rive-sud Pont Samuel-De Champlain

[Franks]

5)A640 - Un pont sur l'Outaouais, pour compléter la boucle A640/A30. Ce n'est peut-être pas sur le Saint-Laurent, mais ça serait utile.

 

Tout à fait d'accord, je viens de ce coin là et je pense que ce serais hyper utile. Quand j'allais me promener en ontario, je devais faire un détour soit jusqu'à Montréal en prenant l'A13 ou la R148 et l'A50 ensuite ... une vraie perte de temps.

[Davidbourque]

Dans le débat en français, le chef conservateur a en effet harponné son adversaire libéral pour sa promesse sur le pont Champlain : «Je n’adopterai pas l’approche de M. Ignatieff qui dit qu’il va détourner l’argent des régions pour les infrastructures à Montréal. Ce n’est pas juste…»

 

http://blogues.cyberpresse.ca/edito/2011/04/19/les-regions-vaches-a-lait-des-grandes-villes-au-pays-pardon/?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_bloguesaccueilcp_BO3_accueil_ECRAN1POS2

 

 

Point de vu très clair du premier ministre Harper. Je n'ai pas écouté le débat, mais si c'est bien ce qui c'est dit, les conservateurs ne feront pas de pont Champlain....

[Cyrus]

LOL on sait tous que c'est l'argent des metropoles qui fait asphalter la 6e rang de Saint Louis de Ha! Ha! et j'en passe, non non tout cet argent obtenu en coupant des arbres et sucer des vaches ca paye tout ca et les ponts montrealaises aussi

 

le chef conservateur a en effet harponné son adversaire libéral

 

like

[mtlurb]

Dans le débat en français, le chef conservateur a en effet harponné son adversaire libéral pour sa promesse sur le pont Champlain : «Je n’adopterai pas l’approche de M. Ignatieff qui dit qu’il va détourner l’argent des régions pour les infrastructures à Montréal. Ce n’est pas juste…»

 

Et des gens d'ici veulent encore voter pour ce parti?

On parle de sécurité, de la sécurité des milliers de perosnnes qui passent sur ce pont. On joue avec des vies pour se faire élire. C'est dégeulasse.

 

Comment notre "cassette conservatrice" locale (mtlskyline) peut justifier ceci?

[Cataclaw]

Gilbert: quoique je suis entièrement d'accord avec toi et j'aurais aimé un appuis du fédéral, ce n'est quand même pas si surprenant. La philosophie des conservateurs c'est réduire la taille du gouvernement et cela comporte des coupures dans les dépenses.

 

Taking tax dollars from elsewhere to help Montreal would constitute a form of "spreading the wealth" and conservatives are poignantly against this.

 

But this.. this is a matter of safety. If that bridge falls the blood of its victims will be on the hands of those who refused to act when there was still time.

[Cyrus]

Gilbert: quoique je suis entièrement d'accord avec toi et j'aurais aimé un appuis du fédéral, ce n'est quand même pas si surprenant. La philosophie des conservateurs c'est réduire la taille du gouvernement et cela comporte des coupures dans les dépenses.

 

Taking tax dollars from elsewhere to help Montreal would constitute a form of "spreading the wealth" and conservatives are poignantly against this.

 

But this.. this is a matter of safety. If that bridge falls the blood of its victims will be on the hands of those who refused to act when there was still time.

 

I think that the debate is probably getting into emotions and that is never good. The bridge is being watched pretty closely and interventions are ongoing to stabilize the structure and it is understood replacement is in the near term. The Conservatives seem to be content to follow that while the Liberals are promising a new bridge today, which of course would be many years in the future after delays, cost overruns and environmental assessments and the like. The Liberal approach is perhaps too aggressive and might lead to all kinds of unsavory results like a bridge poorly adapted to the traffic, a bridge that falls down anyway, a bridge that cost too much money etc etc. It isn't so much like a willful ignorance on one side and reality on the other side, as usual, the politicking has left a turd in the punch bowl.

 

Maybe the real solution is to privatise the JCCBI and they could do a bond issue to build a bridge with tolls without having political considerations.

[jesseps]

Courtesy of The Montreal Gazette

[MontréalMartin]

Merci Jesseps pour la photo! Difficile à manquer. Pis avec la circulation, ben du temps en masse pour la faire, votre prière!!! ;-)

[Cataclaw]

I think that the debate is probably getting into emotions and that is never good. The bridge is being watched pretty closely and interventions are ongoing to stabilize the structure and it is understood replacement is in the near term. .

 

The Minneapolis bridge had frequent safety inspections as well, and it collapsed into the Mississippi... I know it's unlikely to happen, but why play with fire?

 

1. A new bridge needs to be built now

2. Afterward, the Champlain needs to undergo repairs

3. Then, the Champlain can serve taxis, buses, pedestrians, cyclists and perhaps some form of transit (metro? tram? light rail?) whereas the new bridge carries 8-10 lanes of vehicular traffic.

 

Do this. Do it now!

[Cyrus]

I don't think the current Champlain is usable for anything or should be rebuilt. You can use it for something else but by the time you've spent the money, you could have just made a bigger second bridge to handle it also for like half the cost maybe even less (!)

 

From the engineering report from Delcan I posted earlier (also on PJCCI site) the steel superstructure / trussy bit is basically fine but the viaduct approaches on either side are scary bad and I think the pylons are also questionable. By the time to rebuild you'll end up with a George Washington's axe problem (handle has been replaced six times, head replaced three times but it is the same axe )

 

I think the Champlain inspections are a lot more frequent and thorough than the Mississippi but yes obviously a bridge failure is a absolutely unacceptable occurance. Let us not forget the I-35W bridge was barely anything, it was like 500 m long, like a bridge to Laval not the Champlain which carries more traffic (surprisingly not that much more, 140 000 vpd vs 165 000 vpd or so) and is a LOT longer.

 

Also for lane requirements, note the I-35W bridge had 140 000 vpd and eight lanes and was known as a point of congestion, in fact the eight lanes was a "emergency, half-assed" measure, the bridge was originally used as 4 lanes with shoulders later pressed into being lanes. The new I-35W bridge has 10, unreserved, lanes.

Modifié 20 avril 2011 par Cyrus