Cataclaw

Je ne suis pas un expert, mais je pense que le fait que le métro de Montréal est sur pneumatique l'empêche de bien fonctionner à l'extérieur. Du moins, je me rappelle d'avoir entendu ça à un reportage de Radio-Canada.

Oui, mais la solution est simple: recouvrir le tout par une "coquille" de plexiglass/vitre/aluminium/quelque chose du genre. Bref, faire un espèce de toit pour protéger le métro.

Manque de respect, peut-être. Je suis d'accord qu'un entraîneur billingue, c'est bien.

Mais ce n'est pas une question de "tolérer". Il n'y a rien qu'on peut faire. C'est une équipe privée. Si je n'aime pas le logo de Bell Sympatico, il n'y a pas grand chose que je peux faire...

En effet, Fortier.

Faudrait penser a faire sortir le métro hors-terre dans les régions hors du centre-ville. Les prolongements à Laval pourraient être surélevés.

It's a privately owned sports team.

Yes, I would like it if the coach spoke french, sure. That would be a nice plus... but it's a privately owned sports team. We aren't entitled to anything. We're not allowed to expect or even demand anything. It's a privately.. owned.. sports team.. no matter how much it's a part of our culture.

GDS is right. We've had surprise announcements before followed by construction just weeks later. Things could (and probably are) brewing to a certain extent.

I sincerely hope that's the case.. I'm with Rocco on the lingering desolation around Quartier des Spectacles. We need those lots to be filled with new development asap.

Great public squares require proper enclosure and framing. A public square is meager without buildings around it.

It's quite possible Alexcaban. There are several methods/techniques employed in reclading.

They can even do something that resembles a curtain wall if they want, except it'll be an illusion, with only part of the glass being actual window space.

One last building left to reclad and that is the Hall building but Concordia has no plan yet to do anything with the outside of the building. However the inside is starting to look amazing, New escalators!!!

Yes, and half the floors are renovated! (7, 8, 10, 11, 12, parts of 5) and more to come!

C'est bien de refaire Riverside mais le problème reste toujours là. La rive sud n'a pas accès à son bord de l'eau.

Une solution à long terme ca serait de mettre la route 132 à terre entre le pont Champlain et le tunnel Lafontaine et créer un boulevard urbain avec un tram et du développement dense tout le long.

Bah moi si j'était eux, je ne continuerais pas une ligne. Je ferais ma propre ligne avec des transferts. Beaucoup moins de bureaucratie dans ce cas la ...

 

Mais le tramway aérien est pas tellement moins cher au Km, mais la ligne n'a pas besoin d'être aussi longue non plus. c'est que pour du courte distance.

La bureaucratie? Ville de Laval + STL versus. Ville de Laval + AMT. Ca revient un peu au même.

Tant qu'à construire un train, aussi bien de le rejoindre au métro sans avoir le besoin de transferer pour rien.

Agree to disagree

Elevated metro!

Pour à peine 10-15 million de plus par kilomètre (que le cout d'un train léger), pourquoi ne pas prolonger le métro en surface/surélevé?

(voir mon message un peu plus haut)

Ce n'est pas parce que le metro de Montréal est 100% souterrain qu'il doit continuer à l'être! On peut faire sortir les trains hors terre sans problème! Ce n'est pas difficile à faire, même que c'est moin cher..

L'option #1 pour Laval, à mon avis:

1. Prolonger le métro avec 4-5 nouvelles stations à Laval pour ensuite aller rejoindre la ligne orange dans l'ouest.

2. Pour sauver 70% sur les couts de construction, faire sortir le métro hors terre. Le métro serait, à ce moment là, un train élevée qui surplomberait les gros boulevards de Laval.

3. Finalement, si on veut proteger le métro de la neige, simplement recouvrir le tout par une coquille protectrice de verre/plexiglass/aluminium/etc.

Bref, un peu comme ceci à New York:

Mais en plus moderne, comme ceci:

Il y a assez de place à Laval pour le faire, et les gros boulevards sont suffisaments larges avec de l'espace sur les côtés pour le permettre.

S'ils le font à New York sur des rues 1/2 la largeur de ce que Laval offre, on peut certainement le faire ici!

Construction d'un metro souterrain, en moyenne: 150-400 millions/km

Construction d'une ligne surélevée, en moyenne: 35 à 70 millions/km

Nice!

Beau petit projet.

La densificiation de Longueuil continue

Well, i hope the repairs are good...

I share some of the skepticism expressed in the article, but remain optimistic that the renovations will be functionally and aesthetically pleasing.

