lachine Transport collectif Lachine–Centre-ville

[SameGuy]

REM-B.

I repeated myself too many times over the past four years or so as more and more of the REM-A project was revealed, that while I have many issues with it, the benefits overall will outweigh the drawbacks.

REM-B, OTOH, was simply a bad project.

[ToxiK]

il y a une heure, SameGuy a dit :

REM-B.

I repeated myself to many times over the past four years or so as more and more of the REM-A project was revealed, that while I have many issues with it, the benefits overall will outweigh the drawbacks.

REM-B, OTOH, was simply a bad project.

I think it is a matter of what system on what route.  A tramway from Pointe-aux-Tremble to downtown would be bad, but a REM would be good.  For, let say, Côte-des-Neiges, a tramway could be good.  Henri-Bourassa, because of the number of intersections and the fact that many busses converge on it, I think a BRT would be better.  Pie-IX should have been a tramway (or light rail, I suppose there are differences) on its own lanes.

[andre md]

3 hours ago, SameGuy said:

REM-B.

I repeated myself to many times over the past four years or so as more and more of the REM-A project was revealed, that while I have many issues with it, the benefits overall will outweigh the drawbacks.

REM-B, OTOH, was simply a bad project.

Le probleme principal que je vois avec plusieurs projet de transport en commun. C'est qu'on l'on construit la ou ca coute le moins cher. Plutôt que là ou ca pourrai desservir le plus d'usagers.

Le Rem B sur facilement une bonne moitié de son parcours était dans un no man's land. 

Et je ne vois pas d'éventuel et possible dévellopement résidentiel ou commercial sur notre-dame par exemple. 

[SameGuy]

3 hours ago, ToxiK said:

I think it is a matter of what system on what route.  A tramway from Pointe-aux-Tremble to downtown would be bad, but a REM would be good.  For, let say, Côte-des-Neiges, a tramway could be good.  Henri-Bourassa, because of the number of intersections and the fact that many busses converge on it, I think a BRT would be better.  Pie-IX should have been a tramway (or light rail, I suppose there are differences) on its own lanes.

Yeah but now we are talking in circles. I have never not said that the right mode should be chosen. I don’t necessarily agree that a light metro is the right mode to serve distant suburbs — there is absolutely no reason to have REM light metros running to Kirkland, Île-Bigras, and Ste-Dorothée, etc., but it’s part of a package deal that was agreed-upon when the Caisse was given the mandate of serving Brossard and the airport with a structuring mode; they got the CN Two Mountains line and all its infrastructure for pennies on the dollar, and in turn could use this incredible bargain to help build a full, large metro system at much lower overall cost than if they were required to create entirely new rights of way.

But this city and metropolis already has railway rights of way radiating in every direction and interconnecting at hundreds of nodes, yet we do not build suburban and regional electric railways. Major cities throughout Asia, Australia, and Europe don’t have (or don’t exclusively rely upon) light metros, but they do have hundreds of kilometres of fast, efficient, well-connected, electric trains. Most of those places don’t even have an abundant supply of cheap, clean hydroelectricity like we do, yet somehow they have all figured it out. We just can’t seem to get our heads out of our asses.

1 hour ago, andre md said:

Le probleme principal que je vois avec plusieurs projet de transport en commun. C'est qu'on l'on construit la ou ca coute le moins cher. Plutôt que là ou ca pourrai desservir le plus d'usagers.

Le Rem B sur facilement une bonne moitié de son parcours était dans un no man's land. 

Et je ne vois pas d'éventuel et possible dévellopement résidentiel ou commercial sur notre-dame par exemple. 

100% d’accord.

[p_xavier]

Il y a 15 heures, SameGuy a dit :

REM-A will work out to roughly $150 million per kilometre only because rhe Caisse managed to pay peanuts for two-thirds of the infrastructure and rights-of-way they are using. They got all the CN rights of way and infra from the Lachine Canal to Deux-Montagnes, along with the Doney Spur, for pennies on the dollar, plus the right of way on the new bridge. They also made use of a very advantageous expropriation law for the new easements along the remaining 20 km. But we are beating a dead horse here. You know all this already.

For the dead REM-B, $10 billion for a 30 km airport people mover to save a couple of million dollars a year in operating costs? It’s still one of the lamest arguments I’ve ever read. One last time, I’d love to see the O&D numbers that justify spending $10 billion on an airport people mover with 40 m automated trams running every 10 minutes.

Hence included in the 10G$.   For the REM de l'Est, at 30000 people per day that's about 4$ saved per user per trip, so 4$*30000*365 = about 45M$ a year, which with indexation makes it even worse.  On a 100 year project that's not only non negligible, it's crazy to go for a project that costs a few billions less, that have no heated stations, have slow service.

In Ottawa if they would have followed our recommandation to go with au automatic system without conductors (which they automated anyways with their weird trains), they could have saved up 135M$ from the first year, and that is of course indexed on the course of the project. 

