News   May 08, 2024
News Roundup for May 8, 2024
 356     0 
News   May 08, 2024
Detour Required
 568     0 
News   May 07, 2024
Daniels' Kith and Kindred Condos Rising at Eglinton and Erin Mills in Mississauga
 805     0 

Montréal Transit Developments

p_xavier said:
Great interview with the CPDQi CEO and the reasons why the REM Line B won't be underground downtown. https://translate.google.com/transl...lle/enfouir-le-rem-serait-une-catastrophe.php
Click to expand...
Good grief, does Jean-Marc Arbaud really believe it can't be done without skyscrapers falling down, and metro tunnels collapsing, or is he simply trying to sell their scheme.

Montreal should be easier to engineer more lines underground with all the bedrock. If cities around the world can do this on various soils, then Montreal can figure out how to do it in bedrock.

It won't be cheap though ... and that's what he needs to say - not that you can't do it without knocking over skyscrapers!
 
nfitz said:
Good grief, does Jean-Marc Arbaud really believe it can't be done without skyscrapers falling down, and metro tunnels collapsing, or is he simply trying to sell their scheme.

Montreal should be easier to engineer more lines underground with all the bedrock. If cities around the world can do this on various soils, then Montreal can figure out how to do it in bedrock.

It won't be cheap though ... and that's what he needs to say - not that you can't do it without knocking over skyscrapers!
Click to expand...
Nobody said it cant be done. They said it would increase the costs to the point where the line will not be economically desirable for the pension fund. The Eglinton Crosstown has been severely delayed because (among other things) of the complications with underpinning existing stations on Line 1. So yes, building underground does risk damaging existing infrastructure which costs a lot more money and time to mitigate.

The article above shows 6 different ways they tried to fit the line underground. They also found the extra deep tunnelling required to avoid many of these would make the stations deep enough to decrease ridership. (which would decrease how much ROI the pension fund gets)
 
nfitz said:
Good grief, does Jean-Marc Arbaud really believe it can't be done without skyscrapers falling down, and metro tunnels collapsing, or is he simply trying to sell their scheme.

Montreal should be easier to engineer more lines underground with all the bedrock. If cities around the world can do this on various soils, then Montreal can figure out how to do it in bedrock.

It won't be cheap though ... and that's what he needs to say - not that you can't do it without knocking over skyscrapers!
Click to expand...
The STM is saying the same thing for the Blue Line extension, the soil is incredibly bad. What he's saying is that if it's to be done underground, it will not be the CPDQi that will be doing it.
 
nfitz said:
Good grief, does Jean-Marc Arbaud really believe it can't be done without skyscrapers falling down, and metro tunnels collapsing, or is he simply trying to sell their scheme.

Montreal should be easier to engineer more lines underground with all the bedrock. If cities around the world can do this on various soils, then Montreal can figure out how to do it in bedrock.

It won't be cheap though ... and that's what he needs to say - not that you can't do it without knocking over skyscrapers!
Click to expand...
This is probably the most dramatic PR exercise I've read in awhile. Must be related to Google Translate 🤣
 
NoahB said:
Nobody said it cant be done. They said it would increase the costs to the point where the line will not be economically desirable for the pension fund.
Click to expand...
Fair enough I suppose - Transit construction/operation shouldn't be a profit centre anyhow. Ultimately such profit driven operations will cherry pick the dozens of required projects, and build only a handful that are relatively cheap to build, with high ridership and little competition. - unless they get a big government subsidy for the initial construction.
 
nfitz said:
Fair enough I suppose - Transit construction/operation shouldn't be a profit centre anyhow. Ultimately such profit driven operations will cherry pick the dozens of required projects, and build only a handful that are relatively cheap to build, with high ridership and little competition. - unless they get a big government subsidy for the initial construction.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the pension fund is getting a subsidy in the form of owning the line plus a set rate per passenger distance even though they only pay for half of its construction cost. (for the REM1) I assume REM East will be similar.

What Montreal gets in return is faster transit building at locations that has ridership.
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
Good grief, does Jean-Marc Arbaud really believe it can't be done without skyscrapers falling down, and metro tunnels collapsing, or is he simply trying to sell their scheme.

