montréal REM (ligne A) - Discussion générale

[Philippe]

il y a 17 minutes, nephersir7 a dit :

https://twitter.com/SCFPQuebec/status/934106730702700544

 

Et les gens de Coalition Climat Montréal et Trainsparence qui disent que le SCFP n'a rien a voir la dedans!

Transparence seulement quand ca leur tente on dirait ben.

 

[nephersir7]

il y a 1 minute, Philippe a dit :

Et les gens de Coalition Climat Montréal et Trainsparence qui disent que le SCFP n'a rien a voir la dedans!

Vraiment? Je ne me rappelle pas qu'ils aient dit ça. 

[SkahHigh]

il y a 29 minutes, Philippe a dit :

Et les gens de Coalition Climat Montréal et Trainsparence qui disent que le SCFP n'a rien a voir la dedans!

Transparence seulement quand ca leur tente on dirait ben.

 

Ils ne le cachent pas beaucoup.

Trainsparence sont allés à l’Assemblée nationale avec un représentant syndical du SCFP...

[nephersir7]

La Coalition Climat Montréal et Trainsparence satisfaits de la décision de la Cour supérieure de prendre la requête en délibéré

24 novembre 2017

Ce vendredi matin à la Cour supérieure, les auditions ont pris fin au sujet de la requête en nullité présentée par la Caisse de dépôt et le gouvernement du Québec dans le dossier du Réseau électrique métropolitain (REM). Cette requête vise les procédures entamées par la Coalition Climat Montréal (CCM) et Trainsparence demandant la suspension du projet de REM.

La CCM et Trainsparence réagissent avec satisfaction à la décision de la Cour supérieure de prendre la cause en délibéré. Cette tournure signifie que la décision finale sur la requête en nullité demande mûre réflexion et ne sera connue que plus tard.

«Nous sommes satisfaits, car cette prise en délibéré confirme que nous avons soulevé des questions de droit importantes qui méritent d’être étudiées en profondeur. La décision d’aujourd’hui démontre que la prétention du gouvernement et de la Caisse de dépôt, à l’effet que notre cause était “absolument sans fondements”, n’allait pas de soi, finalement», d’expliquer Matthew Chapman, président de la CCM.

«Le juge a statué que des questions de droit légitime devaient être posées. Tout le débat entourant la construction du REM a soulevé beaucoup trop d’émotions. Il devenait essentiel qu’une instance impartiale étudie la question», a ajouté Laurent Howe, porte-parole de Trainsparence.

La CCM et Trainsparence soulignent que le REM amputerait grandement le réseau de transport collectif déjà existant et n’augmenterait pas la mobilité sur l’île de façon appréciable. Les deux coalitions estiment que le coût de réalisation du REM serait d’au moins 10 milliards de dollars et qu’il générerait des déficits d’exploitation de plusieurs centaines de millions par année. En somme, toutes les précieuses ressources englouties dans le REM seraient des ressources largement gaspillées.

Rappelons que le 24 mars dernier, un large regroupement citoyen avait déposé à la Cour supérieure une demande d’arrêter le projet de REM et de le renvoyer devant le BAPE pour une consultation effective, transparente et respectueuse des Québécois. Il invoquait le rapport cinglant du BAPE sur le REM et alléguait un processus de consultation vicié.

Cette requête avait été déposée et appuyée, entre autres, par la coalition Trainsparence, la CCM, le Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP) et le groupe Pour un meilleur projet que le REM. À cela s’ajoutent aujourd’hui le Conseil central du Montréal métropolitain de la CSN, le Sierra Club Québec, la coalition Verte, Sauvons l’Anse-à-l’Orme, Sauvons la Falaise, Option Transport durable, Les amis du parc Meadowbrook et le Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

http://scfp.qc.ca/coalition-climat-montreal-trainsparence-satisfaits-de-decision-de-cour-superieure-de-prendre-requete-delibere/

[Megafolie]

il y a 24 minutes, nephersir7 a dit :

La CCM et Trainsparence soulignent que le REM amputerait grandement le réseau de transport collectif déjà existant et n’augmenterait pas la mobilité sur l’île de façon appréciable

Ah bon? Avoir su avant j'aurais joint la coalition! Par chance je l'ai su après!  

