Autoroute 440 (urban blvd)

[Né entre les rapides]

En attendant, je me demande (depuis longtemps) qui (quelle ville/sous-région) souffre le plus de l'absence de ce lien autoroutier? Evidemment, pas la Rive-Sud, mais s'il est clair que le transport de Laval/Laurentides vers la 401 s'en trouve handicapé, il en est de même de toute la portion de l'A-40 sur l'Ile de Montréal à partir de l'échangeur de l'A-13 vers l'ouest. Et au moins, dans la configuration actuelle, l'A-440 (aut. Laval) est moins encombrée (qu'elle ne le serait autrement), ce qui est un avantage pour les échanges (transport des biens et des personnes) dans le sous-ensemble LLL (Laval-Laurentides-Lanaudière) lequel compte un million d'habitants--une "masse critique" suffisante pour entretenir une foule d'activités économiques et culturelles. D'ailleurs, cette tendance est déjà visible lorsqu'on observe l'évolution la plus récente des déplacements (enquête origines-destinations) concernant la RMR de Montréal.

[Cyrus]

En attendant, je me demande (depuis longtemps) qui (quelle ville/sous-région) souffre le plus de l'absence de ce lien autoroutier? Evidemment, pas la Rive-Sud, mais s'il est clair que le transport de Laval/Laurentides vers la 401 s'en trouve handicapé, il en est de même de toute la portion de l'A-40 sur l'Ile de Montréal à partir de l'échangeur de l'A-13 vers l'ouest. Et au moins, dans la configuration actuelle, l'A-440 (aut. Laval) est moins encombrée (qu'elle ne le serait autrement), ce qui est un avantage pour les échanges (transport des biens et des personnes) dans le sous-ensemble LLL (Laval-Laurentides-Lanaudière) lequel compte un million d'habitants--une "masse critique" suffisante pour entretenir une foule d'activités économiques et culturelles. D'ailleurs, cette tendance est déjà visible lorsqu'on observe l'évolution la plus récente des déplacements (enquête origines-destinations) concernant la RMR de Montréal.

 

Le West-Island, surtout! Et encore si ce sera uniquement sur le territoire de l'ile de Montreal.

 

Il n'y a que 3 arteres nord-sud dans le region, qui date de l'ere seignurial... les montees St-Charles / St Jean / des Sources. Surtout les deux premiers, qui sont tres tres tres surcharges durant les heures de pointe. Aussi, leurs viaducs sont les seuls qui traverse actuellement la 40, qui coupe le secteur en deux. Les viaducs et la 40 sont comme les ponts et la Saint-Laurent pour le Rive-Sud...

 

Aussi il y a des terrains vierges que la Ville de Montreal et leurs proprietaires veut developper et ont besoin de ce lien pour permettre les residents d'en y acceder.

 

Je vois mal comment on peut l'appeler un boulevard urbain... c'est un ROW d'autoroute. On ne peut pas construire un Ste-Catherine ou Sherbrooke ici. Si le chemin ne traverse pas la riviere, il n'y aura pas besoin d'etre un autoroute, oui, et on peut le batir en voie rapide a acces limite avec des carrefours a niveau, mais ce ne sera pas un boulevard urbain meme comme St Charles.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the mindset of the MTQ and some of our municipal leaders. If the MTQ didn't have its head stuck up its ass, and if our transit authorities weren't fragmented into 5 bickering factions, we might have gotten a transit connection along this corridor linking this part of the west island to downtown. But these people are so far off course that it's a minor miracle they decided not to build the full fledged highway as originally planned.

 

 

Here is the comment I posted in reply to the article:

 

I like how they refer to this as "the only way" to alleviate congestion. No, it's not. You can improve bus service. You can create light rail and expand commuter rail. You can create more bike paths. You can densify neighborhoods and focus on transit-oriented development.

 

We've had 60+ years to study cars, roads and congestion. What we've learned is astonishingly simple: the more capacity you add and the easier you make it to drive, the more demand you induce and the more vehicle trips you generate. Traffic will be alleviated for a year or two, but ultimately the 440 urban boulevard will end up clogged too.

 

This is what happens when you have a MTQ that spends 85% of its money on roads and only 15% on transit, even though transit 1. generates more jobs per dollar, 2. generates more economic returns per dollar, 3. has a stronger impact on congestion, 4. is far more sustainable, 5. is far more conducive to urban development and 6. saves us millions in maintenance costs.

 

At a time when cities around the world are pursuing sustainable development, building transit and densifying because it's economically, socially and environmentally advantageous, here we are on the West Island going in the opposite direction.

 

NO to the 440 boulevard. Enough of this asinine 1950s-era vision. This is 2012, let's get with the program.

