montréal REM de l'Est

[vincenzo]

9 hours ago, montrealgoalie said:

Dear Mr. Gerald Shaw,

It's not the 'amount' of earthquakes that matter it's the intensity on the Richter scale that matters. It is a logarithmic scale, so our little 3.0's and 4.0's are meaningless. The highest ever recorded in Montreal was 5.8 in 1832, which still wouldn't pose much of a risk to any elevated metro structure built in a 1st world country.

Everyone would prefer the line to be underground, it's just not feasible. Give it up.

It’s very feasible if instead of a RL route they choose a southern route (st Antoine, Notre dame, de la commune)

[Internist]

Il y a 3 heures, vincenzo a dit :

It’s very feasible if instead of a RL route they choose a southern route (st Antoine, Notre dame, de la commune)

Earlier on this thread we discussed alternative routes where a tunnel would not “cause the entire city to collapse”. CDPQi does not seem to consider other axis, presumably because they would not serve as many people as well as the René-Lévesque axis. 

I would be curious about a Saint-Antoine axis (or alternatively a Notre-Dame axis, despite being even further from the action) even if a tunnel there probably would not be without some challenges. An elevated structure would be out of the question, but if a tunnel was feasible and the predicted ridership did not suffer too much (I doubt it), it would deserve some more thoughts or at least some explanations as to why an elevated viaduct on R-L is so much better from the City perspective (not strictly from a financial standpoint).

De la Commune would serve the Old Montreal and Old Port, but it would be challenging to find a route to connect to downtown at the western end. Even if it is possible, the longer tunnel (less direct route), the difficulties of connecting with the REM-A in Griffintown (and ideally go all the way to the Gare Centrale), and the probable lower ridership all make this option likely less appealing to the CDPQi. As much as I would like to see better public transit in that part of town, it probably isn’t the best project for that. The recurring idea of a tramway from: Île Sainte-Hélène - Île Notre-Dame - Casino - Cité du Havre - Old Port along De la Commune - Molson - Radio-Canada - Berri-UQAM (or other metro station) is probably a better project overall. Maybe it could help complete the revitalization of these sectors full of potential started 30 years ago. Who knows, maybe the construction boom could migrate a bit south of Ville-Marie? 

An axis that never seemed to be considered for a tunnel is Sherbrooke. It could end just east of McGill station, or extend westward if “dipping” under the Mont-Royal tunnel which is not all that deep at the level of Sherbrooke. It would be reasonably close to the financial district, but also to many other destinations (the 24 bus line is extremely busy but always stuck in traffic). The construction of a tunnel would probably still be costly, but less technically complicated than on R-L. I still don’t understand why this axis is completely off the radar!

[Enalung]

2 hours ago, Internist said:

Earlier on this thread we discussed alternative routes where a tunnel would not “cause the entire city to collapse”. CDPQi does not seem to consider other axis, presumably because they would not serve as many people as well as the René-Lévesque axis. 

I would be curious about a Saint-Antoine axis (or alternatively a Notre-Dame axis, despite being even further from the action) even if a tunnel there probably would not be without some challenges. An elevated structure would be out of the question, but if a tunnel was feasible and the predicted ridership did not suffer too much (I doubt it), it would deserve some more thoughts or at least some explanations as to why an elevated viaduct on R-L is so much better from the City perspective (not strictly from a financial standpoint).

De la Commune would serve the Old Montreal and Old Port, but it would be challenging to find a route to connect to downtown at the western end. Even if it is possible, the longer tunnel (less direct route), the difficulties of connecting with the REM-A in Griffintown (and ideally go all the way to the Gare Centrale), and the probable lower ridership all make this option likely less appealing to the CDPQi. As much as I would like to see better public transit in that part of town, it probably isn’t the best project for that. The recurring idea of a tramway from: Île Sainte-Hélène - Île Notre-Dame - Casino - Cité du Havre - Old Port along De la Commune - Molson - Radio-Canada - Berri-UQAM (or other metro station) is probably a better project overall. Maybe it could help complete the revitalization of these sectors full of potential started 30 years ago. Who knows, maybe the construction boom could migrate a bit south of Ville-Marie? 

