Aller au contenu

Cataclaw

Membre
  • Compteur de contenus

    6 349
  • Inscription

  • Dernière visite

  • Jours gagnés

    16

Cataclaw a gagné pour la dernière fois le 5 mars 2018

Cataclaw a eu le contenu le plus aimé !

Informations sur le membre

  • Location
    Longueuil
  • Intérêts
    Urbanism
  • Occupation
    IT Project Manager

Profile du membre

  • Type d’habitation
    Multiplexe / multiplex

Visiteurs récents du profil

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

Cataclaw's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • Dedicated
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

594

Réputation sur la communauté

  1. J'aurais aimé que le REM passe sous terre dans le vieux-Longueuil (rue Saint-Charles) et c'est toujours possible mais je crois sincèrement qu'ils vont passer par la route 132. C'est pas la fin du monde, comme on peut voir sur l'image ci-dessous, la distance de marche serait de seulement ~250 mètres. Je persiste à croire que la ligne jaune sera elle aussi projetée éventuellement vers le coeur de Longueuil et le chemin de Chambly, mais pas avant longtemps. 2050+? Voir ce fil ici pour connaître mes raisons.
  2. Yes absolutely. I would also point out that we don't just build rapid transit to develop and densify. We also do it to provide a public good, increase social equity, reduce car dependence, etc. The social, economic and environmental benefits of transit alone make it "worth it". The development is a bonus. As I recall, transit spending in North America yields an average ROI of $5 for every $1 spent. (Interestingly, this ROI is actually negative for new highway infrastructure.)
  3. For the dense neighbourhoods SameGuy identified, in the short term: reduce car dependence and increase active transportation by implementing traffic calming, building the cycling network, widening sidewalks, etc. improve bus service (better shelters, greater frequency, and new BRT lines) Long term: to reduce car dependence we will eventually need to build new rapid transit for these neighbourhoods (LRT/metro) For the medium density neighbourhoods (e.g. Longueuil), it's essentially the same formula. To ultimately increase active and collective transportation mode-share, we need to provide the infrastructure for it. We're joking about yellow line extensions, but we actually do need that to happen eventually. Large capital projects take time and our plate is already full, so for now we need to improve existing bus service, densify, and make areas more livable and walkable. If we had guts, we would toll highways, implement congestion pricing, raise the gas tax, and accelerate this process. Unfortunately, It's politically unpopular to do so. Most people are unaware of urban planning concepts like induced demand and negative externalities which are often counter-intuitive.
  4. You're right that households have been shrinking, but this decrease has now slowed to a stop. We see this trend across the OECD. As nations develop, their household sizes decrease, until they "bottom out". I created a graph below to illustrate this using publicly available data (Source: Institut de la statistique du Québec). We can therefore expect the neighbourhoods identified by SameGuy to increase in population, not just in building density. If we take Villeray for example and look at ARTM origin-destination data, we see that the majority of the residents have destinations outside their area. (Source: https://resultatsod.artm.quebec/). I agree with you that we will see increasing decentralization, but for now, the data shows downtown is still king. I'm the first one here to call for rapid transit on the south shore (yellow line.. LÉEO.. REM Taschereau..) but I can't deny that so many Montreal neighbourhoods lack metro access. The yellow line mockup I posted was just for fun, but honestly, I'm only half kidding. Something like that will need to be built in the next 25-40 years. We need to service the densifying suburbs but also consider our under-serviced urban areas. If we wanted to be very aggressive about this -- (never gonna happen) -- we would toll the highways and bridges, implement congestion pricing, increase the gas tax, and spend all that money on tripling our transit network. To assist low-income people and rural folks (e.g. farmers) we would just need to give them tax relief / tax credits to compensate.
  5. Dommage. Ça ressemble à la façade préfab du Louis Bohème je trouve.
  6. Time for yellow line to save the day 🤩
  7. En regardant les rayons de 1km ci-dessous, on constate que le tracé initial rejoint plus de monde que le nouveau tracé. Les gens au nord de Sherbrooke auront une trop grande distance à couvrir. Une station près d'une rivière ou d'une autre barrière physique va toujours perdre une partie de la zone de captage (aire desservie) en "perte". La rivière qui tombe dans le rayon de 1 km ne rapportera aucun voyageur du REM, sans compter les sirènes. Comment expliquer ceci alors? Richmond (Vancouver) et le SkyTrain surélevé avec toute l'attrait qu'il apporte.
  8. The strawman I was referring to was because I was talking about the Sherbrooke line, but you thought I was talking about the downtown line. Just a simple misunderstanding. We agree the downtown tunnel is better, but we disagree on whether the NYC/Astoria/REM/Vancouver elevated contexts are fundamentally similar or different. I think they're fundamentally similar and absolutely comparable. You have a different view, and that's fair. We'll just have to agree to disagree. 🤜🤛
  9. No problem We're on the same page here.
  10. Why are you arguing a straw man with me? We have the same position. I'm in favour of the REM being tunneled downtown. That said, Astoria has a greater population density than downtown Montreal, so it is definitely comparable. Plus there is the Park ave line. But I'm not even suggesting the REM needs to be elevated downtown, I just want it elevated over Sherbrooke in the East, which is certainly not as dense as downtown and definitely not as dense as Astoria. The SkyTrain certainly goes elevated through neighbourhoods far less dense than that. Yes because we lose a connection with the green line and the new stations to the south will be far removed from the demographic center of the area. If you look at how many residents live within a 1-3km distance from each option, you will see that the northern alignment services far more people than the southern one.
  11. SameGuy, you're commenting about the downtown portion but I've talking about Sherbrooke Est here. The downtown tunnel is fine. It should all be tunneled to be honest, at least they are doing some of it. Sherbrooke should be aerial. I hope the residents of those neighbourhoods, realizing that they are losing the REM, demand that it come back. Maybe this is CDPQi's strategy
  12. The Park Ave line would like a word with you. The NYC subway has elevated portions all over the place, e.g. the Astoria line. These are extremely dense neighbourhoods that blow Sherbrooke Est. out of the water. I think the tunnel portion in downtown Montreal is fine, but Sherbrooke Est should have remained elevated. This is caving in to NIMBYs who have clearly never been to Vancouver or NYC.
  13. Yes of course, but that's not the point. I'm referring to the elevated segments, which I argue are not the great big evil that NIMBYs make them out to be.
  14. NIMBYs in this city need to visit NYC and Vancouver and see for themselves that the SkyTrain and elevated subway are awesome. They add so much charm and value to the street, they don't hinder movements at ground level at all, and you forget that the structures are even there.
  15. Ou Viauville et tu change de branche vers Assomption. Ou sinon, le SRB Pie-IX. Bref, faut faire un ou deux transferts. C'est laid. À moins de prolonger la ligne verte (bonne chance) on vient de perdre un lien intermodale clé. C'est bon pour les profits de la CDPQ mais les citoyens perdent. Bravo les NIMBYs. Bravo. Épais.
×
×
  • Créer...