montréal REM (ligne A) - Discussion générale

[Decel]

il y a 28 minutes, SameGuy a dit :

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/st-laurent-calling-on-cpdq-infra-for-safety-measures-name-changes-for-rem-stations
 

St-Laurent calling on CPDQ Infra for safety measures, name changes for REM stations 

The borough passed a unanimous resolution with all of its demands at a council meeting on Feb. 2. 

Author of the article:

Montreal Gazette

Mar 18, 2021  • Last Updated 2 hours ago  •  2 minute read

Cars pass under the REM train tracks in Kirkland on Dec. 10, 2020. PHOTO BY JOHN MAHONEY /Montreal Gazette

The borough of St-Laurent is asking for safety improvements, pedestrian-friendly access and name changes for some of the stations being built on its territory for the Réseau express métropolitain (REM).

In a letter Thursday to Charles Émond, chairperson of CPDQ Infra, the owner and builder of the REM, borough Mayor Alan DeSousa reminded the company that it has been asking for years for the company to give consideration to pedestrians in its plans for the future stations in the Bois-Franc sector and in the Hodge-Lebeau industrial sector near Highway 40.

“Rather than opening a can of worms with the REM 2.0 (in the east end), can we at least solve the problems of the REM 1.0, which is currently under construction,” DeSousa said in an interview. “You can learn from these mistakes … before you move onto other projects.”

For one thing, CDPQ Infra’s design will prevent pedestrians and cyclists from crossing over the tracks at Bois-Franc station between St-Laurent and the borough of Ahuntsic—Cartierville as they have done for decades, the letter says. For another, the Hodge-Lebeau sector is filled with truck traffic, but the station planned next to a municipal snow chute surrounded by industries offers no sidewalk south of the Stinson St. entry and no safe pedestrian crossing, it says.

The borough, which passed a unanimous resolution with all of its demands at a council meeting on Feb. 2, is asking CDPQ Infra to install a free passageway at Bois-Franc station so that pedestrians and cyclists don’t have to pay the REM fare to enter the station on one side and exit on the other to cross the tracks or make a 300- to 400-metre detour to cross at the nearest intersection. The borough also wants CDPQ Infra to build a safe pedestrian west-side entrance to the Hodge-Lebeau station.

The borough also expresses concern about the future of its long-planned bike path, called a “Véloroute,” alongside the Deux-Montagnes commuter train line where the REM is now being built. Vélo-Québec confirmed the importance of the path in 2017 and a first section, between Toupin Blvd. and Bois-Franc station, was built the same year.

DeSousa’s letter also suggests CDPQ Infra’s decision to give the name “Marie-Curie” to the future station in the Technoparc industrial park, which houses 100 businesses, without including the name “Technoparc” is a mistake. As well, the station will be located about 500 metres from Marie-Curie Ave., it says. The name, it suggests, should be “Technoparc–Marie-Curie.”

CDPQ Infra has named the future station in the Hodge-Lebeau sector “Côte-de-Liesse,” even though the artery with that name is more than 500 metres to the south. The borough’s letter says the name will create confusion and suggests the station be renamed in honour of Catherine Fol, a science documentary filmmaker for the National Film Board of Canada who died in 2020. The NFB had its landmark headquarters at the edge of the Hodge-Lebeau sector.

CDPQ Infra didn’t respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

 

On ne peut pas traverser entre le nord et le sud de la station Bois-Franc sans traverser de tourniquet??

Je suis d'accord que c'est un non-sens.

[felixinx]

Il y a 2 heures, SameGuy a dit :

The borough also wants CDPQ Infra to build a safe pedestrian west-side entrance to the Hodge-Lebeau station.

Une entrée est déjà prévue, je ne comprends pas ce qu'ils veulent?

 

Il y a 2 heures, Decel a dit :

On ne peut pas traverser entre le nord et le sud de la station Bois-Franc sans traverser de tourniquet??

Je suis d'accord que c'est un non-sens.

Il est possible de contourner la station en passant par Marcel-Laurin, mais c'est sur que c'est plus long.

[SameGuy]

33 minutes ago, felixinx said:

Une entrée est déjà prévue, je ne comprends pas ce qu'ils veulent?

