News   Mar 28, 2024
 200     0 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 2K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.3K     2 

Montréal Transit Developments

Getting off a train, going outside, walking 200m to reach the entrance of a metro station and walking another 100m inside to another train is not what I call an optimal transfer. Spadina sounds like a pleasant walk compared to that. Same goes for transferring at Robert-Bourassa (where at least you don't have to walk outside).

As for "scarring" downtown. You're right... it's a very subjective thing. My opinion is that I don't trust la Caisse at all on this.

And then there's price. While I don't believe the pink line is a viable option because it's too expensive, there are better ways to spend 10 billion than on REM B. Extending the orange line to Bois-Francs (and connect with the REM A), building the René-Lévesque/Notre-Dame line as light rail instead of a fully automated light subway, extending REM A to Dorval station, increasing the reach and frequency of bus networks all over Greater Montreal... All this would probably generate more ridership than REM B and would improve the overall network.
These are all great projects, except they are not part of CDPQ's strategy or mandate, with the exception of REM-A extension to Dorval. CDPQ made it very clear they have no intention of getting involved in managing every public transit project in the region. Their scope is limited to the REM scope of work from day 1. If we want those other projects built, we should look to STM or other agencies, especially things like bus network, metro expansion, etc. which is strictly under the STM's mandate.

This shouldn't be an "either or" situation, as there's no reason why we can't have multiple modes of transit and operators in the same region: REM, STM, etc. Nothing is preventing the STM or ARTM to spearhead their own transit expansion projects, such as the Blue Line Extension.

All this would probably generate more ridership than REM B
Highly debatable at this point.
 
You're right... I forgot the part where REM has to run where there is empty land so la Caisse can profit off of development!
I mean, what is so bad about CDPQ profiting from the development of transit? I'm a little confused as to why this needs to be an "us vs. them" conversation.

For a global perspective, I suggest you look at similar operating models in cities like Hong Kong, where the HK MTR Corporation has long been the owner, operator, and investor of HK's metro expansions, operating as an independent corporation listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. HK MTR, as the transit operator, also happens to the largest real estate developer and investor in HK, where they finance a majority of their transit projects via property development and sales (yes, what a novel earth-shattering concept). What CDPQ is doing is really no different, as this has been a fairly common global standard a lot of cities around the world. The only news is that this is a new model in North America/Canada, and we are all somehow "shocked" how a private entity like CDPQ can quickly build 67 km of new rapid transit in such a short period of time.

I agree with your view on Quebec City tramway project - I think it's a great project that should be built asap. What exactly is the current status of that project?
 
These are all great projects, except they are not part of CDPQ's strategy or mandate, with the exception of REM-A extension to Dorval. CDPQ made it very clear they have no intention of getting involved in managing every public transit project in the region. Their scope is limited to the REM scope of work from day 1. If we want those other projects built, we should look to STM or other agencies, especially things like bus network, metro expansion, etc. which is strictly under the STM's mandate.

This shouldn't be an "either or" situation, as there's no reason why we can't have multiple modes of transit and operators in the same region: REM, STM, etc. Nothing is preventing the STM or ARTM to spearhead their own transit expansion projects, such as the Blue Line Extension.


Highly debatable at this point.

This is my point exactly. La Caisse doesn't have to be involved in all development projects, and their solution to everything should certainly not be a light metro. Different needs require differents modes of transportation. The point I was making just illustrated what we could do with 5 billion (taking into account that la Caisse is not involved) if we didn't invest it in REM B.

I'm not against involving CDPQ, I think REM A will be a huge success. I'm just worried that the government will start relying solely on them for development of important infrastructure like transit. There's a reason why the private sector rarely invests in transit. It's not really profitable and the capital costs are extremely high. Unfortunately, what we've seen so far is announcement after announcement of projects to be given to CDPQi, without consideration for priority planning or the integration with municipal urban development projects (the Taschereau REM for example, which went from a tram line to a REM style line).
 
I'm not against involving CDPQ, I think REM A will be a huge success. I'm just worried that the government will start relying solely on them for development of important infrastructure like transit. There's a reason why the private sector rarely invests in transit. It's not really profitable and the capital costs are extremely high. Unfortunately, what we've seen so far is announcement after announcement of projects to be given to CDPQi, without consideration for priority planning or the integration with municipal urban development projects (the Taschereau REM for example, which went from a tram line to a REM style line).
Again, there is no reason why it has to be a loss-making model, which is what the CDPQ and other private transit operator/investor are trying to prove.