An axis that never seemed to be considered for a tunnel is Sherbrooke. It could end just east of McGill station, or extend westward if “dipping” under the Mont-Royal tunnel which is not all that deep at the level of Sherbrooke. It would be reasonably close to the financial district, but also to many other destinations (the 24 bus line is extremely busy but always stuck in traffic). The construction of a tunnel would probably still be costly, but less technically complicated than on R-L. I still don’t understand why this axis is completely off the radar!

I keep seeing mentions of Sherbrooke. Where would the deviation from Nôtre-Dame to Sherbrooke be made? Where would the portal for the tunnel be?

I'm also not convinced by the depth argument. I mean, how deep would a tunnel going under the yellow line really be? London has quite a few stations which are 30 meters deep. That's a 10 story building. There's a few which are even deeper. This is particularly true for the most recent line which have had to go under the existing lines. The London underground is easily as packed with a few major stations 5 levels of tunnels stacked on top of each other. If it's not totally unreasonable for one of the most recognised metro system in the world, then why would be it for unreasonable for us?

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/557c6289e4b00367523544bb/t/5b2d415370a6ad6635ac9a01/1529692560124/London+Underground+Depth+Diagrams.pdf

[geraldshaw]

6 hours ago, vincenzo said:

It’s very feasible if instead of a RL route they choose a southern route (st Antoine, Notre dame, de la commune)

I hear you. Seems like you too are not going to 'give it up"  (i.e., the saving of Rene-Levesque)  either, with your alternative routes..

[Né entre les rapides]

Prenez note que le message suivant est largement une réitération d'une opinion précédemment émise; ceux qui la rejettent d'emblée pourraient ne pas être intéressés à poursuivre la lecture. 

Jusqu'à nouvel ordre, en d'autres mots jusqu'à ce qu'une décision "finale" soit prise autorisant le début des travaux, je n'exclus pas certaines possibilités (qu'on peut nommer "alternatives" si on veut, bien que la signification soit différente).  Avant d'aller plus loin, notons que j'accepte que l'alternative "tunnel sous René-Lévesque" est définitivement exclue.  Je remarque aussi comme tout le monde que la CDPQ-i est ferme dans sa conviction qu'un passage en surélévation au milieu de René-Lévesque est la seule qui soit techniquement possible.  Par ailleurs, on a vu plus récemment que des voix s'élèvent pour que le long tronçon à l'est du centre-ville jusqu'à Pointe-aux-Trembles soit non pas en surélévation mais en tunnel:  il est possible que les objections techniques soient moindres qu'au centre-ville, mais je conçois facilement que les coûts seraient plus élevés.

A l'aube de 2023, après les élections provinciales: c'est le moment prévu pour l'autorisation de la construction.  La possibilité, c'est que c'est aussi l'occasion de remettre en question le projet tel que conçu: on aura une meilleure idée  1) de la demande de déplacements dans les axes prévus; 2) de la demande de déplacements dans d'autres axes; 3) des coûts et de leur répartition (province, fédéral, ville, usagers); et 4) du contexte budgétaire.

Naturellement, il est possible que le projet tel que conçu par la CDPQ-i soit autorisé (y compris diverses améliorations proposées et acceptées suite aux consultations en cours).  Mais je pense qu'il est aussi possible que

a) La décision soit reportée

b) Qu'un projet substantiellement différent soit mis de l'avant,  avec ou sans la participation de la CDPQ-i.  De nouvelles études seraient nécessaires pour valider (s'il y a lieu)  ce "nouveau" projet, qui pourrait être plus modeste dans sa couverture géographique des bassins de population.  On tiendrait pleinement compte de la mise en service du SRB Pie IX et du prolongement en cours de réalisation de la ligne bleue du métro jusqu'à Anjou.   

[p_xavier]

Pas mal ça pour les élections de 2022.  Pas grand chance qu'un autre parti arrête le projet.

