montréal REM de l'Est

[Enalung]

1 hour ago, Né entre les rapides said:

- Consensus not required: true.

- Who are "they"  -- the CDPQ-i, the government  or both? 

- I am afraid that the "crybabies" include a lot of influential persons and firms, so...

- "This is CDPQ-i": do you mean a kind  of an invicible army?  Normally, it takes a long succession of impressive victories before earning such a reputation. 

- "Legault will make this a personal project":  I just wonder why he would expose himself so much, on a project so prone to controversies now and in the future.   In addition, I find that his government has rather shown a tendency to compromise, change its mindset, when circumstances warranted it.  Not the kind of government that goes straight ahead despite all objections.  

Legault has got more proposals for projects then the government has money for.  All he really needs to do is to just let things follow their due course. Some of them will make it and others won't. That's just the reality of things. Rather then peg himself to one or two projects, Legault is taking the safer route of making sure that he has enough projects being planned that he will have something to announce come election time. My bet is on the Taschereau and the third link / Québec Tramway.

[p_xavier]

Il y a 16 heures, SameGuy a dit :

AMT (and by extension, RTM) in fact owned the DM line and sold it to CDPQ. 

Yes, I over-simplified my elaboration. My main point is that we are jumping in to take anything being offered instead of doing things properly and with all players acting in concert to build the best system. We are essentially not marrying Mr. Right, but settling for Mr. Right-Now.

The CDPQi has so far produced a better system than any other transit operator or the MTQ beforehand.  As criterias they use, it's comfort, speed, ridership and costs.  These are the same criterias I used as a transportation engineer back in the day, minus the redevelopment capacities (which the CDPQ and MTR does).  You want a tunnel dowtown? It affects ridership negatively and costs.  

Urbanists, which are doing most of the work that transit engineers used to do, don't even use the costs metrics most of the time and use metrics such as beautification, density etc.

So what is the best system in the end?  I have sure not seen any system proposal by the ARTM, because there isn't any.  They are studying transit projects indivudually from the requests of mayors.  But the bestest system is sure being done by the CDPQi.

You also have hang ups on the 10$B price tag.  Transit operators work on a per passenger per km basis, with the metro being the least subsidised, to trains being the most costly to operate. (these are operating costs only).  That's why the Caisse is investing because even at a high infrastructure costs, the operation costs are so lean that they still make money at a lower cost than a bus or train and can finance it.

It was never about what we could do with 10G$ because you will never get that money.  Any other proposition will also (besides metro extensions) be more expensive to operate and maintain long term.  

I'm more of the opinion that the Caisse is saying Take it or pay it for the downtown proposal though.

[SameGuy]

4 hours ago, p_xavier said:

I'm more of the opinion that the Caisse is saying Take it or pay it for the downtown proposal though.

I’m nearly certain that the majority who have an opinion on the matter are hoping for this, with the unanswered question remaining whether the Québec government is willing to pay the difference.

Repeating myself, I’m all for rapid transit. If they find gold and diamonds under the fields between Brossard and Chambly, I’d spend a good chunk of that new-found wealth on transit and clean-energy projects! I’m also in the camp that is willing to make concessions in order to get something sooner (Aéroport/West Island) rather than “some day” (a real Train de l’ouest métro), but there are definitely limits to it (West Island compromises vs the elevated “downtown section” of REM-B, or an East End metro vs extensions out to Chambly/Chateauguay/Mirabel).

So to concur with your summary, I hope they can prioritize their investments to focus on somewhere near where they are needed before somewhere they would be significantly less effective. At the same time, I also hope that our governments don’t lose sight of the fact that mass transit is a social service, and must be maintained, improved and expanded as needs arise, with no profit motive in mind. This particular government just happens to be ready to subsidize shovel-ready mega projects, but isn’t catalyzing work on the existing systems (Orange northwest extension, platform screen doors, improving suburban trains, etc). Every current project already underway began during the previous mandate(s), and they haven’t announced any new investments in our systems — pre-study-studies notwithstanding. Let’s hope we get the best of both worlds. Our opinions aren’t as far apart as you imagine.

[FrodoMTL]

15 minutes ago, SameGuy said:

At the same time, I also hope that our governments don’t lose sight of the fact that mass transit is a social service, and must be maintained, improved and expanded as needs arise, with no profit motive in mind. 