Montreal should be easier to engineer more lines underground with all the bedrock. If cities around the world can do this on various soils, then Montreal can figure out how to do it in bedrock.

It won't be cheap though ... and that's what he needs to say - not that you can't do it without knocking over skyscrapers!
Click to expand...

I assumed the great risks he was referring to were financial. If you throw enough money at it you can always make it work, but at the end of the day it has to profitable for the pensioners of Quebec.
 
There are many ways to make the elevated alignment on RL feasible. We've talked about this through many posts over the past 2 months, with plenty of examples cited around the world where elevated rail could blend well into a dense urban environment. All in all, I think people need to accept:

  1. That there is finite financial resources for capital projects. Quebec/Ottawa/CDPQ won't be handing out blank cheques forever, especially in light of the record federal and provincial deficit levels post 2020 thanks to pandemic spendings ($400 billion+ and counting). I'm not saying there will be immediate spending cuts, but those cuts will surely come at some point in the next 2-5 years as the current federal and provincial budgets are unsustainable.
  2. That the perfect is the enemy of the good. Could we all just for a moment think outside the box, and explore options around the world where there have already been very successful elevated rail transit built in dense urban environments? Instead of framing this conversation as a black and white choice (underground vs. elevated). I've seen many that have framed elevated rail on RL as "catastrophic" for downtown Montreal. I mean, c'mon, chill.
PS. Personally I'm neither for or against CDPQ's current proposals for RL. I'm all for underground rail if we can indeed build it, but I'm also open to other options.

1613843605862.png

1613843665930.png


Current proposal in Berlin to redesign the elevated portion of U1, which includes addition of parklets and a bike "highway" (which could actually fit very well with Valerie Plante's REV express cycling network, as currently RL is completely hostile for cyclists and pedestrians):
1613843861955.png
 
Offhand, all those streets look wider than Levesque ... though it is a very wide street compared to many others in the downtown area of that city. Do you have measurements for it, and the ones you are comparing to?

I'd think the shadowing - particularly in the winter, would be the biggest issue - look at Harbour Street now!

NoahB said:
What Montreal gets in return is faster transit building at locations that has ridership.
Click to expand...
But with perhaps only the initial REM having the required ridership without sacrificing the public realm, the use of the singular conjugation of "to have" is a Freudian slip? :)

Though I think there are some other options out there using existing corridors (railway, hydro, etc.) and the use of surface rather than subsurface or elevated. Really, it's only a few blocks downtown where I see the elevated is problematic - I'm certainly not suggesting the entire line be at surface or underground.
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
Offhand, all those streets look wider than Levesque ... though it is a very wide street compared to many others in the downtown area of that city. Do you have measurements for it, and the ones you are comparing to?

I'd think the shadowing - particularly in the winter, would be the biggest issue - look at Harbour Street now!
Click to expand...
100% yes. If René Lévesque was massively reduced with the number of lanes to greenify below the elevated rail, I would support this plan
 
nephersir7 said:
The two architecture firms hired by CDPQ to design the REM2 decided to quit, to dissociate themselves from the inevitable ugliness of the elevated section on R-L. 😨

www.journaldemontreal.com

Des architectes du REM quittent le navire

Ils jugeaient inacceptables les structures aériennes au centre-ville de Montréal.
www.journaldemontreal.com www.journaldemontreal.com
Click to expand...
I'm sure there will be plenty of takers.

Also, for those that don't know, Journal de Montreal is the francophone equivalent of the Toronto Sun - daily tabloid sensationalism. They've been against REM (even the original REM) from day 1.
 
nephersir7 said:
The two architecture firms hired by CDPQ to design the REM2 decided to quit, to dissociate themselves from the inevitable ugliness of the elevated section on R-L. 😨

www.journaldemontreal.com

Des architectes du REM quittent le navire

Ils jugeaient inacceptables les structures aériennes au centre-ville de Montréal.
www.journaldemontreal.com www.journaldemontreal.com
Click to expand...

Oh my god people in this country are rediculous little babies. No wonder nothing ever gets done here.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top