I'm really happy that Montreal made this work. We need more alternative examples of public transit build-outs in the west that actually work and come in on-budget. Copenhagen is another good exemplar here with their public/private collaboration for new lines.<p>I do think this article has a rather unrealistic tone for what the rest of us can learn from this though.<p>> One advantage is that CDPQ Infra was able to take advantage of existing rights of way to create the route, rather than needing to dig costly tunnels or demolish buildings.<p>This is huge. In many cities where we most desperately need public transit in the US, this just isn't realistic. We need net new lines either over or underground, and no matter how you slice that they're going to need right of way allowances and NIMBY disagreements. Plus most urban settings that will benefit the most from transit will need tunnel development as part of the cost projections.<p>> Quebec passed a law that requires municipalities to respond in a timely manner to CDPQ Infra’s requests for permits and other forms of cooperation.<p>Reading about California's highspeed rail project[^1], it seemed clear that there was deep government buy-in about the end state but the interim goals were over legislated. Counties in the central valley traded their buy-in for the project to starting the line build-out in their counties, even though population centers in LA and SF could have benefited way more from early wins. One thing this article missed was that we need to set more of a precedence for transit agencies / bureaucrats on the ground to make decisions that will further the end goal and circumvent the horse-trading at the legislative level.<p>[^1]: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-speed-rail-politics.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-speed-...</a>
Something I’ve been hammering on recently: NYC <i>could</i> build new light rail lines relatively rapidly and cheaply, especially in Brooklyn and Queens: much of those boroughs <i>was</i> covered by streetcar lines until the 1950s, and all of the streets that those lines ran on are still graded for that purpose. In some places they didn’t even bother to pull up the old rails, and just paved over them instead[1]. The roads themselves are owned by the city too, sidestepping half of the bureaucratic process that comes with the state-run MTA.<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Tracks_on_Broadway" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Tracks_on_Broadway</a>
I was very impressed with Montreal and its decentering of cars the last time I visited...it seems to be a city that is leading bike and public transit-friendly development in North America.
> CDPQ Infra was able to take advantage of existing rights of way to create the route, rather than needing to dig costly tunnels or demolish buildings. In one area, they repurposed an old rail tunnel<p>I'm listening to the podcast about Boston's Big Dig (<a href="https://www.wgbh.org/podcasts/the-big-dig" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.wgbh.org/podcasts/the-big-dig</a>), and one of the things that came up in Episode 6 was cost overruns in the 1990s, particularly on the I-93 segment (burying the highway to replace the elevated highway from the 60s).<p>The engineers and administrators had no idea what they would be getting into when they drew up the estimate, because no one really knew what was underground when they started digging 100 feet below street level next to Boston harbor and well below the water table. They found everything - old pilings, sewer tunnels from the 1800s, archaic utilities, and mud that was exceptionally sticky. It turned into a series of change orders which greatly increased the $7.7B original price ($10.8B adjusted for inflation) to $14.8B.<p>TFA mentions the Green Line extension in Boston which has been a costly disaster for different reasons, from ADA compliance to mislaid tracks.<p><a href="https://www.universalhub.com/2023/companies-built-green-line-extension-sue-company" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.universalhub.com/2023/companies-built-green-line...</a>
The article is way too rosy. Sure it didn't cost much but it also uses a shit rail technology IMO that is very noisy. Go ask the residents that live near it if they find that nice. They had so many complaints recently that they had to do urgent work to mitigate.<p>The problem we have in general is that the REM should have been expanded way beyond the Montreal suburbs. All the planning for public transit is controlled by local agencies and no larger integration vision. I have a family member that now has a longer commute because the bus go to the REM instead of straight to downtown Montreal.<p>It's also super useless if you live a bit further out than the immediate Montreal suburb like I do since you already have to take your car to the highway so it is faster to continue driving on the island vs getting out, finding a parking, waiting for the train, etc.<p>Personnaly I am very critical of how we handle public transit here vs what I saw can be done in Europe.
When C$119M is a “bargain” compared to US costs, it should come as no surprise why public transit has so little utility in most cities (as measured by utilization as a percent of total trips).
The REM is pretty sweet, the only down side is the bus system getting to it in the suburbs is a bit shambolic. Driving to the station takes 7 minutes, but parking is full by 6:30, while the most direct bus takes over half an hour!
There's one thing that Montreal can do that's very cheap and would improve significantly the transit in the city: increase utilization of the local train network<p>It's simply stupid to have suburban trains running only every hour/30m
So M5 in Milan is completely automated AND underground.<p>According to the Italian Wikipedia page the cost was of 1.3B € for 13kms.<p>For a cheaper 100m€/km<p>While the cost is comparable with Montreal, the Italian one is completely underground.
SF is applying to spend almost four billion a mile: <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2023/10/27/san-francisco-downtown-rail-extension-portal-cost/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://sfstandard.com/2023/10/27/san-francisco-downtown-rai...</a><p>Think of the jobs created. Montreal could stand to learn something.
To put this in perspective, in the US, adding a principle arterial in a large ubanized area costs between $9M and $35M per mile. (2016 USD)<p><a href="https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/24cpr/pdf/AppendixA.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/24cpr/pdf/AppendixA.pdf</a> , page A-9.<p>Makes me wonder if the right answer will be dedicated surface roads with a mix of buses and self-driving cars on them. It certainly seems like transit is overpriced by comparison.
Try to get around the Montreal subway on a wheelchair or pushing a stroller. You can't. There are multiple flights of stairs to get anywhere. Accessibility has not yet been discovered there. There are no old people on the Montreal subway for some reason?
Counting chickens before they’re hatched are me?<p>Let’s see it built for that price.<p><a href="https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/the-cost-for-just-5-major-montreal-projects-has-exploded-by-1b-opposition" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/the-cost-for-jus...</a>