montréal REM de l'Est

[SameGuy]

The whole “Chicago L crime” fear-mongering argument just sounds so laughably MAGA and Trumpian, and has absolutely nothing to do with any sensible discourse on modern transit design.

[FrodoMTL]

14 minutes ago, geraldshaw said:

OK, forget Chicago -  look at Skytrain Bangkok. Another old Turcot . Do we really want this in downtown Montreal?

 

I mean, for everyone of these pictures, one could easily find a counter example. It's called selection bias, by selectively sampling data to support a pre-determined conclusion. 

Elevated rapid transit in the Hague (someone posted earlier one if you cared to even read prior posts):

[Enalung]

1 hour ago, SameGuy said:

The whole “Chicago L crime” fear-mongering argument just sounds so laughably MAGA and Trumpian, and has absolutely nothing to do with any sensible discourse on modern transit design.

The same could be said of the New York subway which was, for a very long time, a dark, dingy place. It is still very much in need of some TLC. Infrastructure is like anything else in a city. It needs to be properly maintained and attended to catch issues before they become a major problem. This conversation is not going to go anywhere with what ifs.

47 minutes ago, geraldshaw said:

I did not realize that there is a rule on  this site that says one must not comment on views written a month earlier. My sincere apologies. I am new to this site. Please tell me where I can find the rules - I remember  reading an "I accept" when I joined, but I am not intelligent enough to remember the one on commenting on one month old topics discussed then. 

It's called necroing and it's generally considered bad manners no matter where you go on the web. Unless you've got something new to add the the conversation, you are beating on a dead horse.

35 minutes ago, geraldshaw said:

Speaking of selection bias -- the  photo of the  Hague above has ten lanes plus a wide meridian of the equivalent of 1 1/2  lanes  of width for the foundations of the rails platform--- Blvd Rene-Levesque has 6 lanes and a tiny 1/4 of a line meridian.  

I would like to know where you see 10 lanes on this photo:

I guess that you must be talking about this short segment between the viaduct in the image and the central station. If that's not selection bias, then I don't know what is. In fact, the only reason it is anywhere near that wide is because of the turning lanes used to access the highway. There a few other oddities with that road but that's really a subject for another thread.

[Kodun]

All i see that could be proposed for RL is a major lane reduction. Maintaining actual vehicular capacity + REM would be pure dystopia.

[SameGuy]

Just playing Devil’s advocate for a moment, for again, if one cares to read a bit in these fora, one might actually see that we aren’t all in favour of elevated trains any more than we are all in favour of walls of skyscrapers across the cityscape.

Most of René-Lévesque west of de Lorimier is eight road lanes, a median, and two wide sidewalks. It is anywhere from 36 to more than 50 metres across from building façade to building façade. Even using the fairly simple design of the West Island — vertical circular columns and a guideway constructed with profiled voussoirs — the columns could fit in the median, and the overhead structure would be less than 7 metres wide and would “shade” no more than two lanes. Just based upon the dimensions of the West Island elevated structure, a guideway along the median wouldn’t even span as far as the width of the two inside lanes. On the other hand, the station structures will likely be cumbersome, regardless of how lithe the guideway appears. But again, only two stations are currently planned for the core of downtown, and it’s just the one at Central that would be aesthetically and functionally problematic; a station at St-Urbain (or even Berri) would have little impact on the “beauty” of the surroundings.

Of course, those are just my opinions. I also strongly believe that we should still consider going underground somewhere near Radio Canada if possible, even if it increases the cost of the whole project by a billion or two.

[Né entre les rapides]

il y a 41 minutes, SameGuy a dit :

Just playing Devil’s advocate for a moment, for again, if one cares to read a bit in these fora, one might actually see that we aren’t all in favour of elevated trains any more than we are all in favour of walls of skyscrapers across the cityscape.

Most of René-Lévesque west of de Lorimier is eight road lanes, a median, and two wide sidewalks. It is anywhere from 36 to more than 50 metres across from building façade to building façade. Even using the fairly simple design of the West Island — vertical circular columns and a guideway constructed with profiled voussoirs — the columns could fit in the median, and the overhead structure would be less than 7 metres wide and would “shade” no more than two lanes. Just based upon the dimensions of the West Island elevated structure, a guideway along the median wouldn’t even span as far as the width of the two inside lanes. On the other hand, the station structures will likely be cumbersome, regardless of how lithe the guideway appears. But again, only two stations are currently planned for the core of downtown, and it’s just the one at Central that would be aesthetically and functionally problematic; a station at St-Urbain (or even Berri) would have little impact on the “beauty” of the surroundings.

Of course, those are just my opinions. I also strongly believe that we should still consider going underground somewhere near Radio Canada if possible, even if it increases the cost of the whole project by a billion or two.

It's always fun to Play the Devil !  I am grateful that you were able and willing to make a distinction between the issue of shading and that of aesthetics.

[Charlemagne]

Si vraiment la largeur des rues est une problèmatique, peut-être qu'on peut considérer bâtir des rails superposées là où ça ferait du sens ? Si il y a pas de nécessitée, peu importe, mais ça pourrait être une option intéressante.

[Né entre les rapides]

Dans cette chanson (le projet du REM de l'Est), je sens que c'est le temps de revenir avec le refrain suivant.

Les controverses inhérentes au projet auront pour effet de retarder la prise de décision finale; le gouvernement aura réussi à fournir de l'espoir sans se compromettre irrémédiablement.

Le 3 octobre 2022, ce n'est plus très loin.

Pour "casser" ce refrain, ça prendrait une proposition faisant un large consensus parmi la population montréalaise.  Je ne l'ai pas encore vue.  Il faudrait concilier l'utilité, l'esthétique et l'abordabilité.    

[Julpyz]

8 hours ago, geraldshaw said:

OK, forget Chicago -  look at Skytrain Bangkok. Another old Turcot . Do we really want this in downtown Montreal?

 

Am I the only one who find this oddly beautiful?

[Decel]

Il y a 3 heures, Charlemagne a dit :

Si vraiment la largeur des rues est une problèmatique, peut-être qu'on peut considérer bâtir des rails superposées là où ça ferait du sens ? Si il y a pas de nécessitée, peu importe, mais ça pourrait être une option intéressante.

Option intéressante, et règlerait la problématique des stations: une station verticale est beaucoup plus pratique qu'une station avec quais en bordure, et moins large qu'une station avec quai central.