HK's MTR Corporation makes on average $1 billion / yr in surplus, as part of its Rail+Property model. All surplus revenue made from property development are channeled to new rail transit expansions, and the MTR Corporation receives no operating subsidies from the HK government. What's even more interesting is that the MTR Corporation is a publicly listed company on the Hang Seng Exchange (https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/0066.HK?p=0066.HK), with a YTD return of 6% since Jan 2021. Yes, a public transit investor/operator that has become a part of every middle class Hong Konger's personal finance portfolio because it is such a well-run semi-private enterprise.

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/the-rail-plus-property-model

I think we should all try to remain a little more open-minded and creative with our transit funding solutions, as there are a lot of global precedents for what the CDPQ is trying to do in Montreal, similar to HKMTR's rail+property funding model. Also, I'm not going to blindly defend the CDPQ as some of their decisions on the REM-B are questionable. However, I do commend them on the new transit investment and operating model they have introduced. Is it perfect? No. Does it need improvements? Yes. Does it get the job done? Maybe, in some areas. Are we getting newly built rapid transit in Montreal at an unprecedented pace? Yes.
 
Last edited:
This is my point exactly. La Caisse doesn't have to be involved in all development projects, and their solution to everything should certainly not be a light metro. Different needs require differents modes of transportation. The point I was making just illustrated what we could do with 5 billion (taking into account that la Caisse is not involved) if we didn't invest it in REM B.

I'm not against involving CDPQ, I think REM A will be a huge success. I'm just worried that the government will start relying solely on them for development of important infrastructure like transit. There's a reason why the private sector rarely invests in transit. It's not really profitable and the capital costs are extremely high. Unfortunately, what we've seen so far is announcement after announcement of projects to be given to CDPQi, without consideration for priority planning or the integration with municipal urban development projects (the Taschereau REM for example, which went from a tram line to a REM style line).
Well ok, let's take a look at these proposals you have suggested:

> Extending the orange line to Bois-Francs (and connect with the REM A)

Ok, but this is something completely unrelated. The point of REM B is to help redevelop Montreal East and to provide better transit access to Montreal North. Yes this extension should happen, but it has nothing to do with REM B.

> building the René-Lévesque/Notre-Dame line as light rail instead of a fully automated light subway,

And how is this an improvement? No seriously, how is a light rail that is prone to delays due to accidents, that gets stuck behind red lights, will have an overall far slower speed, and far worse headways a better use of the money than a light metro. You seem to have a disdain for the caisse building transit because its transit for the sake of pushing development, but Light Rail is the exact same thing, except worse at being actual transit. If you look at the GTA, the primary purpose of lines such as Finch West, Hurontario, and the York Region Rapidways is to first and foremost push development, and secondary to that is to relieve local bus routes. The Eglinton Line being an LRT was a massive mistake and repeating that in Montreal would be foolish. LRT does have its place, but that place isn't to act as a downtowner line. If you look at cities outside of North America, light rail/trams are only used in 2 situations. 1) To act as a city center transport route. These are tram lines that are built downtown with the purpose of getting people from one highrise or dense center to another section. This works really well with trams because trips are typically short enough that the slow speed of trams aren't a huge issue. 2) As feeder routes to other metro/rail lines. There is a reason why you almost never see Portland/LA style LRT systems outside of North America because Light Rail is horrible at crosstown transit, and automated light metros do that job while at a slightly higher price, far FAR better than trams. The Eglinton Line was a mistake, do not push for another Eglinton Line.

As for your remaining points, see my point about the Orange Line. Should happen, but has nothing to do with the money going to REM B.
 
I mean, what is so bad about CDPQ profiting from the development of transit? I'm a little confused as to why this needs to be an "us vs. them" conversation.

