Paige Saunders had a video on this topic when the line was initially cancelled. He noted (to paraphrase) that really the failure on CDPQ's part was one of political engineering. They should have kept REM de l'Est under wraps until the first phase of the REM opened and it could debunk some of the NIMBY objections and there was a larger constituency that could experience the utility of the added transit. Announcing phase 2 so early just gave NIMBYs time to mobilize without the countervailing force of YIMBYs to buttress the project. Instead Montreal may go back into another transit expansion winter, because we know the $36B plan is not serious.
I partially agree, but I have to say, the proposal for elevated in the very heart of downtown didn't work for me either; or put another way, I hated it. The elevated bits further out, on stroads, in corridors etc etc. fine or at least not nearly as bothersome.
I think if you go around the world and look for elevated systems (Vancouver, Chicago etc.) and you look specifically for sections in a deeply urban context, they are relatively few. If you went went on to ask the neighbours and the public, would you prefer it as it is, or if they buried it, I'll bet buried would win every single time, by a decent margin as well.
SkyTrain in Vancouver is buried in much of the core for a reason; even though its guideway and stations are considered among the most pleasing of their type.
To this day, 'The El' in Chicago is not looked on particularly favourably, and even there a small portion is subway in the core.
I just don't buy into this idea that forcing something on a community they really don't want is a generally wise idea.
That's not to say we should build only hyper-expensive deeply tunnelled rapid transit, nor avoid building public housing. But rather be aware that the hard push can come at an enormous cost.
The building of vast gob of public housing, mostly in former slums in the U.S. doomed the idea of public housing there almost entirely, very few tower-style projects have been built since the most infamous largely ended up being demolished after less than 50 years of life.
Forced highways in U.S. downtowns led many to be ghost towns and gutted.
While elevated transit in Chicago is seen almost entirely as a welfare service (where, its worth noting, NYC managed to build something that the middle class would take, in at least some measure) .
Each of those examples that I've highlighted were aggressively championed as brilliant public policy in their day. Politicians, planners are architects sang their virtues, while the public's view ended up holding sway.
What was built has either failed or been outright demolished. A phenomenal waste born of the arrogance that 'we know better'.
Its just something I feel ought to be given greater weight, more caution, and not dismissed with ease.
