rive-sud Pont Samuel-De Champlain

[Davidbourque]

Bah ça ne sert à rien d'être cynique, surtout que la situation du transport en commun congestionné n'est pas une fatalité, mais qu'un simple problème à être réglé. Et même qu'en fait, c'est un heureux problème.

 

Le pire problème aurait été qu'on aille une infrastructure de plusieurs milliards sous utilisé.

[Alexcaban]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/champlainbridge.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[Newbie]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/champlainbridge.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

Thanks for this. Do you know where the poll is?

[Cyrus]

Bah ça ne sert à rien d'être cynique, surtout que la situation du transport en commun congestionné n'est pas une fatalité, mais qu'un simple problème à être réglé. Et même qu'en fait, c'est un heureux problème.

 

Tout comme le congestion automobile

 

Le pire problème aurait été qu'on aille une infrastructure de plusieurs milliards sous utilisé.

 

La Stade Olympique

[Cataclaw]

Tout comme le congestion automobile

 

Wrong; see my posts about this above. I explain in detail why this isn't so.

 

Automobile congestion is actually a good thing. It reduces automobile dependency, lowers sprawl, promotes alternatives and smarter cities/densification.

Of course, i'd rather have tolls-a-plenty with all the money going to transit and new urbanism, but congestion does the trick too.

[Cataclaw]

Tout comme le congestion automobile

 

Wrong; see my posts about this above. I explain in detail why this isn't so. In a nutshell, it's not the same thing because one mode of transportation (private automobile) produces significant negative externalities and leads to sprawl whereas the other has positive externalities and decreases sprawl.

 

In my opinion and that of many experts automobile congestion is actually a good thing. It reduces automobile dependency, lowers sprawl, promotes alternatives and smarter cities/densification.

Of course, i'd rather have tolls-a-plenty with all the money going to transit and new urbanism, but congestion does the trick too.

 

The best thing we could do is rebuild the Champlain Bridge with acceptable automobile capacity but also new transit lines on it, and then toll the heck out of it and invest all the money in transit. Also, toll every Quebec Autoroute in the Montreal CMA and do the same with that.

Modifié 26 octobre 2011 par Cataclaw

[Cyrus]

As for social capital... look it up. There are many books, university courses, journals and studies that explain the concept and why it's become very important to urban planning. They'll explain it better than I can.

 

I just did look it up, I struggled to understand and kind of fell asleep. I still have no idea what that means.

 

------------

 

The main issue I see with your argument is just insufficient proof and backdata. Declining health and rising obesity? If you have a population that smokes, it tends to be unhealthy, and if they don’t, they tend to be fat, which has reasonably well-founded medical evidence for it. But driving a car? Certainly in my family and friends, the only two obese people never drove a vehicle at any time, and the slim ones tend to drive a lot. Obviously that’s anecdotal and of no real significance, but really – where is the mechanism?

In terms of social relationships, I can’t see how automobiles are negative as opposed to other modes. I’ve ridden public transit in Montreal and it seems to be a bunch of depressed people staring at each other and the occasional ranting drunk/crazy person. Sometimes you can get into a conversation with someone. Conversely, I get into conversations with people all the time (roughly once a week) around my car at gas stations, parking lots and the like, and of course there are all the clubs, tours, rallyes and weekend show & shines. Last weekend I went on a thoroughly enjoyable tour of Niagara region vineyards with a Toronto-based club, people I would never have become acquainted with otherwise.

Cultural and architectural issues I fail to see – there are plenty of terrible buildings and nice ones in both types of developments. There is a new Walmart Supercentre relatively close to my current location, and I was surprised at the interesting kind of adobe-ish architecture as opposed to a simple steel-sheet box. But this is certainly more an issue of the development goals (Walmart = cheap building to minimize overhead) than the store having a parking lot or not.

Do more people die from car accidents than from metro accidents? In Montreal tons of people are throwing themselves in front of the metro all the time. I would argue perhaps that those people don’t count due to deliberate jumping, but it is something to think about. I posted here recently some data of fatalities per 100 billion passenger-km for various modes of transport, I believe the number for public transit was higher than for private motor vehicles, though both were quite low.

For air pollution, it seems an issue that has already been solved in most cities. Certainly in Montreal the main issue for air quality is wood stoves and other stationary uncontrolled emission sources than automobiles.

For that which is awrl, awrl is what it is.

How does a public transit line “reduce” sprawl relative to a highway improvement? The commuter train to Mascouche and Saint-Jerome sure does seem to be encouraging development of the land, and those areas are certainly sprawl.

Where does land to non-taxable uses cause an issue? That wasted land doesn’t cost much (no services to provide it), and furthermore the mill rate would simply be adjusted. Why is it, though, that such mill rates always seem to be quite low in “sprawl” areas as opposed to “denser” areas?

