autoroute 10 Autoroute 10 (Bonaventure - portion au nord du canal (boul. urbain))

[GoMontreal]

Regardez, je suis pro-autoroute jusqu'à un certain point. Je suis pro : prolongement de l'A-30, l'A-25, l'A-19, l'A-50, l'A-35, etc... ce sont tous des projets logiques et importants.

 

Mais une autoroute n'est pas automatiquement une bonne chose. C'est tout simplement faux. Des exemples il y a en beaucoup : Portland, San Francisco, etc.

 

C'est toujours mauvais de détruire une autoroute : FAUX.

 

J'ai pas le temps de rentrer dans le débat tout de suite, mais en tant qu'urbaniste et amateur des différents systèmes de transport (quelqu'un qui a étudié le transport en profondeur) - je peux te garantir que c'est simplement et totalement faux. Dire que c'est toujours mauvais c'est ignorer l'impact de la logique et la raison du cas-par-cas.

 

Dans ce cas-ci, c'est bien que l'A-10 soit mise à terre. Le centre-ville grandit vers le sud, donc l'entrée de la ville se déplace aussi, ce qui veut dire déplacer l'autoroute.

 

Cataclaw, svp ne prends pas ceci comme insulte. Je suis sure que tu seras pas d'accord mais je vais le dire quand même. La gestion de la circulation ne devrait pas être dans la main des urbanistes, ni d'architecte ou fonctionnaire. La gestion de la circulation devrait retourner dans les mains des ingénieurs et si jamais ça l'arrive, on aurait beaucoup moins de bouchons de circulation, beaucoup moins de configuration ridicule, et beaucoup moins de pollution causé par ces bouchons, causé par les mauvaises décisions de ces bien-pensants. Les ingénieurs en circulation ont le devoir d'enlever les obstacles à la circulation fluide, tandis que les urbanistes ont le devoir de rendre la ville belle. Malheureusement, une autoroute ne sera jamais belle, donc arrêtez d'essayer de la rendre.

 

It's a necessary evil that makes the economy run. Without it, you have no money to spend on making the rest of the city beautiful.

[joaobruno]

Je ne suis pas d'accord avec toi, comme j'ai déjà dis plus tôt je ne crois pas que cette décision n'est pas été pensés de A a Z, qu'il na pas été consulté par des ingénieur ou autre spécialiste.

[Cataclaw]

Cataclaw, svp ne prends pas ceci comme insulte. Je suis sure que tu seras pas d'accord mais je vais le dire quand même. La gestion de la circulation ne devrait pas être dans la main des urbanistes, ni d'architecte ou fonctionnaire. La gestion de la circulation devrait retourner dans les mains des ingénieurs et si jamais ça l'arrive, on aurait beaucoup moins de bouchons de circulation, beaucoup moins de configuration ridicule, et beaucoup moins de pollution causé par ces bouchons, causé par les mauvaises décisions de ces bien-pensants. Les ingénieurs en circulation ont le devoir d'enlever les obstacles à la circulation fluide, tandis que les urbanistes ont le devoir de rendre la ville belle. Malheureusement, une autoroute ne sera jamais belle, donc arrêtez d'essayer de la rendre.

 

It's a necessary evil that makes the economy run. Without it, you have no money to spend on making the rest of the city beautiful.

 

First of all, i disagree.

 

I'd like to remind you that i have a passion for infrastructure, whether it be automobile, train, metro, etc.

 

May i also remind you that i came up with that Champlain Bridge alternative:

 

 

While i may not be as knowledgeable as a transportation engineer, i have dabbled with engineering subjects in the past and present and know a thing or two.

 

Now, that being said, the consensus has been in for some time now : Montrealers, councilors, engineers and urbanists alike mostly support this project. Why would they do that? Because this project has a small impact on automobile traffic while improving the city a great deal.

 

Cars would be nothing without places to go. Respectfully, i think you're stuck in a 1960's mindset where the more highway infrastructure, the better. Unfortunately, this isn't how it works in real life, as the last 50 years has shown us.

