montréal REM (ligne A) - Discussion générale

[SameGuy]

50 minutes ago, MHV said:

 

On peut oublier la station à Dorval on dirait…

 

 

Pourquoi? Il n'y a toujours pas de mandat pour construire l'extension et la station intermodale, alors pourquoi l'incluraient-ils dans le matériel promotionnel? Jusqu'à la fin de 2019, ils n'ont également jamais mentionné la station Griffintown.

[MHV]

Eh bien en général, ils évitent de donner trop d'informations sur ce qui s'en vient et le fait qu'il l'annonce ainsi (99kms), me laissent porter à croire qu'ils sont pas mal sûrs de ce qu'ils veulent faire. 

[Decel]

Les prévisions de fréquentation du REM ne changent pas

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/grand-montreal/2021-05-01/hausse-du-teletravail/les-previsions-de-frequentation-du-rem-ne-changent-pas.php

Citation

Le choix de certains travailleurs de rester à la maison pourrait avoir un impact « d’environ 10 % à court terme » en baisse d’achalandage, a-t-il calculé. Mais, a-t-il continué, « il s’est fait pour presque 5 milliards d’investissements autour des stations du projet REM alors qu’il n’est pas encore en service ». « C’est quasiment comme si on avait fait en 3 ans une grande partie de ce qui était prévu sur 10 ou 20 ans. Ça va avoir un impact sur l’achalandage qu’on évalue à plus 10 %, plus 20 %. »

 

[SameGuy]

The best place to get visual and visceral effects from the profiled-voussoir structure in the West Island is on Avenue André in Dorval, between the 40 service road and Hymus. It is striking, but in a weird, almost futuristic way. As you drive under it, it doesn’t feel like you’re going under an overpass or the Met; it feels more like a portico. I’m still not entirely convinced they’d bother coming up with a substantially different design for René-Lévesque downtown. Perhaps slimmer columns and less obtrusive catenary elements, but the guideway itself is nowhere near as hideous as in PSC and Brossard.

[SameGuy]

3 hours ago, SameGuy said:

The best place to get visual and visceral effects from the profiled-voussoir structure in the West Island is on Avenue André in Dorval, between the 40 service road and Hymus. It is striking, but in a weird, almost futuristic way. As you drive under it, it doesn’t feel like you’re going under an overpass or the Met; it feels more like a portico. I’m still not entirely convinced they’d bother coming up with a substantially different design for René-Lévesque downtown. Perhaps slimmer columns and less obtrusive catenary elements, but the guideway itself is nowhere near as hideous as in PSC and Brossard.

 

[Enalung]

4 hours ago, SameGuy said:

The best place to get visual and visceral effects from the profiled-voussoir structure in the West Island is on Avenue André in Dorval, between the 40 service road and Hymus. It is striking, but in a weird, almost futuristic way. As you drive under it, it doesn’t feel like you’re going under an overpass or the Met; it feels more like a portico. I’m still not entirely convinced they’d bother coming up with a substantially different design for René-Lévesque downtown. Perhaps slimmer columns and less obtrusive catenary elements, but the guideway itself is nowhere near as hideous as in PSC and Brossard.

My main complaint with that guideway is that they are using the same mold for every column. It wouldn't have cost much more to integrate a few design elements in that mold to make them more visually appealing. As I did say previously, I would have preferred it if it was higher off the ground. Otherwise, I do agree that it is indeed far better then what they did in Pointe-St-Charles. I don't care as much about the Brossard section because it's outside of the city, and in the middle of a highway. The Pointe-St-Charles section is right across from a residential area. I definitely think they should have used the voussoir technique for that section of the viaduct, even if that would have meant that one of the 2 assembly jigs on the western section would have had to start later so that it could do that section first. It should have been obvious that was a mistake from the get go, but it took the announcement of REM B for that to sink in.

