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

[Cataclaw]

SKYMTL and IshmaelJones:

 

I must respectfully disagree. Thankfully, the city does as well. In my opinion you guys are stuck in the 1960's.

 

Vivement le projet du Havre!

 

Edit: So the same people hating on this project are the same ones that hated on the Parc/Pine interchange project, even though it's almost universally praised now. You guys are seriously in the minority.

 

It boggles my mind to think some people actually liked it better when we had this colossal mess:

 

I'm quite happy with:

Modifié 22 juin 2010 par Cataclaw

[IshmaelJones]

What boggles the mind is how simplistic an approach some will take when faced with legitimate and challenging urban planning issues that need to be resolved. Ad-hominem attacks on people who advance these issues is a sign of ignorance of said issues. It would be worthwhile to examine and understand these issues more closely before spouting out catch phrases. You would discover that the only change well-informed people fear is the change proposed by the uninformed.

 

Over the course of the OCPM consultations, well-informed citizens, community groups, academics, business people and councillors all forwarded proposals for the change they want to see in the Quartier Bonaventure. It was made clear and reiterated in the final report, that the SHM's proposal, as sexy as it seemed, is a short-sighted one that does not take into consideration the dimensions of long-term public transit solutions, pedestrian safety, economic feasibility, etc. The participants at the OCPM spoke of changes such as light-rail transit, trains de banlieue, linear parks, cultural offerings, requalification, etc...all in line with the three principles of sustainable development. People demonstrated their knowledge not only of the current situation, but of the mistakes advanced by a power-hungry SHM. And people also made clear the fact that they want to see this area changed...for the better.

 

It's just waaaay too easy for someone to diss others than to actually refute what they are advancing. Let's try arguments that make sense.

[Cataclaw]

As an urban planner who has a passion for these issues, i must object and take offense to your not-so-subtle claims of ignorance. I am quite well informed and i understand quite well what's at stake here, thank you very much.

 

Furthermore, I've put forth arguments that make sense over the last few pages. They're there for the reading.

 

Finally, i'd like to reiterate my strong belief that the elevated highway cutting through town is unnecessary and a hindrance to sustainable development. It must be redeveloped. Period.

Modifié 22 juin 2010 par Cataclaw

[Cyrus]

SKYMTL and IshmaelJones:

 

I must respectfully disagree. Thankfully, the city does as well. In my opinion you guys are stuck in the 1960's.

 

Vivement le projet du Havre!

 

Edit: So the same people hating on this project are the same ones that hated on the Parc/Pine interchange project, even though it's almost universally praised now. You guys are seriously in the minority.

 

It boggles my mind to think some people actually liked it better when we had this colossal mess:

 

I'm quite happy with:

 

Why do people always sort out this "1960's mentality" thing when someone wants roads that offer a reasonable level of service?

[Cyrus]

 

Bordered by 4 lanes of traffic per side, actually. How is this different from any avenue in New York City? Parc Avenue has 8 lanes and 80 storey skyscrapers. If you've ever walked around, there is tons of pedestrian activity! Also, last i checked, René-Lévesque has just as many lanes and is bustling with pedestrian, automobile and cycling activity. Not to mention the skyscrapers.

 

This is BS though. Rene-Levesque is an intra-urban arterial with an east-west alignment, that parallels the east-west Ville-Marie freeway (6-8 lanes) that serves regional traffic... Rene-Levesque has some traffic issues but mostly could be fixed by proper light timing. But if you removed the 720 you would have SERIOUS issues.

 

Bonaventure is a major commuter route to the South Shore and a major trade corridor from downtown Montreal to the USA. The local arterials already exist on either side...

 

If you go to New York, the area is criss-crossed by dozens of different freeways. The road network of New York City itself is obviously inadequate to anyone who uses it, even "pedestrian congestion" pops up in Manhattan, but this is a result of New York being such an incredibly populous (over 8,3 M, more than all of Quebec, about the same as all of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan...) and dense urban center. Interstate 287 in Jersey usually flows nice and has beautiful views of the natural environment of the "garden state" but damn, 287 is quite far from the city centre (but NYC is huge). Imagine if any of those freeways (e.g. the BQE, Van Wyck, Cross-Bronx etc etc) were replaced with useless "urban boulevards", the city would choke to death

Modifié 22 juin 2010 par Cyrus

[Cataclaw]

This is BS though. Rene-Levesque is an intra-urban arterial with an east-west alignment, that parallels the east-west Ville-Marie freeway (6-8 lanes) that serves regional traffic... Rene-Levesque has some traffic issues but mostly could be fixed by proper light timing. But if you removed the 720 you would have SERIOUS issues.