 

All research points to one truth : there is a balance to be had.

 

Too many highways and you end up with an over-reliance on cars at the expense of public transportation, urban sprawl, pollution, noise and fractured cities.

 

Too few highways and you restrict the flow of goods and services, thus severely hurting the economy. Like it or not, industrial goods aren't shipped by bus or metro car. We need to roads to make the system run efficiently.

 

The solution is to strike an optimal balance. Logic tells us that a 30 second to 2 minute delay passing through the Bonaventure corridor in exchange for a significantly improved part of town is a more than acceptable trade-off.

 

In fact -- and i mean no personal disrespect and i don't mean to insult anybody's intelligence -- but to reject this project is to essentially not understand cities, transportation and how they work. Period.

 

This project is unquestionably excellent and i'm extremely grateful that is it going ahead full steam.

[LED]

Je sais qu'ici on a les hivers mais à Albuqurque et à Pheonix entre autre, les autoroute sont assez belle et s'intègre très bien au reste de la ville. Ils n'ont pas la température d'ici cependant et les peinturent.

 

[GoMontreal]

First of all, i disagree.

 

I'd like to remind you that i have a passion for infrastructure, whether it be automobile, train, metro, etc.

 

May i also remind you that i came up with that Champlain Bridge alternative:

 

 

While i may not be as knowledgeable as a transportation engineer, i have dabbled with engineering subjects in the past and present and know a thing or two.

 

Now, that being said, the consensus has been in for some time now : Montrealers, councilors, engineers and urbanists alike mostly support this project. Why would they do that? Because this project has a small impact on automobile traffic while improving the city a great deal.

 

Cars would be nothing without places to go. Respectfully, i think you're stuck in a 1960's mindset where the more highway infrastructure, the better. Unfortunately, this isn't how it works in real life, as the last 50 years has shown us.

 

All research points to one truth : there is a balance to be had.

 

Too many highways and you end up with an over-reliance on cars at the expense of public transportation, urban sprawl, pollution, noise and fractured cities.

 

Too few highways and you restrict the flow of goods and services, thus severely hurting the economy. Like it or not, industrial goods aren't shipped by bus or metro car. We need to roads to make the system run efficiently.

 

The solution is to strike an optimal balance. Logic tells us that a 30 second to 2 minute delay passing through the Bonaventure corridor in exchange for a significantly improved part of town is a more than acceptable trade-off.

 

In fact -- and i mean no personal disrespect and i don't mean to insult anybody's intelligence -- but to reject this project is to essentially not understand cities, transportation and how they work. Period.

 

This project is unquestionably excellent and i'm extremely grateful that is it going ahead full steam.

 

I appreciate your expertise and all. However, I don't think you should talk down to me as if you're the expert and I know nothing about this. I work in the field and am passionate about transportation infrastructure (all kinds) as well as real estate development and urban planning. Just because I haven't told you what I do for a living, where I work, what I've worked on, the transportation solutions I've dreamed up since I was a teenager, doesn't make you better positioned than me to comment on these projects.

 

My opinion is that urban highways are needed as much as rural and suburban ones are. I don't think highways are beautiful and I wouldn't want to live underneath one. Even if public transport was free for all, highways would still be needed. I think that a better solution to that part of the Bonaventure would have been to make it into a tunnel and connect it to the Ville-Marie. That way, the land above could be used in the same way, or another way but the non-stop (no red lights) connection could have been completed instead of taken away. I think the problem is that people always think of themselves and the people that live right by the highway (turcot, bonaventure, whatever) instead of thinking of the economy of the region and traffic circulation.

 

If we had endless amounts of money, I would make all urban highways underground and have a Chicago like system of underground boulevards, but that costs a lot of money and can't always be done. But since that can't always be done doesn't mean we should tear the highways down simply because they are ugly! Look around and you'll see that often, cities that have the best highway system (complemented by other transportation systems) are the most economically prosperous.

