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

[Cyrus]

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.

 

 

But why is more people driving around undesirable? The people obviously like doing that since they are choosing to do so. The road itself also works for buses etc (especially the Bonaventure!). More people moving around and doing things that they want to is by definition better for all, no? Urban sprawl is necessary for the growth of the population (need to put the people somewhere), and wouldn't improved road infrastructure in the downtown core reduce this effect by reducing the tendency for downtown employers to relocate to suburban areas where the employees live?

 

Almost all the anti-road arguments I hear smack heavily of "I know what is better for you than you do"... except for the obviously overpriced and useless white elephant proposals that arrive from time to time (e.g. those crazy "LaRouche" weirdos that camp out around Ste Catherine St and say they should build a tunnel under the Bering Strait)

 

I am very skeptical of the "optimal" concept. Historically, traffic counts have risen steadily, and capacity improvements have followed to combat the worst areas. But that capacity improvement is by itself also driving the traffic increase? I mean look at the Metropolitan, this is a horribly congested corridor and the traffic counts increase year on year like they have since it was built. The capacity there is far from optimal as the level of service is dismal, but the "stranglulation" effect on traffic growth from inadequate capacity, either does not exist or the effect is widely overblown.

 

What should be important to note for Bonaventure, is what is the cost-benefit for the project? It already IS an elevated freeway, and a freeway is the best evolved form of road, like a man is superior to a monkey Demolishing the highway would be more costly than renovating the road and maintaining it. The arguments for the project usually center around the "urban renewal", but would it actually play any real role in this? You still have the "elevated eyesore barrier" of the railway lines and the "eyesore" of the, let's be honest, crappy area that is there (University itself and the Bonaventure look nice from the road, but south of the Bonaventure station, there is nothing there...) and plenty of developable land (like the toxic waste dump Technoparc)... probably what I would see happening is a demolished Bonaventure, minor improvements to the two streets on either side, a big dirt trench where the highway was and if anything, depressed property values for the empty lots in the vicinity...

 

Speaking of which did they ever fill in that hole around St Lawrence St, I remember being there about 8 years ago, big hole, and a few months ago I was there, still big hole

Modifié 22 juin 2010 par Cyrus

[Cataclaw]

I agree that traffic engineers should synchronize the lights.

 

"Faire chier le monde" on purpose i certainly do not approve of.

 

I hope (and i want) this to be done properly!!

[Cyrus]

I agree that traffic engineers should synchronize the lights.

 

"Faire chier le monde" on purpose i certainly do not approve of.

 

I hope (and i want) this to be done properly!!

 

Synchronization would be nice, but we shouldn't have to have dreams that are so... mundane

 

Why not an automated traffic light optimisation system like SCOOT?

 

http://www.scoot-utc.com/

 

We are a big city, and even little cities like Red Deer, Alta have this since the 1980's...

http://www.reddeer.ca/cord/Templates/Multipurpose.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID={949E848D-5B1B-4A12-83DC-6D8141F8ECD9}&NRORIGINALURL=%2fCity%2bGovernment%2fCity%2bServices%2band%2bDepartments%2fEngineering%2fTraffic%2fTraffic%2bOperations%2fSignals.htm&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest#Signal%20Synchronization

 

Computerized Signal System

 

In 1987, Red Deer became the first city in North America to implement the SCOOT (Split, Cycle, and Offset Optimization Technique) Real Time Signal Synchronization Computer System.

 

 

The Royal Bank of Canada and the Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators presented The City of Red Deer with the prestigious Willis - Honourable Distinction Award for The City's Traffic Management Program.

 

SCOOT operates by constantly measuring the pattern of vehicle demands and continuously changing the signal timings so they match the developing traffic situation.

 

Detectors in the road supply second-by-second traffic volume information to the SCOOT System. Detectors are located in advance of the signalized intersections. Closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras are used to monitor traffic flow at the City's busiest intersections.

 

 

Signal Synchronization

Even with a National Award of Excellence, we understand some motorists are still repeatedly stopped by red lights. Consultant studies have told us that some roadways are approaching capacity, and more motorists would be stopped even with the best signal synchronization plan. Synchronization can only try to minimize, but not completely eliminate stopping.

 

The following are examples of situations where motorists could be stopped more often:

 

* Nearby intersections with similar traffic volumes or sizes are synchronized as a zone. When you drive from one zone to another, you may have to stop.

* Left turn arrows take time away from through traffic, therefore stopping more through traffic.

* When more traffic arrives at the same time than can be cleared, some traffic has to stop for the next signal cycle.

