Alternatives pour traverser le fleuve

[SameGuy]

Excellent topic! Est-ce qu'on se concentre uniquement sur le fleuve, ou peut-on aussi discuter d'autres points de passage autour de l'île qui n'ont pas encore de fils dédiés?

[IluvMTL]

20 minutes ago, SameGuy said:

Excellent topic! Est-ce qu'on se concentre uniquement sur le fleuve, ou peut-on aussi discuter d'autres points de passage autour de l'île qui n'ont pas encore de fils dédiés?

Le fleuve présente des enjeux très différents de ceux-là terra firme, puis les options sont peut-être plus vairés et spécifique aux passages sur/sous l'eau.  Cela dit, rien me t'empêche de partir un nouveau fil pour les passages sur (ou sous)  la terre

[SameGuy]

I was thinking more about crossings of the Back River, des-Mille-Îles, and Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes, which I don’t think are considered part of the fleuve St-Laurent.

[IluvMTL]

9 minutes ago, SameGuy said:

I was thinking more about crossings of the Back River, des-Mille-Îles, and Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes, which I don’t think are considered part of the fleuve St-Laurent.

I would consider all water crossings around the island here. No need to create another thread just for those...

[Né entre les rapides]

Pour ma part, la meilleure alternative ne consiste pas tellement à augmenter la capacité de traversée du fleuve, mais d'en diminuer le besoin.  La Rive-Sud urbaine peut bien continuer à croître, mais les destinations quotidiennes de ses résidents devraient très majoritairement se situer du même côté du fleuve.  Ce dernier est trop large, et sa fonction de voie maritime trop importante, pour qu'on le traite comme un simple obstacle facile et peu coûteux à franchir, comme c'est le cas pour la Seine dans Paris.

Si on veut néanmoins augmenter la capacité de traversée, ça devrait être exclusivement dans le but de faciliter les déplacements en direction du centre-ville de Montréal pour ses activités spécialisées qu'on ne trouve pas en banlieue.  On parle donc du transport des personnes, pas des marchandises.  J'aime bien l'idée d'un monorail passant par les îles "de l'Expo" , ainsi que celle des passerelles (des structures légères et comparativement peu coûteuses) réservées aux cyclistes et aux piétons.

[SameGuy]

22 minutes ago, IluvMTL said:

I would consider all water crossings around the island here. No need to create another thread just for those...

Ok perfect merci!

[SameGuy]

13 minutes ago, Né entre les rapides said:

des passerelles (des structures légères et comparativement peu coûteuses) réservées aux cyclistes et aux piétons.

They can also be relatively expensive. My second home of Brisbane has been building “active transport” bridges since the late 90s, and currently offers three ”green” crossings in the inner core, with four more in the works, along with three combined active-mass transit crossings (no road vehicles). One of active-only bridges, the Neville Bonner Bridge connecting the under-construction, $3.6B Queens Wharf development to the South Bank cultural complex, is expected to cost $100M.

[Né entre les rapides]

il y a une heure, SameGuy a dit :

They can also be relatively expensive. My second home of Brisbane has been building “active transport” bridges since the late 90s, and currently offers three ”green” crossings in the inner core, with four more in the works, along with three combined active-mass transit crossings (no road vehicles). One of active-only bridges, the Neville Bonner Bridge connecting the under-construction, $3.6B Queens Wharf development to the South Bank cultural complex, is expected to cost $100M.

OK.  100M for a length of only 320m is not cheap, but it is still not in the realms of billions.  

[SameGuy]

Exactly, hence relatively versus comparativement.

Comparatively, there is a similar number of vaccinated individuals in QC hospital as unvaccinated; relatively, the percentage of those vaccinated who are in QC hospitals is significantly lower than the percentage of those who remain unvaccinated. 😉

[Enalung]

There really aren't all that many alternatives possible that don't involve building a new bridge or tunnel. It is going to be expensive regardless of what we choose to build. It is an almost inevitable fact. The route proposed by Rocco is something that I have proposed several times. It is, realistically, the only other line that could reasonably enter Gare Centrale. Rather then reusing existing infrastructure, we could build an entirely new bridge alongside, high enough that it would not interact with the seaway, but that kind of scheme would likely face stiff opposition from residents on the south shore. It would necessitate a long approach right next to the existing railway. The Champlain bridge approach measures a little over a kilometer. The alternative is a tunnel. On the south shore, it could rise out of the ground here.

The problem is that on the opposite shore, Pointe St-Charles is soaked with oil and other pollutants. Building a tunnel is already prohibitively expensive without having to deal with contaminated soils. Hence, it might be better for such a tunnel to just stay underground and create a pair of new interchanges at Place-d'Arme and Place des Arts, but the densely built urban environment would present its own set of chalenges.

I have proposed several ideas on this thread over the last little while. There are a few ideas that I keep coming back to. One of them is that rather then terminating a Taschereau - route 132 line in Saint-Catherine, it could plunge into a tunnel and then take the shortest route to Vendôme, passing through Angrignon and Cégep André Laurendeau along the way. That would create a southern link and allow a good level of density to be built along route 132. In this version, it is shown as the tail end of REM-B and assumes that REM-B is build in a tunnel. While I have shown this idea many times on the forum, it is the first time that i have shown this iteration.

Also note that rather then send the trains incoming from the Victoria bridge to Gare Centrale, this map shows them heading toward Lachine with an interchange station at Des Irlandais. I think that it is not sufficient to merely propose a crossing. Beyond that, we need to concerns ourselves with how we would use those crossings and what areas of the city they would link. I think that Montreal needs more of a long term network plan / vision rather then the series of piecemeal solutions that have been proposed by politicians over the years. How well do those new crossings mesh with the existing network? What about how they might be used for possible future lines?