The REM and how it has come about
CBC’s Jonathan Montpetit teases out the story behind the REM. His view is not going to surprise anyone who followed ant6n’s critiques throughout the process: Quebec simply bypassed the body set up to manage transit in the city and is doing what it wants. Although the project got started under the Liberals, the CAQ are running with it, and François Legault’s shameless reconfiguring of Quebec City’s proposed tram layout to serve more of his suburban voters shows us where the REM is going, even if it disfigures Montreal neighbourhoods for generations.
steph 09:31 on 2021-03-22 Permalink
The elevated 40, Decarie, or the destroyed Faubourg à m’lasse have all grossly disfigured Montreal. We recently had a chance to correct the gross spaghetti Turcot interchange – instead we replaced it with a new pile of spaghetti. I don’t think the REM going down Rene is anywhere near those aberrations.
what grosses me out about the REM is the financial and organizational monopoly we’re handing over to a private company. the REM will become one of the biggest money holes this city has ever taken on. And not through corruption (like all our other past failings), but through sheer incompetence and short-sightedness.
John B 09:51 on 2021-03-22 Permalink
Legally, if the ARTM is supposed to have the final word over transit planning on greater Montreal, how did the REM get through that, was it because it was organized while the ARTM was still being formed? If that’s the case can’t they just say “no” to the REM de l’est?
Can the city refuse planning permission or zoning for they pylons on Réné-Levesque? It would be hard to build an elevated train with no pylons.
Also, can Montreal go to court and get the “no transit development allowed” law overturned somehow? I don’t know the history of it, but it seems like a law specifically designed to let provincial politicians meddle for political gain.
That Legault asked CDPQ Infra about transit to the East and not the ARTM is pretty damning.
Finally, I’m still not convinced an elevated train down R-L would be so bad. We are conditioned here to not like elevated things because of the 40, but I’ve spent some time in Vancouver and where I’ve run into Skytrain infrastructure it doesn’t seem too bad. Vancouver is hilly, so sometimes the Skytrain tracks are quite high, and when that happens it does feel quite open and better than an “elevated” track close to the ground. Unfortunately we don’t have the hilliness here so we’ll end up with something mid-height. Still, R-L isn’t exactly beautiful, and I suspect that the REM won’t make it significantly worse. I’m not sure about further out though.
Kate 10:10 on 2021-03-22 Permalink
We get blasé about René-Lévesque, but it’s one of our main “big city” thoroughfares with major buildings along it. The REM will be a scar and an eyesore for generations if it’s allowed. Look at the concrete pylons in the photo in the original story above, imagine them going past St Patrick’s and the Chinatown gate, it’s just a crawling horror.
John B, it doesn’t matter what the law says. Montreal saying “hey, you can’t do that!” is like a couple of kids playing a game then trying to overrule an adult who says play time is over.
Uatu 10:29 on 2021-03-22 Permalink
After the last referendum cities like Montreal, Westmount, west Island all threatened to declare themselves independent and seperate from a separate Quebec. Quebec then made cities all provincial entities so that would never happen again. So there’s no way QC city will release it’s stranglehold on Montreal anytime soon
Su 10:39 on 2021-03-22 Permalink
I am wondering whether there is an ISDS clause creating government compliance on this PPP project. The CETA trade deal was going to include a clause stating that corporations can sue
Governments for inconvenient regulations. Not sure if that clause was finally included in CETA, but if it was it may affect “partnership” “stakeholder” schemes like REM.
qatzelok 10:44 on 2021-03-22 Permalink
I wonder if people who spend their days driving and staring at screens… can still recognize good urbanism. Maybe not.
Perhaps the CDPQ sees our newfound blindness as an opportunity to build uglier for more profit.
ant6n 12:28 on 2021-03-22 Permalink
Definitely under EU law, this contract between government and CDPQInfra would not be possible without a bidding process. Only a municipally owned transit agency only operating within that municipality could get this kind of directly awarded contract – so the CDPQInfra-style contracts would only work with the STM or perhaps ARTM (if one is more lenient on the ownership).
And it makes sense: either the entity with a directly awarded contract is under direct control of government and has transit for that area as its main purpose, so “profit” would be directed towards that goal. Or you have entities that have different goals for the contract (like making profit for shareholders), in which case there should be a competitive bidding process to make sure that the public is paying market-rate, and the contract won’t allow the private entity to drain a bunch of funding away from the public.