I think the best option at this point is:

-A surface boulevard, at-grade, with 3 vehicle lanes on each side, of which 2 are permanent free-flow lanes while 1 converts to a parking lane during off-peak hours.

-A wide center median should be built with a light-rail line going all the way down to Pie-IX or farther.

-There should be good sidewalks and a bike path.

-Provisions for development should be made along any and all available land facing the boulevard. (excluding parks)

Why do only crazy people in the field get any press time?

We need more intelligent urban planners writing op-eds to compensate for all the nonsense being written.

Jane Jacobs, come back to us!

I understand the process. I took urban planning courses at Concordia as well. However, what I'm saying is that sprawl on the south shore is nowhere near anything to get excited about. LIke I said, 95 to 98% of the SOuth Shore population lives "inside" the A-30. At it's furthest point from the St-Lawrence River, A-30 is about 12KM's (ST-Hubert)from the St-Lawrence. In some places it's less than 3.5KM's (Brossard and LaPrairie) from the River. When you consider that at its closest point, Laval is about 13-14KM's from Downtown and the North Shore (once again at its closest point) is over 25KM's from Downtown, the South Shore isn't sprawly one bit. Anywhere else its would almost be considered as an inner city area(in terms of location vs the downtown core). Yes, I know, I'm exagerating here, but not by much!

 

Again, compared to all major north American cities, the Montreal Metropolitan Area is tiny. We don't have "real" sprawl like they do in Toronto or other american cities.

True, our suburbs are modest compared to cities like Houston and Atlanta. But why compare ourselves to the worst? Why not compare ourselves to the best and strive for that instead? We set the bar too low in contenting ourselves with "merely being better than Houston", in my opinion. That's really not saying much!

I just don't agree that we "can afford more sprawl" on the south shore. Build out to A-30, fine, we're almost there anyway, but that's it. The agricultural lands on the other side of the highway are some of the most valuable in all of Quebec. We shouldn't start destroying that. I DO want to see Brossard grow, I DO want to see Longueuil grow, but let's build in-fill those two cities and let's densify them! Sprawling outward isn't the only way to grow.

Lastly, as I've mentionned numerous times, the Population of the South Shore has quadrupled in the past 45 years, and in the same amount of time the population of Greater Montreal has doubled. We haven't had a single new link between the Island and the South Shore in those years. A new span will certainly encourage some people to move to the burbs, but that trend has been going strong for the past 60-65 years. It's ain't gonna stop anytime soon. Look at the numbers... as soon as a couple starts thinking about having kids, where do they overwhelmingly go? The Burbs.

That was true 10 years ago, but the trends are changing today. The most recent OD survey and census reports suggest that the burbs are starting to slow down and the inner city is starting to grow faster. For sure, the suburbs are still outpacing Montreal by a lot, but the data suggests the trend is reversing. One possible reason is enormous traffic congestion. If we reduce that congestion now, at a time when the suburbs are finally starting to lose a tiny bit of steam, we'll kill off that progress and go right back to growing outwards instead of upwards. We already have enough sprawl at this point that any new amount is bad. There's enough single-family housing to meet the needs of those who would only ever live in a detached house. Most people would be tempted to live in a higher density dwelling if that dwelling was well situated, inexpensive and serviced by excellent transit options. That isn't the case right now (at least, not everywhere) which is people are opting for the suburbs. We need to make cities the attractive choice again. Today, as it is, we literally subsidize suburbs, but not city-living. That makes no sense. We need to start doing the opposite.

A new link is essentila in keeping mobility going, noi matter if that mobility will only last 5 years. And again, like I've said many times, just because I'm asking for a new link, doesn't mean that Link must absolutely cater only to cars. Put a couple of Light rail lines on there, add bus lines and a bike path... but WE NEED a new link. There's no doubt about it!

Mobility is flat out useless. Accessibility is the only thing that matters. In the Nevada desert I can be extremely mobile, driving at speeds of 180km/h because there's no speed limit, but there's zero activities, jobs and useful sites nearby. In midtown manhattan, on foot with almost no mobility, I can do a hundred different things in a radius of 2 minutes.

To end on a positive note, you and I do seem to find common ground on the importance of a new link. I agree that a new link would be good, but only if that link is TOD-oriented. I want to see 2 vehicles lanes per direction + 1 grade-separated "surface metro" line (light rail isn't good enough.. go big with heavy rail like a subway, be it above ground or under.) and a bike path + pedestrian path.

That's the minimum standard in my books. For every 2 car lanes going in one new direction, It should be 1 metro line in that same new direction. Luc Poirier's highway tunnel with no transit is no good. A measly bus lane during rush hour doesn't cut it.

