publicité
Cataclaw
-
Compteur de contenus
6 349 -
Inscription
-
Dernière visite
-
Jours gagnés
16
Type de contenu
Profils
Forums
Calendrier
Galerie
Blogs
Tout ce qui a été posté par Cataclaw
-
Thanks for making me snort coffee!! hah
-
lol, i guess we're just fundamentally different you and I. To me a country drive is about admiring the scenery and taking in fresh air, you it's about driving fast I get my adrenaline rush at the gym 4 times a week. At least that requires more effort than just pushing your toes down on a metallic pedal ;) Sure to upgrading Rte-335 to autoroute specifications. It's already planned and coming soon too. I honestly think your balance is nowhere near the middle and is heavily skewed towards cars, but anyway.. debate ad infinitum.
-
Sure, but on the flip side, adding transit capacity instead (or at least on an equal level) creates the conditions for higher-density and better urban cities. It permits it to happen if people want to do that. And studies have shown that people tend to want that. It all comes back to my central argument : everything in moderation and a healthy balance between road infrastructure and alternatives/transit. I would say cutting a swath through some of the densest parts of North America to build a highway is too much. However, I would say that completing Autoroute 25 is a good thing and so would be extending some highways such as 19 northward, 35 south to the border, and maybe even A-720 as a tunnel/trench under the Jacques-Cartier and eastward until Souligny. On the flip side, we need to accelerate metro station construction even if it means diverting some funds from things such as subsidized daycare (7$ -> 10$ won't kill anyone) or increasing gas tax. I know Malek and Cyrus are going to come out guns blazing at me, but i'd pay 10 cents more at the pump if that dime per litre went 100% into metro construction. We need 20 new stations and we need them now! At the rate we're going, we'll see 1-2 measly stations every decade if we're lucky.
-
Atlanta density: 1,552/km2 Phoenix density: 1,188.4/km2 Montreal density: 4,439/km2 A typical suburb in Atlanta (actually not even a suburb but part of Atlanta itself and barely 5km from downtown) A typical suburb in Montreal (Longueuil) Now do you see my point? You can debate it all you like, but the numbers and pictures don't lie. They're facts. Then again, you never seem to acknowledge I may be right about anything, ever. Dude, that's ridiculous. There is no correlation between population growth and quality of life. Have you been to Africa lately? TO has fewer highways but they have more lanes, so it's about the same. Finally something we can agree on: falling infrastructure is bad. We can both agree that serious investments need to be made all across the Montreal region. Fixing highways, roads, bridges and bike paths alike. (And while you're at it, double the lanes on A-15/20 between Turcot and Champlain. Two is nonsensical.)
-
Justement. Si on veut l'améliorer, c'est pas comme ça qu'on va y arriver.. De Laval à la Métropolitaine, ok. Mais après ça, on coupe à travers des quartiers parmis les plus denses de l'amérique du nord... ça serait totalement fou! La seule option c'est en tunnel ou pas du tout!
-
Des fois je dois me pincer... Ce projet set apparu de nul part et soudainement il y a une grue sur le site et un énorme trou. Difficile d'y croire parfois! Wow!
-
I know it can be hard to accept, it's certainly counter-intuitive, but believe or not, removing road capacity can sometimes increase efficiency and reduce congestion by the law of induced demand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand Thousands of studies around the world have shown that in certain cases (and i stress -- in certain cases -- not everywhere) adding capacity puts more cars on the road and ultimately increases traffic, and vice versa. The elevated highway physically and visually cut off the waterfront from the rest of the city. A highway is never an attractive scene for a pedestrian. By opening up the area and lowering the road to surface-level, views were restored, connections were improved, noise, air and visual pollution reduced and overall quality of life improved. In an ideal world, highways should never cut through dense urban areas -- ever. It's always bad, 100% of the time, from an urban point of view. In an ideal world, urban highways should always be tunnels. What?! You'd have to demolish a giant swath of city to build the A-19 along Papineau.. the destruction would be catastrophic. Not to mention you would utterly rape the quality of life in the area and create a variety of physical, visual and psychological barriers. Do it in a tunnel (if we had the cash) and sure, not a problem. But above-ground? No way in hell... that's just madness! Re: law of induced demand. If we kept adding car capacity until everyone's needs were met (0 traffic anywhere at any time) every highway in and around Montreal would be a 14-lane highway. So in addition to destroying tens of thousands of homes and buildings, increasing air pollution, increasing noise pollution, increasing physical barriers and reducing pedestrian and urban quality of life, you'd be promoting sprawl. Do you know why more "urban" cities (such as Vancouver and Montreal) consistently score higher on quality of life studies than their more sprawl-ish suburban counterparts (such as Atlanta or Phoenix)? It's because these cities are more dense, have better transit, have vibrant inner-cores that aren't spread out, etc etc. There a million factors to be sure, but don't kid yourself for one second, the ones I just mentioned are absolutely critical and contribute to a variety of other benefits as well. Peak oil is here. Cars are great and should stay a part of our lives, but there are (occasionally better) alternatives in many situations and we need to explore them. It's time to embrace transit-oriented development and high-density-driven urban development/smart growth. Yes to cars, yes to fixing highways, yes to completing the missing links in Montreal's network (A-30, A-25, A-640, etc.) but NO to out-of-control highway building. Highways yes, but in moderation -- intelligently. There, i've said my piece... nothing i hadn't said on mtlurb before either. I doubt i'll convince you, Cyrus, and that's fine. I respect your point of view if you respect mine. Understand that I do see the merits of highways as engines of economic growth. It's no luxury car, but I do love my Focus ZX5, and I love a drive in the country like anybody else. But you must also see my side of things as an urban planner -- too much of anything is never good! That goes for highways too!