For a global perspective, I suggest you look at similar operating models in cities like Hong Kong, where the HK MTR Corporation has long been the owner, operator, and investor of HK's metro expansions, operating as an independent corporation listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. HK MTR, as the transit operator, also happens to the largest real estate developer and investor in HK, where they finance a majority of their transit projects via property development and sales (yes, what a novel earth-shattering concept). What CDPQ is doing is really no different, as this has been a fairly common global standard a lot of cities around the world. The only news is that this is a new model in North America/Canada, and we are all somehow "shocked" how a private entity like CDPQ can quickly build 67 km of new rapid transit in such a short period of time.

I agree with your view on Quebec City tramway project - I think it's a great project that should be built asap. What exactly is the current status of that project?
There's nothing wrong with CDPQ profiting from development. That's how Madrid was able to fund it's transit system so successfully. What's problematic, in my view, is that for the sake of said development we're going to build without proper needs study, running along a metro line and not provide connections to other lines? There's a reason why transit takes long to get built.

As for Hong Kong, not considering the obvious differences in size and population density, it's way ahead of anything in North America when it comes to farebox recovery. They charge by distance, which is not something we do here. Let's not forget also that they have the highest square footage prices in the world, which probably helps when we speak of development charges.

According to Quebec City mayor Labeaume, the government proposed to cut half of the route, including the portion going through Limoilou (a dense neighbourhood north of downtown) and cutting service to the area where the depot was to be built. They also told the city that they wanted to better integrate the tramway project with their Third link project (a freeway tunnel accross the Saint Lawrence river to Lévis). The mayor had signed an NDA about that but considered the government to be in bad faith and went public with this. According to the media, the government seems to be purposely stalling the project because too much money is to be spent on downtown areas (where the line is supposed to be in a tunnel) compared to suburban Quebec City.

I think we should all try to remain a little more open-minded and creative with our transit funding solutions, as there are a lot of global precedents for what the CDPQ is trying to do in Montreal, similar to HKMTR's rail+property funding model. Also, I'm not going to blindly defend the CDPQ as some of their decisions on the REM-B are questionable. However, I do commend them on the new transit investment and operating model they have introduced. Is it perfect? No. Does it need improvements? Yes. Does it get the job done? Maybe, in some areas. Are we getting newly built rapid transit in Montreal at an unprecedented pace? Yes.
As I said, there is no problem with involving private investors in the development of infrastructure. Pointing out what I think are flaws in the model does not mean that I'm against everything CDPQ. There is an issue with social acceptability on this project, especially downtown, and I do think it's a bad idea to build the line elevated. That's especially true after the CDPQi CEO warned of collapsing buildings and metro lines if they dared considering building underground. REM B has merits, but the optics are that this project is being shoved down our throat without much consideration for anything but CDPQ profits and the government's electoral targets.

Well ok, let's take a look at these proposals you have suggested:

> Extending the orange line to Bois-Francs (and connect with the REM A)

Ok, but this is something completely unrelated. The point of REM B is to help redevelop Montreal East and to provide better transit access to Montreal North. Yes this extension should happen, but it has nothing to do with REM B.

> building the René-Lévesque/Notre-Dame line as light rail instead of a fully automated light subway,

And how is this an improvement? No seriously, how is a light rail that is prone to delays due to accidents, that gets stuck behind red lights, will have an overall far slower speed, and far worse headways a better use of the money than a light metro. You seem to have a disdain for the caisse building transit because its transit for the sake of pushing development, but Light Rail is the exact same thing, except worse at being actual transit. If you look at the GTA, the primary purpose of lines such as Finch West, Hurontario, and the York Region Rapidways is to first and foremost push development, and secondary to that is to relieve local bus routes. The Eglinton Line being an LRT was a massive mistake and repeating that in Montreal would be foolish. LRT does have its place, but that place isn't to act as a downtowner line. If you look at cities outside of North America, light rail/trams are only used in 2 situations. 1) To act as a city center transport route. These are tram lines that are built downtown with the purpose of getting people from one highrise or dense center to another section. This works really well with trams because trips are typically short enough that the slow speed of trams aren't a huge issue. 2) As feeder routes to other metro/rail lines. There is a reason why you almost never see Portland/LA style LRT systems outside of North America because Light Rail is horrible at crosstown transit, and automated light metros do that job while at a slightly higher price, far FAR better than trams. The Eglinton Line was a mistake, do not push for another Eglinton Line.

