There’s absolutely ZERO need for those tracks to be built up with modern technology. Considering that passengers won’t even get to ride there, I think it’s a valid point to save money on. It’s these small things that boost the costs of transit projects up to ridiculous prices: “oh we’re here already, might as well future proof this unnecessary segment for triple the cost!”
I’m glad the caisse is staying consistent with its cost cutting to actually build this affordably.
6 « J'aime »
Ok so WTF are we doing wrong that the rest of the world builds world-class transit, but because we have done without for so long, and seemingly have plenty of money to keep repairing an unused stadium, we are just fine with “good-enough” transit – that we only managed to get because of a white knight investment fund that had friends inside the party in power at the time.
There’s a difference between world class transit and overbuilding non public accessible areas of transit that don’t improve service.
I agree that there’s plenty wrong with our way of doing things, but we aren’t helping by just saying “should’ve built this in a more expensive way”.
Concrete ties don’t improve service quality, as wooden ties can last just as long. Also, this is just a storage yard where ride quality doesn’t matter. It just needs to let the darn train sit there for 8 hours a day.
I fail to see how this counts as “mediocre transit”.
I simply wish the STM would adopt the same cost cutting techniques as the caisse to cut down the cost of the blue line extension. All these unnecessary extremely expensive attention to detail items don’t get built like we do anywhere in Europe or Asia.
For example, the STM seems obsessed with building mega expensive fully enclosed ventilation towers and evacuation towers above its tunnels, whereas anywhere in Europe, they would simply surround a hole in the ground with a fence and call it a day. It’s these things that add to monstrous costs.
7 « J'aime »
Is the railway on the service side going to be concrete or wood tho?
And yea the STM could cheap out a LOT, why they keep buying architect for “art’s” when all we need is a hole to go in and a tunnel to go to another hole. The art is expensive and serve 0 purpose.
2 « J'aime »
Honestly the art isn’t all that more expensive. Just look around the world how much public art there is in transit stations. Its common. The problem is our building/procuring methods here making anything that’s more then a concrete bunker 100x more then expensive then anywhere else.
Like in Paris they build for similarly (although I think a bit cheaper even) awesome looking above ground metro infrastructure.
Yet here were stuck with bland looking things (and I don’t mind along the highway, but at least it would have been nice where it’s residential to have something nice)
8 « J'aime »
Thing is it’s underground so we literally don’t have to care about social acceptability so why we even care about art if it’s stupid expensive to maintain?
Function over form is what we should care while here it seems it HAS TO BE form over function.
And i mean in general for everything. Not just a rem or metro or train station
1 « J'aime »
The REM was bare-minimum because the government allowed bare-minimum. Look at the REM East renders when they were pushed to offer better designs: they acquiesced.
And the REM East/PSE v1 gives another lesson: bare-minimum got built. Better design didn’t.
It’s the same with our towers. One could conclude that Montreal/Quebec doesn’t really value design.
5 « J'aime »
I really wish that people need to understand that art means nothing if everyone just are stuck to there phones, art included architecture of any form that is not strictly function
Au moins avoir des services express en contresens de l’heure de pointe (avec arrêts à Sauvé pour la correspondance métro, St Michel pour la correspondance avec le SRB, Pointe aux trembles, Terrebonne et Mascouche)?
Do not conflate architecture with over-engineering. As for public art in the Métro, the cost (by law) is 1% of the budget.
The huge costs of building transit in North America can be attributed to superfluous building and operations standards, complicated bureaucratic procedures, political interference, and an inability to create and retain expertise.
The TTC recently completed a project to add a second entrance and elevator to Donlands station at a cost of $45.7M, which is comparable to similar STM projects. They cut corners in architecture and this is the result:
Meanwhile, the far more complex Mont-Royal project cost $50M while also adding new public art and ensuring a decent level of architectural quality and integration between the old and new.
Architecture and art are essential for making cities nice places to be. They do not contribute in any significant way to transit building costs, and the financial benefits of cutting corners in those areas pale in comparison to the downsides of making public spaces uninviting.
15 « J'aime »
As much as we do need to build more transit, I dont think it should come at the cost of making stations enjoyable to be in. These stations are part of the public realm, and we should strive for them to look good. It also helps with the public perception of transit; if people only see our stations as a ‘hole in the ground’, people are less likely to care about maintaining and improving said hole in the ground.
8 « J'aime »
L’architecture et l’ambiance (parfois juste le type d’éclairage) d’une station contribue grandement bien-être voire au sentiment de sécurité des voyageurs. C’est loin d’être anodin et influence directement sa fréquentation/utilisation. Les stations de métro/gares EXO devraient être de véritables milieux de vie (une extension de la ville).
9 « J'aime »
Je trouve que le REM a un très bon rapport sécurité/prix. L’éclairage sur les quais en faisceau c’est agressif pour du monde qui viendrait scèner là. En plus le son des portes, les portillons, l’absence de coin sombre, les porte pallières, tout ça est très sécurisant.
1 « J'aime »
Surtout, comme cela a été mentionné précédemment, l’art n’est absolument pas la cause du cost cancer en Amérique du Nord. Donc, réduire les coûts dans un domaine qui a un impact important sur l’expérience client, revient à cibler le mauvais domaine. Même si le fait de ne pas intégrer d’art ou d’architecture au-delà d’une boîte grise aux murs gris nous permet d’économiser 500 millions, le projet coûtera toujours presque le double de ce qu’il coûterait en Europe. Le problème est généralisé, et ne repose pas sur la « grandeur » des stations (elles ne le sont pas vraiment), ni l’art.
11 « J'aime »
Il y a eu des errements en éclairage certaines stations sont beaucoup trop sombres et certaines zones sont trop larges. Mais c’est un problème d’aménagement, pas de taille des stations
In the center of the island, it probably isn’t much of a concern, but cities like New York have learned what a mistake it is to just put a grate over hole in a sidewalk and call it a day. They’ve had to deal with flooding repeatedly and the damages that ensues as a result. The other reason to do this is that the air close to the ground is far more polluted with various contaminants. Dust and other particulates get lifted into the air by cars and other vehicles and I can understand that they might not want to suck that crap into the metro system. It is bad for the health of users, and dust can create premature wear and tear of the equipment.
3 « J'aime »
Exo ROW is progressing nicely at CDL. They’re building a retaining wall for the exo rail, and the REM station itself has had its signage installed
15 « J'aime »