Ça dépend de quel “ouest” qu’on parle: vrai ouest, magnétique, ou montréalais. 😂

[FrodoMTL]

14 hours ago, SameGuy said:

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/st-laurent-calling-on-cpdq-infra-for-safety-measures-name-changes-for-rem-stations
 

St-Laurent calling on CPDQ Infra for safety measures, name changes for REM stations 

The borough passed a unanimous resolution with all of its demands at a council meeting on Feb. 2. 

Author of the article:

Montreal Gazette

Mar 18, 2021  • Last Updated 2 hours ago  •  2 minute read

Cars pass under the REM train tracks in Kirkland on Dec. 10, 2020. PHOTO BY JOHN MAHONEY /Montreal Gazette

The borough of St-Laurent is asking for safety improvements, pedestrian-friendly access and name changes for some of the stations being built on its territory for the Réseau express métropolitain (REM).

In a letter Thursday to Charles Émond, chairperson of CPDQ Infra, the owner and builder of the REM, borough Mayor Alan DeSousa reminded the company that it has been asking for years for the company to give consideration to pedestrians in its plans for the future stations in the Bois-Franc sector and in the Hodge-Lebeau industrial sector near Highway 40.

“Rather than opening a can of worms with the REM 2.0 (in the east end), can we at least solve the problems of the REM 1.0, which is currently under construction,” DeSousa said in an interview. “You can learn from these mistakes … before you move onto other projects.”

For one thing, CDPQ Infra’s design will prevent pedestrians and cyclists from crossing over the tracks at Bois-Franc station between St-Laurent and the borough of Ahuntsic—Cartierville as they have done for decades, the letter says. For another, the Hodge-Lebeau sector is filled with truck traffic, but the station planned next to a municipal snow chute surrounded by industries offers no sidewalk south of the Stinson St. entry and no safe pedestrian crossing, it says.

The borough, which passed a unanimous resolution with all of its demands at a council meeting on Feb. 2, is asking CDPQ Infra to install a free passageway at Bois-Franc station so that pedestrians and cyclists don’t have to pay the REM fare to enter the station on one side and exit on the other to cross the tracks or make a 300- to 400-metre detour to cross at the nearest intersection. The borough also wants CDPQ Infra to build a safe pedestrian west-side entrance to the Hodge-Lebeau station.

The borough also expresses concern about the future of its long-planned bike path, called a “Véloroute,” alongside the Deux-Montagnes commuter train line where the REM is now being built. Vélo-Québec confirmed the importance of the path in 2017 and a first section, between Toupin Blvd. and Bois-Franc station, was built the same year.

DeSousa’s letter also suggests CDPQ Infra’s decision to give the name “Marie-Curie” to the future station in the Technoparc industrial park, which houses 100 businesses, without including the name “Technoparc” is a mistake. As well, the station will be located about 500 metres from Marie-Curie Ave., it says. The name, it suggests, should be “Technoparc–Marie-Curie.”

CDPQ Infra has named the future station in the Hodge-Lebeau sector “Côte-de-Liesse,” even though the artery with that name is more than 500 metres to the south. The borough’s letter says the name will create confusion and suggests the station be renamed in honour of Catherine Fol, a science documentary filmmaker for the National Film Board of Canada who died in 2020. The NFB had its landmark headquarters at the edge of the Hodge-Lebeau sector.

CDPQ Infra didn’t respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

I guess it's a good thing then that it's CDPQi (and not the ARTM) that's investing in/building/operating this project.

Also, if you want something added, pay for it. The sky's the limit if these local politicians can find the money.

[SameGuy]

The crux of the problem is that the CDPQ will pay at most 49% of it, but they have the first word, the last word, and every decision in between, and they will be the ones reaping the benefits. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, these systems are being built for future development possibilities and not to serve the existing populations that have been underserved for decades. Watch that dash cam video taken along the 40 Service Road and tell me that that’s a well-located transit line. Sure, 10 or 15 years from now there will be thousands of people living in new condos and apartments co-developed by the CDPQ along the West Island segment (or if not, they’ll get their tithes from developers anyway, along with a commitment from the Québec governments that they’ll be paid well over market rates for decades to come in order to guarantee profitability). I’m very glad that the Caisse helps keep my Hydro rates low, that nobody’s at fault in a hit-and-run, that the liquor from the SAQ keeps flowing, and makes sure that there are plenty of opportunities for me to spend my after-tax income on government lottery schemes (aka Stupidity Tax), but the bottom line is that REM, as a concept, was never about helping Montrealers get around.

