montréal REM de l'Est

[Enalung]

4 minutes ago, SameGuy said:

These are not “competing companies”;  one is built, owned and operated by the Tokyo Metropolitan government, while the other was built by Tokyo and since the early 2000s is owned and operated by a “private” company whose two partners are the Tokyo and Japanese governments. This company also will not build any new lines for itself. Neither Toei nor Tokyo Metro are “for profit,” both losing money almost every year since their inceptions. This isn’t a good analogy to CDPQi.

There are private companies operating  public transit “for profit” under contract all around the world, this isn’t new. However, I can’t find a single example of a private or para-public company being given carte-blanche to plan a route, design, and choice of mode with the sole intention of returning 8-10% profit to investors from Day One with such a bold, take-it-or-leave-it ballsiness and a government bending over to it.

I’m not saying P3 (or whatever this convolution of P3 might be) is bad for building new projects for the benefit of the taxpayers and society, I’m simply stating that if they can’t figure out a way to profitably build what is needed or requested, they shouldn’t be tendering proposals. Therein lies the problem of REM-B: unlike the RFP for REM-A which had a clear mandate to serve Brossard and the airport, the RFP given to CDPQi by the CAQ government was seemingly so vague that they have proposed a system that is now meeting considerable opposition, regardless of its purported benefits overall. It seems they’d rather hold the project hostage than come up with a reasonable compromise, and this isn’t a good look.

The early metro lines in London were planned by private companies, but did need government approval. Many of them were laid in open fields where there was almost nothing. The idea was that theses fields would be transformed into communities in the countryside. Low and behold, the countryside is now part of the city. At the end of the day, it was a disorganised free for all. There were a number of service duplications which ultimately led to the failure of some of those railway compagnies and closure of a number of lines.

[SameGuy]

Just now, Enalung said:

The early metro lines in London were planned by private companies, but did need government approval. Many of them were laid in open fields where there was almost nothing. The idea was that theses fields would be transformed into communities in the countryside. Low and behold, the countryside is now part of the city. At the end of the day, it was a disorganised free for all. There were a number of service duplications which ultimately led to the failure of some of those railway compagnies and closure of a number of lines.

I’m speaking about current-day manifestations in any way similar to REM, more specifically REM-B. London’s history is the ne plus ultra of railway (and subsequently, transit) development from private to public, but a smaller mirror of that is the development of railways in this country. Directly relevant, what will form the backbone of REM-A was indeed a private railroad through greenfield areas that eventually became planned towns. The Two Mountains line was nationalized then spun off to a succession of local transit authorities before being practically given away to CDPQi.

[Spiter_01]

2 hours ago, SameGuy said:

These are not “competing companies”;  one is built, owned and operated by the Tokyo Metropolitan government, while the other was built by Tokyo and since the early 2000s is owned and operated by a “private” company whose two partners are the Tokyo and Japanese governments. This company also will not build any new lines for itself. Neither Toei nor Tokyo Metro are “for profit,” both losing money almost every year since their inceptions. This isn’t a good analogy to CDPQi.

There are private companies operating  public transit “for profit” under contract all around the world, this isn’t new. However, I can’t find a single example of a private or para-public company being given carte-blanche to plan a route, design, and choice of mode with the sole intention of returning 8-10% profit to investors from Day One with such a bold, take-it-or-leave-it ballsiness and a government bending over to it.

I’m not saying P3 (or whatever this convolution of P3 might be) is bad for building new projects for the benefit of the taxpayers and society, I’m simply stating that if they can’t figure out a way to profitably build what is needed or requested, they shouldn’t be tendering proposals. Therein lies the problem of REM-B: unlike the RFP for REM-A which had a clear mandate to serve Brossard and the airport, the RFP given to CDPQi by the CAQ government was seemingly so vague that they have proposed a system that is now meeting considerable opposition, regardless of its purported benefits overall. It seems they’d rather hold the project hostage than come up with a reasonable compromise, and this isn’t a good look.

My point was that there are various models for operating and developing mass transit beyond the government owned and operated one.

They weren't given a carte blanche, just like REM-A, with REM-B they were given parameters by the CAQ to study and develop. It's hard to fault them because the government gave them overly vague parameters as Decel mentioned. I have seen very little opposition actually, besides the chattering class in the media, a handful of community group that also object to the REM-B being elevated on Sherbrooke in the east-end and urban development/transit enthusiasts the majority of the population do not seem that interested or bothered by it.

If the government deems it necessary there are compromises to be made to make the underground alternative fit within the CDPQi framework. Of course you can't find any example of something like this, the concept of sovereign/pension funds investing into infrastructure as assets is relatively new and part of the reason they wanted to do it is because they saw an opportunity that wasn't being explored by anyone else.

Modifié 11 février 2021 par Spiter_01

[Né entre les rapides]

il y a 22 minutes, Spiter_01 a dit :

If the government deems it necessary there are compromises to be made to make the underground alternative fit within the CDPQi framework. Of course you can't find any example of something like this, the concept of sovereign/pension funds investing into infrastructure as assets is relatively new and part of the reason they wanted to do it is because they saw an opportunity that wasn't being explored by anyone else.

(Excerpt from full message)

"...pension funds investing into infrastructure as assets...." is not that new.  What is truly innovative is a pension fund (or its arm) conducting the full sequence of proposing, developing, building and managing the operations of a mass transit project.  

