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

[Cyrus]

It is interesting to note that the Ontario Ministry of Transport's (MTO) (and Alberta Transportation's, probably MTQ's as well) rule of thumb for freewayization is an AADT of 10 000 vehicles per day, and the Bonaventure carries 62 000 vehicles per day... It sounds like Delson-area Route 132 in the making

 

Edit, 2003 AADT for "urban boulevard" Rte 132 in Delson, 45 000 vehicles per day, and everyone knows that road is horrible

http://collections.banq.qc.ca/ark:/52327/bs44489

 

http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/Librairie/Publications/fr/regions/montreal/carte_debit2004.pdf

Modifié 28 juillet 2010 par Cyrus

[Cataclaw]

I would argue that it is a complete lack of leadership. As the people you love to refer to as NIMBYs made clear in all of their communication at the OCPM, the idea of transforming the Bonaventure is great. The execution is poor. Why is the execution poor? It's not because we don't have great talent in this city to design intelligent projects. It's because we don't have leaders who will allow that talent to shine and shield them from the corrupt influences. We could have a great project with popular support moving ahead right now. We don't because of poor leadership from the start.

 

Why do you believe the execution is poor? Public consensus currently approves of the proposal, a minority of vocal NIMBYs notwithstanding.

 

We do have a great project with popular support right now. Unfortunately, a vocal minority has been bashing the project constantly and getting all the attention for it. Proponents of the project aren't as militant.

 

But then again, it's always been like that. When you oppose something, you're far more inclined to voice your opinion militantly. If you're in favor of a project, the drive to go marching down the street is just not as easy to come by.

 

If the city wants to demonstrate true leadership, they'd cut the b.s. now and give the go-ahead to this project, lest we maintain the status quo for another half-century...

[nerdboy]

Why do you believe the execution is poor?

 

The CSRG memoire and presentation to the OCPM sum it up:

Memoire (PDF)

Presentation (PDF)

 

The Dalhousie Corridor element of the project epitomizes poor execution. And the rest of the project can be summarized as dropping an urban highway to ground level.

 

Unfortunately, a vocal minority has been bashing the project constantly and getting all the attention for it.

 

I thank you for the credit you give myself and my neighbours who feel that they should be able to live in a neighbourhood with less diesel bus exhaust and fewer lanes of traffic to cross between Griffintown and Old Montreal. Most of us have felt rather powerless save for a few moments of glory at the OCPM (whose recommendations fell on deaf ears in the Comite Executif).

 

If the city wants to demonstrate true leadership, they'd cut the b.s. now and give the go-ahead to this project, lest we maintain the status quo for another half-century...

 

Or, even better than that, they'd simply incorporate the changes that turn the project into a viable long-term solution, and THEN go ahead with popular support behind them (yes, even from the NIMBYs).

[Cataclaw]

Sigh... i don't want to get into repeating all the arguments again. Just go back and read my posts from a few pages back to learn why i believe some of the arguments against this project are ridiculous.

 

I'll say this though: i do agree with some of the arguments being made. This project isn't perfect, it could be better. I especially think the accessibility of the central lots will be difficult and would like to see this improved. But there will never be consensus on a project of this magnitude. So rather than fight over details for the next 20 years, we should go for a "reasonable best try" and fly with it.

Modifié 28 juillet 2010 par Cataclaw

[nerdboy]

Sigh... i don't want to get into repeating all the arguments again. Just go back and read my posts from a few pages back to learn why i believe the arguments against this project are ridiculous.

 

Wow, you read those two PDFs quickly!

[Cataclaw]

Wow, you read those two PDFs quickly!

 

I have, and though some arguments i find to be credible (such as the limited accessbility to the central lots, as i mentioned in the previous post) i do think other arguments are rather poor.

 

For example, the Memoire goes on about Integration and how the proposed zoning heights are too imposing for the area. Well, i disagree. I believe downtown is expanding to the west and to the south. Absolutely we should be building 120m towers in that area.

[Cyrus]

For example, the Memoire goes on about Integration and how the proposed zoning heights are too imposing for the area. Well, i disagree. I believe downtown is expanding to the west and to the south. Absolutely we should be building 120m towers in that area.

 

I'll agree with this. Integration? The area is a dump! Why integrate with that, we need to make something that is actually nice and doesn't fit with the surroundings at all... on the flip side, mandating 120m building heights may be impractical considering the low property value and desirability in that area as well as the current economy... solution, no zoning heights

 

I thank you for the credit you give myself and my neighbours who feel that they should be able to live in a neighbourhood with less diesel bus exhaust and fewer lanes of traffic to cross between Griffintown and Old Montreal. Most of us have felt rather powerless save for a few moments of glory at the OCPM (whose recommendations fell on deaf ears in the Comite Executif).

.

 

This isn't so much of a big deal with the new NOx and PM regulations on diesels, as the bus fleet is renewed you'll notice less and less offensive emissions... the aftertreatment solutions have raised the costs of heavy vehicles significantly however.

Modifié 28 juillet 2010 par Cyrus

[crosbyshow]

Questio nhors sujet comme ca:

 

Avez-vous vu le maire Tremblay dans les dernières semaines et même les 3 derniers mois ?

 

Moi pas

 

que ce soit dans ce dossier ou n'importe quel autre

<

 

 

le petit Gérald tente de se faire oublier en raison des scandales j'en suis sûr.

 

Dégueulasse pour la ville par contre.

 

en 2013, je verrais bien un tendem Rozon et Coderre

 

Avec eux, ce serait pas toujours propre mais il y en aurait de l,action

 

Des gars d'action et de vision. Ils aiment être vu et ce ca que ca prend

[gelu88]

Given that zoning and unrealistic expectations for the new space is a central point of criticism, i'm in favor of a idea i heard in the papers a while back: just demolish the highway and develop the center into parkland temporarily, while real possible projects can be considered.

 

Its much more reasonable that those skyscrapers in the CGI's which are a joke given current economic realities.

[Cyrus]

Impossible, in such a case we'd never be able to turn the parkland back into something useful, the "green space" activists would go apoplectic...

 

Though a similar thing was done south of Edmonton, Alta., the main N-S route is Highway 2, which in this area is a 6 lane freeway with a very wide median. The road was designed to upgraded to a collector-express highway with ~12 lanes like Highway 401 through Toronto when the demand required it. A relatively large section of the median was developed into "Gateway Park" until this road upgrading would occur (accessible as a LILO left exit / left entrance on either side), but this is far from the downtown core and I think Edmontonian attitudes wouldn't be so hostile to this eventual development.

Modifié 30 juillet 2010 par Cyrus