[FrodoMTL]

2 hours ago, SameGuy said:

I’m very glad that the Caisse helps keep my Hydro rates low, that nobody’s at fault in a hit-and-run, that the liquor from the SAQ keeps flowing, and makes sure that there are plenty of opportunities for me to spend my after-tax income on government lottery schemes (aka Stupidity Tax), but the bottom line is that REM, as a concept, was never about helping Montrealers get around.

Speaking for people in my neighborhood - Outremont / Edouard Montpetit, REM-A will most definitely help a lot of folks here get around:

- Our commute times to downtown offices will be cut down drastically, from 40-50+ min (1-2 metro transfers) to a mere 10-20 min going to downtown with REM-A. This will benefit a lot of folks living along the Blue Line between Snowdon and Jean-Talon.

- My commute to the airport will drastically cut down. Before it was a minimum 1 hr 30 min on the 747 + metro transfers, now it's a single ride to the airport terminal. I travel a lot for work pre-covid, and so do thousands of airport workers who will benefit from this everyday.

I understand you are saying that is that CDPQ primarily intended this to be a development-driven project and not as a public transit project. That's true and I don't disagree. At the same time, it will most definitely make getting around MTL a lot faster and more pleasant for many. These two facts don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Quote

The crux of the problem is that the CDPQ will pay at most 49% of it, but they have the first word, the last word, and every decision in between, and they will be the ones reaping the benefits.

Referencing the article in the previous post, I think the real "crux" of the problem with these requests from local municipalities is that there is a lack of holistic coordination among local municipalities and transit agencies, to both plan for and invest for the long term along with sufficient funding mechanisms for these projects. When I say "plan for the future" I meant proposing big picture region-wide plans like the GO Regional Express Rail expansion by Metrolinx in the GTA (which consists of 12 sub rail projects upgrading all of its commuter lines in every GTA municipality including electrification, EMU rollingstock, and upgrades to 50+ stations), not piece-meal plans like "we want to add a bike lane next to ABC station or we want to rename XYZ station". That's not transport planning. That's called squeezing in your pet projects and asking others to pay for them so you can claim this as your accomplishment in the next local election.

We all know that's been a glaring void in Greater Montreal transit planning, which ARTM was supposed to fill. CDPQ simply filled that void with REM-A with 1) a shovel-ready project 2) a large sum of startup capital to get things going. Is it the best solution? No. But it's a lot more than what ARTM and the local political leaders are offering.

Modifié 19 mars 2021 par FrodoMTL

[SameGuy]

3 hours ago, FrodoMTL said:

Speaking for people in my neighborhood - Outremont / Edouard Montpetit, REM-A will most definitely help a lot of folks here get around:

- Our commute times to downtown offices will be cut down drastically, from 40-50+ min (1-2 metro transfers) to a mere 10-20 min going to downtown with REM-A. This will benefit a lot of folks living along the Blue Line between Snowdon and Jean-Talon.

- My commute to the airport will drastically cut down. Before it was a minimum 1 hr 30 min on the 747 + metro transfers, now it's a single ride to the airport terminal. I travel a lot for work pre-covid, and so do thousands of airport workers who will benefit from this everyday.

I understand you are saying that is that CDPQ primarily intended this to be a development-driven project and not as a public transit project. That's true and I don't disagree. At the same time, it will most definitely make getting around MTL a lot faster and more pleasant for many. These two facts don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Referencing the article in the previous post, I think the real "crux" of the problem with these requests from local municipalities is that there is a lack of holistic coordination among local municipalities and transit agencies, to both plan for and invest for the long term along with sufficient funding mechanisms for these projects. When I say "plan for the future" I meant proposing big picture region-wide plans like the GO Regional Express Rail expansion by Metrolinx in the GTA (which consists of 12 sub rail projects upgrading all of its commuter lines in every GTA municipality including electrification, EMU rollingstock, and upgrades to 50+ stations), not piece-meal plans like "we want to add a bike lane next to ABC station or we want to rename XYZ station". That's not transport planning. That's called squeezing in your pet projects and asking others to pay for them so you can claim this as your accomplishment in the next local election.