You seem to be all about principles and not logic. It's about the number people being moved, the service offered, the cost of operation - not about the length of the train.  That's why you still see tiny metro systems like Lille and Rennes.  And Lausanne, which has a tiny population.

And Copenhagen which is the best exemple, which can have 24/7 service through running on one lane.

 

I feel like this discussion is about buying single pane glass because they're half the price but it'll cost you triple the heating costs. But they're half the price!

The question we should be asking is how Vancouver is building the Millenium line expansion through the densiest part of Canada at 2.8G$, and in record time.

[SameGuy]

I think you keep missing my point that we should be building the correct mode for the correct need. I’m done with this discussion because it’s obvious that you refuse to understand that I am being pragmatic.

I do not think we need a tram going out to the far east end of the island the same way I do not think we need an automated light metro going out there, nor along Taschereau, nor all the way out to St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, not even out to Baie-d’Urfé or St-Eustache. We got the light metro going out to the western suburbs only as part and parcel of the fantastic deal that the Caisse got when they took over billions of dollars worth of high-value infrastructure for a measly $130 million. Far-flung suburbs are perfectly well served by electric trains in every major, modern city around the world. These can be fully automated to GoA4, that is not my issue. If you are going to build fully brand new infrastructure, I’ve already stated that there is no (or virtually no) cost difference to automate it from the outset. I do not think driven trams are the answer in every need, any more than I think suburban trains are, or heavy metros, or light metros. For one final time, we should be using the correct mode for the correct need, and an automated light people mover isn’t the correct mode for all needs. REM-B was a BAD CONCEPT. I’m out.

[Spiter_01]

On 2022-12-26 at 3:27 PM, SameGuy said:

I think you keep missing my point that we should be building the correct mode for the correct need. I’m done with this discussion because it’s obvious that you refuse to understand that I am being pragmatic.

I do not think we need a tram going out to the far east end of the island the same way I do not think we need an automated light metro going out there, nor along Taschereau, nor all the way out to St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, not even out to Baie-d’Urfé or St-Eustache. We got the light metro going out to the western suburbs only as part and parcel of the fantastic deal that the Caisse got when they took over billions of dollars worth of high-value infrastructure for a measly $130 million. Far-flung suburbs are perfectly well served by electric trains in every major, modern city around the world. These can be fully automated to GoA4, that is not my issue. If you are going to build fully brand new infrastructure, I’ve already stated that there is no (or virtually no) cost difference to automate it from the outset. I do not think driven trams are the answer in every need, any more than I think suburban trains are, or heavy metros, or light metros. For one final time, we should be using the correct mode for the correct need, and an automated light people mover isn’t the correct mode for all needs. REM-B was a BAD CONCEPT. I’m out.

There is always going to be a preferred/best mode for a specific situation or route but to counter balance that there is a limit to how many different modes you can realistically operate. Also need and situations evolve, surely there's a part where you have to consider over building for a future where those needs change. 

Do we think the Pie-IX SRB would still be an SRB if the decision were to be made today?

[SameGuy]

16 minutes ago, Spiter_01 said:

There is always going to be a preferred/best mode for a specific situation or route but to counter balance that there is a limit to how many different modes you can realistically operate. Also need and situations evolve, surely there's a part where you have to consider over building for a future where those needs change. 

Do we think the Pie-IX SRB would still be an SRB if the decision were to be made today?

Absolutely agree. But the REM (a brand, not a technology) model is under-built. The REM-A underground stations can’t be expanded if the need for greater capacity arises, while doing so to elevated stations will be prohibitively difficult and expensive. The proposed REM-B was even more limited and limiting, with trains and platforms shorter than many modern trams, and a correspondingly small maximum capacity, but at the cost of a heavy rail transit line (regardless of the source of funds), and — as pointed out again by @andre_md above — running mostly through undeveloped and undevelopable areas.

Could trams work in place of either REM? No. That wasn’t my point.

[Spiter_01]

1 hour ago, SameGuy said:

Absolutely agree. But the REM (a brand, not a technology) model is under-built. The REM-A underground stations can’t be expanded if the need for greater capacity arises, while doing so to elevated stations will be prohibitively difficult and expensive. The proposed REM-B was even more limited and limiting, with trains and platforms shorter than many modern trams, and a correspondingly small maximum capacity, but at the cost of a heavy rail transit line (regardless of the source of funds), and — as pointed out again by @andre_md above — running mostly through undeveloped and undevelopable areas.

Could trams work in place of either REM? No. That wasn’t my point.

I agree that the REM is the ideal solution to a very small number of situations (running multiple antennas at a lower frequency to feed a main trunk at high frequency) but it's an acceptable solution to a much wider set of them. 

Ultimately if you're asking CDPQi for propositions you know what you're getting, a pigeon holed solution that makes the REM model "work" with some flexibility based on how much the public sector is willing to pay for it. 

[SameGuy]

Thanks for putting it that succinctly. I have no problem describing it like that, now that you’ve done the work! 😄