Jump to content
publicité

Alternatives pour traverser le fleuve


Rocco

Recommended Posts

Je suggère de faire un pont pour cyclistes et piétons adjacent au Pont Jacques Cartier! On arrête de rafistoler, d'élargir, un pouce, deux pouces, trois pieds, quatre pieds... Avec la mobilité active très à la mode (il y a de la mobilité inactive?) ça serait un gros gros hit. Et on le fait aussi large qu'on veut!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

publicité

J'aime l'idée de Rocco.

Voici une autre idée radicale : On pourrait fermer le pont Victoria aux véhicules et convertir les 2 voies en tramway/SLR/métro léger + piste multifonctionnelle. (Pas si fou que ça considérant qu'il y a déjà eu un tramway sur le pont Victoria!)

Le débit journalier du pont Victoria est 25 000 véhicules/jour. Un système de TEC pourrait transportrer deux fois plus de monde. En plus, un tel système pourrait faire le lien entre le REM et le futur LÉEO/REM Rive-Sud (TEC Taschereau).

Ce ne serait pas pour demain, ni dans 10 ans.. mais peut-être dans 20-25 ans? Rappelons que Longueuil connait une forte densification et que dans 25 ans les conditions pourraient être idéales pour un tel projet.

Victoria.jpg

VicTram.jpg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only issue is that trains must take the St Lambert Diversion when a boat is passing the main span on the Seaway below. This makes maintaining a true rapid transit system on a tight schedule impractical, and full automation (like REM) would be almost infeasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SameGuy said:

The only issue is that trains must take the St Lambert Diversion when a boat is passing the main span on the Seaway below. This makes maintaining a true rapid transit system on a tight schedule impractical, and full automation (like REM) would be almost infeasible.

Yes there is a diversion path, but why would this make transit impractical? I don't see how one leads to the other. With modern signaling, switching, and communication between the two systems, why do you think it would pose a problem? Let's remember that one bridge is lowered before the other is raised, ensuring access at all times. Our civilization just deployed the JWST ;) I think we can figure out how to get some train signals and switches to work ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s more a matter of the slightly a regular schedule of the ships; the Diversion would add an ever so slight delay to rapid transit schedules. Perhaps nothing to be concerned about as a rider, but it would be cumbersome for scheduling and automation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SameGuy said:

It’s more a matter of the slightly a regular schedule of the ships; the Diversion would add an ever so slight delay to rapid transit schedules. Perhaps nothing to be concerned about as a rider, but it would be cumbersome for scheduling and automation.

Maybe they should let the Japanese plan and operate it…

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Countup


×
×
  • Create New...