Luc Poirier propose un nouveau tunnel entre la Rive-Sud et Montréal

[Cataclaw]

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!!

[MtlMan]

 

"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?"

 

Why didn't anybody think of that one before?

[Davidbourque]

On pourrais à la place lui demander de construire une réplique du Burj Khalifa direct sur le mont royal comme tu as proposé, mais 2 fois plus hautepour montrer qu'on es encore meilleur qu'eux et ensuite, on ajusterait la limite de hauteur à cette tour et la tout le monde serait content.

 

Tsé, quand tu veux réglé les vrai problème la !

[Habsfan]

Ce projet va promouvoir l'étalement urbain..

Ce projet n'a aucun TEC..

 

Étalement urbain...Je m'excuse, mais la Rive-Sud ne s'étends pas très loin, surtout pas quand on compare avec Laval et La Rive-Nord. Ce n'est pas comme si on voulait rajouter des voies sur la 10 entre l'autoroute 30 et la 35. ça ce serait un cas de vouloir promouvoir l'étalement urbain. Tu devrais très bien savoir que ce coin de la Rive-Sud est complètement batit. Il n'y aura pas de nouveaus développment résidentiels à proximité de ce pont.

 

Si les gens font assez de pression, il n'y a rien qui empêcherait de rjouter un voie pour les autobus dans ce tunnel!

[Davidbourque]

Oui bien ça fait 4 fois que je le dit, p-t même plus, mais il est déjà prévu qu'il y aille une voie réservé au autobus. Mais cela enlève un argument à Cataclaw alors

[Cataclaw]

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.

Modifié 14 décembre 2011 par Cataclaw

[Anderson]

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.

 

Ce serait intéressant en effet, si tu as le temps bien sûr.

[Habsfan]

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.

 

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.

 

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!

[Cataclaw]

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).

Modifié 15 décembre 2011 par Cataclaw

[eastender85]

Le Tunnel centre-ville, un projet rassembleur reliant la Rive-Sud et le centre-ville.

 

Le Tunnel centre-ville en quelques mots

 

Stratégiquement situé entre le pont Jacques-Cartier et le pont Victoria, le Tunnel centre-ville est un lien inter-rives qui permettrait de créer un accès rapide entre le centre-ville de Montréal et la Rive-Sud et d’améliorer le réseau routier de la région métropolitaine.

 

Passant sous la Voie maritime et le Bassin olympique, le Tunnel centre-ville proposé relierait l’A-132, à la hauteur de St-Lambert, à l’île Notre-Dame. Il permettrait ensuite d’accéder au centre-ville par le pont de la Concorde, l’avenue Pierre Dupuy et l’autoroute Bonaventure. Il s’agit d’un lien inter-rives qui se ferait en tunnel foré. Il offrirait un accès gratuit aux véhicules de transport en commun et aux véhicules d’urgence et favorisera le transport actif en intégrant une piste multifonctionnelle (pour piétons et cyclistes).

 

« Un des grands enjeux des prochaines années dans la région métropolitaine concerne la capacité du réseau routier à faire face aux besoins de déplacement des personnes et des biens. La capacité de notre région de se développer sur le plan économique et la qualité de vie de centaines de milliers de personnes sont en cause. L’augmentation de l’utilisation du transport en commun demeure un objectif louable, mais il faut être réaliste et tenir compte du fait qu’une majorité de personnes devront continuer à utiliser une automobile pour circuler entre les deux rives », Luc Poirier, président d’Investissement Luc Poirier

 

 

http://www.investissementlucpoirier.com/fr/projets_tunnel-centre-ville.php