6 ms·

Frustratingly despite CDPQ doing a great job on REM (with several stages left to deliver) the next phase of the project has been taken away from them. REM East

Frustratingly despite CDPQ doing a great job on REM (with several stages left to deliver) the next phase of the project has been taken away from them. REM East was going to repeat plan and success for the REM in the eastern end of the island (historically the poorer parts of the city). It would also provide a whole new line into downtown, providing relief for the overcrowded green line Some groups (including envrionment groups bizarrely) objected to the elevated rails, even though these would not split neighbourhoods the way elevated highways did in the 60s throughout north america. The project was taken away from CDPQ who proved they can deliver transit on time and on budget in both Montreal and Vancouver and given back to STM who have a history of cost overruns. STM immediately proposed running the entire network underground and not running it into downtown, requiring a 2 seat ride onto the green line which is already over-crowded. That explodes estimated costs to $36B CDN from CDPQ's $10B and delivers fewer km of track and less function. What a mess.

morkalork 3y ago
It's a shame what happened , letting the NIMBYs win like that. The complaints about it being an eyesore are crazy. It looks like something out of Tokyo. I guess some people just want to live in the past.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  If >50% of the voters ‘wanted to live in the past’, then cancelling the plan seems to be the right thing?
  - morkalork 3y ago
    Yeah, it's cool, they can ride the green line and suffer stuffed up into people's armpits when it breaks down every few days during the summer. It doesn't bust my balls, which is why I say it's sad, they're only hurting themselves.
  - stubish 3y ago
    Not necessarily. cf. Tyranny of the Majority. I can imagine the same group of people simultaneously demanding better public transport. A mob can want many different conflicting things at the same time.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      I'm not referring to the general case, but this specific case.
ecshafer 3y ago
Environmental groups, and I say this as a self-professed environmentalist, often miss the forest for the trees. They will fight an elevated train line to save a bird or whatever. Despite the fact that the reduced automobile miles means far more humans and animals both not dying and just better for the environment in general. Then they won't make a peep at a giant parking lot being made.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The rail line is killed if even one part can't be made; whereas if there are ten parking lots and one gets blocked because it's a wetland, the other nine still come to be.
sudosysgen 3y ago
There is a serious problem with letting CDPQ Infra operate a downtown line, which is that they couldn't agree on a revenue sharing agreement with the ARTM. A new downtown line is fine, but if it means insufficient funding for the already underfunded metro system, it's not clear it would actually be a net benefit. Ultimately the problem is the legislation around the ARTM having to be able to be long-term profitable, which means that such a project can't make sense. As far as I'm aware, the ARTM and the city also agreed with a plan where the REM de l'est would connect somewhere onto the green line to avoid competing with downtown metro service, but that was rejected by CDPQ Infra as unprofitable.

morkalork 3y ago

It's a shame what happened , letting the NIMBYs win like that. The complaints about it being an eyesore are crazy. It looks like something out of Tokyo. I guess some people just want to live in the past.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
If >50% of the voters ‘wanted to live in the past’, then cancelling the plan seems to be the right thing?
- morkalork 3y ago
  Yeah, it's cool, they can ride the green line and suffer stuffed up into people's armpits when it breaks down every few days during the summer. It doesn't bust my balls, which is why I say it's sad, they're only hurting themselves.
- stubish 3y ago
  Not necessarily. cf. Tyranny of the Majority. I can imagine the same group of people simultaneously demanding better public transport. A mob can want many different conflicting things at the same time.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    I'm not referring to the general case, but this specific case.

ecshafer 3y ago

Environmental groups, and I say this as a self-professed environmentalist, often miss the forest for the trees. They will fight an elevated train line to save a bird or whatever. Despite the fact that the reduced automobile miles means far more humans and animals both not dying and just better for the environment in general. Then they won't make a peep at a giant parking lot being made.

bombcar 3y ago
The rail line is killed if even one part can't be made; whereas if there are ten parking lots and one gets blocked because it's a wetland, the other nine still come to be.

sudosysgen 3y ago

There is a serious problem with letting CDPQ Infra operate a downtown line, which is that they couldn't agree on a revenue sharing agreement with the ARTM. A new downtown line is fine, but if it means insufficient funding for the already underfunded metro system, it's not clear it would actually be a net benefit. Ultimately the problem is the legislation around the ARTM having to be able to be long-term profitable, which means that such a project can't make sense. As far as I'm aware, the ARTM and the city also agreed with a plan where the REM de l'est would connect somewhere onto the green line to avoid competing with downtown metro service, but that was rejected by CDPQ Infra as unprofitable.