montréal REM (ligne A) - Discussion générale

[arch]

@ Ant6n

 

The reason the focus is on suburban service is that the main transit problem in Montreal is the limited capacity of the road system feeding the downtown core. It makes only sense to alleviate congestion on those arteries. Downtown cannot thrive if one cannot get there timely and easily, two things that the REM attemps to solve.

 

I agree with you that the downtown stations are not ideally located and should be built at the same time as the other stations. However, by asking CDPQ to build and operate the REM, the government also allowed them to make profit on their investment. Hence, the proposed stations are a nice plus if only there is enough people to feed them.

 

From a planner point of view, it makes sense to build the station in the middle of a highway because the right of way already exists, the CDPQ will not have to compensate people to relocate them. It also makes the construction easier. As for the ridership, your estimations seems low compared to the actual ridership of the Deux-Montagne and Vaudreuil Lines.

[Ant6n]

@arch

Saying that downtown will be relieved by this suburban-centric project brings little solace to millions riding like sardines in buses.

 

From an actual urban planner point of view, it makes sense to build transit line that strengthen cities rather than weaken them -- while at the same time spending _a lot_ of money on those projects. The numbers for the branches, actually 10K for airport, 11K for West Island, comes directly from the CDPQInfra (http://cdpqinfra.com/sites/all/files/document/cdpqinfra_briefing_technique_anglais_2016-04-22.pdf). Most of the riders will be coming from Brossard (80K) and the Deux-Montagnes lines (50K). And it's not surprising: airports are weak generators for trips, and three suburban and exurban stations in the A-40 will be as well.

 

But we're working of the mandate from the government, a checklist of three items (Brossard, airport, West Island), so I guess we're getting a nonsensical project lacking regional integration and inadequately appropriating the existing Mont-Royal tunnel infrastructure.

[ronald.houde]

@arch

Saying that downtown will be relieved by this suburban-centric project brings little solace to millions riding like sardines in buses.

 

From an actual urban planner point of view, it makes sense to build transit line that strengthen cities rather than weaken them -- while at the same time spending _a lot_ of money on those projects. The numbers for the branches, actually 10K for airport, 11K for West Island, comes directly from the CDPQInfra (http://cdpqinfra.com/sites/all/files/document/cdpqinfra_briefing_technique_anglais_2016-04-22.pdf). Most of the riders will be coming from Brossard (80K) and the Deux-Montagnes lines (50K). And it's not surprising: airports are weak generators for trips, and three suburban and exurban stations in the A-40 will be as well.

 

But we're working of the mandate from the government, a checklist of three items (Brossard, airport, West Island), so I guess we're getting a nonsensical project lacking regional integration and inadequately appropriating the existing Mont-Royal tunnel infrastructure.

It must be remembered what mandate was given to CDPQ Infra, as many have already said. Link the South Shore to downtown; and link downtown to the airport, with a desirable link to the West Island.

CDPQ Infra delivered WAYYYYYY beyond that just to begin: the West Island link is included upfront; the Deux-Montagnes line will need its much needed mid-life refit (in a Big Way) and the option to hook-up to the Blue and Hreen Métro lines.

Let's rejoice at that and then work the expansion once the RÉM goes into service.

 

 

Envoyé de mon SGH-T999V en utilisant Tapatalk

[p_xavier]

@arch

Saying that downtown will be relieved by this suburban-centric project brings little solace to millions riding like sardines in buses.

 

From an actual urban planner point of view, it makes sense to build transit line that strengthen cities rather than weaken them -- while at the same time spending _a lot_ of money on those projects. The numbers for the branches, actually 10K for airport, 11K for West Island, comes directly from the CDPQInfra (http://cdpqinfra.com/sites/all/files/document/cdpqinfra_briefing_technique_anglais_2016-04-22.pdf). Most of the riders will be coming from Brossard (80K) and the Deux-Montagnes lines (50K). And it's not surprising: airports are weak generators for trips, and three suburban and exurban stations in the A-40 will be as well.

 

But we're working of the mandate from the government, a checklist of three items (Brossard, airport, West Island), so I guess we're getting a nonsensical project lacking regional integration and inadequately appropriating the existing Mont-Royal tunnel infrastructure.

 

Hey, I live downtown and I NEED better service to visit friends and family to many places in the Montreal region. The REM is great for that. The Paris RER was actually built for the same purpose, with few stops within Paris itself and it has one of the highest ridership in the worlds.

[cprail]

Le contenu présenté pendant les portes ouvertes est maintenant officiellement sur le site Internet à http://cdpqinfra.com/sites/all/files/document/infographie_portes_ouverte_juin_2016_0.pdf (54 mo).

[Né entre les rapides]

Station REM: Aéroport.

 

Je me demandais quel serait le profil-type de l'utilisateur du REM à partir ou en direction de cette station. Voici ce que j'imagine, sur la base de mon expérience personnelle, transposée sur le futur cas YUL.

 

1) En partance de Montréal, de n'importe où sur le territoire, via un accès (privé ou public) à la station REM la plus proche du domicile ou du bureau, pour un court voyage d'affaires. Peu ou pas de bagages.

 

2) A destination de Montréal, à partir de n'importe laquelle ville offrant un vol pour YUL, vers une place d'affaires généralement située au centre-ville mais pouvant aussi être située à proximité d'une autre station REM. Pour un court voyage d'affaires, peu ou pas de bagages.

