ville mont-royal Royalmount

[ToxiK]

il y a une heure, internationalx a dit :

Ok.  But Montreal developed in the post-war years around the automobile.  This part of the island, while very built-up and urban, is simply nothing like the pre-war inner city neighborhoods  closer to downtown where you can walk, and take the metro or ride a bike.  And unless you are going to start tearing down these built-up neighborhoods full of single family homes, and replace them with triplexes and apartment buildings, the car is still going to exist for a long time.  Moreover, the Metro coverage isn't exactly like the MTA in Manhattan where there is a subway station every few blocks.  No one wants to ride a bike in the winter.  

And the reality is, people still LOVE their cars, in fact, they are buying bigger vehicles crossover etc...  so yeah, a mall like this isn't so ridiculous.  At least there is a Metro station at de la Savane.   

I agree !

We won't change people habits by trying to force them to adopt the lifestyle we want them to have, but there are ways to reduce the attractiveness of polluting cars in the city.

1)  Built neighbourhoods that make it easier not to have a car, or if you have one, not to need to use it all the time.  The main idea here is to get people to not get a second car.  But if we have neighbourhoods in which you don't always need a car, people living there need to have places to go.  This is where the Royalmount comes in.  It will be a place where yes, you could go in a car, but you will also have other options that other centres don't have (yet).  We need to have more places like this and we need to make other big centres more accessible by other means of transportation then cars (the REM will make Fairview Pointe-Claire, Dix-30 and even the airport more accessible, and the Blue Line will do the same to the Galeries d'Anjou).

2)  We need to switch to electric cars and we need to do it fast.  Maybe centres like Royalmount could keep their best parking spots for electric cars, and paying parking lots could be less expensive for this type of cars.

3)  Driverless electric taxis are the future.  I assume a run in a taxi like that will cost a lot less then a regular taxi, making it more competitive compare to owning a car.  Services like Car2go are also interesting.  Instead of owning a car (with all the cost that is has), it might be more interesting for a lot of people to use autoshare services or driverless taxis.  So, in the city, instead of having a big numbers of cars used 1 or 2 hours a day, we will have less cars used 6, 8, 10 or 12 hours a day.  Since we don't make cars here the impact on the the Québec economy will be positive (not so much in Ontario but that is there problem...).  

We won't get people to give up their cars just because we really want them too, nor by forcing them either.  But we can do it gradually by giving them interesting alternatives.  And in my opinion, that is where a place like Royalmount can play a role.

[FrancSoisD]

Le 2018-12-14 à 20:10, ToxiK a dit :

I agree !

We won't change people habits by trying to force them to adopt the lifestyle we want them to have, but there are ways to reduce the attractiveness of polluting cars in the city.

1)  Built neighbourhoods that make it easier not to have a car, or if you have one, not to need to use it all the time.  The main idea here is to get people to not get a second car.  But if we have neighbourhoods in which you don't always need a car, people living there need to have places to go.  This is where the Royalmount comes in.  It will be a place where yes, you could go in a car, but you will also have other options that other centres don't have (yet).  We need to have more places like this and we need to make other big centres more accessible by other means of transportation then cars (the REM will make Fairview Pointe-Claire, Dix-30 and even the airport more accessible, and the Blue Line will do the same to the Galeries d'Anjou).

2)  We need to switch to electric cars and we need to do it fast.  Maybe centres like Royalmount could keep their best parking spots for electric cars, and paying parking lots could be less expensive for this type of cars.

3)  Driverless electric taxis are the future.  I assume a run in a taxi like that will cost a lot less then a regular taxi, making it more competitive compare to owning a car.  Services like Car2go are also interesting.  Instead of owning a car (with all the cost that is has), it might be more interesting for a lot of people to use autoshare services or driverless taxis.  So, in the city, instead of having a big numbers of cars used 1 or 2 hours a day, we will have less cars used 6, 8, 10 or 12 hours a day.  Since we don't make cars here the impact on the the Québec economy will be positive (not so much in Ontario but that is there problem...).  

We won't get people to give up their cars just because we really want them too, nor by forcing them either.  But we can do it gradually by giving them interesting alternatives.  And in my opinion, that is where a place like Royalmount can play a role.