More so, though, is that the presence of congestion is infrastructure failure. Either, some people who want to use some sort of public transit solution that does not exist or is also overcapacity or inefficient, or they just want to drive. Basically your argument is that the cost to society of improving the roadway is larger than the cost of ignoring it. Sometimes, paying more for a given thing is superior to the cheaper option for an intangible reason. But, where is the place of the technocrat in society relative to the people generally? Given that we do live in a democracy, unelected officials should be responsible to the desires of the majority of the population, and the presence of congestion is a clear indication of the desire for improved transport infrastructure. Unelected officials must be responsible to the desires of the majority of the population, and the presence of congestion is a clear indication of the desire for improved transport infrastructure.

[ça coute cher]

Au début je ne croyais pas vraiment qu'un gouvernement conservateur pouvait investir autant d'argent a Montreal surtout que l'on ne vote pas pour eux....puis j'ai compris qu'il devait le faire puisque les gros contrat naval sont allé a halifax et sur la cote ouest en plus des contrats des f-35 ou l'on ne vois que des miettes. La ville de Quebec a perdu gros la dedans....pas de financement pour le colisee (au niveau federal) pas contrats pour la davie.....au moins nous avons eu le Pont Champlain.

[Cataclaw]

The main issue I see with your argument is just insufficient proof and backdata. Declining health and rising obesity? If you have a population that smokes, it tends to be unhealthy, and if they don’t, they tend to be fat, which has reasonably well-founded medical evidence for it. But driving a car? Certainly in my family and friends, the only two obese people never drove a vehicle at any time, and the slim ones tend to drive a lot. Obviously that’s anecdotal and of no real significance, but really – where is the mechanism?

 

You want evidence? Look at obesity figures for North American cities. The most urban and dense cities also have the smallest obesity rates. The cities with high proportions of overweight/obese are the most spread out, car-dependent and suburban. The mechanism is quite simple: city goers that walk everywhere, take the subway and ride their bikes get a lot more exercise than typical suburbanites that rely on their car to go everywhere (because they have no choice.) Live in Atlanta for a month and live in New York City for a month and you'll see what i'm talking about. I lived in both cities and the change is dramatic. You don't see much evidence but a wealth of data actually exists to support this. A few google searches will reveal a ton of data, studies and census data to back this up.

 

Obviously a suburbanite that goes to the gym and exercises often can still be slim too, but on average, residents of cities are slimmer than and healthier than residents of low-density suburbs. The suburbs in Montreal are a little less extreme and the problem isn't as pronounced in Canada as it is in the U.S., but it still exists and has plenty of data to prove it.

 

 

 

 

In terms of social relationships, I can’t see how automobiles are negative as opposed to other modes. I’ve ridden public transit in Montreal and it seems to be a bunch of depressed people staring at each other and the occasional ranting drunk/crazy person. Sometimes you can get into a conversation with someone. Conversely, I get into conversations with people all the time (roughly once a week) around my car at gas stations, parking lots and the like, and of course there are all the clubs, tours, rallyes and weekend show & shines. Last weekend I went on a thoroughly enjoyable tour of Niagara region vineyards with a Toronto-based club, people I would never have become acquainted with otherwise.

 

You're asking me to explain a very complex phenomenon in a short paragraph. Let me instead point you to a documentary that might do a better job of explaining it: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/radiant-city/

 

Basically, it isn't about the mode of transport itself. It's not about being in a subway or being in a car. It's about the type of neighborhoods that car-dependency creates and the type of neighborhoods that medium-density mixed use creates. That's the key thing here. One is rich and vibrant and the other is ridden with problems and is even proven to lead have higher incidences of disorders. Anyway, the documentary will highlight the social problems of suburbs.

 

Cultural and architectural issues I fail to see – there are plenty of terrible buildings and nice ones in both types of developments. There is a new Walmart Supercentre relatively close to my current location, and I was surprised at the interesting kind of adobe-ish architecture as opposed to a simple steel-sheet box. But this is certainly more an issue of the development goals (Walmart = cheap building to minimize overhead) than the store having a parking lot or not.

 

Suburbs are designed to be appreciated at the speed of the automobile. Cities are designed to be appreciated at the speed of the citizen. Talk a walk down Taschereau boulevard and then take a walk down Saint-Paul street in Montreal. The vast majority of people would tell you the latter is more attractive, comfortable and even safe. There's a lot more to it than that, but the documentary I linked will go into more detail.

 

 

Do more people die from car accidents than from metro accidents? In Montreal tons of people are throwing themselves in front of the metro all the time. I would argue perhaps that those people don’t count due to deliberate jumping, but it is something to think about. I posted here recently some data of fatalities per 100 billion passenger-km for various modes of transport, I believe the number for public transit was higher than for private motor vehicles, though both were quite low.