 

I once overheard a wise uncle say 'They should make the sidewalks go where people walk!'

[Cataclaw]

I appreciate your expertise and all. However, I don't think you should talk down to me as if you're the expert and I know nothing about this. I work in the field and am passionate about transportation infrastructure (all kinds) as well as real estate development and urban planning. Just because I haven't told you what I do for a living, where I work, what I've worked on, the transportation solutions I've dreamed up since I was a teenager, doesn't make you better positioned than me to comment on these projects.

 

I can only comment on the things you've said. And what you've said suggests an unclear understanding of urban planning and transportation systems. I see it how it is, sorry dude! I sincerely mean no personal offense.

 

My opinion is that urban highways are needed as much as rural and suburban ones are. I don't think highways are beautiful and I wouldn't want to live underneath one. Even if public transport was free for all, highways would still be needed.

 

I just said this. I just said that highways are necessary to sustain the economy. Please read up, i specifically said that a balance is needed.

 

I think that a better solution to that part of the Bonaventure would have been to make it into a tunnel and connect it to the Ville-Marie. That way, the land above could be used in the same way, or another way but the non-stop (no red lights) connection could have been completed instead of taken away. I think the problem is that people always think of themselves and the people that live right by the highway (turcot, bonaventure, whatever) instead of thinking of the economy of the region and traffic circulation.

 

Obviously putting every highway under ground is the best solution, always. Heck even rural highways would be better off as tunnels, extra land on top for crops! There is rarely a situation where a tunnel is worse.

 

Unfortunately tunnels cost 3 to 10 times more. Instead of spending such an enormous amount of money for something that would ultimately have a small beneficial effect, the alternative is to put the highway at ground level, as an urban boulevard. You all know me, I'm usually quite open to ideas and debate, but in this instance, the project in question is just so clearly a good one.

 

If we had endless amounts of money, I would make all urban highways underground and have a Chicago like system of underground boulevards, but that costs a lot of money and can't always be done. But since that can't always be done doesn't mean we should tear the highways down simply because they are ugly! Look around and you'll see that often, cities that have the best highway system (complemented by other transportation systems) are the most economically prosperous.

 

Two things:

 

1. We aren't taking the highway down because it's ugly, we're taking it down because it stands in the way of the southern expansion of downtown. This is a huge difference.

 

2. As someone who's been to Europe and 41 of the 50 states, i've seen firsthand what you speak of in the second half of your paragraph, and i have to agree. Yes, cities that have the best highway system (complemented by other transportation systems) are the most economically prosperous. The issue here is "complemented by other transportation systems". There is a balance at play here. At the moment, i would strongly argue that we haven't reached that ideal balance. When we do, we'll talk.

 

Until then, we need to expand the metro, install SLRs, promote Bixi, expand the bus server, and yes, make improvements to the highway system, in smart places.

 

On a broader scale, and in the context of a functioning economy, the Bonaventure plan has a nearly insignificant effect on automobile traffic (a few extra seconds, up to a couple scarce minutes of transit time...) In exchange, we extend downtown and raise the quality of life of an entire sector, increasing the activity and economic output significantly. It may be counter-intuitive but this project will actually do a great deal more good for the economy than bad in the range of several orders of magnitude.

 

So again, i'm sorry you saw me as talking down to you, that certainly wasn't my intention. I detest condescension and i regret that came across as such. Unfortunately, when it comes to this project, the solution and the outcomes are "in your face" obvious and evidently beneficial. I'm a very open-minded person, always willing to measure the pros and the cons and consider all sides. However occasionally something comes along that is just "the right thing to do" no matter how you look at it. This is one such case. There is no arguing against it, at least not with rational and tangible arguments. In short, if you're against this project, i hate to be blunt, but you're simply wrong.

 

Bring on the shovels! Vivement le projet Bonaventure!

 

 

P.S. If you think you do have one or more rational arguments against this project, by all means please present them and we'll discuss it! I'm still open to ideas, don't get me wrong, it's just that as it stands now, there is virtually no con and only pro. If new information is provided i may still challenge that conclusion!