I quite agree with many of your points, here and in the dozens of past pages.

However, i have a tad less enthusiasm than you regarding the hourly use of driverless autoshare cars: unless teleworking gets a major boost, and the various work market sectors get major daily schedule reorganizations. Otherwise, most people would nevertheless continue to commute during rush hours, therefore needing more overlaping cars, as space is limited in each vehicle. Only some students, jobless people, professionals, retired and elderly people would need such services during the regular weekly work hours that don't overlap with rush hours...

So, basically i believe society shall completely rethink the hourly, sectoral and geographical organization of work!

[ToxiK]

il y a 15 minutes, FrancSoisD a dit :

I quite agree with many of your points, here and in the dozens of past oages.

However, i have a tad less enthusiasm than you regarding the hourly use of driverless autoshare cars: unless teleworking gets a major boost, and the various work market sectors get major daily schedule reorganizations, most people would nevertheless continue to commute during rush hours, therefore needing more cars, as space is limited in each vehicle. Only some students, jobless people, professionals, retired and elderly people would need such services during regular weekly work hours...

So, basically i believe society shall completely rethink the hourly, sectoral and geographical organization of work!

I don't think autoshare cars will be the most practical during rush hours, but mainly for all other type of transit, for which public transit doesn't work very well.  We have a decent (but improvable) public transit system to get people from home to work in downtown, but it doesn't work as well to get people from home to a store during weekends, or to visit friends after dinner, or to go to a doctor appointment in another burrough during the day.  With autoshare people could use public transit during the day to go to work and car sharing the rest of the time.  That way a lot of people would not need a car at all (or at least not a seco.nd car).  And during rush hour, some carshare services could be used for organized carpooling.  It in more inconvenient for people but it could be less expensive or more easily available, rending that option more interesting.

[FrancSoisD]

Il y a 10 heures, ToxiK a dit :

I don't think autoshare cars will be the most practical during rush hours, but mainly for all other type of transit, for which public transit doesn't work very well.  We have a decent (but improvable) public transit system to get people from home to work in downtown, but it doesn't work as well to get people from home to a store during weekends, or to visit friends after dinner, or to go to a doctor appointment in another burrough during the day.  With autoshare people could use public transit during the day to go to work and car sharing the rest of the time.  That way a lot of people would not need a car at all (or at least not a seco.nd car).  And during rush hour, some carshare services could be used for organized carpooling.  It in more inconvenient for people but it could be less expensive or more easily available, rending that option more interesting.

Voilà. Et il y a aussi le fait que ça pourrait grandement faciliter la vie de travailleurs-euses des secteurs industriels périphériques, très étendus géographiquement et par conséquent généralement plutôt mal desservis par les TC à partir de leurs divers quartiers d'origine, comme c'est le cas dans l'ouest de VMR, St-Laurent, l'ouest de l'île, LaSalle, le N-E et l'est de l'île, les couronnes, etc.

[montreal67]

Le 2018-12-14 à 18:30, internationalx a dit :

Ok.  But Montreal developed in the post-war years around the automobile.  This part of the island, while very built-up and urban, is simply nothing like the pre-war inner city neighborhoods  closer to downtown where you can walk, and take the metro or ride a bike.  And unless you are going to start tearing down these built-up neighborhoods full of single family homes, and replace them with triplexes and apartment buildings, the car is still going to exist for a long time.  Moreover, the Metro coverage isn't exactly like the MTA in Manhattan where there is a subway station every few blocks.  No one wants to ride a bike in the winter.  

And the reality is, people still LOVE their cars, in fact, they are buying bigger vehicles crossover etc...  so yeah, a mall like this isn't so ridiculous.  At least there is a Metro station at de la Savane.   

L'aménagement du territoire n'est pas une fatalité, c'est le résultat des choix que nous faisons collectivement lors de chaque projet immobilier, chaque réaménagement du domaine public ou chaque investissement en infrastructures. 

I grew up in this part of the island. It desperately has to change, and it can change, given we don't waste historic opportunities like Royalmount to plan for something different and logical, on an environmental AND economic perspective. To keep building for more car capacity (as the current Royalmount project does) is a fiscal aberration and an ecological disaster. Montréal deserves better.