I agree overall with your sentiment.

Only differing point is that IMHO, when it comes to mass transit, it shouldn't be a crime to have a "profit motive". Specifically, I don't mean that transit operators should focus solely on generating surplus net income like a private corporation. But rather giving transit operators (whether they be STM, Exo, ARTM, or CDPQi) the freedom to create systems that incentivize future transit expansions, reward high quality customer service, and reward good management practices, that allow them to respond faster and more flexibly to future changes in transportation needs. And if there needs to be money involved to incentivize the above behaviours, then so be it. Transit agencies can't forever remain the clunky bureaucratic organizations that they used to be that survive solely on the whims of political leaders.

Modifié 7 mars 2021 par FrodoMTL

[Né entre les rapides]

Il y a 4 heures, p_xavier a dit :

The CDPQi has so far produced a better system than any other transit operator or the MTQ beforehand.  As criterias they use, it's comfort, speed, ridership and costs.  These are the same criterias I used as a transportation engineer back in the day, minus the redevelopment capacities (which the CDPQ and MTR does).  You want a tunnel dowtown? It affects ridership negatively and costs.  

Urbanists, which are doing most of the work that transit engineers used to do, don't even use the costs metrics most of the time and use metrics such as beautification, density etc.

So what is the best system in the end?  I have sure not seen any system proposal by the ARTM, because there isn't any.  They are studying transit projects indivudually from the requests of mayors.  But the bestest system is sure being done by the CDPQi.

You also have hang ups on the 10$B price tag.  Transit operators work on a per passenger per km basis, with the metro being the least subsidised, to trains being the most costly to operate. (these are operating costs only).  That's why the Caisse is investing because even at a high infrastructure costs, the operation costs are so lean that they still make money at a lower cost than a bus or train and can finance it.

It was never about what we could do with 10G$ because you will never get that money.  Any other proposition will also (besides metro extensions) be more expensive to operate and maintain long term.  

I'm more of the opinion that the Caisse is saying Take it or pay it for the downtown proposal though.

OK.

Total cost (fixed+variable)  per kilometer-passenger is a more appropriate criteria that merely investment cost per kilometer.   Some systems such as bus lines or tramways have lower capital costs but much higher operating costs.  Currently, very low interest rates mean that the the carrying costs of the initial capital investment are pretty low, giving an advantage for capital intensive projects over the others. Note however that this applies equally to projects funded to a large extent by the CDPQ-i (eg. for the REM) and those fully funded by the public sector (eg. for the metro).  The differences between a CDPQ-i funded project and one entirely funded by the public sector are two-fold: a CDPQ-i project  entails lesser public debt but greater long-term public financial commitment, as well as visibly superior project management capacity (than its public counterparts). 

In your last paragraph you opine that "the Caisse is saying Take it or pay for it for the downtown proposal though".  I believe this makes perfect sense.  I suppose that the "...or pay for it" refers to the additional costs implied by the tunnel option.  If so, my question is how can these additional costs be assumed by the public sector?  -- I see three ways:

1) Larger upfront capital contributions;

2) Higher subsidies per kilometer-passenger (in effect, that would take the form of a higher guaranted revenue per passenger-kilometer);

3) A combination of the two above.

And this is not all!  -- The additional costs of the tunnel option would not be limited to the additional investment costs (projected).  A provision must be made for the higher risk involved.  And another one for the very probable delay in commissioning (mise en service), affecting the stream of revenues accruing to the CDPQ-i.

 

[SameGuy]

2 hours ago, FrodoMTL said:

I agree overall with your sentiment.

Only differing point is that IMHO, when it comes to mass transit, it shouldn't be a crime to have a "profit motive". Specifically, I don't mean that transit operators should focus solely on generating surplus net income like a private corporation. But rather giving transit operators (whether they be STM, Exo, ARTM, or CDPQi) the freedom to create systems that incentivize future transit expansions, reward high quality customer service, and reward good management practices, that allow them to respond faster and more flexibly to future changes in transportation needs. And if there needs to be money involved to incentivize the above behaviours, then so be it. Transit agencies can't forever remain the clunky bureaucratic organizations that they used to be that survive solely on the whims of political leaders.