[GoMontreal]

I can only comment on the things you've said. And what you've said suggests an unclear understanding of urban planning and transportation systems. I see it how it is, sorry dude! I sincerely mean no personal offense.

 

 

 

I just said this. I just said that highways are necessary to sustain the economy. Please read up, i specifically said that a balance is needed.

 

 

 

Obviously putting every highway under ground is the best solution, always. Heck even rural highways would be better off as tunnels, extra land on top for crops! There is rarely a situation where a tunnel is worse.

 

Unfortunately tunnels cost 3 to 10 times more. Instead of spending such an enormous amount of money for something that would ultimately have a small beneficial effect, the alternative is to put the highway at ground level, as an urban boulevard. You all know me, I'm usually quite open to ideas and debate, but in this instance, the project in question is just so clearly a good one.

 

 

 

Two things:

 

1. We aren't taking the highway down because it's ugly, we're taking it down because it stands in the way of the southern expansion of downtown. This is a huge difference.

 

2. As someone who's been to Europe and 41 of the 50 states, i've seen firsthand what you speak of in the second half of your paragraph, and i have to agree. Yes, cities that have the best highway system (complemented by other transportation systems) are the most economically prosperous. The issue here is "complemented by other transportation systems". There is a balance at play here. At the moment, i would strongly argue that we haven't reached that ideal balance. When we do, we'll talk.

 

Until then, we need to expand the metro, install SLRs, promote Bixi, expand the bus server, and yes, make improvements to the highway system, in smart places.

 

On a broader scale, and in the context of a functioning economy, the Bonaventure plan has a nearly insignificant effect on automobile traffic (a few extra seconds, up to a couple scarce minutes of transit time...) In exchange, we extend downtown and raise the quality of life of an entire sector, increasing the activity and economic output significantly. It may be counter-intuitive but this project will actually do a great deal more good for the economy than bad in the range of several orders of magnitude.

 

So again, i'm sorry you saw me as talking down to you, that certainly wasn't my intention. I detest condescension and i regret that came across as such. Unfortunately, when it comes to this project, the solution and the outcomes are "in your face" obvious and evidently beneficial. I'm a very open-minded person, always willing to measure the pros and the cons and consider all sides. However occasionally something comes along that is just "the right thing to do" no matter how you look at it. This is one such case. There is no arguing against it, at least not with rational and tangible arguments. In short, if you're against this project, i hate to be blunt, but you're simply wrong.

 

Bring on the shovels! Vivement le projet Bonaventure!

 

 

P.S. If you think you do have one or more rational arguments against this project, by all means please present them and we'll discuss it! I'm still open to ideas, don't get me wrong, it's just that as it stands now, there is virtually no con and only pro. If new information is provided i may still challenge that conclusion!

 

If this project wouldn't be taking highway away, this project would be near perfect. I love the renderings and the way they've planned stuff. I love this project, but it's a want, not a need.

 

AND don't disconnect the highways!! I think you're wrong in saying that it's going to be only a few extra seconds of wait with the new layout. If I work in the east end and live in, say, Ile des Soeurs, and usually take Bonaventure/Ville-Marie/Notre-Dame to get to work, it's going to add a bunch of lights and therefore more congestion and more time to my commute (and more pollution).

 

The other part that I disagree on is when you say that we need to expand downtown south. Who says? There's plenty of room elsewhere for the expansion of downtown. We WANT to expand downtown towards the canal and make something nice, NEED is nowhere in this equation. And besides, highway or no highway, we can still expand south if the city will give the building height allowances to developers.

[Cataclaw]

If this project wouldn't be taking highway away, this project would be near perfect. I love the renderings and the way they've planned stuff. I love this project, but it's a want, not a need.

 

Wants and needs in this field are highly subjective. What is a want and what is a need is a matter of opinion, really.