* The stopped traffic, in turn, creates more congestion for the next signal cycle. At a wider intersection, pedestrians take more time to cross. Therefore, the red light will stay longer and stop more traffic. Intersections where there are very few pedestrians have a long green light which is synchronized for the through traffic. If the pedestrian crossing button is pushed, the long green light will be cut short, and the synchronization will be interrupted to let the pedestrian cross safely.

* Signals are generally synchronized to favour the direction with heavier traffic. If you drive opposite the heavy flow, you will be stopped more often.

[Cataclaw]

But why is more people driving around undesirable? The people obviously like doing that since they are choosing to do so. The road itself also works for buses etc (especially the Bonaventure!). More people moving around and doing things that they want to is by definition better for all, no?

 

More people driving around is undesirable because:

1. Increased pollution

2. Promotion of sprawl and lowered densities

3. Lower densities means support infrastructure becomes less cost-effective (if everyone lives in a single-family home in the suburbs, your sewage system, for the same cost and amount of work installing it, will now service 10 families instead of potentially 1000). Providing electricity and water is also more expensive when the density is lower.

4. Increased dependency on oil (this is subject to change in the future, but for now, it has not)

5. Drop in mass transit ridership

6. Increase in land use at the expense of forests, valuable agricultural land and other green spaces

7. Increase in land spent on transportation infrastructure (including parking) decreases taxable land and revenue

8. Studies have proven that people living in low density areas have a lower life expectancies (as a result of being less healthy overall, due to walking less as a result of dependency on cars)

9. Increased hot spots ("ilots de chaleur")

10. Greater number of smog days

 

And i could go on and on...

 

What should be important to note for Bonaventure, is what is the cost-benefit for the project? It already IS an elevated freeway, and a freeway is the best evolved form of road, like a man is superior to a monkey

 

That's the 1960s mentality i was talking about. Is elevated freeway really the best form of road? Why aren't all roads freeways then? Maybe Sainte-Catherine should be an elevated freeway too, since it's the best and most evolved form of road! Only the finest for one of our best streets, right?

Modifié 22 juin 2010 par Cataclaw

[Cyrus]

 

 

That's the 1960s mentality i was talking about. Is elevated freeway really the best form of road? Why aren't all roads freeways then? Maybe Sainte-Catherine should be an elevated freeway too, since it's the best and most evolved form of road! Only the finest for one of our best streets, right?

 

Sure it is the best form of road! If you have to pick a road, freeway is the one... by a wide margin the fastest and safest no matter what vehicle or shoes you are wearing

 

Ste Catherine is an existing road with an existing vocation... The road primarily functions as a shopping mall and is narrow... freeway rules would be impossible to apply, unless you made something like a one way viaduct down the middle and then had the regular Ste Cath underneath... but for what? The real issue for automotive traffic on Ste Cath is the pedestrians who cross all over the place and prevent turning. The best cost-benefit would be pedestrian overpasses or underpasses and somehow making the pedestrians use them. Ste Cath is so much nicer to drive on a snowy day in the winter when all the peds go underground instead

 

I didn't say anything about elevated roads, they are expensive to build initially and because of the design requires a lot of maintenace and doesn't last "forever". Consequently you end up with a situation like the Metropolitan which is just horrible. I won't say it is a "never ever" design but it should be a last resort. It is however very useful in urban settings since you can have infinite crossing points for pedestrians and vehicle traffic underneath, and you get some extra space for other uses, like parking or retail. For example, in Calgary AB, under a freeway interchange recently built near downtown, there is actually a store underneath the ramps, whose owner didn't want to be expropriated.

 

I think it could be interesting to reconstruct the Bonaventure into a depressed below-grade freeway similar to Decarie, and actually extend it ideally just past Rene-Levesque, that would be so nice Probably would require dropping lanes compared to the existing University St, but getting rid of the traffic lights would be much better. Keep those nice banners and sculptures that are currently in the median and sidewalks of University and make it architecturally appealing But it would require some antics to get over or under the Ville-Marie, unless that part stays at-grade...

 

More people driving around is undesirable because:

1. Increased pollution

2. Promotion of sprawl and lowered densities

3. Lower densities means support infrastructure becomes less cost-effective (if everyone lives in a single-family home in the suburbs, your sewage system, for the same cost and amount of work installing it, will now service 10 families instead of potentially 1000). Providing electricity and water is also more expensive when the density is lower.

