montréal REM (ligne A) - Discussion générale

[SameGuy]

6 minutes ago, ToxiK said:

Profit is merely a reward for efficiency.  We also must not mix the What and the How.  The What is public transit, the How is what the Caisse will do to make it happen.  The government is still paying for the What (the public service) but the Caisse manages the How for a profit (well, at least if they do it properly).

But in the "Caisse Paradigm" (🙄), they make the mandate fit with their profit motives, not with what the city actually needs. Île Bigras did not need a metro. The West Island did not need a metro. Meanwhile, dense areas that need a metro – Montreal-Nord, Vieux-Rosemont, Lachine, Côte-St-Luc, Ville-St-Pierre... will likely never see one, because the "Caisse" won't find a way to make it rentable. By giving the Caisse full autonomy with no accountability or a need to fulfill the city's needs, we've decided that developers' potential profits are more important than society's current and ongoing needs. And then we shake our heads at the public transit companies when they request government assistance to keep the existing systems barely functioning.

[Rocco]

⬆️ Before the Caisse, "dense areas that need a metro – Montreal-Nord, Vieux-Rosemont, Lachine, Côte-St-Luc, Ville-St-Pierre"... didnt get anything. And they would likely never get anything. So basically you are saying that we should get NOTHING. Yes, thats what you are saying. Cuz we got NOTHING while it was under YOUR paradigm.

[ToxiK]

il y a 33 minutes, SameGuy a dit :

But in the "Caisse Paradigm" (🙄), they make the mandate fit with their profit motives, not with what the city actually needs. Île Bigras did not need a metro. The West Island did not need a metro. Meanwhile, dense areas that need a metro – Montreal-Nord, Vieux-Rosemont, Lachine, Côte-St-Luc, Ville-St-Pierre... will likely never see one, because the "Caisse" won't find a way to make it rentable. By giving the Caisse full autonomy with no accountability or a need to fulfill the city's needs, we've decided that developers' potential profits are more important than society's current and ongoing needs. And then we shake our heads at the public transit companies when they request government assistance to keep the existing systems barely functioning.

île-Bigras already had suburban rail, it would have been difficult to just remove it.  Keeping a station there was a way to have social acceptability.  The West-Island got a metro because Philippe Couillard wanted it, not because the Caisse demanded that line.  Politics were at play here.  

Montréal-Nord could have gotten a REM, but NIMBYs didn't want to and Valérie Plante caved to them, still politics here, not the Caisse.

So, because not everyone get a metro at the same time, no one should get one?  Not all fruits ripen at the same time, does that mean no one should eat fruits?  I heard similar complains when Laval got its metro.  The REM was Brossard's, the north-west's and West Island's time.  The east and north-est would have been next but they refused, now the next winners will probably be Longueuil around Taschereau.  It might be their time because it will be profitable or because a new metro will be easier to implement in their specif locations at the moment, but at least it will be something for someone.

I'll take an imperfect growth of public transit instead of a perfect immobilism any time.

[Rocco]

⬆️ Thanks. 

[SameGuy]

1 hour ago, ToxiK said:

île-Bigras already had suburban rail, it would have been difficult to just remove it.  Keeping a station there was a way to have social acceptability.  The West-Island got a metro because Philippe Couillard wanted it, not because the Caisse demanded that line.  Politics were at play here.  

Montréal-Nord could have gotten a REM, but NIMBYs didn't want to and Valérie Plante caved to them, still politics here, not the Caisse.

So, because not everyone get a metro at the same time, no one should get one?  Not all fruits ripen at the same time, does that mean no one should eat fruits?  I heard similar complains when Laval got its metro.  The REM was Brossard's, the north-west's and West Island's time.  The east and north-est would have been next but they refused, now the next winners will probably be Longueuil around Taschereau.  It might be their time because it will be profitable or because a new metro will be easier to implement in their specif locations at the moment, but at least it will be something for someone.

I'll take an imperfect growth of public transit instead of a perfect immobilism any time.

Again, we're not arguing about the same thing. I've long been enthusiastic about REM – the only REM, no need for "de l'ouest" – but I'm pragmatic and accept that it's imperfect. But that does not mean that the "REM" (or "la Caisse") model is a one-size-fits-all solution for all the mass transit needs of the metropolitan area. 

[ToxiK]

il y a une heure, SameGuy a dit :

Again, we're not arguing about the same thing. I've long been enthusiastic about REM – the only REM, no need for "de l'ouest" – but I'm pragmatic and accept that it's imperfect. But that does not mean that the "REM" (or "la Caisse") model is a one-size-fits-all solution for all the mass transit needs of the metropolitan area. 

It is definitely not a one size fits all model, but its size will fit a lot, and we should use that model as much as we can.  Every transit project that will be done with that model (that obviously can work) won't have to be done with another model.  If we can have a relaunched REM de l'Est, a Taschereau REM, maybe a Lachine REM, let say a Laval one too, maybe a Henri-Bourassa one (I am just pitching examples, here); then all those projects would have been made, as opposed to projects that are not made at all.  After that, we might need to do other transit extension the old way or find another model altogether.  At least, we will get developments (even if imperfect) that we wouldn't otherwise get.

[SameGuy]

But you're omitting the fact that the Caisse's model puts ROI first, even if that means the wrong mode for the areas where it runs, or not integrating with the existing networks because it's cheaper to run it through brownfields or on autoroutes, hoping instead that developments will mushroom around it.

“The Caisse wants people to live where they build the REM, the Caisse doesn’t want to build the REM where people live.”

® © ™ @SameGuy
 

All I'm saying is that we need a transit authority with the muscle to create mandates to which any tendering group must adhere. The ARTM ain't it (as we all know).

[Rocco]

il y a 1 minute, SameGuy a dit :

“The Caisse wants people to live where they build the REM, the Caisse doesn’t want to build the REM where people live.”

® © ™ @SameGuy

"We build something" - The Caisse

[SameGuy]

We have a stadium. It's S**t, but at least we have one. Yes, "we build something" is multi-purpose indeed.

[Rocco]

"La ligne bleue s'en vient" - Gouvernement depuis 45 ans.