montréal REM (ligne A) - Discussion générale

[Corbeau]

il y a 10 minutes, ToxiK a dit :

En gros, les gens vont arrêter de se plaindre du bruit de REM pour se plaindre de sa vue...  Et si on met des produits sur les rails pour limiter les bruits de frictions, ils vont se plaindre de l'odeur...

🙈🙉🙊

C'est pour ça qu'il faut foncer dans un projet dans écouter les chialeurs.

[TomC]

Moi qui emprunte la piste cyclable juste en-dessous de ces immeubles, je peux dire que le bruit est quand même surprenant. Avoir ce bruit toutes les deux minutes, ça doit taper sur les nerfs au bout d'un moment.

[Brick]

⬆️ Il y a eu amélioration depuis le début. C’est moins pire que vivre sous les avions à Ville Saint-Laurent. 

[TomC]

il y a une heure, luvtrain a dit :

Honnêtement, à la lecture de l'article, je crois que les interventions devraient être plus au niveau des immeubles même. Car, de ce que j'ai compris c'est la réverbération du son sur les immeubles qui amplifie le volume sonore.

Et l'eau du bassin Peel joue aussi un rôle non négligeable. Le son porte beaucoup sur l'eau.

[SameGuy]

15 minutes ago, Brick said:

⬆️ Il y a eu amélioration depuis le début. C’est moins pire que vivre sous les avions à Ville Saint-Laurent. 

Not really. New aircraft register between 80-90 dB on takeoff under full thrust when directly overhead at the end of the runway, at an altitude of less than 400 feet. The envelope of the sonic signature created by this new generation of aircraft (A220, A32Xneo, 737Max, Dreamliner, A350) presents a very sharp attack and decay, with peaks between 78 and upper-80s, lasting just a few seconds. The ramp from ambient to a noticeable increase in amplitude is also quick, and brief. With altitude, the envelope changes, and at 3000 feet the peak barely registers in the upper seventies within a roughly 30° angle of the observer, again lasting but a few seconds.

Constant comparisons to aircraft is a relevance fallacy intended to equate to a condition that simply isn't the same.

Aircraft are loud and disruptive, yes, but a home buyer considering Pointe Claire or St Laurent has an adequate chance to experience the level of disruption they may feel, before committing. Condo buyers in Griffintown, on the other hand, were aware of the occasional, slow-running mainline trains – that, while loud enough, do not create disruption every two minutes – and more recent shoppers were assured that the new "light rail" wouldn't be disruptive at all.

[SameGuy]

A loud aircraft – say, an older A330 – on landing approach over the closest residence in St Laurent doesn't usually register over 80 dB. Long gone are the days of unabated noise from soot-spewing turbojet engines on DC-9s and classic 737s, DC-8s, and 747s. The new mainline aircraft are more quiet than most regional and private jets – which remain exempted from overnight curfews.

[Rocco]

Then why do pampered snob Dorval residents chialent sur le expansion de la airport?

[SameGuy]

I wouldn't say "pampered snob" – it's middle- and working-class, like much of the West Island, Lachine, Lasalle, St Laurent. But they chiâlent cuz they bored. 

[montrealgoalie]

Having worked in Dorval and lived in St Laurent right under the flight path, the airplanes are loud as hell it's really disturbing at first but you get used to it to a point where its just background noise.

I stayed a weekend at the Quality suites on the 20 near the Dorval circle once and the noise was insane. I don't think I slept all weekend. (Well also because it was the first time staying with my ex who was from Toronto)

[SameGuy]