rive-sud Pont Samuel-De Champlain

[Cataclaw]

I wish it was this cheap. These are anti-car propaganda numbers. Maybe 8-10 stations max. Maybe.

 

That's flat out wrong. Using inexpensive cut-and-cover methods for tunnels under large arterial roads, and by building surface light-rail and elevated segments wherever necessary, we can easy build 20+ stations, if not more. The Laval metro extension cost 150$/million per kilometer using techniques due to the difficult conditions. Even under those horribly pessimistic conditions, we could add more than 20 stations of subway/light-rail/elevated rail. If you consider that light rail can cost as little as 30$/million per kilometer, we see that the numbers I posted are not only correct, but very conservative indeed.

 

 

The rest of your numbers are highly suspect also. Where do you come up with these numbers? How can 1 dollar invested in a new highway not generate a huge amount of return with the freely flowing trucks it will create?

Because the modest economic returns are offset by huge negative externalities (high cost of maintenance, repaving, repair, snow removal, pollution, revenues lost to sprawl and other effects, etc.)

 

How can a student/unemployed/poor person (majority of public transport users) create more economic spinoffs? I would really like to know that.

Because transit development generates positive externalities (higher density which leads to greater returns on public and private investments, infrastructure costs, services, etc.) It allows people to save a lot of money on transportation costs. That money is then spent on consumption instead, which powers the economy and creates jobs. (Annual price tag for owning an automobile in Quebec, according to CAA, is around 10,000$/year, including gasoline, insurance, license plates, maintenance and repairs, driver's license, vehicule depreciation, etc. The average transit-user spends around 1,200$-1,800$/year on transportation.)

Also, the cost of pedestrian, cyclist and transit improvements are more labor-intensive. That puts more investment dollars in the pockets of workers and consumers who can then spend it and power the economy. Painting a new bicycle lane along a stretch of road entails that a smaller percentage of the total investment be spent on materiels, and a larger percentage of the investment to be spent on worker salaries. Conversely, a greater percentage of the cost of building a highway overpass is spent on raw materiels instead of wages. Although some of the losses are recouped from the fact that other workers receive contracts to create the materiels, it is still far less efficient because only a percentage of that money in turn goes to wages. In normative microeconomics, the former strategy is always better than the latter, thus, more labor-intensive investments such as pedestrian, transit and cycling improvements are more stimulative than material-intensive investments such as roads.

 

 

Also, I agree that eventually a ten lane bridge would inevitably become congested, but definately not 5 years or less! I would say more likely 10-15 years. But I agree it will happen.

I'm an urban planner who specializes in transportation, with a particular interest in transportation modelling using GIS (geographic information systems) tools such as TransCAD.

When I said "5 years or less" i'm not just making an educated guess, I'm giving you a very reasonable approximation based on existing data provided by the Montreal 2008 Origin-Destination survey, transit simulations done by various sources, and aggregate empyrical data obtained from observation over the last 60 years. In fact, due to the choke-point nature of bridges (and the absence of alternate routes), an implict multiplier effect inevitably comes into play. Because transportation is a dynamic system, and because the number of river crossings are few and far between, the actual congestion time for a new Champlain Bridge might be as little as 18-36 months. The 5 year estimate is actually quite conservative.

 

 

I also agree that a mix of an effective, logical highway system (worthy of a city our size) with efficient public transport is the only way out of traffic hell.

I agree with you there. A mix is the only way to go. An even 33-33-33 percent mode-split between cars, transit, and pedestrians/cyclists would be ideal in our case. Unfortunately, we're a long way from that. In many parts of the CMA, automobiles still account for over 90% of all trips.

 

 

No they didn't. They are actually building more elsewhere in the same region. (double-decker highways, new bridges, tunnels)

That's wrong. San Francisco has an official moratorium on new highway construction in the city. New York has similar provisions. No new large-scale car-only infrastructure projects are being built in the urban areas within these agglomerations. In some cases, there is some new activity on the periphery, but the trend is definitely not rampant out-of-control freeway construction like we have here in Quebec right now (Autoroutes 5, 50, 25, 30, 35, 70, 80, 85, 19, 20, 410, 73 and 175). The bottom line is that within the Montreal context, some high speed road infrastructure is necessary and we need it, but it has to make sense. Example: It can be argued that A-30 makes sense. The Bonaventure, on the other hand, should never have been built at all.