We all know that's been a glaring void in Greater Montreal transit planning, which ARTM was supposed to fill. CDPQ simply filled that void with REM-A with 1) a shovel-ready project 2) a large sum of startup capital to get things going. Is it the best solution? No. But it's a lot more than what ARTM and the local political leaders are offering.

I do not disagree with any single statement here. I’ve repeatedly said that I am optimistic that I, personally, will benefit from REM(-A) as well, but that doesn’t mean it’s a perfect project, nor that transit planning for the region couldn’t be substantially better. 
 

[PS: I also frequently invoke GO OnCorridor RER]

[SameGuy]

3 hours ago, FrodoMTL said:

Speaking for people in my neighborhood - Outremont / Edouard Montpetit, REM-A will most definitely help a lot of folks here get around:

- Our commute times to downtown offices will be cut down drastically, from 40-50+ min (1-2 metro transfers) to a mere 10-20 min going to downtown with REM-A. This will benefit a lot of folks living along the Blue Line between Snowdon and Jean-Talon.

- My commute to the airport will drastically cut down. Before it was a minimum 1 hr 30 min on the 747 + metro transfers, now it's a single ride to the airport terminal. I travel a lot for work pre-covid, and so do thousands of airport workers who will benefit from this everyday.

And as I’ve also said in the past, the redevelopment of the DM line became necessary as part and parcel of the original plan that the Caisse decided was their best (and cheapest) option to fulfill the Couillard government’s mandate to serve the Airport. They could’ve gone via the A20 corridor if the Turcot project had ended before the Caisse’s contractors needed to put their shovels in the ground in late 2017. But because the Turcot was scheduled to end in 2020 and the Caisse was able to benefit from a ridiculous deal for the DM line’s incredibly valuable infrastructure and properties, they necessarily had to redevelop the very well-integrated existing line into a regional light metro, which naturally improves it. 

[TurboLed]

Le 2021-03-18 à 22:15, felixinx a dit :

Une entrée est déjà prévue, je ne comprends pas ce qu'ils veulent?

 

Il est possible de contourner la station en passant par Marcel-Laurin, mais c'est sur que c'est plus long.

Pour y avoir vécu plusieurs années, traverser la voie par en dessous n'est pas très agréable lorsqu'il pleut, la route est souvent inondée et on se fait arroser par les autobus de la STM/STL. Surtout que la station avait déjà une traverse piétonne à chaque bout, dont une a été condamnée récemment.

[Spiter_01]

On 2021-03-19 at 11:45 AM, SameGuy said:

The crux of the problem is that the CDPQ will pay at most 49% of it, but they have the first word, the last word, and every decision in between, and they will be the ones reaping the benefits. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, these systems are being built for future development possibilities and not to serve the existing populations that have been underserved for decades. Watch that dash cam video taken along the 40 Service Road and tell me that that’s a well-located transit line. Sure, 10 or 15 years from now there will be thousands of people living in new condos and apartments co-developed by the CDPQ along the West Island segment 

That in itself isn't a bad thing, both approaches to transit development have their merits and aren't mutually exclusive. There is and always have been a direct relationship between access to heavy modes of public transit and housing development, whether it be in an urban context or suburban commuter lines. 

The problem we've been facing and many other cities across North-America also face is that public transit is always playing catchup, chasing/serving already dense neighbourhoods with a lot of existing demand and that live there because of other attractive features. Example: Rosemont and the proposed pink line. Certainly the case for better transit there is obvious but the effect is just as predictable, highly desirable neighbourhoods that are increasingly unaffordable will only become even more so once you add on well connected and modern public transit.

It's not CDPQi job to correct yesterday's failings, because let's be frank there's no money to be made in doing that. The perfect example is right in-front of us, not completing the blue line is a historical failure that is up to the government to make correct. While developing future opportunities with REM-B is something CDPQi can have a role in.