Montreal City Weblog

Kate 11:30 on 2020-12-16 Permalink Reply  

• Blork 12:15 on 2020-12-16 Permalink

  Well, that does read like a drunken rant, but I will admit the idea of an elevated rail line through downtown does seem weird and very retrograde. I’m trying to think of any other city that’s doing this, and I’m coming up blank. Most cities that I can think of have been removing their elevated urban transit lines (and highways).

  As I think about it, Chicago’s elevated transit is very useful and it’s highly integrated into the cityscape, so much so that much of the city has essentially grown up around it. But it’s been there longer than living memory, and effectively defines the downtown core. It is big and noisy and blocks the sky and all that, but Chicagoans have always seen it there and they know no other version of downtown, and the radiating lines have also been there for as long as anyone can remember.

  The only elevated transit system that I can think of that isn’t big and ugly and disruptive is the Seattle Monorail, but that hardly qualifies for comparison given it only runs for about a kilometre and a half and basically just shuttles tourists from downtown to the Space Needle.

• Faiz 12:56 on 2020-12-16 Permalink

  Look at teipei, Vancouver and Sydney for good modern example of urban elevated systems. There are quite a few more in developing countries.

  It’s rare in rich urban centres because they consider the additional cost of tunnelling worth it.

  Ive seen some pretty beautiful elevated structures, in France especially. So they could make it work.

  Most important to note that it’s not going to be a big metal monstrosity like Chicago, nor a loud polluting motorway like the metropolitan. Worst case it’ll look like the elevated rem tracks in west island.

• DeWolf 13:15 on 2020-12-16 Permalink

  Wow, there are a lot of wild and unsubstantiated claims in that editorial. “Ils favorisent la formation de poches de pauvreté. Ils attirent la criminalité”? Seriously? This paints a picture of people fleeing downtown to get away from the monster train, which would be comical if it wasn’t complete nonsense.

  I’m not keen on the idea of an elevated railway down René-Lévesque, but only because I don’t trust the CDPQ to do a good job with it. Elevated metro lines are not inherently bad, noisy or ugly. Paris and Berlin have some very nice examples. Vancouver’s SkyTrain routes are now lined by condo towers, so obviously people don’t mind living next to exactly the kind of elevated railway the REM is proposing.

• DeWolf 13:18 on 2020-12-16 Permalink

  There’s also this gem:

  “Essayez donc de faire passer une telle horreur dans l’ouest de Montréal. Sur René-Lévesque (qui à Westmount s’appelle toujours Dorchester), jusqu’aux environs du boulevard Décarie, par exemple. Pensez-vous un seul instant que les anglophones de Montréal l’accepteraient? Jamais!”

  Perhaps he is not aware that the two REM lines currently under construction in the West Island will run primarily on… elevated railways?

• Ephraim 13:20 on 2020-12-16 Permalink

  I think it will just look very weird on R-L. Where is it going to be, middle of the street? And what’s the point of where it’s located if it’s running parallel to the metro line. It’s not until Honore-Beaugrand where it doesn’t duplicate what the metro already does.

• Kate 13:30 on 2020-12-16 Permalink

  I’m reminded of the idea proposed about ten years ago to run trains on an elevated track around the Bell Centre so that Windsor Station could live again. I don’t think anyone took those too seriously, but these plans could actually make it possible!

• su 14:08 on 2020-12-16 Permalink

  If they use the same hideous brutalist tightly interspersed support pilons as are strung all along the 40,
  I imagine there will be a popular backlash. The promotional cartoons for the REM seem to skirt around the pilon eyesore issue. Not a problem along the 40 wasteland, but seriously concerning when running along a pleasant boulevard, and the scenic shoreline of the St Lawrence.

• Ant6n 14:17 on 2020-12-16 Permalink

  I remember proposing that the rem erst island branch should be built more north, to be closer to pupation – theres a huge hydro Quebec right of way that could’ve been used to urbanify the area. I was told that could only ever be done as a subway.

  One thing to note about other examples: Vancouver’s relatively recent elevated lines aren’t very urban, Vancouver isn’t super walkable like Montreal for large stretches, and the downtown portions were tunnelled.

  Berlin, like Chicago had had its Downtown ELs built a long time ago, with a relatively nice steel construction. Since the thirties or so more urban areas have generally been tunneled.

  Maybe the problem is that the people pushing for this thing don’t care about the city anyway. All they need is a shuttle with a dead end stop downtown, a kind of frequent commuter line, not urban transit.

• Kevin 14:47 on 2020-12-16 Permalink

  I’m with @su :the concrete pylons running beside the 40 are massive and make you feel like you’re underneath the Metropolitan — but you get the same sense for every elevated highway/railway. It’s the same in Queens, NYC.

  I’m just not looking forward to having a train running right past the second-floor window of my office…

• Faiz imam 15:41 on 2020-12-16 Permalink

  Just some info for everyone, on RL the structure will run right in the middle of the street. Once it hits Notre-dame it will shift to going along the North sidewalk.

  And HOMA to PET on sherbrooke it will be in the middle again.

  Legault made an interesting point in his presentation. In the decades ahead there is a massive amount of Petrochemical infrastructure in the east that we will not need anymore (or at least much much less of). That some very polluted by useful land to sustainably expand the population of Montreal.

  So just like REM v1, a lot of this is explicitly based on the idea of created the conditions for new sustainable development, as opposed to (BOTH) improving the lives of current urban residents nor helping suburban drivers get into town.

• Ant6n 17:20 on 2020-12-16 Permalink

  Using language like “will” instead of “would” or “is planned to” makes you sound like a shill again

• Jebediah Pallendrome 18:09 on 2020-12-16 Permalink

  There’s one principle reason why an L is a bad idea for Montreal, and a half-n-half is even worse:

  Winter.

  One major snow dump and the L stops working.

  Winter blizzards are literally the whole reason subways exist in the first place.

  And subways that are entirely shielded from the elements last longer than those exposed to them.

  And this is *literally* why Montreal built the Metro and not an elevated train or a a new tram back in the mid-1960s.

  Ten years from now we’ll all be blaming Val Plante for building the REM while Michael Sabia privatizes healthcare as Prime-CEO-Minister.

  We bring this on ourselves.

• su 20:14 on 2020-12-16 Permalink

  Oh yes I guess the big move of the Port of Montreal to Contrecoeur will open up another vast area to development as well.

• qatzelok 21:55 on 2020-12-16 Permalink

  @Faiz iman “…on RL the structure will run right in the middle of the street….”

  The owners of the hundred-million-dollar towers along R-L will be fine with this?

• ant6n 05:35 on 2020-12-17 Permalink

  Maybe the CDPQ-Strategy is like they did for the airport: propose something non-workable but cheap and profitable. When the city and province come back saying that downtown section won´t work unless underground, CDPQInfra will come back and say “fine, but you`ll pay for the unnecessary luxury, and we´ll still own the infrastructure in the end”.

• su 09:51 on 2020-12-18 Permalink

  According to this article, developers pay royalties to have REM stations located at their projects.
  https://renx.ca/developers-decry-montreals-much-longer-project-delays/.