[acpnc]

Il ne fait aucun doute que le transport en commun est hautement rentable socialement parlant, il l'est aussi sur le plan écologique. Mais ce ne sera jamais rentable sur le plan de la gestion (et ce n'est pas le but) car son bas coût est justifié afin d'encourager son usage au maximum. Donc il faut s'enlever l'idée de profit, ce qui élimine toute forme de gestion privée. La partie autoroute cependant, pourrait faire l'objet d'un péage pour en assurer l'entretien et la construction. Mais comme je considère ce pont comme essentiel au réseau routier montréalais, il ne devrait pas servir à enrichir un exploitant à l'instar du pont de la 25.

 

Le nouveau pont Champlain devrait donc offrir en plus des voies autoroutières actuelles (pas une de plus), un bon service de train léger, tramway ou autre. C'est un des volets qui le rend nécessaire car il faut continuer impérativement à développer les transports en commun, la voie de l'avenir pour une grande ville. Il pourra au passage desservir l'ile des Soeurs, en la reliant au cv et à la rive sud de manière plus efficace et à l'abri de la congestion.

 

Quant au nom que certains voudraient changer, en proposant Maurice-Richard, je m'objecte, non pas que je n'ai pas d'admiration pour l'homme, mais surtout qu'il n'a aucun rapport avec la grande histoire de la ville, de la province ou du pays. Quand on compare les noms des autres ponts qui enjambent le St-Laurent, ils représentent tous des personnages lourds de notre histoire. Qu'on les aime ou pas, ils ont joué un rôle prépondérant dans le développement de Montréal, la province ou le pays. Et dans plusieurs décennies, l'illustre personnage doit demeurer tout aussi significatif pour les générations ultérieures, tout comme l'infrastructure elle-même qui devra cette-fois-ci réellement résister au temps.

 

Donc si on conserve l'ancien pont pour un usage léger, on nomme la nouvelle structure au nom d'un autre personnage historique. Autrement on ne fait que transférer le nom actuel à la nouvelle construction. Pour revenir à Maurice Richard, il a déjà une célèbre aréna à son nom, domaine dans lequel il a évolué. Et en dépit des émotions qu'il suscite, elles ne justifient certainement pas un choix de cette importance, puisqu'avec le temps, sa renommée se diluera dans la petite histoire de la ville.

 

A ce propos pourquoi pas le pont Jean-Béliveau, ou Boum-Boum-Geoffrion ou Patrick Roy? Je conviens que l'on soit fier de nos joueurs, mais l'institution elle-même ( les Canadiens) a plus de chances de disparaitre avant l'histoire et la politique. C'est ici que la toponymie entre en jeu, une science qui s'intéresse au nom de lieux et qui s'occupe à faire des choix judicieux, pour en faire sortir toute la signification et le sens. Dans notre société de l'instantané, on succombe facilement aux émotions et nos choix sont trop souvent superficiels, mal avisés et sujets aux modes passagères. Évitons donc de tomber dans le piège de la facilité, laissons nos experts prendre les décisions. Ce qui m'amène à citer un vieux proverbe: "chacun son métier et les vaches seront bien gardées".

[Habsfan]

Cataclaw, Je comprends ton point sur le Pont et que même si nous contruisons un nouveau pont avec 10 voies, qu'il sera congestioné d'ici 5 ans. J'ai pris des cours d'urbanisme à Concordia moi aussi. mais dans chacun des cas qui ont été étudié, on parlait de ville américaines. Des villes ou la vste majorité des gens n'utilisent pas le transport en commun.

 

Il ne faut pas oublier que ce nouveau ne sera pas une NOUVELLE alternative comme le Pont de la 25 à laval. Nous remplaçons un pont désuet avec un nouveau pont. Le pont Champlain à été construit selon les donnés que nous avions au milieu des années 50. La population de l'agglomération métropolitaine a douplé depuis ce temps et la population de la Rive-Sud a plus que quadruplé. Il me semble qu'il soit normal que le nouveau pont puisse répondre à la nouvelle demande et la demande du futur! Bien sûr, il est essentiel que ce nouveau pont offre une alternative à l'automobile, d'ou l'importance d'avoir deux voies pour un train léger ou un tramway. Je dirais même qu'il faudrait aussi rajouter une ou deux voies pour les autobus/taxis/ambulance et une piste cyclable.

 

To build a brand new bridge with only 6 lanes for car and transportation needs would be short sighted of us. It would be as much of mistake to build a new bridge without any light rail transit or a public transportation alternative.