However, this does not affect (resolve or compromise the solving of) the  main issue discussed here.  

[Spiter_01]

2 hours ago, Né entre les rapides said:

(Excerpt from full message)

"...pension funds investing into infrastructure as assets...." is not that new.  What is truly innovative is a pension fund (or its arm) conducting the full sequence of proposing, developing, building and managing the operations of a mass transit project.  

However, this does not affect (resolve or compromise the solving of) the  main issue discussed here.  

I would argue it is relatively new, within the last few decades. You could say that the existence of these large pools of money is in itself fairly new. Just as there's the usual negotiations between various levels of government when it comes to financing public infrastructure (see YUL REM-A Station) the same will happen here. If a compromise can't be reached then we end up like with the blue line, a plan on paper that sits on the shelf.

[Né entre les rapides]

il y a 59 minutes, Spiter_01 a dit :

I would argue it is relatively new, within the last few decades.

You and I agree that this is within the last few decades*.  To me, it meant "not that new", for you: "relatively new".  No case for a dispute here.  😉

* I had been "introduced" to that kind of investment in the 1980's, as a means for pension funds to diversify their portofolios.

[SameGuy]

Ok then we all agree. LOL

I'm just gonna say that the only parallel I can find is Chinese investment in infrastructure (transit, roads, schools, clinics and otherwise) in the developing world. But even in Addis or Lubumbashi or Lusaka, the Chinese are building what they are told to build, and where, in exchange for rights to mine Africa’s mineral resources to bring back to China.

[Né entre les rapides]

Il y a 3 heures, SameGuy a dit :

Ok then we all agree. LOL

I'm just gonna say that the only parallel I can find is Chinese investment in infrastructure (transit, roads, schools, clinics and otherwise) in the developing world. But even in Addis or Lubumbashi or Lusaka, the Chinese are building what they are told to build, and where, in exchange for rights to mine Africa’s mineral resources to bring back to China.

I like this parallel.  In our case, that would mean that the CDPQ-i would be quite prepared to build whatever the government wants, as long as they get "properly" rewarded.  So it all boils down to the government's willingness to pay the bill.  

This however may turn out to be problematic, if the government was expecting a great bargain -- that is:  satisfying a highly popular request (mass transit for Eastern and Northeastern Montreal) at little cost for itself.

[reecemartin]

On 1/18/2021 at 5:36 PM, CoinSherbrookeRachel said:

In addition to the viaduct over René-Lévesque (integration, impossibility of extending to the west), the other aspect of the Eastern REM that bothers me are the 40-meter trains, leaving little room for maneuver for the increase of system capacity. I understand that 40m reduces the tunnel cost and visual impact of overhead stations, but at least I hope they will build them at 50m, like the Canada Line. 

It is certain that if a branch reaches saturation even with trains every 3 minutes (probably Marie-Victorin, with the drawdown of several bus lines), it will always be possible to put trains making only the Marie-Victorin shuttle - Assumption, for example. It would allow to have a frequency of 1min30sec on the central branch, and on the busiest branch. I imagine that several people could transfer on the green line. 

Otherwise, with a turnaround or a grade separation before Viauville, they could even do an "Eastern Line" on the "Eastern Rem", in the event of congestion at peak hours. 

Tunnel costs won't be lower but, I do think 40m trains like the Canada Line are ok - when automated they can still carry many passengers.

On 1/18/2021 at 5:36 PM, CoinSherbrookeRachel said:

In addition to the viaduct over René-Lévesque (integration, impossibility of extending to the west), the other aspect of the Eastern REM that bothers me are the 40-meter trains, leaving little room for maneuver for the increase of system capacity. I understand that 40m reduces the tunnel cost and visual impact of overhead stations, but at least I hope they will build them at 50m, like the Canada Line. 

It is certain that if a branch reaches saturation even with trains every 3 minutes (probably Marie-Victorin, with the drawdown of several bus lines), it will always be possible to put trains making only the Marie-Victorin shuttle - Assumption, for example. It would allow to have a frequency of 1min30sec on the central branch, and on the busiest branch. I imagine that several people could transfer on the green line. 

Otherwise, with a turnaround or a grade separation before Viauville, they could even do an "Eastern Line" on the "Eastern Rem", in the event of congestion at peak hours. 

Tunnel costs won't be lower but, I do think 40m trains like the Canada Line are ok - when automated they can still carry many passengers.

[Kodun]

il y a une heure, reecemartin a dit :

Tunnel costs won't be lower but, I do think 40m trains like the Canada Line are ok - when automated they can still carry many passengers.

Tunnel costs won't be lower but, I do think 40m trains like the Canada Line are ok - when automated they can still carry many passengers.

A tunnel in any downtown shall be regarded as major asset for future growth and not cheaped on. Like the mountain tunnel, it could (and would probably) act as a hub for multiple lines. They really should regard this tunnel for its future potential rather than an overburden to toss.

We already made this mistake with our "one-tube" metro that was to cheap on construction but now is topped in rush hour but at least has decent train capacity. The idea of a tunnel is not won so more than that is off the chart in the actual mindest but a pricey roller-coaster shouldn't be acceptable.

Let's do it right the first time.