Morse Attack

Souvent les choses débloquent ici à cause de ça. Les maires et ministres se contre foutent de tout les rapports et les études qu’on leur fourni. Et la, le jour qu’ils visitent genre Strasbourg, et prennent le tramway, y sont comme “wow” j’en veux un. (ça c’est la vraie histoire du tram de Québec) Jarret Walker a donné un nom intéressant au phénomène: “Elite Projection” Les élites de notre société sont incapables de concevoir que quelque chose peux être utile pour la population jusqu’à ce que le devienne pour eux. Et vu que leurs habitudes de vie sont très différentes des nôtres, ça fait des bogues…. C’est d’ailleurs l’origine des énoncés souvent complètement déconnectés des élus…genre la ministre de l’habitation qui dit aux gens “d’investir en immobilier s’ils ne sont pas satisfaits”.

Rail to Barrhaven is a particularly bad idea, considering they need to jump the stupid greenbelt no-dev zone... Possibly one of the worst greenbelts in the world this one...

C’est quand même une porte d’entrée importante de GT pour les gens qui traversent le pont et une continuité avec le parc du canal de lachine. De plus ça connecte avec Des Bassins, un axe de circulation piéton majeur, et ça tisse un lien entre Parc St Anne et les bassins peel. Avec l’aménagement de la rue Smith, c’est en train de creer une plaque tournante de mobilité active a ce point névralgique. Mon guess cest que ce sera achalandé. Je suis d’accord avec ton idée de switcher les arbres pour cacher le mur. Peut-etre que le sol est moins accueillant pour la végétation a cet endroit?

Leur arracher des usagers de la ligne verte qu’ils annoncent déjà sera saturée dans quelques années? Je crois qu’ils ont complètement loupé leurs cours de planification en transport chez ces deux agences car il semblent qu’ils ne comprennent pas la base du concept du “network effects”. Le REM aurait apporté bcp plus d’usagers à leur réseaux que ce qu’ils ont actuellement. Tout les nouveaux usagers de POT, St-Leo et Mtl Nord allaient pas tous débarquer a Gare Centrale…😅

Ma joke était tu si difficile que ça a comprendre? 🥺

Honnnêtement, je ne comprends pas votre cynisme. Le projet sera simplement ravivé sous une autre mouture... rien de plus...

Pourrais tu ajouter l'ARTM et la STM sur la tombe ? C'était après tout un meurte prémédité commandé par un cartel complet d'assassins 😅😂

Excellent blog post that explains what the natural height limit for skyscrapers is. A 4 part series. https://buildingtheskyline.org/skyscraper-height-i/ Some excerpts:

Je crois que Toxik faisait référence à la saga du Tramway de Québec...

Tu veux dire le REM de l'est? Oui absolument. C,est une des raisons de l'enthosiasme de la CAQ, ça se rend a POT, leur seul comté sur l'ile quand le projet a été annoncé. (ca explique aussi leur desir pour REM chambly, REM laval, REM longueuil et REM lanaudière...) Je ne crois pas que la défaite de Jean-Talon jouera un rôle. Mais si ils perdnet Anjou et POT aux prochaines élections, qui sait? Mon guess c'est qu'ils vont garder le projet de l'est dans la manche jusqu'en 2025-26, et la ils vont faire plein d'annonces pré-électorales. Qui sait quelle forme que ça prendra?

Non…

Le 10% en contribution de fin de parc ça exste depuis les années 60 au Québec. Ce n'est pas comparable au 20-20-20. Je crois que avec la pression immobiliere de la CMM, les proprios de laval seront bien contents de faire du redeveloppement. Et dès qy'une modification est effectué sur leur terrain ils seront dans l'obligation de se conformer au zonage exigé par la Mairie. C'est vraiment très réaliste. Deuxièmement, les propriétaires fonciers sont toujours très content d'avoir une diminution d'espaces de stationnement obligatoire. Les stationnement ce n'est pas rentable. Les gens qui vont chialer c'est le citoynes, pâs les proprios.

Exactly. But for that you need brownfield (preferably) or greenfield far away from NIMBYs…not always possible in suburbs.

This argument will change with elecrtification, but I hear you. Again, promoting density will do more to take cars of the road that easing the commute burden on sprawling development.

