than the ice during the ice storm.    With climate change, these 1980s looking  boxy trains - made in India  (if one can even imagine that crazy decision)  need some serious re working  re  their look  and  the risk of snow and ice on their roofs.  It reminds me of the first Metro's  'air conditioning' that required screen doors to try unsuccessfully to mitigate heat exhaustion.    

I realize that there is near unanimous agreement on this site that Co-op Verte is disliked but I am waiting for the final product. I sense the new building and its location downslope from the TDCs  will look quite  smart. Its height is good and its design is not pure shoebox with the same exterior cladding  -   as are so many buildings surrounding. 

QUESTION RE FORMER WESTCLIFF DEVELOPMENT

Does anyone have a view/opinion as to why there has been no development plan for the former Westcliff project across from Place Victoria? It would be a perfect location for a one-off height exemption and approval of a 75 floor tower with an iconic design that becomes the focus of a Montreal skyline  as PVM did in the 1960s.

Terrific idea re Old Port line.  Perhaps design the train cars to fit with the  past  --  like San Francisco's cars / Montreal's street cars of the 1950s --  rather some modern sleek look that is out of place in the  Old Port.

There is a huge donut hole and large population with no rapid transit  inside of it that the metro-ligne rose solves. If a  REM-rose does the economics that creates its hurdle rate of return with a REM rose  then governments can do a public-private partnership to fund REM-rose largely underground - from REM  McGill station diagonally along the metro-rose model to Anjou  with fares that are partly subsidized by governments to keep them in line with all other metro fares.  

Exactly. Diagonal shift creates a REM-Rose.

For those bothered by negativism on this thread  - think of it as silver lining  inside a   cloud.  Rubber stamping  the first draft of a $10 billion urban transit project  financed by a provincial  pension fund never happens. Caisse-Infra has put forward it's base case  plan and has started the process of negotiating a the federal share (Canada Infrastructure Bank) and funding from  Government of Quebec and City of Montreal. Changes to la Caisse-i plan - say   tunneling below R-L for 6 stations or longer station   platforms will have to be subsidized by governments for la Caisse to achieve its hurdle rate of return. Debate here amongst opinion influencers  only creates  a better end product and one that gets built.  

Just now, geraldshaw said:

For those bothered by negativism on this thread  - think of it as silver lining  inside a   cloud.  Rubber stamping  the first draft of a $10 billion urban transit project  financed by a provincial  pension fund never happens. Caisse-Infra has put forward its base case  plan and has started the process of negotiating  the federal share (Canada Infrastructure Bank) and funding from  Government of Quebec and City of Montreal. Changes to la Caisse-i plan - say   tunneling below R-L for 6 stations or longer station   platforms will have to be subsidized by governments for la Caisse to achieve its hurdle rate of return. Debate here amongst opinion influencers  only creates  a better end product and one that gets built.  

1 minute ago, geraldshaw said:

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, geraldshaw said:

 

2 minutes ago, geraldshaw said:

 

i suspect that when completed that  lighting will be quite spectacular. Black is better than future dirty white concrete.

Merci. J'essayerais  le faire.

A NEW REM-EST THREAD.

So please tell me how to start a new thread. Who decides the title? I am happy to do so, but being a new boy I need guidance on how to create and new thread and how to name it. Pls advise.

No blame, just an observation of risk  --  that pension funds -- both private and public like la caisse  are investing more and more heavily into illiquid private equity.  It is becoming  a worry to pension and insurance company  actuaries. Like all fads - best not to overdo them. Capital in the billions is invested over several  years with  zero returns during the build out years,  then future returns are  dependent on the assumptions made for a project made years, sometimes a decade  earlier. 

The last annual report of the Caisse (2019) shows $50 billion of its  $161 billion in net assets are invested  in private equity. Caisse Infra is part of that. The advantages of private equity are higher returns when a project is on  stream  > 8% / annum vs,  a near negative real interest  rate world. The disadvantage of private equity is the dangerous  lack of liquidity as  more and more savings of  private and private pension funds all over the world have bid  up the entry  value to own or control a  large project funded by pension funds via     private equity to earn actuarial returns needed  5-10 years down the road --  returns needed to keep their pension funds  from becoming underfunded. The loss of liquidity due to  their growing private equity share of total assets is rarely discussed by the politicians or corporate pension officers.  Diversification of projects  is used, but in a very uncertain future  world, were just a few of the world's largest pension funds to become underfunded  certain    private equity investments  would suddenly be for sale in a very illiquid world. Any forced  exit in pension funds'  private equity means that  the little guy - the pensioner is the one holding the bag with lower pensions in the future and higher premiums in the short-term.  Caveat emptor.

Ivanhoe's assets of $26 billion are gross before debt,  which as you know in commercial real estate likely values la Caisse's Ivanhoe equity valuation to be $5-$6 billion of la Caisse's nearly $300 billion of assets under management.

I hear you re Macky Tall and his career options. And so are coincidences. In time,  we may never know the internal politics that lead to the surprise REM-est announcements when the costs  of REM west and the airport station were on the front pages.  This is Quebec after all. 

This business of "suiting my own narrative" puzzles me.  I have read so many posts  where an opinion is expressed with supporting and without supporting evidence.   Pray explain to us all what differentiates a proper and an improper post?

Maybe the moderator needs to provide some guidance. 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

Q.E.D. or QED is an initialism of the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum", literally meaning "what was to be shown". Traditionally, the abbreviation is placed at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument in print publications to indicate that the proof or the argument is complete, and hence is used with the meaning "thus it has been demonstrated".

Thank you.