As for your remaining points, see my point about the Orange Line. Should happen, but has nothing to do with the money going to REM B.
For your first and third point. It is relevant because there is a finite amount of money that can be spent on capital projects related to transit in the greater Montreal area, all under the control of our provincial government, which means that if they give 5 billion for REM B, they won't spend that on other projects.

As for your second point. You're right. Maybe a light rail line from Radisson to Pointe-aux-Trembles using a disused railroad right of way with little red lights and car traffic would be a better idea. As has been proposed since the 70s. Heck, you could even extend it north to Anjou station and it's just the same as the two outer branches of REM B!

I might sound cynical, sorry about that. If I can point out positives about REM B, it will serve 2 hospitals and provide some rapid transit to Montréal-Nord, which is where the needs are highest!
 
Getting off a train, going outside, walking 200m to reach the entrance of a metro station and walking another 100m inside to another train is not what I call an optimal transfer. Spadina sounds like a pleasant walk compared to that. Same goes for transferring at Robert-Bourassa (where at least you don't have to walk outside).
They're not even comparative in terms of scale of usage. This is an infinitely

Spadina sees very little use as a transfer facility - in part because of the walk/inconvenience, but also in part because of how Toronto's network is laid out and its ridership patterns.

This is going to be located at the busiest stretch of the new line. If even a small percentage of users will be transferring to the other lines, that is potentially tens of thousands of people making the connection each and every day.

Dan
 
They're not even comparative in terms of scale of usage. This is an infinitely

Spadina sees very little use as a transfer facility - in part because of the walk/inconvenience, but also in part because of how Toronto's network is laid out and its ridership patterns.

This is going to be located at the busiest stretch of the new line. If even a small percentage of users will be transferring to the other lines, that is potentially tens of thousands of people making the connection each and every day.

Dan
Again as both London and Moscow show, with the proper facilities such a transfer can easily be managed.
 
This has already been posted...

Also, this is just bad journalism, as they can't seem to get even basic facts right. Not surprising coming from a tabloid like Journal de Montreal.

According to a report from the Journal de Montreal, two firms have removed themselves from the $10 billion project because of, well, ugliness.

The offensive section would run along portions of Rene-Levesque and Notre Dame boulevards in the East End of Montreal. Designs have been produced of what stations and the line itself will look like. Thick Y-shaped concrete piers

Many residents, citing the noise that will be created by passing trains and the sight of the elevated concrete portion, have not been in favor of the chosen design option, and would prefer a tunnel.

CDPQ Infra. is leading the project and says it is not possible to build underground. A recent progress report said the challenges with a tunnel include water mains and sewers that are in the way, a danger to metro lines and the risk that buildings might collapse.

Officials say at this point all options for the light-rail work are being reviewed.

Work has already begun on more than 20 sites, and construction is expected to continue through 2024. A new railway bridge linking Montreal and lles Laval over the Riviere des Prairies is a centerpiece of the project. Crews used a counterweight launching method to build the span.
They seem to be confusing REM-A with REM-B and think it's the same project...
 
This has already been posted...

Also, this is just bad journalism, as they can't seem to get even basic facts right. Not surprising coming from a tabloid like Journal de Montreal.


They seem to be confusing REM-A with REM-B and think it's the same project...

they need to change the design to be two pillars with a covered bikeway underneath and suddenly everyone who is against the elevation will change their minds.
 
they need to change the design to be two pillars with a covered bikeway underneath and suddenly everyone who is against the elevation will change their minds.
Yes. Plus add some urban art/graffiti from local artists, plus some fake neo-classical facade, and then we are all good.
 
I know you said this somewhat ironically, but if they had just released a rendering like that at the time of announcement, even with a caveat of design subject to change, they might have avoided some of the push back.
Same issue with the Ontario Line. Not releasing any sort of preliminary render just allows opponents of elevated transit to create their own depictions, which are always the most monstrously ugly thing they can think of.
 
they need to change the design to be two pillars with a covered bikeway underneath and suddenly everyone who is against the elevation will change their minds.
In one of the original designs for the light rail line, they proposed cutting the southern half of René-Lévesque boulevard and converting it to green space, bike lanes and the light rail. The provincial transportation ministry opposed it because of the significance of the boulevard for car traffic.

And for your information, there is a bikeway along almost the entire route of the REM B already.
 

Back
Top