montréal REM de l'Est

[p_xavier]

il y a 42 minutes, SameGuy a dit :

I really hope the CAQ and the Caisse aren’t married to the proposal as presented, and spend the next couple of years (before an election haha!) doing proper studies and diligence, and exploring every possibility for east end service.

While it still escapes me how they’ve already predicted $10B for almost exactly the same amount of infrastructure the as REM-A’s new infrastructure — that will end up somewhere around $7.5B including not only the new infra but also the full rehabilitation of all the inherited infra, along with incidental expenses and incurred pandemic-related costs — I’m certain that the public would accept a higher total project cost for REM-B if it means getting a significantly better project. To me, “better” would mean a downtown tunnel and future-proofing a continuation to the southwest.

Quoi te fait penser qu'ils n'ont pas fait ça?!  Ce n'est pas parce que tu n'aimes pas ce qui est présenté que les autres alternatives n'ont pas été étudiées. Au contraire je suis certain qu'ils ont identifié la version la plus optimisée du tracé en termes de coûts bénéfices. Rajouter 4G$ au centre-ville car on aime pas ça en aérien?

Pour avoir convaincu Projet Montréal, faut avoir montré les études,

[SameGuy]

23 minutes ago, Decel said:

Pour être prévisibles, rapide et fréquents ils doivent être fiables. Pour être fiables ils doivent éviter les risques d'interruption. Ceci implique automatisation en site propre.

Le Métro et déjà capable d’être automatisé au complet, ayant déjà le système de contrôle qui permet ATO/UTO (GoA 4), alors pourquoi pas dépenser l’argent pour les portes-palières et l’uniformisation du parc de trains (MPM-10), le prix total de ce projet à environ $2.5G. Ajoutons un autre $1.5G pour une cloison entre les voies, et les Azur pourraient rouler à chaque 75 secondes. Oh yeah. Faudra ajouter encore $500M pour licencier les “chauffeurs” syndiqués. 😉 Pourtant, à moins de $5G c’est un projet d’envergure qui relancera l’économie du Québec et qui améliorera la vie de centaines de milliers de montréalais(es).

[p_xavier]

il y a 4 minutes, SameGuy a dit :

Le Métro et déjà capable d’être automatisé au complet, ayant déjà le système de contrôle qui permet ATO/UTO (GoA 4), alors pourquoi pas dépenser l’argent pour les portes-palières et l’uniformisation du parc de trains (MPM-10), le prix total de ce projet à environ $2.5G. Ajoutons un autre $1.5G pour une cloison entre les voies, et les Azur pourraient rouler à chaque 75 secondes. Oh yeah. Faudra ajouter encore $500M pour licencier les “chauffeurs” syndiqués. 😉 Pourtant, à moins de $5G c’est un projet d’envergure qui relancera l’économie du Québec et qui améliorera la vie de centaines de milliers de montréalais(es).

Non, pour avoir travaillé dessus, le métro n'est pas prêt pour du GoA 4 même avec ces projets.  Et je ne vois pas en quoi dépenser 5G$ pour pratiquement le même service comme un projet qui améliorera la vie des gens.  C'est ce qui fait la force des métros légers, pour 5G$ tu en construis une ligne parallèle.

[Enalung]

1 hour ago, SameGuy said:

I really hope the CAQ and the Caisse aren’t married to the proposal as presented, and spend the next couple of years (before an election haha!) doing proper studies and diligence, and exploring every possibility for east end service.

While it still escapes me how they’ve already predicted $10B for almost exactly the same amount of infrastructure the as REM-A’s new infrastructure — that will end up somewhere around $7.5B including not only the new infra but also the full rehabilitation of all the inherited infra, along with incidental expenses and incurred pandemic-related costs — I’m certain that the public would accept a higher total project cost for REM-B if it means getting a significantly better project. To me, “better” would mean a downtown tunnel and future-proofing a continuation to the southwest.

