What an elevated REM might look like
In the list of urban projects linked earlier, the REM gets a nod from urban development expert Marc-André Carignan. But Anton Dubrau, who often comments here, has given me permission to reproduce two photos of Hamburg he posted to Twitter recently, showing what an elevated train looks like in that city.
Someone else in that thread mentioned an elevated train that goes through The Hague in the Netherlands. The image from that article that seems most like René-Lévesque is this one (and it’s worth looking at the article in that link for other views):
The REM was one thing when we were speaking airily about running it across bridges to Brossard. I have a feeling it will be another thing entirely when some version of this is occupying space on René-Lévesque – the street where the city has insisted that parades like the Carifiesta must take place. The street will have an entirely different character once some version of this is slicing through downtown.
DeWolf 18:04 on 2021-01-02 Permalink
I personally think the example you’ve shown of the Hague looks very nice, but given the political realities of this province, we’d be much more likely to get the Hamburg monstrosity. I know I argued in another thread that elevated structures are not inherently bad (I think the Hague railway proves my point), but I do agree that it’s a mistake to build one on René-Lévesque.
Best case scenario, the whole REM de l’Est is scrapped and that money is invested in the Pink Line and a tramway to Pointe-aux-Trembles. Second best case, somebody coughs up extra cash to tunnel the REM through downtown. Third best case, there’s an international design competition for both the elevated structure and the public space underneath.
Sadly my money is not on any of those scenarios taking place.
Bill Binns 18:20 on 2021-01-02 Permalink
I was all for an elevated train down the middle of Rene Levesque but that 2nd photo reminded me that our version would almost certainly be covered with graffiti long before it even opened. RL may be the worst street downtown to be pedestrian but at least it looks ok for the moment.
ant6n 18:23 on 2021-01-02 Permalink
I’m dreaming East-West tunnel trunk line under Rene-Levesque, urban streetcar trunk on Rene-Levesque.
MarcG 19:04 on 2021-01-02 Permalink
I like the pink. Imagine hanging over the edge and risking your life for that.
Tim F 19:20 on 2021-01-02 Permalink
I remember once upon a time seeing someone (a railfan, not a professional outfit) dreaming of sacrificing two lanes in each direction through the Ville-Marie tunnel to build a public transit line that would connect the Westmount division of the CPR that goes to the Bell Centre and build a crosstown rail line to the east end. A pipe dream, I’m sure, but one I’ve been thinking about ever since they announced the REM de l’Est.
PO 20:52 on 2021-01-02 Permalink
Aesthetically, I like it. Be it a winner of a design contest or a concrete monstrosity, I like it. I have no reason other than that I just think it’s neat. And I’m not buying into the maybe-cynical view that it’ll ruin the streetscape or be desolate and creepy below. The areas of new York I’ve been that are covered with those steel tracks and trusses are always brimming with life and activity – and ReneLevesque is already well traversed by pedestriants so I see no issue.
Kevin 21:07 on 2021-01-02 Permalink
All I think of is the Rem East running alongside a new development by the old Rad Can building and blocking the view of the gates to Chinatown.
david247 01:06 on 2021-01-03 Permalink
I mean, is this really the discourse?
First, there’s very little chance that the 10 billion dollar project will be built, we all know that.
Second, if something did come together, it’s going to be far more expensive to do it by tunnel, so that these aesthetic concerns are actually anti-transit positions. That is, if you say ‘I only want it if I can’t see it’ or ‘I only want it if I find it attractive’ then you’re really saying ‘I don’t want it,’ ‘I want it to be more expensive’ or ‘I want it to serve fewer communities and stations.’ I know you have only fifty dollars, and I’m in earnest that I want to have dinner with you tonight, but I’ll only eat dinner with you if at Toqué.
Third, how could anyone conceive it to be some egregious urban intervention that some elevated train would run down one of Montreal’s ugliest and most deliberately functional streets? It would be great!! People would love it! Elevated trains are far better than underground trains on every single level, aside from waiting outside for them in winter.
Finally and more broadly, in this day and age, can we still consider urban rail transportation as this dainty thing that has to aesthetically improve the city? Sprawl has fundamentally upended the economics that created the great stations and the rest, and it’s no Europe. An Anton – for whom it’s perfect or nothing – can roll back to Europe and scoff at the simple rubes in Montreal trying to make it work but, come on, that’s just not in the cards here. There’s a minimal chance this thing will be built, and if it is, we should be thrilled.
Ant6n 08:36 on 2021-01-03 Permalink
Dude calm down. I just posted some pictures of what cheap elevated concrete construction looks like after a couple of years. You’re turning this discourse into a bunch of personal attacks on a strawman.
Just fyi, I agree elevated rail has its place. I think it was a mistake that the Montreal metro doesnt support outside extensions. But I don’t think it should go everywhere, and I think we should think about improving our downtown hellscapes.
@Tim F
I’d proposed using the 720 for transit, for example at Montreal downtown consultations. See slides: https://ocpm.qc.ca/sites/ocpm.qc.ca/files/pdf/P-83/7.39.1_ocpm_presentation_-_centre-ville_-_2016.pdf
Tim F 12:06 on 2021-01-03 Permalink
@Ant6n: nice presentation! Re: using the Ville-Marie, it was not the one I saw but it was the same idea.