Effectivement, mais les quartiers desservis par les lignes M1 et M2 ne sont pas desservis par le S-Tog
Au final, le REM2 sera similaire en format et capacité au réseau initial de Copenhague. Et ils transportent 240 000 personnes par jour avec leurs trains de 39 mètres.
Je me complète : c’est un moyen adapté pour les zones qu’elles traversent et relient ensemble, pour la région de Strasbourg. Je ne dis pas que c’est le mode de transport à appliquer partout biensûr 
But that’s exactly what I mean: like Paris, a metro can have shorter trains closer together (with closely-spaced stations), but suburbs are served by heavy rail suburban/regional trains. It works all over Europe, Asia, Australia, and South America, but here we seem to run 1100-passenger metros underground in the core, but want 300-passenger trams to go to the far suburbs. 
It’s true that a LRT that goes far from downtown like the REM de l’Est probably needs more passengers capacity than what it is proposed by CDPQ Infra. Considering that people from north shore, Repentigny and the suburbs around will probably get on this new system, chances are it will reach overcapacity on trains.
De toute façon…un tramway…cest de la belle m… considérant sa vitesse
Imagine le temps de transport de la pointe Est au downtown.
Un rem c’est 10x mieux
You only get as much from a transit line than what you’re willing to invest in it, whatever the mode. As features creep into a brt or tram project, to make it as competitive as possible to a metro, the cost gap quickly narrows. When talking about making better use of existing rail corridors, I wonder, is there even any political will to go against freight companies? Even the PQ transit program that relied heavily on CP and CN ROW was embarrassingly limited.
Je n’ai aucun problème avec un REM (je vais utiliser “métro léger”), mais pour l’nième fois, le système proposé va coûter au moins 10$G pour un dessert à la capacité d’un SRB. Un SLR traditionnel coûterait un tier et offrira la même capacité et des vitesses similaires au REM une fois qu’il quitte le cœur de la ville. Si les chiffres énumérées dans les études montrent une telle faible achalandage prévue, le prix est exorbitant.
True. But the essence of the full-stop-no-REM camp’s argument is that it’s all opaque. I’m not arguing that we don’t need better (and more) transit of all modes — quite the opposite. What I’m saying in these threads is that I’d like to see how they came up with the half-assed “REM-de-l’Est” proposal. It just seems to miss every single target: it’s too expensive for the proposed capacity; the structure too imposing for said limited capacity; and it doesn’t link well with the REM’s first phase nor exo nor the Metro. The only thing it seems to promise is a relatively high train speed. That shouldn’t be the only criterium. For all of REM-A’s limitations and drawbacks, at least it promises adequate capacity, some future-proofing, and fairly good interconnection with existing services.
C’est un partie mon sentiment par rapport au REM 2. Malgré les défauts du REM original, il vient quand même remplacer des infrastructures surchargées et créer une véritable colonne vertébrale de TC venant compléter le métro sur l’île sans y faire compétition, le tout en profitant de certaines infrastructures déjà existantes (tunnel Mont-Royal et Pont Champlain).
Avec le REM 2, j’ai l’impression qu’on a la version cheap, moins réfléchie et plus coûteuse. On a moins de capacité, on double le métro sur 12km et on amène des structures aériennes trop près de milieux résidentiels existants et en plein coeur du centre-ville. En fait, ça me semble un projet typique que la CAQ proposerait, avec des objectifs nobles mais énormément de problèmes dans l’exécution et à des coûts faramineux.
C’est ce que je pense aussi. En vrai le REM2 a éte pensé et conçus pour que la CAQ sussure des votes dans l’est et nord-est de MTL a la prochaine élection. Mais c’est quand même un projet utile qui, si bien exécuter, peu porter de la renommée a MTL et bien-sûr être utile pour l’est le nord de l’île. Mais le projet doit être remis sur les rails. Avec beaucoup d’ajustement et des consultations publiques.
In terms of passengers capacity, yes, the REM de l’Est is expensive if we look at it this way. But what else can be less expensive than the REM de l’Est for a LRT in Montreal? If the case was that CDPQ Infra chose to build longer stations, the bill would surely have been higher than 10 billion, close to the 20 billion estimation for the pink line.
So, the only solution that would have a good ratio cost/km is to implant a BRT on Notre-Dame street with few overpasses over busy intersections, but we shall forget the fact that it would reach Montreal-Nord. Otherwise, the buses would be too slow on Pie-IX boulevard, Lacordaire or highway 25. I still believe that the best option for Montreal-Nord is to add a fourth elevated branch to REM A which, instead of going to Laval, goes on Henri-Bourassa unitl Cégep Marie-Victorin. No tunnel, just the low cost modes possible.
Here’s an idea (the brown line is the BRT on Notre-Dame Est/Shebrooke Est, with 3 km of new road overpasses and the rest on surface).
I’m not a fan of splitting REM-A into any more branches at the detriment of service frequency on the main Roxboro trunk (and to a lesser extent on the Fairview branch). But the same way the West Island and PSC routes don’t quite support any current density, I could definitely see the Train-de-l’Est alignment becoming a branch if the Aéroport branch is converted to a shuttle and Roxboro service is maintained.
Now… if the SJ alignment is chosen to be converted (and improved) for the REM-Laval line with transfers at Sauvé, Parc, Canora and Namur, I could get behind it in a big way.
Here’s another idea, the craziest one. Spliting the Brossard antenna in two, so the REM would run on the existing rail tracks up to highway 20 until the YUL Airport REM station. So, the airport and West Island branches would form only one, giving a frequency of 5 minutes (3 minutes max).
Nothing’s crazy about it, it just won’t happen. 
If @lcthompson wants to start another thread for Lakeshore/Lachine/Laval/third-belts I’m right there sharing ideas and critiques.
Of course it won’t happen. But strangely, I prefer this version than the REM A being built. Going from downtown to airport in five stations is kind of amazing. Plus, it gives free passengers space for the REM in the tunnel Mont-Royal, which solves the orange line congestion problem. As I remember, it was an issue that the REM de l’Est planification was trying to solve desperately.
By the way, how much a project like this would add to the final cost of REM A? I wouldn’t say easily that this would be higher than the 10 billion $ for the REM de l’Est, regarding the fact than most of the rails would be built at ground level.
Like you can see, I have tons of ideas too. 
I guess highway 520’s central car lanes could support a branch for the REM A. All it misses is some 3 km tunnel from REM A (next to highway 40) to the 520. Again, airport and West Island REM branches would come to only one, which would conserve the actual format of three antennas.
A shuttle train from REM main trunk station “Côte-de-Liesse” to the airport, connected to orange line station De la Savane.
Yes, I finally agree with your “airport shuttle” idea.
La branche au nord serait cool. Elle pourrait offloader la clientèle de MTL-Nord a Henri-Bourassa ou au REM-A, station Du ruisseau.
