• Compteur de contenus

  • Inscription

  • Dernière visite

Réputation sur la communauté

355 Excellent

1 abonné

À propos de budgebandit

  • Rang
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Biography
    Ingenieur avec une passion for anything Montreal
  • Location
  • Intérêts
    Sports, Gratte-ciel
  • Occupation
    Chargé de projets

Visiteurs récents du profil

Le bloc de visiteurs récents est désactivé et il n’est pas visible pour les autres utilisateurs.

  1. No one is angry, Bob. Just passionately debating a subject that's close to home (literally). Doesn't mean I wouldn't go out for a beer with you guys ! That being said, I obviously understand the arguments against allowing passenger vehicles to use the access road but I just don't find it logical at all to purposely amputate the network in the hopes that people will change their ways (they moved to the suburbs for a reason after all). As I previously mentioned, if there is no further development in the area then there will not be a net increase in traffic on the road network, it will simply disperse the existing traffic (should have been done 10 years). By not building the boulevard but placing the REM station at Jean-Yves, you are creating a new terminal for many vehicles which will all be using several already over-capacity arteries to get to their destination. We've been talking a lot about Chateau-Pierrefonds and Antoine-Faucon but people living on Henri-Daoust, Brunswick, a small section of Houde and Elkas are going to severely negatively impacted.
  2. I lived in the area for 20 years, it's not my opinion. Chateau Pierrefonds is a through street, not a collector street. Boul. Pierrefonds is a collector street, and to a lesser extent, Antoine-Faucon (and it is already way over capacity). You didn't demonstrate anything, you simply presented a hypothesis. And based on my experience, I will take my hypothesis over yours any day, including the fact that the buses on Antoine-Faucon west are going from 0 to 20/hr. Unfortunately you have the same problem as Mme Plante if you think people that live on a residential street in Pierrefonds want a bus to pass by their house every 3 minutes. They want their kids to be able to play hockey and basketball in the street and take their dogs for a quiet walk around the park. And therein lies the problem, you just don't understand what the people want, and the solution is not to force your utopic vision of things upon them.
  3. It's a collector street out of circumstance, because there only two ways for people in that area to go east (which is already a problem in itself); 1. They take Boul. Pierrefonds directly to St- Charles or 2. They take Chateau-Pierrefonds to Antoine-Faucon to St-Charles. To really understand the situation, you need to break up Antoine-Faucon into east/west sections. East = east of Chateau Pierrefonds and West = west of Chateau Pierrefonds. The bus traffic on Antoine-Faucon east will not increase but there will be a DRAMATIC increase on Antoine-Faucon west, as well as on Chateau-Pierrefonds. As is stands there are 0 buses on Antoine-Faucon west, which is a very residential area. How can you argue that the boulevard should not connect to Gouin and Boul. Pierrefonds to limit/mitigate and disperse this traffic for local residents? There are also several bus routes from Pierrefonds Boulevard that used to go east toward Fairview that will now be going west towards the REM station.
  4. budgebandit

    TOM Condos - 42 étages

    The guardrails don't even cover the side of the balconies.... Serious derogation by the CNESST if a worker is out there and not attached to anything
  5. Are you serious lol? Just because the lanes are wide and there's parking on both sides of the street doesn't mean it's not a residential street. The 201 doesn't go past Henri-Daoust The 401 and 468 do not go past Chateau-Pierrefonds It's important for the urban boulevard to go all the way to Gouin to minimize bus traffic on Chateau-Pierrefonds and Antoine-Faucon
  6. Chateau Pierrefonds is one lane in each direction.... BOULEVARD Pierrefonds is 5 lanes
  7. I don't find it funny at all because the issue here isn't "a single street". This boulevard may not exist, but it has been necessary for at least 10 years. At 7:40AM, whether you're in a bus or a car, it still takes 20 minutes to get from the corner of Antoine-Faucon and Chateau-Pierrefonds to St-Charles. As I said earlier, the REM itself will significantly increase public transit ridership in the West Island. And given the location of the Kirkland station at the Colisee and not at the corner of St-Charles and the 40 service road, this boulevard becomes indispendable. Promote the bus and bike lanes but car access is a must (from Gouin to the 40).
  8. budgebandit

    620 Saint Paul Ouest - 6 étages

    Ca prend un traitement anti-graffiti sur les premiers +/- 12 pieds
  9. In my opinion the addition of the REM in itself will contribute greatly to a change in habit amongst West Islanders. As the saying goes, "Build it and they will come"....but at the same time, you have to help them get there! The new boulevard must go all the way down to Gouin and it must be car accesible. Anything else would be a short-sighted mistake. I would absolutely love to see a modern boulevard with nice wide sidewalks, protected bike lanes and reserved bus lanes on each side... but also with 2 lanes of car traffic. Ideally, I would like to see a linear park integrated between the two sides of traffic. So, sidewalk, bike lane, bus lane, 2 x car lanes, park, 2 x car lanes, bus lane, bike lane, sidewalk. After personally living through numerous attempts (with many being successful) by Kirkland to cut off accessibility in Pierrefonds West, this move just stinks of more dirty politics.
  10. If you do not increase the residential offering then there are only a very limited number of vehicles that could potentially be added during rush hour (and even then, the total number of vehicles will not change). And if that increase is due to people driving to the REM station, isn't that what we are trying to achieve in the first place? Get those cars off the highway altogether and have those people take public transit into the city. Nobody that presently leaves their car at home to get to work is going to decide to drive all the way to work because their is less congestion between their house and the highway. They will use it to get to the REM and that's it. I think the point that people are missing here is that this is a public transit access in the suburbs. I fully endorse prioritising bus and bike access but you can't do that by completely denying car access. How stupid is it that a parent that wants to drop off their child at the train station on their way to work will have to do a major detour on ultra-congested streets just to get there?
  11. No, there aren't new cars being added to the road network, it would simply split the traffic between St-Charles and the new boulevard. Right now St-Charles is overcapacity... by a lot. As I mentioned earlier, this boulevard is necessary to alleviate the current traffic situation, not for any future growth. PS Reserved bus and bike lanes would be an absolute must
  12. ^^ Unless you've lived in the area, you cannot truly understand the existing circulation problems. It's very, very bad. The urban boulevard isn't needed for the potential future development of Cap Nature but rather the current residents in the area. The fact that this decision was taken without even consulting the mayor of Pierrefonds is so backwards and sneaky.
  13. 2000 parking spots eliminated... the park and ride is being highly discouraged. What I'm saying is there will be no net increase in the amount of cars. Whether they're going to the REM station, Beaconsfield train station or somewhere else, those cars will be on the road network regardless.
  14. This project isn't for the people of Kirkland, much less the people of Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue. It doesn't affect their lives in any way if it never gets built. This project is for the residents of Pierrefonds-Roxboro that live through traffic hell on a daily basis. Now they are finally getting a viable public transit solution, but we are impeding their access to get to it. It honestly does not make any sense. As for the Cap Nature project, I could care less whether it gets built or not; but that is not what we are talking about here. When electors voted for Helene Dupont and Justine McIntyre in the last election, the urban boulevard project was already on the table and seemed to have wind in its sails. Just because people were against Cap Nature, doesn't mean they are against the new boulevard. Ce n'est pas un projet abordable, ni rentable pour la STM (à moins que les bus passent aux 25 minutes comme c'est le cas présentement).