4. Increased dependency on oil (this is subject to change in the future, but for now, it has not)

5. Drop in mass transit ridership

6. Increase in land use at the expense of forests, valuable agricultural land and other green spaces

7. Increase in land spent on transportation infrastructure (including parking) decreases taxable land and revenue

8. Studies have proven that people living in low density areas have a lower life expectancies (as a result of being less healthy overall, due to walking less as a result of dependency on cars)

9. Increased hot spots ("ilots de chaleur")

10. Greater number of smog days

 

Smog in Montreal has nothing to do with the automotive traffic in the city, it appears to be primarily resultant from wood stoves... it is important to note the great strides in pollution controls on automobiles, as noted in a recent copy of AutoWeek, a new 2011 Ford Mustang produces less smog-forming pollutants driving down a highway at 110 km/h, than a 1970 Mustang produces when it is parked with the engine OFF (!)

 

Lower densities means less expense on road infrastructure, since land is cheaper and expensive grade-separations (ie freeways) become less necessary

 

Valuable agricultural land is supposed to be protected by the "loi agricole" no?

Modifié 22 juin 2010 par Cyrus

[Cataclaw]

Well there's something we can agree on, Cyrus.

 

The best solution (albeit the most expensive) would be to stick Bonaventure under ground entirely, from just before Peel Bassin until the Ville-Marie Expressway where it would connect via an underground interchange.

 

The above-ground land could then be spent entirely on parcs and skyscrapers

[Cataclaw]

Smog in Montreal has nothing to do with the automotive traffic in the city, it appears to be primarily resultant from wood stoves... it is important to note the great strides in pollution controls on automobiles, as noted in a recent copy of AutoWeek, a new 2011 Ford Mustang produces less smog-forming pollutants driving down a highway at 110 km/h, than a 1970 Mustang produces when it is parked with the engine OFF (!)

 

Lower densities means less expense on road infrastructure, since land is cheaper and expensive grade-separations (ie freeways) become less necessary

 

Valuable agricultural land is supposed to be protected by the "loi agricole" no?

 

Usage of wood stoves has diminished greatly in Montreal over the last few decades, yet smog still exists. Cars contribute to smog, though they are far from being the only factor. Still... increased car use = increased smog.

 

Hopefully 0-emission cars will change all that in the future!

 

Valuable agricultural land, protected or not, will fall prey to pressure from politicians, developers, etc.

 

Lower densities means increased expense on road infrastructure, not less. True, simpler forms of expressway construction are used (no grade separations, elevated segments, etc.) but the distances to be covered are far, far greater and the number of highways greater as well.

[Cyrus]

Usage of wood stoves has diminished greatly in Montreal over the last few decades, yet smog still exists. Cars contribute to smog, though they are far from being the only factor. Still... increased car use = increased smog.

 

Hopefully 0-emission cars will change all that in the future!

 

Valuable agricultural land, protected or not, will fall prey to pressure from politicians, developers, etc.

 

Lower densities means increased expense on road infrastructure, not less. True, simpler forms of expressway construction are used (no grade separations, elevated segments, etc.) but the distances to be covered are far, far greater and the number of highways greater as well.

 

Cars don't necessarily contribute to smog. I remember a test from Saab Automobile circa 1992. They drove a Saab Turbo in downtown San Francisco, measuring the exhaust gas and the intake gas. The Saab exhaust was actually cleaner than the ambient air (less carbon monoxide and VOC's essentially), and that is with a car meeting the emissions standards of ~1999 (i.e. something like 10 times more polluting than the current Tier II bins). Of course, if you are in an environment with air that is already clean....

 

edit

 

Here's a Youtube where they show the car cleaning the exhaust of an old car, LOL

 

But how can you control that "sprawl"? How many people honestly want to live in an apartment or condo with a family? When you're 20, downtown high-rise is pretty sweet, but it sucks balls with kids. I remember my parents were always wanting the "house" (single-family detached suburban home) and when they finally were able to buy, they (and us kids) were stoked. I have no intention of living in anything but such a house (hopefully a bigger one) in the future... though I wouldn't mind a larger home on an acreage

 

Also the value of land in the core and surrounding area is quite high anyway. By trying to "densify" the affordability of those properties is simply reduced.

 

Look at Vancouver - Vancouver has a terrible road network, but has lots of sprawl and serious affordability problems. I like the "Crack Shack or Mansion" game: http://www.crackshackormansion.com/ The median cost of a home is 9.3 times the median income, it's nuts (I think for comparison Montreal is approximately 4.9, Detroit is only 1.6, but who would want to live in D-town)

Modifié 22 juin 2010 par Cyrus

[Cyrus]

Well there's something we can agree on, Cyrus.

 

The best solution (albeit the most expensive) would be to stick Bonaventure under ground entirely, from just before Peel Bassin until the Ville-Marie Expressway where it would connect via an underground interchange.

 

The above-ground land could then be spent entirely on parcs and skyscrapers

 

How about both?

 

 

:D

[Malek]

i love you man