No one is asking to tear down a single-family home neighbourhood. What we should be doing is rezoning them massively to allow for greater organic density. Let's see what the free market decides when the territories of Cote St-Luc, Hampstead or St-Laurent have zoning that reflect their amazing location in the urban area (minimum 4 homes on every lot, for example). 

No one wants to ride a bike in the winter ? 180 000 Montrealers disagree with you. But I do agree that you get what you plan for. A city-wide, year-round dedicated bike network could do wonders to double or triple that number. Building more dense, walkable neighbourhoods around this network would do even more. And if we keep approving projects such as Royalmount, indeed, we won't improve that number. Which is a shame, as urban biking saves society an incredible amount of money (a fantastic network could be built with 5% of the total cost of the Highway19 extension to nowhere)

Despite this, as you said, more and more people are buying bigger and bigger cars. I fail to understand how can someone be aware of this trend and not actively want to stop it. Not only is it costing us collectively billions of dollars in infrastructure (money that could be used way more wisely in a variety of ways), the popularity of SUVs in urban areas is becoming a serious public health problem (traffic accidents, air quality, etc.). Despite all this evidence... we should be supporting this trend and build more car-centric landscapes? (which, by the way, fail for everyone, including drivers, as the current data on traffic congestion tells us). I personally do not think so. The only logical answer to such a trend is to actively try to stop it by using every opportunity of urban infill (such as Royalmount) to create complete, mixed and walkable neighbourhoods.

Le 2018-12-14 à 20:10, ToxiK a dit :

 

We won't change people habits by trying to force them to adopt the lifestyle we want them to have, but there are ways to reduce the attractiveness of polluting cars in the city.

 

Tellement une phrase intéressante. Une grande partie de la gestion du transport repose sur le concept de la demande induite, voire même du behavorisme spatial (le premier déterminant du choix de transport étant l'aménagement de l'origine et de la destination). En ce sens, la vaste majorité du tissu urbain montréalais encourage actuellement ACTIVEMENT l'utilisation de l'automobile (et donc, nous contraint à un mode de vie). C'est l'aménagement même des quartiers actuels et futurs qu'il faut changer pour encourager le transport collectif et la mobilité active (mixité des usages, qualité du domaine public, densité). Il est ironique que de souhaiter un quartier dense et mixte sur le site de Royalmount soit perçu comme une façon de FORCER les gens à adopter un mode de vie quand TOUTES les décisions d'aménagement du territoire (et particulièrement celles qui favorisent l'automobile) le font. 

Needless to say, I massively disagree with your vision of transport in the future. Driverless electric taxis or electric cars do not change the most important fact when it comes to planning transport within an urban area: geometry. Both options are still as ineffective as any normal car in a congested area (as the Royalmount sector will undoubtedly be).

Our best bet, as always, is to plan for walkable communities around more public transit (which is already becoming electric and automated, just as you like) to reduce demand in the first place. Unfortunately, we do not have enough of these neighbourhoods on the island right now, because our zoning policies prevent us from creating more (and prices in the Plateau and downtown suggest there is a huge demand for well-connected, dense communities with lots of transit).  That's why we should not waste the great opportunity that is the real estate boom around the Décarie axis right now for sub-par projects like Royalmount when we could create so much better. THAT'S truly giving an alternative to the car, and we'll save money on the way!

--

Rappel: la présentation des mémoires commence ce mercredi après-midi!

 

[Né entre les rapides]

il y a 7 minutes, montreal67 a dit :

Driverless electric taxis or electric cars do not change the most important fact when it comes to planning transport within an urban area: geometry. Both options are still as ineffective as any normal car in a congested area 

Point well made!

il y a 7 minutes, montreal67 a dit :

Our best bet, as always, is to plan for walkable communities around more public transit (which is already becoming electric and automated, just as you like) to reduce demand in the first place. Unfortunately, we do not have enough of these neighbourhoods on the island right now, because our zoning policies prevent us from creating more (and prices in the Plateau and downtown suggest there is a huge demand for well-connected, dense communities with lots of transit).