No we don’t differ there, either. But CDPQinfra isn’t a “transit authority.” 😉

If the STM decided to emulate MTR in Hong Kong or MRT in Taiwan or in Singapore, and monetize their properties, I’d be 100% in favour. Same as I’d be in favour of CP building over their easements on the Westmount sub or Cominar selling their CN air rights to someone ready to build over Centrale. Heck, I’m also eager for the CN viaduct to be hollowed out and developed and commercialized! If CDPQi collaborates with their sibling IC, or with CF or anybody else to monetize existing properties adjacent to REM, I’m ok with it, and with Infra profiting in the process. I get that.

What I’m not in love with is the idea of CDPQInfra being granted easements on highly valuable public assets today, in the 21st century, in order to develop transit out to sparsely populated areas with the primary intent of developing on that empty land and profiting from this corrupt speculation. If they want to foot the entire bill to acquire the lands and pay in full to build the line, great. But offering to only pay half, and demanding the rest from the public as a form of ransom — the “all or nothing” part of the equation? Yeah I’m not ok with that.

[SameGuy]

In other words, the city (and by extension, the province) should value its assets that are essentially “given” to Infra, and get fair compensation in return. As it stands, the province has given the keys to the city to Infra, and then agreed to pay many more billions in guaranteed per-passenger-kilometre charges. 

[Eric B.]

Il y a 19 heures, SameGuy a dit :

In other words, the city (and by extension, the province) should value its assets that are essentially “given” to Infra, and get fair compensation in return. As it stands, the province has given the keys to the city to Infra, and then agreed to pay many more billions in guaranteed per-passenger-kilometre charges. 

Exactement. Les considérations politiques sont définitivement à l'avant-plan pour le REM de l'est. Est-ce que l'est mérite un mode lourd comme le REM? Quels sont les besoins en mobilités des citoyens dans le secteurs? On va nous imposer d'immenses structures bruyantes qui passent très proches des résidences, alors qu'on a pas fait la démonstration que c'est le meilleur investissement de fonds publics.

L'est a besoin d'un mode structurant, mais le REM? Pas sur. On pourrait, à la rigueur, prolonger la ligne verte jusqu'au faubourg Contrecœur et ensuite implanter un SRB sur Sherbrooke. Ou faire un tram-train dans l'antenne Longue-Pointe du CN tout le long de Souligny jusqu'au bout de l'île. Ou juste faire des voies réservées qui le sont réellement. Tout ça couterait moins cher en construction/implantation et surtout, moins cher en opération/redevance.

Le REM de l'est va juste concurrencer la ligne verte et le SRB PIE-IX et on va devoir payer cher en redevances pour toujours, essentiellement. Bonne chance pour financer un autre projet de TC dans les décennies suivantes.

[FrodoMTL]

19 hours ago, SameGuy said:

In other words, the city (and by extension, the province) should value its assets that are essentially “given” to Infra, and get fair compensation in return. As it stands, the province has given the keys to the city to Infra, and then agreed to pay many more billions in guaranteed per-passenger-kilometre charges. 

I'm curious, hoping some could help answer:

1. What assets are "given" or handed to CDPQi for free for REM-B? For REM-A, it was obvious as it had to take over existing rail corridors, but you could also argue that by doing that the government (and the public) all ended up paying less upfront (vs. asking Infra to build new rail corridors for REM-A from scratch). It'd be interesting to do an actual cost benefit analysis on this.

2. Does the government get any future surplus revenue generated from operation of REM and surrounding property development fees. For example, the present value of future net-new municipal property taxes from the new TODs, condos, office towers around REM stations would surely go to the government (which could be a very large figure). Curious to know the exact breakdown on future revenue sharing especially from indirect sources of revenue such as development fees, rent, etc.

 

Modifié 8 mars 2021 par FrodoMTL

[BilMo]

I am trying to imagine what a terminus station at Robert Bourassa would look like. I am assuming there would have to be some sort of lobby. Would this structure tie into the buildings on each side of the street? Are the sidewalks wide enough for stairs escalators and elevators or would you enter through adjacent buildings? What happens to the plaza in front of the Telus Tower?

Not that I think this is going to happen, but I am curious to see what others are visualizing.