Alternatives au REM de l'Est

[Internist]

Il y a 3 heures, SameGuy a dit :

They didn’t put the “Bassin” (Griffintown-Bernard-Landry) station under the Bassin as originally envisaged because it would have been technically extremely difficult and virtually impossible to integrate with the CN viaduct, so this idea will simply never be considered.

This is the reason I suggested looking for a slightly different route! By transitioning into a standard deeper tunnel (not cut-and-cover) and bifurcating a little East (either under the Bassin Alexandra or further South under the Canal Lachine), you could then have the tunnel coming back toward the surface under the Silo #5 dock. This dock is fairly long and unobstructed, which mean you could get to the surface along the railway that already service that dock. This railway already crosses under the Bonaventure highway, so it would be easy to follow the same corridor that then travel further South to go join the REM-A corridor at the level of the Costco. It could all be at ground level or on an elevated structure! Then we could either join the same route as the REM-A (less ideal since we would then need to integrate REM-B with REM-A) or double the tracks all the way to the Central station. 

[Enalung]

54 minutes ago, Internist said:

This is the reason I suggested looking for a slightly different route! By transitioning into a standard deeper tunnel (not cut-and-cover) and bifurcating a little East (either under the Bassin Alexandra or further South under the Canal Lachine), you could then have the tunnel coming back toward the surface under the Silo #5 dock. This dock is fairly long and unobstructed, which mean you could get to the surface along the railway that already service that dock. This railway already crosses under the Bonaventure highway, so it would be easy to follow the same corridor that then travel further South to go join the REM-A corridor at the level of the Costco. It could all be at ground level or on an elevated structure! Then we could either join the same route as the REM-A (less ideal since we would then need to integrate REM-B with REM-A) or double the tracks all the way to the Central station. 

By my math, you've only got 350 meters between the silo itself and the first road along the way which isn't long enough by any stretch of the imagination. You would also have to deal with a lot of water on that side, and just to the west, you've got the train yard which is heavily contaminated with oil. It's not a viable option. The financial risks are just too great. It's also a fact that those silos are heritage structures and cannot be demolished (although personally, I wouldn't mind seeing them gone).

[Internist]

il y a 26 minutes, Enalung a dit :

By my math, you've only got 350 meters between the silo itself and the first road along the way which isn't long enough by any stretch of the imagination. You would also have to deal with a lot of water on that side, and just to the west, you've got the train yard which is heavily contaminated with oil. It's not a viable option. The financial risks are just too great. It's also a fact that those silos are heritage structures and cannot be demolished (although personally, I wouldn't mind seeing them gone).

All fair points but from the extremity of the dock to the Riverside street there is about 1km, so I think that it would be sufficient (50m elevation gain if 5% should be more than enough no?). I don’t see why the tunnel could not start going up toward the surface at the tip of the dock (where it would be deeper). If there are concerns about the foundations of the silo #5, there is enough space next to it to avoid being right underneath it. Since you would be above ground even before going under the elevated section of the Bonaventure highway, the contamination concerns would not be more significant than what they have been for the elevated structure of REM-A in PSC. So no need to demolish any silo, or to tunnel under the train yard.
 

Again, I do not know if it is realistic but I would not want to disqualify it until we know for sure. If it is indeed plausible and much less costly than the R-L underground scenario, and that it allows the REM-B to get the green light without too much opposition, I think it would be a much better option than an elevated structure downtown. I would still prefer an underground scenario under Sherbrooke street, but if that’s not realistic, this could be a decent alternative.

 

As an aside, I do think a tramway route in the Old Port similar to the ones proposed earlier would be great, but it would be a completely different project serving completely different goals, just like a tramway on CdN/R-L/Parc could be interesting but would not constitute an alternative to a subway/REM system. As I mentioned before on the REM-B thread, a REM-B with a terminal station at Berri-UQAM (or Champ-de-Mars) that seamlessly integrates with a downtown tramway line could be a reasonable (albeit less ideal) option as well. Sure, it would add a transfer, and 3km of tramway vs REM will probably add a few minutes, but if that avoids the whole project derailing, I think it’s worth a shot!

[Enalung]

15 minutes ago, Internist said:

All fair points but from the extremity of the dock to the Riverside street there is about 1km, so I think that it would be sufficient (50m elevation gain if 5% should be more than enough no?). I don’t see why the tunnel could not start going up toward the surface at the tip of the dock (where it would be deeper). If there are concerns about the foundations of the silo #5, there is enough space next to it to avoid being right underneath it. Since you would be above ground even before going under the elevated section of the Bonaventure highway, the contamination concerns would not be more significant than what they have been for the elevated structure of REM-A in PSC. So no need to demolish any silo, or to tunnel under the train yard.
 