[danny12345]

On 2021-05-01 at 5:03 PM, Enalung said:

My main complaint with that guideway is that they are using the same mold for every column. It wouldn't have cost much more to integrate a few design elements in that mold to make them more visually appealing. As I did say previously, I would have preferred it if it was higher off the ground. Otherwise, I do agree that it is indeed far better then what they did in Pointe-St-Charles. I don't care as much about the Brossard section because it's outside of the city, and in the middle of a highway. The Pointe-St-Charles section is right across from a residential area. I definitely think they should have used the voussoir technique for that section of the viaduct, even if that would have meant that one of the 2 assembly jigs on the western section would have had to start later so that it could do that section first. It should have been obvious that was a mistake from the get go, but it took the announcement of REM B for that to sink in.

CDPQ indicated a while ago that voussoirs wouldn't do in Pointe-Saint-Charles due to longer distances between columns when crossing the CN and the Irish Cemetary.

[Enalung]

56 minutes ago, danny12345 said:

CDPQ indicated a while ago that voussoirs wouldn't do in Pointe-Saint-Charles due to longer distances between columns when crossing the CN and the Irish Cemetary.

I don't buy that. My guess is that the real reason is money. You can only ever make so many excuses before peoples start to question your motives and CDPQ-I is most definitely way past that limit. There's other bridge types they could have used if distance was really the issue. At the end of the day, the vast majority of technical problems that CDPQ-I could ever encounter have been encountered and solved by another team of engineers working on another project somewhere else on earth. Money is almost always what it comes down to and I would really appreciate that bare minimum of honesty. If we had that level of honesty, we would be able to tell them what is more important and what we would rather spend the available funds on rather then have those silly technical debates on issues we know can be resolved by competent engineers.

[danny12345]

11 minutes ago, Enalung said:

I don't buy that. My guess is that the real reason is money. You can only ever make so many excuses before peoples start to question your motives and CDPQ-I is most definitely way past that limit. There's other bridge types they could have used if distance was really the issue. At the end of the day, the vast majority of technical problems that CDPQ-I could ever encounter have been encountered and solved by another team of engineers working on another project somewhere else on earth. Money is almost always what it comes down to and I would really appreciate that bare minimum of honesty. If we had that level of honesty, we would be able to tell them what is more important and what we would rather spend the available funds on rather then have those silly technical debates on issues we know can be resolved by competent engineers.

Other bridge type might have been possible, even preferable, but costlier.  Beside that is not the point.  You indicated they should have used the voussoirs technique and I believe CDPQ when they indicate voussoirs as not being possible, that is the same voussoirs and gantry used elsewhere on the project.

[Enalung]

32 minutes ago, danny12345 said:

Other bridge type might have been possible, even preferable, but costlier.  Beside that is not the point.  You indicated they should have used the voussoirs technique and I believe CDPQ when they indicate voussoirs as not being possible, that is the same voussoirs and gantry used elsewhere on the project.

There's been bridges built that are far longer with the voussoir technique. Sure, there might have been some adjustments necessary, but at the end of the day, my point is that other solutions were possible. We don't know how much the other solutions costs, so we, as public, can't argue all that well against the propositions being made. Such is the nature of modern politics. We are placed in front of a "fait accompli". The decision is essentially already taken by the time we hear about it.

I can tell you that in Sherbrooke, we will likely end up with our third mayor in 3 elections. I don't know about Montreal, but I can tell you that In Sherbrooke, we are tired of that manner of doing things and we want to be included in the decision process from the start. We want all of the necessary details to make our own choices of what is worth fighting and what isn't. To do that, we need detailed information. We need to have access to documentation without constantly having to go through access to information only to get told that it's private information provided by a developer under condition of non-disclosure. Heck, even our politicians are now facing that issue. We want to put an end to that kind of decision making behind closed doors.

The decision making for the REM is quite obviously being dealt with in a very similar manner and that's really problematic for the communities that are going to have to live with it for the next century. There's a very real democracy issue here which needs to be dealt with. You cannot have democracy without the necessary information to decide for yourself what you think of what is being proposed.