Certainement, mais il faudrait aussi que les destinations quotidiennes ordinaires (travail, études, loisirs, services de santé et autres) se trouvent, autant que possible, à proximité des secteurs résidentiels denses.  Il y a un délicat équilibre à atteindre entre une trop grande dispersion des destinations (par exemple à Los Angeles dont le centre des affaires, malgré les apparences, ne compte que pour une fraction des activités), et une trop grande concentration (ce qui est davantage le cas à Montréal que dans un grand nombre d'agglomérations urbaines de taille comparable).  Inévitablement, une trop grande concentration des destinations repousse plus loin la localisation des secteurs résidentiels; même si ceux-ci étaient densément construits et bien desservis par transport en commun,  la demande de déplacements (mesurée par le produit du nombre et de la distance moyenne) serait trop élevée.

On ne peut pas refaire la configuration de la ville du jour au lendemain;  toutefois, je pense qu'il serait hautement souhaitable que la planification  du Montréal du futur s'attarde tout autant à la localisation des destinations qu'à celle des secteurs résidentiels.  Le zonage est un instrument privilégié pour y parvenir, mais il y en a d'autres aussi; on pourrait commencer par des choix de localisation des destinations  relevant des pouvoirs publics qui soient davantage compatibles avec la vision exposée.  On a besoin d'un hyper-centre pour des activités particulières (que je caractériserais comme étant de haut niveau), mais on n'a nul besoin d'un centre qui monopolise une part disproportionnée des activités, en accaparant celles qui n'ont aucun avantage à s'y trouver.  

Libre à vous maintenant de traduire concrètement ce que cette vision implique pour les fonctions urbaines qui conviendraient le mieux au site du projet Royalmount.

[ToxiK]

il y a 59 minutes, montreal67 a dit :

Needless to say, I massively disagree with your vision of transport in the future. Driverless electric taxis or electric cars do not change the most important fact when it comes to planning transport within an urban area: geometry. Both options are still as ineffective as any normal car in a congested area (as the Royalmount sector will undoubtedly be).

Our best bet, as always, is to plan for walkable communities around more public transit (which is already becoming electric and automated, just as you like) to reduce demand in the first place. Unfortunately, we do not have enough of these neighbourhoods on the island right now, because our zoning policies prevent us from creating more (and prices in the Plateau and downtown suggest there is a huge demand for well-connected, dense communities with lots of transit).  That's why we should not waste the great opportunity that is the real estate boom around the Décarie axis right now for sub-par projects like Royalmount when we could create so much better. THAT'S truly giving an alternative to the car, and we'll save money on the way!

I am all for building more public transportation, but it cannot provide all types of transits adequatly.  You can't build a subway from someone's house to his best friend's house because the amount of people using that perticular route would (most likely) be too low.  The same way it would cost too much to have a frequent all night service in residential areas for people who work late or who go out, or to have a 5 minutes service all day or in the week-end to an industrial district in let say Terrebonne just to accomodate a few workers.  I use to work in the industrial area of Pointe-aux-Trembles.  I was lucky, there was a bus every hour during the day, that lead me to another bus, that led me to the metro.  At rush hours, there was another bus that went from Radisson station but it wasn't there during the day. From Laval, it took me 1h45 minutes of transit twice a day (if the Blue Line had been built and busses covered the place where I worked, it might have took me less time, tobe honest).  I read during that time, but I understand why people would prefer to use their car.

Public transit is not adequate when you go from or to a badly covered area, or if you are with young children, or with packages or a pet, or if you have an usual schedule, or if it costs too much when you are a a group...  There are many reasons why public transit is inadequate and in many occasions it would cost too much to correct the situation to be worthwhile.  Automated electric cars are the next best option then.

We can build effecient mass transit to cover big destinations, destinations like Royalmount...

[Windex]

 

[budgebandit]

FYI, the building that was being demolished is now completely gone

[_mtler_]

On 2018-12-17 at 9:43 PM, montreal67 said:

Our best bet, as always, is to plan for walkable communities around more public transit (which is already becoming electric and automated, just as you like) to reduce demand in the first place.

Has it crossed your mind that some citizens do not want to live in walkable communities as you've described? Lots of people want large lots, large driveways, large backyards, privacy, seclusion from neighbours and non-residential buildings, etc. I think we need to be cognizant that the definition of Plateau (for example) being the ideal neighborhood is not unanimous.