 

Well of course it adds traffic, it has been on the books as a "requirement" (and it really is... otherwise... there is no road to service the area) for the city to approve development permits for ca. 6000 residences, which just guessing probably would work out to about 24 000 vpd if you assume everyone is married and drives two cars every day (on the large end. But then, take into extra infill development and the like). 24 000 warrants a freeway to itself, but is small in the grand scheme of things in the area (Hwy 40 through the area has what... 100 000 vpd?)

 

I don't know what you mean about transit, there will be bus lanes in the project (inexplicably) and there is already commuter train service not that far away. But how can transit realistically serve people (like myself) who live and work in suburban areas? Bike lanes could sort of work for shorter distances, but not in winter and I'd probably end up fired for being stinky if I did in summer... And how can transit work for people, who have no interest in using transit because it is full of stinky poor people / is late / get splashed by passing vehicles waiting for bus / etc?

 

There are several issues with the West Island transport network that cause fuckups in various areas. 440 as per the plan would be wonderful. Also the Jacques-Bizard - Stillview overpass / 40-mini interchange is obvious. Futhermore, building de Salaberry would make the vehicle trips much more rational and help on the 40 and Gouin.

 

It is funny... the original owner of my house bought it in 1968 and had a map of the area as it was planned... and 440 is drawn on the map, Jacques-Bizard / Stillview drawn on the map (Jacques-Bizard was not even built yet - not even the bridge to ile-Bizard), de Salaberry going to Hwy 13 (all fields) etc etc. I guess sometimes you have to wait...

 

Full disclosure: if Hwy 440 was built-out fully (to Laval), my commute to work would be instead of roughly 40 minutes / 30 km it would be like 20 minutes and 20 km, maybe faster, especially so if 440 is not congested in the new areas. What is the impact of pollution, the economy and also about vehicle traffic numbers (AADT) if the cars are on the road for less distance and less time?

Modifié 11 août 2012 par Cyrus

[Né entre les rapides]

Again a case of apples and oranges-- radial roads and ring roads. While it is true that many (not all) cities around the world take measures to minimize car usage in their core (in some cases going as far as actually demolishing existing expressways to/from city centre), investments are still being made to improve circumferential road capacity in the outlying areas. --Look at Ile-de-France (Paris Region) where A-86 is being completed in its southwestern segments. And note that Portland Oregon (the urban urban area, forget city limits) retains, relative to its size, a much larger road network than say, Montreal.

 

Back to the issue of A-440: the now proposed "urban boulevard", solely on the Island of Montreal, would act exclusively as a radial road (more exactly an "antenna"); as such, it can only worsen traffic. On the contrary, a connexion from A-40 eastbound only to the existing A-440/A-13 interchange (and westbound only from Laval) would deviate traffic away from the core, and more so if such extension did not include any (ie. : zero) interchanges within the Montreal (western Pierrefonds and Ile Bizard) areas that it would pass through. Of course, such an option might displease those who plan to convert this area into yet another suburban development.

 

Unless of course it is written in a certain Sacred Book that development of any type on the Island of Montreal shall be deemed, by definition, as "densification". One thing for sure: in my own book, mere two- or three stories residential buildings with vast ground level parking spaces is not high density. (Minimum should be six stories, with limited parking all underground).

 

Then you have the transit issue: please please look at the origins/destinations findings carefully: you might find (after doing your own technical analysis) that where you live (ie. "origins") is not the sole factor in determining your mode of transportation: destinations also matter. Just an example: you and your girlfriend live on the Plateau Mont-Royal (I know, in Mtl you would simply say "the Plateau"); you work nearby , but her job is in Kirkland, and she loves it: guess what she is going to do! Oh yes I know, you are going to buy one of those (future) great apartments in Western Pierrefonds, and will both take public transit to work.

[Cataclaw]

Again a case of apples and oranges-- radial roads and ring roads. While it is true that many (not all) cities around the world take measures to minimize car usage in their core (in some cases going as far as actually demolishing existing expressways to/from city centre), investments are still being made to improve circumferential road capacity in the outlying areas. --Look at Ile-de-France (Paris Region) where A-86 is being completed in its southwestern segments. And note that Portland Oregon (the urban urban area, forget city limits) retains, relative to its size, a much larger road network than say, Montreal.

 

Good post, and I agree overall with your points.

 

Just one thing though: Paris' super-périphérique has received opposition and criticism from urban planners and transportation experts in Paris, despite the anti-sprawl provisions included in the project (mainly, the configuration of the exits).

So just because Paris is doing it, doesn't mean it's right. That being said, I do agree that under certain conditions, a ring road can be less harmful than a road leading into a city core. If we were to extend A-640 over the Ottawa river and include provisions for transit accomodations (future high-speed train?) it might be something worthwhile! Even as a fierce anti-highway advocate, It might be something I can get behind if it's done correctly. Ditto for a potential A-640 bridge to Varennes in the east, again, if it's done right is the key qualifier.