montréal REM de l'Est

[Enalung]

27 minutes ago, samuelmath said:

Des stations de 40 mètres de longueur sous la Gare Centrale requièrent qu'il n'y ait aucun pilier sur 40 mètres par environ 15 mètres (espace requis pour les quais et les voies du métro). A-t'on cet espace sous la Gare Centrale? Peut-être sous la rue Belmont, mais autrement sous le Fairmont Elizabeth, c'est assez dense en piliers. Qu'on les déplace ou non ne change rien.

It's possible to transfer the load from a column onto another column using a beam. Almost every major building in the city center already does this. You wouldn't have all those massive lobbies at ground level without this technique. I'm sorry to say so, but this argument is dead on arrival.

"Too costly" and "not possible" are two very different things. With the technology we have, there's really not much that is relevant to this discussion that falls within the bounds of "not possible".  Again, this goes back to something that I've said before. We need documentation so that we, the public, can decide for ourselves what it is that we consider too costly. This is the part about how all of this has been communicated that frustrates me the most. That's intellectually dishonest.

We're starting to have this conversation about the blue line. I really think that if that had been part of the discussion from the start, that project would be much further ahead.

[Erikyo]

Le 2021-05-06 à 11:52, Enalung a dit :

Partagez vos idées: https://monrem.ca/participez/brainstormers/partagez-vos-idees

Carte Interactive: https://monrem.ca/participez/maps/contribuez-sur-la-carte-interactive#

Quelqu'un !!! @Fortier? Ces deux URL doivent être ajouté à "Autres ressources :" sur la première publication (et publication principale) de REM de l'Est (ligne B) - Discussion générale!

SVP !!!

[samuelmath]

il y a une heure, Né entre les rapides a dit :

But this is not to say that the Montreal network needs more of such through routes: we already have the Green Line (east-west) and soon we will also have the REM "A"  running from the northwest to the southeast through downtown.   

Yet another through line would be "nice to have"; the question is: would it be worth the expense?  Montreal is not about to reach the size of NYC, London or Paris after all.  

C'est ce que je me disais aussi. Cela est peut-être plus pratique côté correspondance, mais à quel prix?

[Né entre les rapides]

Il y a 2 heures, Enalung a dit :

"Too costly" and "not possible" are two very different things. With the technology we have, there's really not much that is relevant to this discussion that falls within the bounds of "not possible".  Again, this goes back to something that I've said before. We need documentation so that we, the public, can decide for ourselves what it is that we consider too costly. This is the part about how all of this has been communicated that frustrates me the most. That's intellectually dishonest.

Of course, too costly and not possible are two different things.  For the sake of this discussion, I am open to set aside considerations of technical feasibility (i.e. is it possible?), and focus solely on the issue of  cost effectiveness.

But I do have a  problem with the proposition whereby "... we, the public, can decide for ourselves what it is that we consider too costly".  Here is why: the concept of "the public" is very broad.  In a democratic political regime, governments are elected under the principle of "one person one vote" : that's fine in regards of matters of broad policy orientations, but not so much for specific projects which stand to benefit a comparatively small minority but would be paid for by the majority.  Those who would benefit are much more likely to be vocal (in support of a project) than the others (who could be somewhat shy in expressing their opposition).  The resulting "voice of the people" will be skewed.  It remains up to the decision-makers to pass a judgement as to which project deserves  support or not.  

 

[geraldshaw]

18 hours ago, Né entre les rapides said:

Of course, too costly and not possible are two different things.  For the sake of this discussion, I am open to set aside considerations of technical feasibility (i.e. is it possible?), and focus solely on the issue of  cost effectiveness.

But I do have a  problem with the proposition whereby "... we, the public, can decide for ourselves what it is that we consider too costly".  Here is why: the concept of "the public" is very broad.  In a democratic political regime, governments are elected under the principle of "one person one vote" : that's fine in regards of matters of broad policy orientations, but not so much for specific projects which stand to benefit a comparatively small minority but would be paid for by the majority.  Those who would benefit are much more likely to be vocal (in support of a project) than the others (who could be somewhat shy in expressing their opposition).  The resulting "voice of the people" will be skewed.  It remains up to the decision-makers to pass a judgement as to which project deserves  support or not.  

 

100% correct. And documentation to date by Caisse-Infra web site, omits totally any artist's rendition of what R-L will look like from Robert-Bourassa east for several kms. And the stations. If there is such a good project why hide the design / mock up /  pictures which are worth thousands of words? Why is the Caisse-Infra being so shy?  Perhaps, just perhaps the reason is that the Caisse knows, having seen the mock-ups internally, that the  public outcry of mocking the Caisse for ever  proposing a monstrosity is just too painful for the managers of our pension money to contemplate. The public call for resignations would be shattering to so many egos in the Caisse.  And there would/will be calls for heads to roll for being so out of touch. I  expect REM-Est will be cancelled well before any drawings are ever made pubic.

[Lappy]

Le 2021-05-07 à 15:07, ou.pas a dit :

Je comprend que la présence du viaduc ferroviaire sous René-Lévesque empêche l'aérien d'aller plus loin. C'est justement une des limitations de l'option aérienne qui mérite qu'on étudie de plonger en sous-terrain un peu avant, disons après le complexe Desjardin, pour arriver en tunnel sous la gare centrale. 

Avec la pente sur René-Lévesque qui commence à cet endroit, la distance pour passer d’un REM aérien à un REM sous-terrain n’est peut-être pas aussi grande que certain laisse croire. Si la fin du tracé ne peut se faire quelque part sous la gare centrale, terminer le parcours en tournant à gauche sous Robert-Bourassa le long de la gare centrale pourrait être une option. Oui, il y a des coûts plus élevés, mais il y aurait aussi plus d’acceptation ce qui n’est pas négligeable vu la grogne qui prévaut actuellement.

[champdemars]

Il y a 1 heure, geraldshaw a dit :

100% correct. And documentation to date by Caisse-Infra web site, omits totally any artist's rendition of what R-L will look like from Robert-Bourassa east for several kms. And the stations. If there is such a good project why hide the design / mock up /  pictures which are worth thousands of words?

Ces rendus n’existent probablement pas. Simplement parce qu’ils ne sont pas rendus là, l’équipe d’architectes venant à peine d’être embauché la semaine dernière. Aussi simple que ça. Pas de complot en vue.

[Rocco]

4 minutes ago, Kolev3000 said:

Des réponses à certaines de nos questions !

J'adore la 2e réponse.

[SameGuy]

6 minutes ago, Kolev3000 said:

Des réponses à certaines de nos questions !

[champdemars]

Il y a 3 heures, Kolev3000 a dit :

Y'ont dit qu'il y a avait la possibilité de rajouter des tunnels, mais pas dans Sherbrooke, pas à l'assomption, pas à Notre-Dame et pas au Centre-Ville... Donc où ?????

Ils viennent d'en rajouter à Montréal-Nord. Par ailleurs, je présume que le seul endroit où ils sont très catégorique qu'il n'y aura pas de tunnel, c'est au centre-ville, puisqu'ils ont évalué 6 scénarios à ce sujet.

Probablement que pour le reste, à priori c'est en aérien jusqu'à preuve du contraire, mais qu'ils pourraient être ouverts pour certains tronçons courts. Mais financièrement ça ne me semble pas vraiment faire de sens que de mettre en tunnel à 100% la branche est.