I think that the cost can be explained by a few factors. For starters, we're dealing with a completly new alignment. They don't have the benefits of using an existing alignment like they are doing right now with the Deux-Montagne line. The tunnel they are planning is longer then the one they are currently building for the airport. They haven't stated if it's going to be a single, or a double tube, but quite obviously, a double tube will raise the cost. They might be able to get away with a single tube, but my bet is that such a plan would be heavily criticized because of it's more limited capacity and clearly wouldn't be futureproof. They've also clearly stated their intention to make the viaduc more visually appealing on the René-Lévesque segment. There's almost no question that this increases the cost. And then, there are the cost overruns. Given how phase 1 is going so far, I'd be willing to bet that they included a larger amount for unplanned expenses in that 10B budget.

[SameGuy]

25 minutes ago, p_xavier said:

Rajouter 4G$ au centre-ville car on aime pas ça en aérien?

 

As my math teacher used to repeat: “Please show your work.”

Let’s say the cost for a tunnel is somewhere in between the Laval Orange extension’s (2020 dollars) $180M/km and the Blue extension’s ridiculous $800M/km. So $500M/km. How many kilometres do you expect need to be tunnelled? Mansfield to de Lorimier is 3km. Now subtract the amount for the elevated structure of this 3km section, we’ll say $160M/km. I come up with a conservative $1 Billion extra “because nobody likes an elevated structure.”

7 minutes ago, p_xavier said:

C'est ce qui fait la force des métros légers, pour 5G$ tu en construis une ligne parallèle.

TLM nous insiste que la Ligne Rose coûtera $20G. 

[p_xavier]

il y a 5 minutes, SameGuy a dit :

As my math teacher used to repeat: “Please show your work.”

Let’s say the cost for a tunnel is somewhere in between the Laval Orange extension’s (2020 dollars) $180M/km and the Blue extension’s ridiculous $800M/km. So $500M/km. How many kilometres do you expect need to be tunnelled? Mansfield to de Lorimier is 3km. Now subtract the amount for the elevated structure of this 3km section, we’ll say $160M/km. I come up with a conservative $1 Billion extra “because nobody likes an elevated structure.”

TLM nous insiste que la Ligne Rose coûtera $20G. 

I would say, do the work yourself and show how much it would cost. The onus is on you my friend, since the CDPQi, the city of Montréal and the provincial government are on board.

[SameGuy]

I just did. I asked where you came up with “$4 billion... car qu’on n’aime pas ça en aérien.”

[p_xavier]

il y a 11 minutes, SameGuy a dit :

I just did. I asked where you came up with “$4 billion... parce qu’on n’aime pas ça en aérien.”

No you didn't, you did napkin calculations.  While I did mine on paper towel, complexity costs due to the depth, and expropration costs necessary for the exits and ventilation.  

Le mieux est le mortel ennemi du bien. We'll see all the socialists/communists again at the BAPE, not understanding that this is the project and you will get nothing of it doesn't get built. I strongly believe in optimization.  If it were just to optimize infrastructure costs, this line would go up the 25 instead of Lacordaire.

[SameGuy]

15 minutes ago, Enalung said:

They don't have the benefits of using an existing alignment like they are doing right now with the Deux-Montagne line.

Fully half, 33 km, of REM-A is new alignment, with new structures and a new, 3km bored tunnel. And the other half is completely rehabilitated, from the ballast to the poles to the entirely new stations to the completely refurbished MR tunnel. The only thing re-used is the 33 km right of way, and as far as we’ve seen, REM-B will also partially make use of an existing alignment.

[SameGuy]

5 minutes ago, p_xavier said:

No you didn't, you did napkin calculations.  While I did mine on paper towel, complexity costs due to the depth, and expropration costs necessary for the exits and ventilation.  

Le mieux est le mortel ennemi du bien. We'll see all the socialists/communists again at the BAPE, not understanding that this is the project and you will get nothing of it doesn't get built. I strongly believe in optimization.  If it were just to optimize infrastructure costs, this line would go up the 25 instead of Lacordaire.

Puis-je voir tes calculs Charmin? 😁 

On the A25 routing you and I agree. Cependant, je ne pense pas qu’aucune des propositions REM-B remplace une véritable ligne “de relève” pour l’Orange, tout comme je ne pense pas que trop d’utilisateurs de l’Orange opteront pour un transfert à JT suivi d’un transfert à EM, tous les deux à la fois plus complexes et plus longs que ce que les autorités tentent de nous faire croire.