montréal REM de l'Est

[Enalung]

29 minutes ago, champdemars said:

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.

À part le centre-ville, l'autre possibilité ça serait quoi? Un prolongement RDP? En tunnel de l'autoroute 20 à la carrière Lafarge?

[geraldshaw]

6 hours ago, champdemars said:

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.

If 6 months after the announcement of REM Est and a promotional web site with no drawings of  the post REM Est R-L - if R-L drawings do not exist now, the project is a non-starter.

[montrealgoalie]

13 minutes ago, geraldshaw said:

If 6 months after the announcement of REM Est and a promotional web site with no drawings of  the post REM Est R-L - if R-L drawings do not exist now, the project is a non-starter.

Maybe if you repeat it another 10 times, it might come true!

[geraldshaw]

15 minutes ago, montrealgoalie said:

Maybe if you repeat it another 10 times, it might come true!

Do you think?

[crosbyshow]

Il y a 7 heures, geraldshaw a dit :

Do you think?

I think that you are just a troll..

 

Ok we get that you hate this project but come on now...

 

First it was the BAPE and now a draw... jeez

 

 

[Enalung]

Hanes: REM de l'Est design pits function against form

Source: https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/hanes-rem-de-lest-design-pits-function-against-form?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1qWVicSZ8Hq6ZpPCcwssvdYA-YnG7HLDPflmD5t8rVp85J6s6SKXCuivI#Echobox=1620641639

The priorities of CPDQ Infra and social acceptability aren't always in line.

 

Since the grand unveiling of the $10-billion REM de l’Est last December, many have warned about the proposed elevated structure leaving an ugly scar on the Montreal cityscape.

A wall of concrete pylons running down the middle of René-Lévesque Blvd. and looming over neighbourhoods like the Centre-Sud, Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and Rosemont is going to be an eyesore, there’s little doubt about it.

But it turns out ugly can’t be beat when it comes to speed, efficiency, frequency, reliability, capacity and cost of a new light rail network for east-end Montreal — not to mention its negligible impact on traffic and minimal susceptibility to winter conditions that could play havoc with service. This is surely what CDPQ Infra, the arm of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec responsible for designing, building and operating the new system, is banking on amid the chilly reception for its Réseau express métropolitain 2.0.

Ahead of public consultations set to start Monday, CDPQ Infra released a detailed analysis of different modes of transportation for the corridor. None of them include burying the section heading east out of downtown along René-Levesque, since the project managers have already explained that tunnelling under the grand boulevard would be catastrophic, compromising the métro system and destabilizing tall buildings along the way.

The study examines three viable possibilities: the original aerial light rail line; a surface tramway along René-Lévesque, up l’Assomption Blvd. and along Sherbrooke St. E. to Pointe-Aux-Trembles; and a tram-train, a hybrid of the two, which would be at ground level along René Lévesque, but elevated on Notre-Dame St. E., L’Assomption and Sherbrooke St. E. (All options call for the northern branch to pass underground on Lacordaire Blvd. to the CEGEP Marie-Victorin terminus).

While all three models are technically possible, the report, not surprisingly, favours the original aerial light rail line, which scores better than the other two on basically every measure except aesthetics. Among the advantages of the elevated line are that it would have no impact on traffic since it would be totally separate from the roadway; it would be cheaper to build and operate because the electric trains would be driverless while the surface trams would require conductors; it will go nearly twice as fast; arrive at almost double the frequency; and carry more passengers.

Among the negatives for the tramway, in particular, are: reduced speeds; having to stop at intersections; risk of collisions with pedestrians, cyclists and cars at crossings; the reduction of traffic lanes for other vehicles and the potential for heavy snow, ice and cold interfering with smooth operations. It would also be a bit slower, less frequent and carry fewer passengers — which could detract from ridership (i.e. revenue for the pension fund).

While the transparency of making the report public is laudable and appreciated, CDPQ Infra is clearly choosing the path of least resistance. The dedicated track on giant pillars is clearly more cost-effective and easier to operate. But these are the priorities of a pension fund looking for a return on its investment.

The Quebec government is becoming increasingly concerned about the pushback against REM de l’Est, announced amid much fanfare with Premier François Legault in attendance just before Christmas. Junior transport minister Chantal Rouleau last week struck an advisory group to ensure the new transit line is well integrated into the urban landscape. But that will be difficult to achieve if CDPQ Infra insists on function at the expense of form.

Even the tram-train combination model offers only a partial compromise, addressing concerns about disfiguring of downtown. The arcade of concrete beside Highway 40 in the West Island for the REM 1.0 was never going to win any beauty contests, even if former Westmount mayor Peter Trent compared it to Stonehenge. But it’s a whole different matter to have something that monstrous casting long shadows over residential neighbourhoods.

Montrealers want and need more public transit, but they shouldn’t be faced with a take-it-or-leave ultimatum.

Even if the alternative models score lower, they don’t get failing grades. The tram-train in particular is not that far behind the aerial light rail line on many points in the evaluation. The ground-level tramway should not be completely discounted either, slower and more complicated though it may be to get right.

Both supposedly less worthy options are far ahead of CDPQ Infra’s top choice on a key metric: social acceptability. And that has to count for something, no matter who is designing, building and operating such a major piece of public transit infrastructure.

[Decel]

il y a une heure, Enalung a dit :

While the transparency of making the report public is laudable and appreciated, CDPQ Infra is clearly choosing the path of least resistance. The dedicated track on giant pillars is clearly more cost-effective and easier to operate. But these are the priorities of a pension fund looking for a return on its investment.

What? An investment project depending on ROI to measure feasibility? The horror!

Peut-être qu'on devrait déléguer la responsabilité à un comité de gouvernance composé de maires des territoires concernés, de responsables gouvernementaux et de l'ARTM... 🙄

[Decel]

il y a 13 minutes, Kolev3000 a dit :

Et faire traîner le prolongement de 5 stations pendant 50 ans ?

Tant que c'est beau souterrain. No matter the cost!

[crosbyshow]

il y a 14 minutes, Decel a dit :

Tant que c'est beau souterrain. No matter the cost!

Exact sur l'auteur forum c'est de même qu'ils pensent aussi

[SameGuy]

7 minutes ago, Kolev3000 said:

Certaines diapositives de la première consultation publique.

And nothing in those slides actually promotes anything that would benefit local residents. “Encourages the modal transfer to mass transit” isn’t anything special: even installing bus stops does that. If all the government wants is to reduce “auto-solo” between the outer suburbs and downtown, better commuter train service would have a much bigger impact at significantly lower initial and long term costs.