Transports en commun - Discussion générale

[SameGuy]

19 minutes ago, Julpyz said:

the price premium was found to be lower for properties near above-grade stations compared to below-grade stations.

That’s listing prices from one area compared to a different area; Vancouver’s “underground” stations are almost all in the downtown core, which has higher list prices. But did building the elevated line lower the value of properties near the line? 

[LexD]

6 minutes ago, SameGuy said:

That’s listing prices from one area to a different area; Vancouver’s “underground” stations are almost all in the downtown core, which has higher list prices. But did building the line lower the value? 

The transit line in Virginia showed an 8% decrease, but it was a failed transit line. This article really only states that the properties closest to elevated transit will gain less than those slightly further away that are sheltered from traffic and noise. 

The only way to really lose value would be if the transit project is a bust in its entirety.

 

[SameGuy]

Just now, LexD said:

The transit line in Virginia showed an 8% decrease, but it was a failed transit line. This article really only states that the properties closest to elevated transit will gain less than those slightly further away that are sheltered from traffic and noise. 

The only way to really lose value would be if the transit project is a bust in its entirety.

 

I edited my post to make it more clear but the gist is the same. 

[champdemars]

il y a 24 minutes, Julpyz a dit :

https://financialpost.com/real-estate/does-new-public-transit-boost-home-prices-if-its-underground-the-answer-is-usually-yes

"Similarly, a Masters thesis completed in 2018 at Concordia University explored whether proximity to elevated transit stations in Toronto and Vancouver carried a lower price premium than proximity to below-grade transit. The research found that properties listed near the “elevated TTC subway and SkyTrain stations had, on average, lower listing prices while properties located in proximity to underground stations had higher listing prices.”

Above-grade rail transit generates noise and is often not visibly appealing. Thus, the price premium was found to be lower for properties near above-grade stations compared to below-grade stations."

Est-ce « lower price premium » se traduit en français par « valeur ajoutée moindre » ? Si c’est le cas, ça demeure de la valeur ajoutée, juste de moins grande ampleur que pour un service souterrain.

[Enalung]

3 hours ago, champdemars said:

Est-ce « lower price premium » se traduit en français par « valeur ajoutée moindre » ? Si c’est le cas, ça demeure de la valeur ajoutée, juste de moins grande ampleur que pour un service souterrain.

C'est la bonne traduction.

[geraldshaw]

5 hours ago, SameGuy said:

Perhaps Mr Shaw would like to start a new thread in one of the off-topic areas. Here we are discussing the REM-B/REM-2 proposal and what we think about it, and we can speculate on aspects of the design or engineering choices, or even the routes. Delving into hearsay and conspiracies and all that would be better off in its own thread in another forum, just like the tangential discussion about possible east end transit alternatives was forked off into its own thread in “Proposals/Visions.”

👍🏼💯 Agree — I’ve said pretty much exactly this more than once since September. The only spot where I do agree with others here that it would be obtrusive is in front of the cathedral and bisecting Place du Canada and Dorchester Square. It would need to be a good 20 metres up for clearance but then the integration with the other transit systems is even more cumbersome.

"Here we are discussing the REM-B/REM-2 proposal and what we think about it". 

Given this is the rule, why is it wrong to say that an  above ground rail line platform though the core of  downtown Montreal  will lower values for building owners (many of which are  owned by Ivanhoe i.e., the Caisse de depot) and with challenges in the courts will cause delays ? How is that a conspiracy theory or hearsay? This is not  a QAnon opinion, it is following the rule  above of  "discussing the REM-B/REM2 proposal what we  think about it."

[SameGuy]

Omg. What rule? I just suggested starting a thread specific to that concern, where you might be able to have a discussion about that specific topic. See? Here we are, not talking about the design or route.

Mods, I apologize for whatever I may have done to derail this topic. I’m done.

[p_xavier]

il y a 48 minutes, SameGuy a dit :

Omg. What rule? I just suggested starting a thread specific to that concern, where you might be able to have a discussion about that specific topic. See? Here we are, not talking about the design or route.

Mods, I apologize for whatever I may have done to derail this topic. I’m done.

No, I'm entertained so far.

[geraldshaw]

48 minutes ago, p_xavier said:

No, I'm entertained so far.

Is discussion of the  accident liability  risk due to elevated  REM-est rail in downtown Montreal  allowed on this thread? There was a derailment today in NYC from the elevated rail line to the street. Front page of the NY Times. There are  many, many  examples. Attached is a Chicago LOOP disaster that killed several passengers and also  people walking on the street below. Imagine this on Rene-Levesque. And in the case below Chicago  had human beings as drivers.

REM-est will be driven by computers.  We live in a harsh winter climate (normally) with 90 inches of snow each winter and ice storms that will inevitably cause a REM  derailment at some horrible date in the future  which  will cause the public to demand human drivers and concurrently  destroy  the economic model for the Caisse, unless they have an escape clause for Acts of God and more likely a Quebec government (ie, all of us) pay for a bail out and re-engineering for human drivers.   

[SameGuy]

Is this a parody account?