So, sure, let's build a new tunnel, but let's

A) build it somewhere more logical, like parallel to the Victoria bridge instead of going through Parc Jean Drapeau, and,

B) build heavy grade-separated rapid transit to the tune of 1 track per 2 vehicle lanes (minimum).

David: une voie d'autobus c'est insuffisant. Ca serait une vrai joke. Une ligne de métro pour compenser pour ces nouvelles voies d'autoroute, et là ça devient équitable et acceptable, mais une simple voie réservée? No way!

Habsfan:I'm going to write this one in English, I know the concepts better in English. It's easier to explain.. Sorry for my french-speaking-only friends!

I recently ran a simulation in TransCAD (traffic modeling GIS software) that was actually similar to this. Anyway.

The reason why a tunnel to Montreal from Saint-Lambert would encourage sprawl is because of how traffic assignment is performed and how traffic flows and congestion are spread out over the available infrastructure.

If resident X lives in Saint-Lambert and usually takes the Victoria bridge, when presented with the tunnel, they might take that option instead. Doing so "frees up" a "spot" on the Victoria bridge and reassigns trips to the tunnel instead.

As residents decide to use the tunnel instead of the Jacques-Cartier, Champlain and Victoria bridges, the level of congestion is reduced on those 3 other spans. The congestion reduction on those spans therefore constitutes a performance increase. That performance increase translates into faster travel times, less hassle, and more attractiveness overall. If the Jacques Cartier is now more attractive because it has fewer cars on it, new developments located off the major roads that feed into it will pop up. You'll see new growth in Saint-Bruno, Boucherville, Longueuil, Chambly, and as far as Saint-Jean-Sur-Richelieu.

In a nutshell, sprawl doesn't just occur around new tunnels and bridges. It occurs anywhere that is now within an attractive travel time range. Building a tunnel reduces travel times on all bridges, which extends that attractive travel time range in many directions, not just Saint-Lambert.

Bottom line: this tunnel would encourage sprawl all over the south shore.

I have access, via Concordia, to all the Montreal OD and traffic data. I could run a traffic simulation for you guys and show you just where sprawl would be expected to occur, if you wish.

Quel article horrible plein de contradictions.

Faut pas trop se facher avec ça. Ce n'est pas un article dans un journal qui va arrêter le progrès de notre ville. La ville s'enligne vers la densification urbaine avec des constructions denses et en hauteur. Get used to it, M. Michael Fish!

On pourrait demander à Trump de venir construire une réplique de la tour Eiffel comme à Las Vegas.

Les touristes Américains vont apprécier l'authenticité de Montréal. Regardez, une tour Eiffel, ville francophone, comme Paris!!

Ce projet va promouvoir l'étalement urbain..

Ce projet n'a aucun TEC..

Ce projet passe à travers le f-ing parc Jean Drapeau, un endroit pas conçu pour être congestionné 24/7

Ce projet va directement contre tout ce que le nouveau plan de développement propose.

Les NIMBYs..

Les gouvernements..

Ce projet à 0.001% chance de se réaliser. Et si jamais le tunnel est construit, ça serait catégoriquement catastrophique pour Montréal.

Ce projet = NON

Ce projet c'est l'équivalent de: "Hé, et si on transformait la voie Camilien-houde en Las Vegas Strip avec des hotels et qu'on construisait le Burj Khalifa sur le sommet du mont royal?"

Yes, straight out of New York city circa 1986. Not a compliment.

Agree to disagree, man.

I happen to like that style, as do others. Others do not, that's architecture for you. Highly subjective!

As "standard" as this tower looks, it feels like something out of New York City. In a strange way, I really like this tower a lot.

Mais il y a de bonne raison de croire que ce projet la est sérieux.

...tu niaises, man? Ce projet n'est pas sérieux, et même s'il l'était, les points négatifs sont plus nombreux que les points positifs par un ratio de 5:1.

It's really moving along nicely.

Another step forward for Concordia and its surroundings!

Russell: the city will keep on going whether or not this project is built. You act as though this project is critically important for Montreal's economy, and that we're all doomed if they don't build. While I do want to see development occur at this site, i'd rather not see something that falls outside the parameters of good urban design. We can afford, and indeed we ought to, be just a little picky. There's a balance between free-for-all and obstructionism, but I think demanding good urban practices at this most excellent of sites is not unwarranted.

I have yet to render final judgment on this project because I haven't seen any street-level renderings, which in my opinion, is the most important aspect of any building.

If the proposed building is well designed at street level, I may yet change my rating to "favorable". We shall see! For now though, based on what we do know, i maintain my view: not impressed.