 

Bonaventure is a major commuter route to the South Shore and a major trade corridor from downtown Montreal to the USA. The local arterials already exist on either side...

 

Bonaventure has ~50,000 cars per day, compared to nearly 4x that (~200,000) for the Metropolitan, ~200,000 also for the Decarie, ~160,000 for the Ville-Marie, etc.

 

Taschereau Boulevard in the south shore alone has 2x more daily traffic than the Bonaventure!

 

I'm not saying it isn't used, but it's certainly not comparable to any neighboring highway. Bringing it down at-grade will not drastically change traffic patterns.

[Cataclaw]

Why do people always sort out this "1960's mentality" thing when someone wants roads that offer a reasonable level of service?

 

Because that was the mentality in the 1960s.

 

If we drastically increase service (let's say we double the lanes on all highways on the island) then we counter-intuitively encourage a threefold increase in automobile use which will lead to ever greater traffic congestion. (Not to mention promote sprawl, worsen air quality, etc.)

 

There is such a thing as optimal road capacity. We need highways, don't get me wrong. I'm strong proponent for the A-25 extension, the A-30 extension, the A-50, etc. But too much capacity will only ensure a comfortable drive for a short while. As people opt to take the highway, traffic will increase until congestion is achieved once again, only this time, more people are dependent on using their cars so the congestion has a diminished chance of lessening due to mass transit options. Trust me, i've studied this at length.

 

More lanes != better service.

 

 

The Bonaventure corridor does not have sufficient traffic to warrant being an elevated expressway.

It needs to be brought down to ground-level so that we can move forward with the sustainable development of the neighborhood.

Modifié 22 juin 2010 par Cataclaw

[Habsfan]

As long as the traffic lights are well time4d on this new urban blvd, then i don't see any problems with tearing down that portion of Bonaventure.

 

For those who don't think Bonaventure is an important artery, take a look at how far back traffic backs up on University during rush hour in the afternoon. More often than not, it backs up to René-Lévesque and even Cathcart. If you were to ad more street lights on this "prolonged University street", it would just create even more traffic downtown.

 

Like I said, If they can make sure that traffic lights would be well timed, then it should be OK.

[Cataclaw]

Bonaventure backing up to Rene-Levesque is 600m and perfectly reasonable in my view. Backed up to Rene-Levesque is nothing. Look at Decarie when it backs up daily to Queen-Mary (that's 3km!!!)

 

Or how about when the Lafontaine Tunnel is backed up to Montarville (that's 5.5km!!!)

 

University is an important street, no doubt Habsfan, but traffic there is small in comparison. That's all i'm trying to say.

 

Listen... if Bonaventure had 200,000 cars/day i'd be very nervous about demolishing it and rebuilding it at-grade with traffic lights. I honestly would.

 

But at 25% (and less) of that amount, we can comfortably create something good for the city : a doorway to the south for facilitated expansion of our downtown!

 

The trade-off is insanely beneficial.

 

A few seconds (up to a couple minutes) added to a commute that few people use to begin with (compared to other major arteries)

 

Gives us:

 

Gateway to the south, new entrance for the city, new development opportunities, increased quality of life, better city life for pedestrians and cyclists, more visually appealing area with new parcs, trees, sidewalks, fresh pavement, less concrete, etc. And more!

 

---------

 

But anyway. I understand not everyone will see eye-to-eye on this issue, so i will respect your opinions Cyrus and IshmaelJones. We can agree to disagree!

:highfive:

 

--------

[Habsfan]

I'm not saying that demolishing a small portion of Bonaventure is a bad idea. I'm just saying that it'll cause more traffic downtown if it isn't done properly!. When i said that traffic backs up to René-Lévesque, i didn't mention that traffic usually backs on on the eastbound lanes of René-Lévesque from mansfield or metcalf just to be able to turn on University.

 

Not to mention that traffic backs up on Viger street for quite a while.