 

If you place the most importance on having the absolutely fastest commute possible, then this project falls unquestionably in the want category. I'll grant that.

 

If you place more importance on greater sustainable economic growth, intelligent urban planning based on tried-and-tested methods, improving quality of life and restoring a cohesive fabric to south-downtown, then this project is unquestionably in the need category.

 

 

AND don't disconnect the highways!! I think you're wrong in saying that it's going to be only a few extra seconds of wait with the new layout. If I work in the east end and live in, say, Ile des Soeurs, and usually take Bonaventure/Ville-Marie/Notre-Dame to get to work, it's going to add a bunch of lights and therefore more congestion and more time to my commute (and more pollution).

 

Three synchronized lights will be put in place between the existing A-10 and the Ville-Marie tunnel entrance. That means that in over 50% of cases traffic coming in will not be slowed at all (except for the reduced posted speed of 50km/h instead of 70km/h)

 

Let that sink in for a sec. Now, the other half of the time, when you catch a red light, you'll wait a minute and then travel down the 305 meters of road leading to the tunnel.

 

305 meters. That's what we're dealing here. Three hundred and five meters. It's not even like we're taking down kilometers of road here. 305 meters.

Three synchronized lights. A slowdown, unquestionably. A significant slowdown more than a couple of minutes? Absolutely positively not.

 

Granted, if there's a slowdown due to traffic congestion at rush hour, that exists already and would be there regardless.

 

 

The other part that I disagree on is when you say that we need to expand downtown south. Who says? There's plenty of room elsewhere for the expansion of downtown. We WANT to expand downtown towards the canal and make something nice, NEED is nowhere in this equation. And besides, highway or no highway, we can still expand south if the city will give the building height allowances to developers.

 

See my first point for answer. There is also a bit of avant-gardisme in this plan. There is no immediate need for expanding south, but in 10-15 years, there will definitely be more pressure to expand. In fact, there is already expansion going on now. Griffintown, Bassins du Havre, ETS, Lowney, M9, etc.

[GoMontreal]

Wants and needs in this field are highly subjective. What is a want and what is a need is a matter of opinion, really.

 

If you place the most importance on having the absolutely fastest commute possible, then this project falls unquestionably in the want category. I'll grant that.

 

If you place more importance on greater sustainable economic growth, intelligent urban planning based on tried-and-tested methods, improving quality of life and restoring a cohesive fabric to south-downtown, then this project is unquestionably in the need category.

 

I think you're confused with NEED and WANT. A well-functioning economy so that we can feed our families and grow is a NEED. A nicely planned neighbourhood/entrance to Montréal is a WANT. A want is a luxury that we pay ourselves (like a 50 inch HDTV) when we have the money to do so (in the government's case, it's when the government thinks the public won't over-react too much to it's uncontrolled new spending). A need is a place to live or a car to get to work (when you can't get there by public transport of course :-). Defining NEEDS and WANTS based on your priorities is not realistic and sets yourself up for failure. If your priority is to get that new 50in HDTV before feeding yourself, you're going to have some problems. Montréal is in an economically bad shape and has been for decades. If Montréal has not been affected by the real estate problems, it's because it was already completely undervalued for reasons of unfavorable economic climate to businesses (high taxes and high regulation). To improve Montréal's economic favorability, we must invest more in infrastructure aimed at businesses (highways, etc.). Once and only after we receive more revenues from the newly arrived businesses, then we can spend more on public transport projects and we'll be able to pay for that bonaventure tunnel and beautiful above ground project.

[Cataclaw]

I think you're confused with NEED and WANT. A well-functioning economy so that we can feed our families and grow is a NEED.

 

Precisely. This project is economic development at the core! This will spur growth, employ many people, etc.

 

See what i wrote below :

 

If you place importance on greater sustainable economic growth, intelligent urban planning based on tried-and-tested methods, improving quality of life and restoring a cohesive fabric to south-downtown, then this project is unquestionably in the need category.

 

I also take your lack of a counter to the other things in my post to be agreement