A quick note about yesterday's REM de l'Est light metro presentation. I admit I have mixed feelings about that project.

On one side, it's a commitment to improve frequent rail transit unheard of in Canada.

On the other side, what's the big picture?

If you add up Blue line extension, the first REM, the REM de l'Est, the LRTs to Lachine, in the south shore and in Laval, this is some 20bn$ in new rail transit projects in the CMM in 15 years.
I'm honestly impressed by the numbers.

At the same time: where is the big picture? How does these projects integrate together in the overall public mobility strategy? Why, if we decide to go with a light metro technology on a new E-W alignement, we are not using it for Lachine, as an extension of this new REM?

I don't have the answer, because I haven't seen a comprehensive exercise of network planning: first you decide which axes are a priority, based on actual study of what we call the "lines of desire", i.e. where people want to go and from where. O/D surveys are meant for that.

Then, I would like to see this kind of network-wide modelling in a 10-15 year scenario. Not a line by line estimate. The technology choice is mainly a consequence of this kind of forecast: how many people will go around, from/to where and when, using that particular corridor?

Once you know roughly your global mobility needs, you can decide which technology+alignement combination is the best choice, given the money you have, the actual urban context etc. Why on earth we spend millions to make O/D surveys if not to make this kind of modelling possible?!

But no. In Canada we must strat building a house from the roof: we have a corridor selected based on political promise, than we do a project solely based on the fact that we must put something on this corridor. If there are a lot of money, it's light metro. Otherwise is BRT