 

I don't know what numbers you posted, but numbers from Canada (statcan) and the U.S. (NSC) show that accident/death rates from public transportation are MINISCULE compared to automobiles. In Canada there are over 4000 car deaths per year. The average number of metro deaths, excluding suicides, is less than 1. How many times do you see a car on the side of the road? How many times do you see ambulances there too? How many times do you see crashes in general? I don't know about you, but I see at least 4-5 a year. When's the last time you saw a wrecked metro car? If you said never, come claim your prize.

 

 

For air pollution, it seems an issue that has already been solved in most cities. Certainly in Montreal the main issue for air quality is wood stoves and other stationary uncontrolled emission sources than automobiles.

For that which is awrl, awrl is what it is.

 

True, wood stoves are/were a major contributor to air pollution, but cars contribute a lot too. Our air is "fine" but it isn't "good" either. Look up the numbers for CO2 emitted worldwide from automobiles.. the numbers are quite high.

 

 

How does a public transit line “reduce” sprawl relative to a highway improvement? The commuter train to Mascouche and Saint-Jerome sure does seem to be encouraging development of the land, and those areas are certainly sprawl.

 

Actually this is false. I've taken advanced courses in transportation modeling and I've studied Montreal data at great lengths. We have OD surveys here every 5 years and we do a lot of modeling too. The suburban train lines don't encourage development. Development occurs there regardless. A mode-share occurs where people ditch the car in favor of the train, but that's about it. The induced residential demand effect from a suburban train 30km out is quite small and much smaller than a highway. People that prefer transit in general also prefer living closer to the city. The folks who use commuter rail lines do so out of necessity more than anything else.

 

Where does land to non-taxable uses cause an issue? That wasted land doesn’t cost much (no services to provide it), and furthermore the mill rate would simply be adjusted. Why is it, though, that such mill rates always seem to be quite low in “sprawl” areas as opposed to “denser” areas?

 

Suburbs = lots of public parking space, roads, medians and other wasted space that municipalities can't directly tax. High density = more tax revenue pound for pound (and by a LOT too.)

 

 

More so, though, is that the presence of congestion is infrastructure failure. Either, some people who want to use some sort of public transit solution that does not exist or is also overcapacity or inefficient, or they just want to drive. Basically your argument is that the cost to society of improving the roadway is larger than the cost of ignoring it. Sometimes, paying more for a given thing is superior to the cheaper option for an intangible reason. But, where is the place of the technocrat in society relative to the people generally? Given that we do live in a democracy, unelected officials should be responsible to the desires of the majority of the population, and the presence of congestion is a clear indication of the desire for improved transport infrastructure. Unelected officials must be responsible to the desires of the majority of the population, and the presence of congestion is a clear indication of the desire for improved transport infrastructure.

 

A classic argument, but one that fails to take account that we live in a collective society where bad things that other people do also impact the rest of us. Your example is exactly like smoking. Should smoking be allowed? Of course. Should it be heavily taxed and discouraged though? Yes, because of the negative externalities that smoking causes as well as other factors such as the strain on the health care system.

 

With your logic, why ever regulate anything? Why ban asbestos? Some things are simply proven to be bad and must be discouraged if not banned outright. We obviously can't "ban" suburbs, but we can definitely try to tax them, regulate them and subsidize the alternatives to improve quality of life, the environment and economic conditions for everyone.

Modifié 26 octobre 2011 par Cataclaw

[Cyrus]

Fat cities with highways is just too deep into correlation vs causation as you know...

 

Are there social problems with suburbs? When I think of areas with social problems, it always seems to be those old inner-ring areas. The suburbs of Detroit are perfectly nice and so is the downtown, but the middle...

 

With your logic, why ever regulate anything?

 

Now you're on to something! You missed my point, but I like that even better!

 

Why ban asbestos?

 

Dunno, we've both invested a lot of money in the asbestos industry.

 

Some things are simply proven to be bad and must be discouraged if not banned outright.

 

Why not let people make those decisions for themselves? Maybe the bad thing is better for them than the alternative. Who are we to judge? The health-care argument is really a reason to not have socialized medicine than to micromanage people's lives.

 

Ultimately, it is quality of life that is the issue and all other things are irrelevant. Environment is only an issue for the impact on quality of life, etc. How do you improve quality of life of people, by forcing them into traffic jams that evidently harm one's quality of life? You're thinking too hard of what is a far simpler issue.

 

I don't know where we're going with this - I really hate being stuck in traffic jams because it makes my left foot ache and I've had a lot of car problems due to traffic. Furthermore, I'm not going to ride transit. And I want to live in a house with a garage and some land under it. Considering I am paying for it, that gives me the right to get what I want...

Modifié 27 octobre 2011 par Cyrus