-
Hey, you're right. True! But still.. so what? It could be 1 lane and the argument is still good
-
Stole the words out of my mouth! J'veux une phase 5,6,7 maintenant de l'autre bord de Bonaventure
-
It's 3 lanes (+turning lanes) and it is surface level. It's even got pedestrian paths, bike paths and surface light rail! Would this work everywhere? Not necessarily. I wouldn't see this happening on Notre-Dame, for example, because the Port de Montreal is there. But in places where the conditions are good, why not? http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=37.795068,-122.393703&spn=0.013158,0.033023&z=16&layer=c&cbll=37.794935,-122.393581&panoid=uiKmlhqasmnGjQag_p2KcA&cbp=12,321.46,,0,6.55 Nice
-
Qui est volontaire pour aller filmer un "drive-by" video et le mettre sur youtube?
-
Merci pour les photos et les infos!
-
D'accord avec Gilbert. Faut faire avec ce qu'on à, et la tour en partant est pas mal.. bof. C'est une amélioration et c'est ça qui compte pour moi!
-
That's because most American cities are too suburban in nature and car-dependent for pedestrian (or in this case urban boulevards) to work. Fortunately San Francisco is a more "urban" city with more public transportation, fewer vacant lots, higher density buildings, better height-width ratios, better street enclosure, etc etc etc. The reduction of road capacity in order to provide a higher quality of life was made possible because of these factors. It wouldn't work just anywhere. Dude.. you're nuts lol. If Montreal proposed to bulldoze all of Sainte-Catherine street including all buildings and skyscrapers along it to build a 8-lane highway, would you be in favor? If you answer yes, you've officially lost all credibility. I dare you Seriously though, you had an ugly multi-level highway blocking San Francisco from its waterfront. The structure was dirty, unattractive and intimidating. Now you've got a beautiful boulevard with plenty of car lanes still, as well as tram, bike, and pedestrian paths. Not to mention, visually everything looks so much better now. You can actually see the waterfront! Are you seriously telling me this project was a mistake? By your own admission you don't how much about the current arrangement of automobile transportation in the area. Well, i do I've studied San Francisco at university. The reason why congestion didn't increase despite the reduction in capacity is because: 1) the elimination of that highway eliminated the incentive for car use (mostly for frequent users of that road) 2) public transit was installed/improved 3) many users switched from predominantly using their cars to transit instead. Could this work everywhere, all the time? No.. it's more complicated than just tearing down roads and building transit. All the variables have to be just right for such a project to work. Luckily for San Francisco, they were. So i reject your statement that removing an interchange and replacing it with an at-grade intersection is automatically bad. Having studied these things at depth for 4 years, i'm quite convinced that many times, it's just the opposite. Take for example Montreal's Park-Pine interchange, one of Montreal's own success stories. When it comes to transportation, it's all about balance. You need cars, absolutely, but you also need pedestrians, cyclists, trams, buses, subways, airplanes, light rail, commuter rail and inter-city trains. Sometimes you guys seem to be 100% about the cars and I honestly think that 100% cars at the expense of everything else leads to poor urban design and ultimately wasted resources and lower quality of life.
-
Right! That was back then! But now today, the new surface-level urban boulevard complete with tram and bike paths is nearly universally praised and widely regarded by people the world over as an outstanding example of urban improvement in the area of transportation infrastructure. Citizens, visitors, foreigners and experts alike now regard this as a model for better urban living in nearly every regard. In other words, it was a great success. A lot of people were against the project at the time because they feared what it would do to traffic. When the expected traffic congestion never materialized (on the Embarcadero or any other neighboring road for that matter) people realized what they had just accomplished and grew ecstatic over their new and improved corridor. So I say again : San Francisco would like a word with you
-
San Francisco would like a word with you BEFORE AFTER
-
Création d'un nouveau parc national au Québec
Cataclaw a répondu à un sujet de jesseps dans L'actualité
Un nouveau parc provincial, c'est bien Malheureusement, il est à 10-12 heures de route -
S.V.P. les photos de Dubai appartiennent dans le forum "Photos - Autre" ;)
-
Saw it, loved it I'm a huge Jon Stewart fan (watch TDS every night religiously)
-
Malmö, un exemple urbanistique de grand intérêt
Cataclaw a répondu à un sujet de acpnc dans Photographie urbaine
Je dirais que ce développement à des points forts et des points faibles. Je ne suis pas "fan" de cette nouvelle mode de créer une tour de 50+ étages avec du 5-6 étages tout autour. C'est pas beau je trouve. Je préfère un vrai "skyline" harmonieux qui augmente et baisse graduellement. -
Quartier DIX30, phase 3 (Brossard) - 100M$
Cataclaw a répondu à un sujet de monctezuma dans Projets oubliés et/ou en suspens
It's definitely not Boucherville, Saint-Bruno or Brossard. It might be Greenfield Park, Longueuil, Saint-Lambert, LeMoyne or Saint-Hubert. Saint-Hubert seems far-fetched. It's gotta be LeMoyne. -
The La Prairie one sounds better, and it's not much farther anyway. Maybe next weekend or something?
-
Ugly bridge Otherwise, glad this project is done.
-
Isn't there a driving range in Brossard or La Prairie?
-
J'suis un noob au golf, mais j'aime jouer quand même, si ce n'est qu'une fois par année. MTLURB Golf Meet? or maybe just MTLURB driving range meet?