 

En terminant, je suis entièrement en accord avec acpnc sur le nom de ce nouveau pont. J'ai toujours aimé le Rocket, mais nommer ce pont pour lui ne fait aucun sens. Je crois qu,on devrait garder le même nom pour le Nouveau Pont. Anyways, le vieux pont sera détruit donc il n'y aura aucune peur que ça porte à confusion.

[Cataclaw]

Cataclaw, Je comprends ton point sur le Pont et que même si nous contruisons un nouveau pont avec 10 voies, qu'il sera congestioné d'ici 5 ans. J'ai pris des cours d'urbanisme à Concordia moi aussi. mais dans chacun des cas qui ont été étudié, on parlait de ville américaines. Des villes ou la vste majorité des gens n'utilisent pas le transport en commun.

 

Habsfan, le chiffre de 5 ans c'est la moyenne Canadienne pour les projets de construction ou d'agrandissement dans les grandes villes. Les Américains n'ont rien à voir avec ça (en fait, leur chiffre à eux est encore plus bas que ça)

Relis cette portion de mon post:

 

When I said "5 years or less" i'm not just making an educated guess, I'm giving you a very reasonable approximation based on existing data provided by the Montreal 2008 Origin-Destination survey, transit simulations done by various sources, and aggregate empyrical data obtained from observation over the last 60 years. In fact, due to the choke-point nature of bridges (and the absence of alternate routes), an implict multiplier effect inevitably comes into play. Because transportation is a dynamic system, and because the number of river crossings are few and far between, the actual congestion time for a new Champlain Bridge might be as little as 18-36 months. The 5 year estimate is actually quite conservative.

 

If you studied transportation and understand induced demand, I don't see how you can be in favor of increasing the number of lanes to 10, since it will only increase total congestion along with suburban sprawl. This has been observed for decades now. It is so well understood that entire books have been written on the topic. Even in European and Asian cities that have good public transit, the phenomenon occurs. One of the reasons we have a nice dense city that tourists love is because we stopped building highways and bridges years ago. (Note: I still support building more river crossings, just not car-only ones.) Anyway, I'll see If i can gather up all the statistics, research and data I can find on this topic to back up my point. I really think this is a matter of fact. If we build this new bridge with more lanes, we will pay a price for it down the road.

 

I know it's crazy counter-intuitive, I know it's a weird backwards-seeming concept, and I know it makes people's heads explode sometimes because it seems to unbelievable, but it's actually.. a demonstrable, observable fact. If we build more lanes, we increase congestion in under 5 years. And we'll be stuck with the new congestion and sprawl that comes with it, not to mention the costs of maintenance, repair, and hundreds of millions of dollars in foregone revenue due to the inefficiencies of low density promulgated by automobile-induced sprawl.

 

Guys, we got to detatch ourselves from our emotions. I get it, Maybachs and Mustangs are cool.. I have a car too that I drive on occasion. Seriously, It can be fun, and I get that. But we have to throw away our pre-conceived notions about automobile transportation and start looking at the facts and 60 years of science. Five years ago my computer desktop background was a sweet picture of a Dodge Viper RT10. Honestly. I get it. But times have changed, and this isn't 1960 anymore. We've learned new things about transportation, we've had time to study its effects, and we've learned from other parts of the world. Car culture is so deeply rooted in our collective psyche that our love for automobile transportation blinds us to the facts sometimes. It becomes an emotional response whenever somebody wants to take away an inch from cars. "HOW DARE YOU, YOU ANTI-CAR HIPPY!" It is truly a viseral and emotional reaction. Yet, if we take the time to look at empyrical data, decades of studies, academic journals and new developments, we start to see that maybe it's not so crazy after all. I just wish we would throw away the emotional knee-jerk response we have and start embracing reason, even if the truth sometimes hurts a little bit. And it does hurt a little bit, I admit, but it offers a world of benefits in exchange. We have to make choices. So let's make the right choices, for our economy, for society and for the environment.

 

(Habsfan: for the record the last paragraph doesn't really apply to you. I was just making a general rant. I know you, you're a really rational guy. But still, I think we're all collectively guilty of this way of thinking.)

 

(P.S. I'm looking at a model run I did 6 months ago in TransCAD where I modelled the effects of adding 1 lane to Highway 40 in the West Island, from Decarie to the Ontario border. Trips went up 40%, and the demand and stress on the network skyrocketed. I'll see If I can find the maps..)

