Comment by icyfox | Hacker News Reader

Comment by icyfox | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

I do think this article has a rather unrealistic tone for what the rest of us can learn from this though.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

[^1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-speed-...

King County in Washington State has been determined to avoid using any existing rail right-of-way, and insists on blasting new right-of-way at incredible cost.

The existing right-of-way (sometimes even with tracks still on them!) is turned into bike paths, that nobody uses most of the year because of rain.

They also decided to build a new tunnel under Seattle. What to do with the dirt they dug out? Why, they stuffed it into the old tunnel! Probably the most expensive use of existing infrastructure ever. (The excuse was the old tunnel needed some work to make it more earthquake resistant. All that needed to be done was add a liner.)

It gets even better. They decided to build another tunnel. So they bought a zillion dollar boring machine, and tunneled away. When the tunnel was completed, they cut up the boring machine for scrap! After all, nobody would ever need to build another tunnel.

Since the end of the tunnel was still in the major Seattle metropolitan area, and the machine was already there in place, just keep boring north. But hey, I surely am a dunderhead.

It's so awful one is tempted to characterize it as malicious.

The Burke isn’t exactly equipped to be a light rail corridor after decades of development, unless you want the county go purchase / eminent domain some of the most expensive real estate it can find…

There's also the Eastside Rail Corridor. The tracks connecting Renton to Black Diamond were paved over maybe 30 years ago.

Frustratingly despite CDPQ doing a great job on REM (with several stages left to deliver) the next phase of the project has been taken away from them. REM East was going to repeat plan and success for the REM in the eastern end of the island (historically the poorer parts of the city). It would also provide a whole new line into downtown, providing relief for the overcrowded green line

Some groups (including envrionment groups bizarrely) objected to the elevated rails, even though these would not split neighbourhoods the way elevated highways did in the 60s throughout north america.

The project was taken away from CDPQ who proved they can deliver transit on time and on budget in both Montreal and Vancouver and given back to STM who have a history of cost overruns. STM immediately proposed running the entire network underground and not running it into downtown, requiring a 2 seat ride onto the green line which is already over-crowded. That explodes estimated costs to $36B CDN from CDPQ's $10B and delivers fewer km of track and less function. What a mess.

Environmental groups, and I say this as a self-professed environmentalist, often miss the forest for the trees. They will fight an elevated train line to save a bird or whatever. Despite the fact that the reduced automobile miles means far more humans and animals both not dying and just better for the environment in general. Then they won't make a peep at a giant parking lot being made.

The rail line is killed if even one part can't be made; whereas if there are ten parking lots and one gets blocked because it's a wetland, the other nine still come to be.

It's a shame what happened , letting the NIMBYs win like that. The complaints about it being an eyesore are crazy. It looks like something out of Tokyo. I guess some people just want to live in the past.

If >50% of the voters ‘wanted to live in the past’, then cancelling the plan seems to be the right thing?

Not necessarily. cf. Tyranny of the Majority.

I can imagine the same group of people simultaneously demanding better public transport. A mob can want many different conflicting things at the same time.

I'm not referring to the general case, but this specific case.

Yeah, it's cool, they can ride the green line and suffer stuffed up into people's armpits when it breaks down every few days during the summer. It doesn't bust my balls, which is why I say it's sad, they're only hurting themselves.

There is a serious problem with letting CDPQ Infra operate a downtown line, which is that they couldn't agree on a revenue sharing agreement with the ARTM.

A new downtown line is fine, but if it means insufficient funding for the already underfunded metro system, it's not clear it would actually be a net benefit.

Ultimately the problem is the legislation around the ARTM having to be able to be long-term profitable, which means that such a project can't make sense.

As far as I'm aware, the ARTM and the city also agreed with a plan where the REM de l'est would connect somewhere onto the green line to avoid competing with downtown metro service, but that was rejected by CDPQ Infra as unprofitable.

Indeed, about 80% of the tracks for the new rail system, including the most expensive bits (across the st Lawrence river, through downtown and dense suburbs, under the Mont-Royal) were on pre-existing railways or rights of ways. The rest was built aboveground next to a highway (with a small branch dug underground towards the airport).

By comparison, the Blue line metro extension is being built from scratch, including expropriations, and the projected cost is CAD6.4B for 5-6km of new tunnels and give stations.

This article goes in length to compare cost per mile, but how much of that cost is paid to landowners? Surely a significant amount in LA or NYC!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com