This is exactly my point guys. Its very difficult to run efficient transit operations to locations like these. A - you need direct routes, not meandering ones. Sprawl is tough to serve with direct, as it is fragmented and spread out. B - you need high frequency. This is expensive as hell if you do not have automation (salaries are the biggest expense) C - you need station to be well located. Very tough when your only right-of-way corridor runs through industrial areas and the only place you can put a station is where people can drive too...near a highway that cuts the city in half. D - heres the key....you need great feeder bus service!!! If not, you are wasting precious land on parking. Its nearly impossible to offer good bus service on meandering low density cul-de-sacs E - single family home oweners are voracious NIMBYS and will complicate any surface transit (see REM De L'Est) which will also massivly increase costs. They want transit STOPs near their homes, but not the actual rails.... F - Here a bonus point : INDUCED DEMAND. if your transit service dramatically reduces commute times : it WILL attract development. This will inevitably increase sprawl and car centric development....unless you decide to build high density residentiel near the station and make these people the priority. That means no incitatif parking, as well as measures to limit congestion near the station. This means you are cutting service to single family homes...unless they decide to take the meandering bus. Let me repeat my REM A stats: Solar uniquartier = 4300 homes vs Brossard parking = 2900 parking spaces on about the same amout of land....both those numbers are potential transit users, who is your priority as an agency? Which population offers the best cost-benefit ratoi? Watch how this exact scenario will play out on REM-A west island line. NIMBY are already smashing the density down on proposed developments... I wil add a point, if you choose to serve high density area with good transit, you will make these places more attractive and attract further developpement. A big mistake in reasoning is that you must adress the current amount of cars on the road. This is the wrong way to approach the problem. Cities experiencing population booms should be thinking about the future. Promoting density will take more cars off the road in the long run. Again as an example :Solar Uniquartier is taking more cars off the road than brossard parking lot.

Here is our major point of disagreement. I don’t think taking cars off the road is the main purpose of transit. I think the main purpose is getting as many people as possible to their employment and destinations as fast as possible is the point.

In my opinion, transit agencies have been bending their back over for too long trying to get higher income people in the burbs to take their service. They wont. We spent over 80 000$ per rider for the stupid Train de l'Est and no one takes it. These people like their cars. They want them. So what? Let them have it. Lets focus on getting transit to people who will actually use it : aka urban lifestyle people and the poor. It will be a much better payoff for the environment, social justice equality and all that yada yada. Stupid politicians trying to buy votes with transit projects that no one will use anyways, its sad.

My philosophy is Ridership > Coverage. If people want cars, so be it. The responsibility of a smart transit agency is to get as many riders possible on their lines for the lowest cost to the taxpayer. This inevitably means that a close knit network of lines in high desnity areas is the best payoff. Transit Oriented development is the way to go for lines that cross low-development areas. Not "parking incitatif". If people choose to live in signle family homes on the periphery, I think thats great. They should be allowed to do whatever they want. As long as the price of their choices is not a burden to the taxpayer (AKA no more highways, and transit limited to "trains de banlieu", unless serving that corridor has really good opportunities to serve high density areas along the way.) We must be efficient with our infrastructure spending. Period. One thing for sure, is that if you choose to live in low density housing in meandering cul-de-sacs, you are choosing to be stuck in traffic all day. Thats fine by me if you abide by that choice.

Please god no 😅😅😅 QR codes are already a disaster on Bixi.

Fairview station. that was what I was reacting too when I said far out suburbs.

Thats exactly what Im saying. Rich people will be fine without the station next door. At this distance they can easily take a bus.

Yes supply constraints are horrible in this city, which means people opt for smaller homes. If they choose the suburbs it’s because they are making a trade-off between more space (backyard, large house) in échange for longer travel times. Now, I sympathize with people choosing multi-family housing in the south shore, Vaudreuil, Terrebonne, etc. But singly-family homes in the west island, not so much. H-1 residential zoning is the penultimate supply constraint.

They didnt add or subtract any frequency. They just took existing lines and colored them according to the service they are currently receiving… 😫

True Bois Franc is not. I don’t know why, but I was thinking we were talking about West Island. Bois Franc people are super rich though. They will survive without the REM… 😅

Ça va aider le wayfinding et ca va visuellement traduire l’importance de la fréquence sur la carte. Donc c’est positif. Mais cet exercice de coloriage fait un peu chier après l’abandon des 10min/max. Reseau “12 minutes”. Chiffre arbitraire pour faire paraître comme si on a investi dans quelque chose…regarde le trait est colorié maintenant! Un beau dessin avec absolument aucune amélioration du service. Boooooo