 

I know I'm going to get flamed so bad once again for speaking up.. but have at it. Somebody's gotta do this

Modifié 3 juillet 2012 par Cataclaw

[montréaliste]

À Windsor/Détroit, ils ont aussi lancé l'idée de nommer le nouveau pont enl'honneur de Gordie Howe. Décidément c'est dans l'air.

 

Moi je l'appellerais le pont Champlain. C'est original hein?

[montréaliste]

[quote name=Cataclaw;

I know it's crazy counter-intuitive' date=' I know it's a weird backwards-seeming concept, and I know it makes people's heads explode sometimes because it seems to unbelievable, but it's actually.. a demonstrable, observable fact. If we build more lanes, we increase congestion in under 5 years. And we'll be stuck with the new congestion and sprawl that comes with it, not to mention the costs of maintenance, repair, and hundreds of millions of dollars in foregone revenue due to the inefficiencies of low density promulgated by automobile-induced sprawl.[/quote]

 

 

 

I'm curious to know what your opinion of the 401 in Greater Toronto as opposed to the Met, do you consider the Met wide enough and/or the 401 too sprawly? Just wondering.

[Davidbourque]

Tant qu'à suivre le raisonnement à son maximum, aussi bien détruire tout les ponts reliant la rive sud à Montréal, on va régler un gros paquet de congestion.

 

JE ne suis pas de mauvaise fois, je ne suis que le raisonnement. Oui si on ajoute 2 voies de plus en 50 ans de circulation, elle seront remplit. mais en même temps, 2 voies en 50 ans simonac...

[Cataclaw]

I'm curious to know what your opinion of the 401 in Greater Toronto as opposed to the Met, do you consider the Met wide enough and/or the 401 too sprawly? Just wondering.

 

Sure montréaliste. Yes, the 401 is far too wide. The 401 in Toronto has become the poster child for how adding lanes doesn't solve congestion, It just makes it worse. The Met in Montreal is just fine as it is. It doesn't need more lanes.

 

Imagine If you could go back in time. Imagine that it's 1980 and you decide to add lanes to the Met over the next 30 years until 2010. By 2010, the Met has 16+ lanes, just like the 401 in Toronto. By 2010, you would find that the highway is still just as congested as ever, and that low-density suburban development stretches dozens of kilometers past the edges we're familiar with, in all directions. Imagine being in that scenario, and starting a campaign to reduce the lanes from 16 to 12, or even tear down the highway completely. Unthinkable, right? Where would all those cars go? Well, those only got there in the first place because we made so many accomodations for them. Had we not, we would not have had so many. It's the same with Champlain. If we build a massive bridge, we will induce a massive number of automobile trips.

 

The answer is not to go down the path of "capacity increasing". It's a slippery slope that leads to the 401 in Toronto. Our highways are fine at 6 lanes total and that's how it should stay.

[Cataclaw]

Tant qu'à suivre le raisonnement à son maximum, aussi bien détruire tout les ponts reliant la rive sud à Montréal, on va régler un gros paquet de congestion.

JE ne suis pas de mauvaise fois, je ne suis que le raisonnement. Oui si on ajoute 2 voies de plus en 50 ans de circulation, elle seront remplit. mais en même temps, 2 voies en 50 ans simonac...

 

Ce n'est pas 50 ans... c'est 5 ans ou moins. Bordel, le nouveau pont de la 25 connait deja de la congestion!

Sortez de votre bulle!

Modifié 3 juillet 2012 par Cataclaw

[Davidbourque]

à ce que je sache, le pont de la 25 n'est pas sur la rive sud ? m'aurais t'on mentit !

 

Et oui, si on ajoute 2 voies de circulation, elle seront probablement remplis à la l'inauguration(tu comprend mal mon messages, je ne dit pas que ça va prendre 50 ans avant de ce congestionner...). Cependant, je pense pas que la rive sud soit trop demandante avec 2 voies de plus en 50 ans... c'est ça mon point.

 

Oui il faut investir massivement dans le transport en commun. Mais je pense que quand la population double, augmenté de 10% l'offre automobile n'est pas exagéré. Je dit pas si la population avait augmenté de seulement 10% mais bon..

 

Il c'est rendu qu'il y a tellement de monde sur la rive sud qu'elle pourrais avoir son propre transport en commun "lourd".

Modifié 3 juillet 2012 par Davidbourque