Autoroute - Pont de la 25 (2011)

[Né entre les rapides]

INTRIGUÉ par le DJMA

 

Selon les informations fournies, on prévoit, pour la première année d'opération, un débit journalier moyen annuel (DJMA) de 25,000 véhicules. De plus, une clause du contrat prévoit une hausse de tarif si le DJMA en vient à excéder 68,000, soit-disant pour "contrôler" la demande.

 

Or, pour mettre les choses en perspectives, sachez que le DJMA du pont Médéric Martin (aut. des Laurentides) est de 160,000 et que celui du pont Louis-Bisson (A-13) atteint 140,000. Les autres ponts entre Laval et Montréal, qui ne relient pas des autoroutes sur les DEUX rives, sont évidemment moins fréquentés, mais leurs débits sont quand même importants.

 

Il me semble qu'il y a lieu de s'interroger sérieusement! D'autant plus que le projet imminent de la Ville de Montréal de démanteler le viaduc Henri-Bourassa qui surplombe le bd. Pie IX juste au sud du pont du même nom, sur l'actuelle (temporaire) A-25, ne pourra faire autrement que de réduire la capacité véhiculaire de cet axe. Ceci n'est peut-être pas une mauvaise chose en soi (réduction de la circulation dans un quartier populeux), mais quand on considère en même temps la volonté délibérée de limiter le DJMA sur le nouveau pont de l'A-25, on peut commencer à douter de l'ampleur de l'amélioration souhaitée de la circulation entre Laval/Rive-Nord et l'Ile de Montréal. Remarquez que c'est pas mal moins pire que ce qui s'en vient sur la Rive-Sud, malgré l'ouverture prévue en 2012 du pont de l'A-30 à l'ouest de l'agglomération, mais ça, c'est une histoire, à discuter une autre fois.

[Cyrus]

Evidemment ca demure assez fou de demanteler un carrefour denivelle sans le remplacer! Faut le faire...

 

Avec un pont de 6 voies, sa capacite est d'habitude aux alentours de 50 000 - 60 000, donc normale qu'ils veulent hausser les tarifs pour garantir un circulation fluide. Tout a fait comme sur l'autoroute 407 dans la region de Toronto.

 

Pourtant, comme on peut constater a Toronto, la 401 demure congestionne et la 407 marche en merveille. Pour le circulation globale par contre, ca serait beaucoup mieux si la 407 a ete construit selon ses plans originaux (~12 voies collectrice-expres comme la 401) en lieu d'une autoroute normale de 8 voies (bientot 10) sans peage, pour soulanger davantage la 401...

[Cyrus]

Plus de photos du pont et ses approches:

 

http://richard3.wordpress.com/

[Cataclaw]

Evidemment ca demure assez fou de demanteler un carrefour denivelle sans le remplacer! Faut le faire...

 

San Francisco would like a word with you

 

BEFORE

 

 

AFTER

[JFrosty]

Now it just looks like a place for hippies.

[Cyrus]

Especially considering that it was mostly "Mother Nature" that tore it down, and that consistently the citizens opposed the project (anti-NIMBY?) and then when the mayor managed to tear down what was left, the voters promptly turfed him in the next election

 

On November 5, 1985, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to tear down the Embarcadero Freeway.[7] The proposal was put to the voters in 1987, and soundly defeated. The October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake significantly damaged the structure, causing it to be closed to traffic. CalTrans planned to retrofit and retain the two-decker freeway. Various groups in and outside the City supported the CalTrans plan, but there was a significant opinion within the City in favor of removing the freeway structure. Then Mayor Art Agnos proposed demolishing the freeway in favor of a boulevard with an underpass at the Ferry Building to allow for a large plaza.

 

Opposition to demolishing the freeway mounted again, with over 20,000 signatures gathered to again create a ballot measure. The strongest opposition came from Chinatown and other neighborhoods North of downtown. Merchants in Chinatown had suffered a dramatic decline in business in the months immediately following the earthquake and feared that if the freeway was not reopened they would not recover.[13] Agnos continued to negotiate with federal and state officials to win enough funding to make the demolition practical, and the opposition quieted. Demolition began on February 27, 1991.[14] That year Agnos was defeated for re-election as Chinatown switched its support away from him.

[Cataclaw]

Right! That was back then!