Again, I do not know if it is realistic but I would not want to disqualify it until we know for sure. If it is indeed plausible and much less costly than the R-L underground scenario, and that it allows the REM-B to get the green light without too much opposition, I think it would be a much better option than an elevated structure downtown. I would still prefer an underground scenario under Sherbrooke street, but if that’s not realistic, this could be a decent alternative.

 

As an aside, I do think a tramway route in the Old Port similar to the ones proposed earlier would be great, but it would be a completely different project serving completely different goals, just like a tramway on CdN/R-L/Parc could be interesting but would not constitute an alternative to a subway/REM system. As I mentioned before on the REM-B thread, a REM-B with a terminal station at Berri-UQAM (or Champ-de-Mars) that seamlessly integrates with a downtown tramway line could be a reasonable (albeit less ideal) option as well. Sure, it would add a transfer, and 3km of tramway vs REM will probably add a few minutes, but if that avoids the whole project derailing, I think it’s worth a shot!

On the riverside, you've got the railway which is still in use, so that space is not available. You've also got the old grain conveyor which is part of the ensemble of the silo complex. There's nowhere to put it on that side other then in the dock itself, but I suspect that would also still be in use. There are still containers in on the dock on the other side in the latest picture as well as dock equipment. Between the water and the type of soil you typically find near the shoreline, I suspect that the site conditions are far worse then anything you would have to deal with along René-Lévesque.

If you put a box in water logged ground like that, it will want to float. Yes, a heavy concrete box is still light enough that it would want to push out of the ground. It would need to be anchored to the subsoil with hundreds of piles. Putting a tunnel box in that type of environment is a heck of a lot of work. It's exactly what they had to do with they built the Canary Warf station in London.

[Doctor D]

4 hours ago, BilMo said:

The concept I'm showing below is a variation to what Internist is describing.

Rem B stays underground as it intersects with Rem A in Griffintown. It then continues to Peel Street with a station that connects to the western end of the Bonaventure metro station.

 

Peel metro station?

[Enalung]

19 minutes ago, Doctor D said:

Peel metro station?

The so called McGill REM station is almost at the halfway point between the Peel and McGill station on the green line, so yeah, that's definitely Peel. On the orange line, it intersects with Bonaventure. I also considered that alignment myself. I didn't retain it on my own maps because I feel that it places the connection with the metro way too far to the west of the city center. The problem that I see is that we would likely have the same arguments against a REM under René Lévesque being put forward against this alignment. I think that "put it underground" is where the real fight lies. Assuming we can get past that hurdle, a lot of possibilities open up as far as the alignment goes. The most obvious would be to put the final station closer to Gare Centrale and the orange line so that we could have a far more direct connection with the rest of the network.

[SameGuy]

3 hours ago, Enalung said:

so called McGill REM station

Oh good! I’m not the only one who calls it that! Just like I don’t understand why so many people here wanted “Centrale” to be called “Bonaventure.” 😏

[mk.ndrsn]

It’s about a 50m tunnel from one concourse to the other; that’s one station IMO. Some transfers are way longer in other networks.

[Doctor D]

4 hours ago, Enalung said:

The so called McGill REM station is almost at the halfway point between the Peel and McGill station on the green line, so yeah, that's definitely Peel. On the orange line, it intersects with Bonaventure. I also considered that alignment myself. I didn't retain it on my own maps because I feel that it places the connection with the metro way too far to the west of the city center. The problem that I see is that we would likely have the same arguments against a REM under René Lévesque being put forward against this alignment. I think that "put it underground" is where the real fight lies. Assuming we can get past that hurdle, a lot of possibilities open up as far as the alignment goes. The most obvious would be to put the final station closer to Gare Centrale and the orange line so that we could have a far more direct connection with the rest of the network.

Wait, I'm confused: why does it have to go that far north? Why not build it literally under RL starting at Mansfield? That makes it equidistant from Bonaventure and the "so called McGill REM station", a short walk to either through the existing  underground.

[BilMo]

14 hours ago, Doctor D said:

Peel metro station?

In That concept, Griffintown would be the Rem A/B transfer station. Rem B then continues and intersects with the Orange line at Bonaventure.

In the drawing, I just extended it to the Green line at Peel.