montréal REM (ligne A) - Discussion générale

[mk.ndrsn]

If you guys need to, you can continue on that other thread.

 

https://mtlurb.com/topic/10970-etalement-urbain-reportage-et-discussion/page/11

[SameGuy]

13 hours ago, p_xavier said:

On parle d'étalement urbain, mais sérieux, y a tu des gens qui aiment habiter dans 300pi2?!  (970$ par mois pour 178pi2 à Ottawa en 2014 que je payais) Arrêtez l'immigration et le prix des logements va baisser avec la décroissance.  Quoi vous voulez comme société?   Je crois qu'une baisse mondiale de population sera beaucoup plus gagnante que d'essayer de freiner l'étalement urbain.

Arrêtez de jouer à Sim City. Les gens veulent leur espace, alors planifions en ce sens.  Les planificateurs semblent en disconnect total avec les intérêts de la population.  Vancouver et Toronto sont des arnaques pyramidales, vous voulez aller là?

Your opinion isn’t new. In fact, it’s 100 years old. Starting at the beginning of the 20th century during the second wave of immigration to North America, the railway companies bought land on the peripheries of cities, and developed communities of single-family homes in fake rural settings, and advertised them to white  families in the cities. They lured them with with the notion of “returning to the good old days” — the days before all these “foreigners” began ruining “our” way of life. Housing closer to the centre became less desirable and prices went down, allowing recent arrivals the chance to start a new life doing the jobs that few members of the “white flight” to the suburbs cared to do. But as the immigrants became more successful, they too wanted a piece of the pie and their own version of the “American dream“ and they also moved further from the center. After the second world war, the automobile became the dominant personal transportation choice, and the railways dropped out of real estate speculation. With so many ageing buildings closer to the centre of town, a new class of real estate speculators began buying land closer to the centre and attracting successful people from the suburbs back towards town.

[peekay]

14 hours ago, SameGuy said:

Can’t take any of that seriously once you invoked Musk and 5G. Autonomous cars are not the future. I think autonomous, electric transport trucks will make a huge difference in commerce and with regard to climate change, but electric cars are still cars. The future of cities lies in active and public transportation. Musk is still pushing his idiotic Boring Company concept on gullible city councils, convincing them that “cars in tunnels” is the future of transportation.

What is it about 5G and the Neuralink project (has nothing to do with Boring Company) that you don't think will happen? 5G is a few years away from mass use and even if Neuralink is abandonned by Musk, someone else will do it. IMO, Autonomous pods or automous buses are the future not a static track. What do you think a fleet of automous pods or buses will do to the STM? It'll be worse than what uber did to the taxi industry.

There is nothing wrong with a moratorium, it has been done before. The total will be more than 6 billion by the end of this project of our money when public transit ridership is way down and continues to suffer.

[Decel]

Il y a 1 heure, peekay a dit :

What is it about 5G and the Neuralink project (has nothing to do with Boring Company) that you don't think will happen? 5G is a few years away from mass use and even if Neuralink is abandonned by Musk, someone else will do it. IMO, Autonomous pods or automous buses are the future not a static track. What do you think a fleet of automous pods or buses will do to the STM? It'll be worse than what uber did to the taxi industry.

There is nothing wrong with a moratorium, it has been done before. The total will be more than 6 billion by the end of this project of our money when public transit ridership is way down and continues to suffer.

Are you mixing Neuralink with Loop / Hyperloop?

[SameGuy]

Sorry, @mk.ndrsn is right. Let's talk about the the good and bad of the planning and construction of REM here, not whether it's a wasteful idea overall. There are plenty of places on the Web for unconstructive criticism of public transit.

[ToxiK]

Il y a 1 heure, SameGuy a dit :

Sorry, @mk.ndrsn is right. Let's talk about the the good and bad of the planning and construction of REM here, not whether it's a wasteful idea overall. There are plenty of places on the Web for unconstructive criticism of public transit.

Your comment about staying on topic would have been more welcomed it you didn't include an attack on an opinion you disagreed with by calling it unconstructive (even if I disagreed with that said opinion).

[samuelmath]

Il y a 2 heures, SameGuy a dit :

Sorry, @mk.ndrsn is right. Let's talk about the the good and bad of the planning and construction of REM here, not whether it's a wasteful idea overall. There are plenty of places on the Web for unconstructive criticism of public transit.

I'd like to share my opinion on this. The REM will get to south shore just like a subway, which is a good thing (less buses on the road, less traffic, less pollution, etc). The west part of the REM is a bit of a let-down. Low frequency of departures for "West Island" and "Airport" branches proves that the estimated demand for public transportation in these areas is somewhere near to a BRT or tramway capacity. I wonder if the demand could go higher than this, especially for the West Island branch.

[SameGuy]

29 minutes ago, samuelmath said:

I'd like to share my opinion on this. The REM will get to south shore just like a subway, which is a good thing (less buses on the road, less traffic, less pollution, etc). The west part of the REM is a bit of a let-down. Low frequency of departures for "West Island" and "Airport" branches proves that the estimated demand for public transportation in these areas is somewhere near to a BRT or tramway capacity. I wonder if the demand could go higher than this, especially for the West Island branch.

I don't disagree. I think it's safe to say that it's an imperfect solution; as has been suggested many times before, in my opinion it was either choose to compromise, or wait fifty or more years for improved service of any kind to the West Island. Again, the Québec government in power at the time of the adoption of Bill 137 mandated a rapid transit solution over the new Champlain Bridge, and another solution for rapid transit to Montreal's airport in Dorval. This precluded the OCPM's involvement, and while many concerns were raised by various parties and the BAPE, many fell outside the scope of the BAPE's mandate and were essentially ignored in the rush to get shovels in the ground. That said, it's quite possible -- and I'm optimistic that it'll be probable -- that the REM in its current, flawed form will be a catalyst for new, denser development in previously-overlooked areas (or some that have been growing at a snail's pace), and will spur many West Islanders and those from elsewhere who work in West Island employment hubs to choose transit over automobiles. My fingers are crossed that ARTM, CIT, exo and STM figure out how the future feeder bus lines will get these people the last kilometres between REM and their homes or workplaces.

[samuelmath]

Il y a 20 heures, SameGuy a dit :

My fingers are crossed that ARTM, CIT, exo and STM figure out how the future feeder bus lines will get these people the last kilometres between REM and their homes or workplaces.

There are many spots on the transit map where we don't know the bus routes modifications to expect once the REM is opened.

As in Brossard, what's the future of the bus line 90 Chevrier/TCV and its parking lot? Or what about those express lines in West Island going to Côte-Vertu and Du Collège stations? I mean, it's not because a new metro is coming in town that those bus lines have no reason to be maintained.

[Né entre les rapides]

Il y a 23 heures, SameGuy a dit :

the REM in its current, flawed form

Pas nécessairement.  Des embranchements (branch or spur) de voies ferroviaires ou de métro sont courants, et représentent la façon la plus efficiente (i.e. en prenant les coûts en considération) de  desservir des secteurs où la demande est moindre que dans ceux où une ligne intégralement dédiée est requise.  C'est la combinaison des trois secteurs (nord-ouest, ouest et aéroport) qui suffisait à justifier l'investissement.