[jesseps]

The judge is taking it under advisement. So right now, everything is proceeding as usual?

I love that they are complaining about the REM but don't say anything on how to make transit better on the island and for people to get around. You gotta love the unions involved. 

I wonder if they would be complaining if this project was not automated but had conductors.

[gelu88]

9 minutes ago, jesseps said:

The judge is taking it under advisement. So right now, everything is proceeding as usual?

I love that they are complaining about the REM but don't say anything on how to make transit better on the island and for people to get around. You gotta love the unions involved. 

I wonder if they would be complaining if this project was not automated but had conductors.

Actually that's not true. They have a very specific alternative that they are backing, called "Le Grand Virage". It's a plan that's been around for years, which a lot of people on this forum have supported, and definitely talked about.

Problem is that it's a totally different project that serves different users at a different service level. For the most part it's a set of trams in mixed traffic that improve some areas of mobility, but are much less ambitious than the REM.

 

Honestly I think a lot of the lines in le grand virage are not too bad, but they can totally exist alongside the REM, and should be considered in the years ahead.

 

They have the details here, if you're interested: http://www.transportdurable.org/le-grand-virage.html

[SkahHigh]

il y a 13 minutes, gelu88 a dit :

Actually that's not true. They have a very specific alternative that they are backing, called "Le Grand Virage". It's a plan that's been around for years, which a lot of people on this forum have supported, and definitely talked about.

Problem is that it's a totally different project that serves different users at a different service level. For the most part it's a set of trams in mixed traffic that improve some areas of mobility, but are much less ambitious than the REM.

 

Honestly I think a lot of the lines in le grand virage are not too bad, but they can totally exist alongside the REM, and should be considered in the years ahead.

 

They have the details here, if you're interested: http://www.transportdurable.org/le-grand-virage.html

I don't agree that Le Grand Virage should be considered. It uses the wrong technology in the wrong place and it really does nothing to help transit in the West Island (where 75% of people use their car to get Downtown).

Implanting a tram line in mixed traffic in low density areas is not something that helps the average commuter. I mean, a tram line from Brossard to Namur? Another one from Downtown to the Airport? It's a pretty half-assed proposal. The question here is: how does an hour-long tram ride help anyone save time on their commute? Do you think people in Lachine and Dorval would rather be stuck in traffic in their own cars, or in a tram? 

Most of these tram lines are simply way too long to be really useful. And they underperform compared to rapid transit in terms of operating speed, frequency and capacity. 

The places where I think a tram/LRT would be useful is in the East (in RDP and PAT to feed the Metro), on Taschereau in Longueuil and in some inner areas like Avenue du Parc or Côte-des-Neiges (Pie-IX would have been good as well). Other areas on the island (Lachine/Lasalle, Anjou, Montréal-Nord, Saint-Léonard, parts of Rosemont) are dense enough to be served by underground rapid transit.

Elevated rapid transit is perfect for the West because it has the captation/user reach that a tram does not have and is less expensive than an RER-type proposal.

[jesseps]

13 minutes ago, gelu88 said:

Actually that's not true. They have a very specific alternative that they are backing, called "Le Grand Virage". It's a plan that's been around for years, which a lot of people on this forum have supported, and definitely talked about.

Problem is that it's a totally different project that serves different users at a different service level. For the most part it's a set of trams in mixed traffic that improve some areas of mobility, but are much less ambitious than the REM.

 

Honestly I think a lot of the lines in le grand virage are not too bad, but they can totally exist alongside the REM, and should be considered in the years ahead.

 

They have the details here, if you're interested: http://www.transportdurable.org/le-grand-virage.html

I vaguely remember this, but it still does not help the majority of the west island. People would still need to get to the Airport and pay for parking. The massive amount of traffic there and overflow parking needed, would be tremendous.

[Enalung]

Introducing a Tramway in Montreal isn't a bad idea, but it must take into account the fact that it isn't meant to replace a system like the REM. It's meant to be a close proximity service which acts as a last mile service from the heavy transit to the final stop close to home or the workplace. It serves a purpose which is rather similar to that of the bus with the difference that it runs on a permanent infrastructure, has more capacity, and is often seen in a better light then the bus.

Modifié 24 novembre 2017 par Enalung