 

3) Plus rarement: touristes étrangers séjournant généralement au centre-ville, et habitués à utiliser les TEC pour se rendre à l'aéroport. (Les touristes voyageant «en groupes» devraient normalement continuer à utiliser un autocar dédié «charter» de l'aéroport vers leur hôtel)

 

4) Plutôt exceptionnellement: les Montréalais (et autres Québécois) effectuant un voyage d'agrément (=touristique) de moyenne/longue durée en familles ou en groupes. Davantage de bagages. Typiquement départ à partir du domicile et chemin inverse au retour. Accès à YUL par automobile personnelle, taxi, membre de la famille ou ami; sinon par autocar dédié pour ceux qui voyagent en groupes en provenance d'une autre ville.

[Ant6n]

Hey, I live downtown and I NEED better service to visit friends and family to many places in the Montreal region. The REM is great for that. The Paris RER was actually built for the same purpose, with few stops within Paris itself and it has one of the highest ridership in the worlds.

 

This is not an RER. If it was, I'd be grateful. This is exactly the opposite - it's a system that will hinder regional integration, trunk line and branches, that the RER proposes, because the system is incompatible. It's also a medium capacity system, unlike the RER. As for station distances, consider that the RER in Paris is in a metropolitan area that's more than 10 million people, reaching out 50km from the city, so the stations downtown are at higher distances than they would be in Montreal. And the system goes somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 PPHD. Nevertheless the stations are actually in useful locations, RER stations are not in the middle of nothing serving a baseball stadium. And the RER lines are built along traditional rail corridors, connecting to populations; not along highways connecting to parking lots.

 

The REM on the other hand, is an automatic light metro, propsing 12,000 PPHD when opening. It's modelled after the metro in Lyon or Lille (cities of 1 million people?), according to Andlauer himself.

 

What we need is something in-between, for a city of four million people, whose urban area reaches about 25km out. This means we can have more frequent stop spacing the city, but we should aspire to the 40,000 PPHD right from the start, with more branches, and including existing longer distance regional rail in the same system. The model should be Munich, Berlin, Zurich, Vienna, and yes, the RER, but understanding the somewhat smaller scale of Montreal compared to Paris.

 

And you can't just wave away the utter abysmal cost-benefit ratios of the airport and West Island spur.

 

And you can't just hide behind the fact that the government gave them a 'mandate'. It was bad planning then; now they want to take over our infrastructure and reduce capacity; this _has_ to be fixed. Let's not make another mistake like the Mascouche line (7000M spent for 7000 riders per day).

Modifié 4 juin 2016 par Ant6n

[vivreenrégion]

This is not an RER. If it was, I'd be grateful. This is exactly the opposite - it's a system that will hinder regional integration, trunk line and branches, that the RER proposes, because the system is incompatible. It's also a medium capacity system, unlike the RER. As for station distances, consider that the RER in Paris is in a metropolitan area that's more than 10 million people, reaching out 50km from the city, so the stations downtown are at higher distances than they would be in Montreal. And the system goes somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 PPHD. Nevertheless the stations are actually in useful locations, RER stations are not in the middle of nothing serving a baseball stadium. And the RER lines are built along traditional rail corridors, connecting to populations; not along highways connecting to parking lots.

 

The REM on the other hand, is an automatic light metro, propsing 12,000 PPHD when opening. It's modelled after the metro in Lyon or Lille (cities of 1 million people?), according to Andlauer himself.

 

What we need is something in-between, for a city of four million people, whose urban area reaches about 25km out. This means we can have more frequent stop spacing the city, but we should aspire to the 40,000 PPHD right from the start, with more branches, and including existing longer distance regional rail in the same system. The model should be Munich, Berlin, Zurich, Vienna, and yes, the RER, but understanding the somewhat smaller scale of Montreal compared to Paris.

 

And you can't just wave away the utter abysmal cost-benefit ratios of the airport and West Island spur.

 

And you can't just hide behind the fact that the government gave them a 'mandate'. It was bad planning then; now they want to take over our infrastructure and reduce capacity; this _has_ to be fixed. Let's not make another mistake like the Mascouche line (7000M spent for 7000 riders per day).

le SmartTrack de Toronto était supposé coûter 8B$ pour un ridership de 200,000 par jour, en 2022, 53 km, 22 stations. Le projet est révisé à la baisse, entre 4 et 8 stations, fréquence aux 15min. Nous on aura un ridership de 150,000 pour 5.5B$, 67km, 24 stations, aux 3min et 6-12min.

 

le problème à Montréal, c'est une île, si tu veux relier le nord au sud, ça te prend des gros ponts. Dès que tu impliques le facteur régional, tu viens de compliquer toute la démarche. Nos tracks de chemin de fer ne nous appartiennent pas, sauf celle du REM.

Modifié 4 juin 2016 par vivreenrégion

[andre md]

Selon le document de CDPQ Infra il y aura Seulement 35 millions de passager par année avec le REM. Ce n'est pas beaucoup si on compare au metro avec 357 millions de passagers par année.

[vivreenrégion]

Selon le document de CDPQ Infra il y aura Seulement 35 millions de passager par année avec le REM. Ce n'est pas beaucoup si on compare au metro avec 357 millions de passagers par année.

 

la différence c'est qu'avec le métro, dès qu'on passe d'une ligne à une autre, ça compte comme étant un ''trip''. Le REM ne fait pas vraiment de transit car une seule ligne.