REM - Matériel Roulant

[Rocco]

Looks like they put a modern train on a 1920s rail track system. Simply awful. At least in Vancouver they dont have those fugly catenaries, only an awful structure. Here we have both! Why couldn't they think of nice architectural integration on the Phase 1? Shitty design for the next 100 years ripping across the city. Im not against the project. Im against those bastards not thinking one second about a good design for the benefit of the population around. Shame on everyone involved in the decision-making process.

[Internist]

il y a une heure, Rocco a dit :

Im not against the project. Im against those bastards not thinking one second about a good design for the benefit of the population around.

This summarizes nicely my opinion (albeit in a somewhat harsher way), and that of many on this forum. Good project, but the execution ended up being a bit rough on the edges… on the upside, it might prove be what prevents an even bigger blunder with the REM-B; time will tell.

[SameGuy]

11 minutes ago, Internist said:

This summarizes nicely my opinion (albeit in a somewhat harsher way), and that of many on this forum. Good project, but the execution ended up being a bit rough on the edges… on the upside, it might prove be what prevents an even bigger blunder with the REM-B; time will tell.

BINGO. That’s been my sentiment all along. Even ugly transit is better than no transit, but… I think pretty much everyone who attended the 2016 and 2017 public info sessions was sold a bill of goods.

[Né entre les rapides]

il y a 38 minutes, SameGuy a dit :

Even ugly transit is better than no transit

To me,  aesthetics (or its opposite, ugliness) is not all that matters.  Ugly transit can indeed be  better than no transit, if it is cost effective, when taking into account externalities.  Conversely,  aesthetic transit is not always better than no transit, if its costs far surpass its expected benefits; in that case, we get a pretty white elephant.  This would not matter so much if resources /funds were unlimited, and if all other real transit needs had been met successfully.  But this is rarely the case.  The true value of a project  should not be determined in isolation; its value has to be compared to that (the value) of alternative projects. 

Virtue is desirable.  Excessive virtue is just that: excessive.  The same goes for transit.      

[SameGuy]

7 hours ago, Né entre les rapides said:

aesthetic transit is not always better than no transit, if its costs far surpass its expected benefits; in that case, we get a pretty white elephant.

Agreed. As proposed, how much will a beautified REM-B end up costing? How much will the city be expected to pay to revamp areas under/around/near it? We’ll soon be talking about a ballooning global figure in the tens of billions. For a glorified airport people mover (and with capacity similar to such a system).

[YUL]

Anyways, let's see what Plante proposes to make this project "exemplaire". (And at what extra costs and to whom)

Because that's where we're at. By now, she's supposed to know what she wants for "improvements" here.

If she doesn't propose anything tangible (with the help of the the ARTM?) then all her talks is just political posturing --> an understatement here.

[Rocco]

Exemplaire = underground

[YUL]

14 hours ago, Rocco said:

Exemplaire = underground

C'est effectivement la seule chose ce que les riverains veulent - RIEN de moins.

Et la mairesse Plante ne veux pas l'exprimer clairemnent car elle ne veux pas en payer la facture supplémentaires.

Alors c'est le grenouillage (hypocrite?) actuel.

Je suis super heureux que la CDPQ puisse se pousser et passer à autre chose.

[crosbyshow]

La mairesse....savait même pas hier qu'il y avait une station intermodale entre la ligne bleue et le Rem....

 

 

[Né entre les rapides]

Le 2022-03-18 à 21:00, YUL a dit :

Anyways, let's see what Plante proposes to make this project "exemplaire". (And at what extra costs and to whom)

Because that's where we're at. By now, she's supposed to know what she wants for "improvements" here.

If she doesn't propose anything tangible (with the help of the the ARTM?) then all her talks is just political posturing --> an understatement here.

Key point is your "And at what extra costs and to whom".  I fully expect that tangible improvements will be proposed.  But I equally expect that their costs would far exceed what the other partners (Quebec and the CDPQ-i) would be willing provide. Then what?