 

[danny12345]

7 hours ago, Internist said:

An axis that never seemed to be considered for a tunnel is Sherbrooke. It could end just east of McGill station, or extend westward if “dipping” under the Mont-Royal tunnel which is not all that deep at the level of Sherbrooke. It would be reasonably close to the financial district, but also to many other destinations (the 24 bus line is extremely busy but always stuck in traffic). The construction of a tunnel would probably still be costly, but less technically complicated than on R-L. I still don’t understand why this axis is completely off the radar!

This ☝️

[Taptrick]

Le 2021-06-14 à 15:49, danny12345 a dit :

This ☝️

Trop au nord à leur goût je crois. Ils veulent vraiment splitter le centre-ville entre les lignes verte et orange du métro. 

[Invité]

Le 2021-05-17 à 16:38, Kolev3000 a dit :

 

Lien pour l'article

REM de l’Est: des efforts pour mener à l’acceptabilité sociale

Lundi, 17 mai 2021 13:10

MISE À JOUR Lundi, 17 mai 2021 13:10

La filiale spécialisée en infrastructures de la Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, CDPQ Infra, s’est dite ouverte à bonifier le projet de Réseau express métropolitain (REM) de l’Est de Montréal pour qu’il fasse l’objet d’une acceptabilité sociale. 

C’est ce qu’a laissé entendre lundi la directrice aux affaires publiques de CDPQ Infra, Virginie Cousineau, dans une lettre faisant le bilan de l’avancement du projet sur les deux dernières semaines.

«En 14 jours, nous avons démontré que nous souhaitons mettre tous les efforts pour que le projet fasse l’objet d’une acceptabilité sociale. Maintenant, donnons-nous la chance de bonifier et d’optimiser collectivement ce projet de transport collectif et d’en faire le succès que l’Est mérite», a-t-elle souligné.

Le projet sera également soumis aux audiences du Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) d’ici 2022.

Une première phase de consultation publique a été lancée le 3 mai dernier pour répondre aux questionnements soulevés par cette initiative estimée à près de 10 milliards $. Plus de 650 citoyens ont ainsi participé aux trois premières séances d’information, qui ont notamment permis de revenir sur la proposition de structure aérienne dans le centre-ville de Montréal et qui suscite certaines craintes.

CDPQ Infra a cependant réitéré, lors des séances d'informations, ne pas être en mesure d'opter pour un tracé souterrain au centre-ville, en raison du grand nombre d'infrastructures déjà présentes dans le sous-sol de la métropole, incluant les deux lignes de métro.

«L’engouement pour nos premières sessions d’information nous démontre à quel point la population est interpellée par le REM de l’Est. Nous abordons la suite avec ouverture, convaincus que l’apport des partenaires, des experts, de la société civile et la population fera évoluer le projet de référence du REM de l’Est», a indiqué Mme Cousineau.

Plusieurs séances de consultations virtuelles continueront de s’échelonner sur plus de trois semaines à partir de la fin mai, a ajouté la directrice.

Le comité d’experts indépendants mandaté par Québec a par ailleurs commencé ses travaux pour mieux intégrer le projet dans le paysage urbain de Montréal.

Peu importe ce que la CDPQ dira ou fera, les graffiteux vont toujours répondre avec leur bombe puante. Ce cancer ne finira jamais.

[Enalung]

There's been quite a few suggesting the use of a tramway instead of REM. Noise has also been a major concern. For theses reasons, this video caught my attention this morning.

It argues that low floor LRT / tramways are more noisy then high floor LRT. The argument makes a lot of sense given how the wheels are affixed to the vehicle. On a high floor train, the entire bogey can pivot independently of the cars on top. This allows the bogey to naturally follow the curve / be at a different angle then the car on top. On a low floor train, the axel is fixed directly to the cars and thus do not have the ability to pivot. The flanges end up rubbing against the rails which results in more wheel screeching as well as wear and tear on the wheels and rails.

He also points out that the need for wheel wells create several issues. It reduces the amount of doors which slows down embarking and disembarking. It creates narrow passageways where the wheels are inserted which can make it harder for passengers with mobility aids to move around. It also diminishes the amount of space available for passengers, and thus, the capacity of the system.