 

But now today, the new surface-level urban boulevard complete with tram and bike paths is nearly universally praised and widely regarded by people the world over as an outstanding example of urban improvement in the area of transportation infrastructure. Citizens, visitors, foreigners and experts alike now regard this as a model for better urban living in nearly every regard. In other words, it was a great success.

 

A lot of people were against the project at the time because they feared what it would do to traffic. When the expected traffic congestion never materialized (on the Embarcadero or any other neighboring road for that matter) people realized what they had just accomplished and grew ecstatic over their new and improved corridor.

 

Evidemment ca demure assez fou de demanteler un carrefour denivelle sans le remplacer! Faut le faire...

 

So I say again : San Francisco would like a word with you

[Malek]

bof un exemple, avec un timing opportun.

 

Je peux te donner l'exemple des 100 villes américaines qui ont abandonnées les rues pédestres.... mais ça personne n'en parle.

[Cyrus]

The people the world over don't drive that thing at 8:30 and 5:15 To really get a solid opinion you need to look at the mobility of the region and how it was affected, and how the current arrangement works, which I have no clue about (but someone from there could make an opinion, or preferably, Caltrans).

 

As a general rule I stand by my first comment. I mean, with a grade-separation you can put two things in the same XY coordinate, and at least one axis can be free-flow, how can that be bad?

 

Something that I'd consider an exception to the rule and simple enough would be the old interchange in Edmonton at Stony Plain Rd / Mayfair Rd / 170 St which, I never saw, but apparently was some kind of weird Y with a loop, but when you have 5 legs to an intersection things always end up screwy, apparently it is better now as a flat intersection, but originally there was supposed to be freeway through the NS (170) and E-W corridors which didn't get built (now that would have been better than what exists now, which stinks but then so does Edmonton ) I think the main issue with that interchange was it prioritized SW-W / E-NE traffic but the major load of traffic was N-S. But I've only seen the current at-grade configuration...

[Cataclaw]

bof un exemple, avec un timing opportun.

 

Je peux te donner l'exemple des 100 villes américaines qui ont abandonnées les rues pédestres.... mais ça personne n'en parle.

 

That's because most American cities are too suburban in nature and car-dependent for pedestrian (or in this case urban boulevards) to work.

Fortunately San Francisco is a more "urban" city with more public transportation, fewer vacant lots, higher density buildings, better height-width ratios, better street enclosure, etc etc etc.

The reduction of road capacity in order to provide a higher quality of life was made possible because of these factors. It wouldn't work just anywhere.

 

As a general rule I stand by my first comment.

 

Dude.. you're nuts lol. If Montreal proposed to bulldoze all of Sainte-Catherine street including all buildings and skyscrapers along it to build a 8-lane highway, would you be in favor? If you answer yes, you've officially lost all credibility. I dare you

Seriously though, you had an ugly multi-level highway blocking San Francisco from its waterfront. The structure was dirty, unattractive and intimidating. Now you've got a beautiful boulevard with plenty of car lanes still, as well as tram, bike, and pedestrian paths. Not to mention, visually everything looks so much better now. You can actually see the waterfront! Are you seriously telling me this project was a mistake?

 

By your own admission you don't how much about the current arrangement of automobile transportation in the area. Well, i do I've studied San Francisco at university. The reason why congestion didn't increase despite the reduction in capacity is because: 1) the elimination of that highway eliminated the incentive for car use (mostly for frequent users of that road) 2) public transit was installed/improved 3) many users switched from predominantly using their cars to transit instead.

 

Could this work everywhere, all the time? No.. it's more complicated than just tearing down roads and building transit. All the variables have to be just right for such a project to work. Luckily for San Francisco, they were. So i reject your statement that removing an interchange and replacing it with an at-grade intersection is automatically bad. Having studied these things at depth for 4 years, i'm quite convinced that many times, it's just the opposite. Take for example Montreal's Park-Pine interchange, one of Montreal's own success stories.

 

When it comes to transportation, it's all about balance. You need cars, absolutely, but you also need pedestrians, cyclists, trams, buses, subways, airplanes, light rail, commuter rail and inter-city trains. Sometimes you guys seem to be 100% about the cars and I honestly think that 100% cars at the expense of everything else leads to poor urban design and ultimately wasted resources and lower quality of life.

Modifié 18 mai 2011 par Cataclaw