Autoroute - Pont de la 25 (2011)

[Cyrus]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

I think probably the biggest reason it didn't increase congestion was that it actually improved the capacity of the corridor, because the road had been closed for years at that point

 

I don't get the ugly / dirty / unattractive / intimidiating structure issue, if anything, it was prettier than that ugly building, boom If anything that is not intrinsic but just an issue of design of the road and maintenance. Plus it must have given a nice view of the area when driving up on top. If a highway is intrinsically intimidating, how is a train rushing at you not?

 

I wouldn't suggest a freeway along Ste-Catherine since the cost of expropriation would be high and it is already close to the Ville-Marie... there is a need for improved circulation in/around the downtown core, it would be interesting perhaps to revisit the old idea of putting a freeway underneath the mountain, and there is need for improvements in the N-S direction, maybe the old plan of a Decarie-style arrangement along Papineau (A-19) would be nice, it sure would at rush hour, that thing is nuts.

 

I've never argued for "100% cars" but for people to have access to infrastructure that meets their needs and means. An infrastructure that is too expensive to construct or maintain is out of the question, congestion is bad, etc etc. If anything the elevated urban freeway is good because you can put everyone in the same space, without breaking the street grid, pedestrians can cross at will, etc etc.

 

I don't want to talk about Park-Pine, I was there the other day stuck at a series of red lights for trying to turn right! Some of them didn't even have a cross-street just a empty cross-walk... I'm happy not to work or live in that area...

 

An interchange is an expensive proposition, just in construction a small, simple diamond interchange would cost you at least 10-15 million and usually more. If an at-grade solution is effective, then the presence of an interchange is bad planning or necessary for a systems/network aspect (e.g. all the interchanges for random "rang"s on the autoroutes, they aren't needed, but it isn't safe to have tractors crossing this kind of road). An other factor would be a change in the land-use that causes the traffic to drop sharply (Berlin Wall factor) but there isn't much (any?) case of that in Montreal...

[Cyrus]

Pictures!

 

http://drfrankenstein.homedns.org:8080/images/photos/main.php?g2_itemId=11466

[Cataclaw]

I think probably the biggest reason it didn't increase congestion was that it actually improved the capacity of the corridor, because the road had been closed for years at that point

 

I know it can be hard to accept, it's certainly counter-intuitive, but believe or not, removing road capacity can sometimes increase efficiency and reduce congestion by the law of induced demand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

Thousands of studies around the world have shown that in certain cases (and i stress -- in certain cases -- not everywhere) adding capacity puts more cars on the road and ultimately increases traffic, and vice versa.

 

 

I don't get the ugly / dirty / unattractive / intimidiating structure issue, if anything, it was prettier than that ugly building, boom If anything that is not intrinsic but just an issue of design of the road and maintenance. Plus it must have given a nice view of the area when driving up on top. If a highway is intrinsically intimidating, how is a train rushing at you not?

 

The elevated highway physically and visually cut off the waterfront from the rest of the city. A highway is never an attractive scene for a pedestrian. By opening up the area and lowering the road to surface-level, views were restored, connections were improved, noise, air and visual pollution reduced and overall quality of life improved.

 

In an ideal world, highways should never cut through dense urban areas -- ever. It's always bad, 100% of the time, from an urban point of view.

In an ideal world, urban highways should always be tunnels.

 

I wouldn't suggest a freeway along Ste-Catherine since the cost of expropriation would be high and it is already close to the Ville-Marie... there is a need for improved circulation in/around the downtown core, it would be interesting perhaps to revisit the old idea of putting a freeway underneath the mountain, and there is need for improvements in the N-S direction, maybe the old plan of a Decarie-style arrangement along Papineau (A-19) would be nice, it sure would at rush hour, that thing is nuts.

 

What?! You'd have to demolish a giant swath of city to build the A-19 along Papineau.. the destruction would be catastrophic. Not to mention you would utterly rape the quality of life in the area and create a variety of physical, visual and psychological barriers. Do it in a tunnel (if we had the cash) and sure, not a problem. But above-ground? No way in hell... that's just madness!

 

I've never argued for "100% cars" but for people to have access to infrastructure that meets their needs and means.

Re: law of induced demand.

If we kept adding car capacity until everyone's needs were met (0 traffic anywhere at any time) every highway in and around Montreal would be a 14-lane highway. So in addition to destroying tens of thousands of homes and buildings, increasing air pollution, increasing noise pollution, increasing physical barriers and reducing pedestrian and urban quality of life, you'd be promoting sprawl. Do you know why more "urban" cities (such as Vancouver and Montreal) consistently score higher on quality of life studies than their more sprawl-ish suburban counterparts (such as Atlanta or Phoenix)? It's because these cities are more dense, have better transit, have vibrant inner-cores that aren't spread out, etc etc. There a million factors to be sure, but don't kid yourself for one second, the ones I just mentioned are absolutely critical and contribute to a variety of other benefits as well.

 

Peak oil is here. Cars are great and should stay a part of our lives, but there are (occasionally better) alternatives in many situations and we need to explore them. It's time to embrace transit-oriented development and high-density-driven urban development/smart growth.

 

Yes to cars, yes to fixing highways, yes to completing the missing links in Montreal's network (A-30, A-25, A-640, etc.) but NO to out-of-control highway building. Highways yes, but in moderation -- intelligently.

 

There, i've said my piece... nothing i hadn't said on mtlurb before either. I doubt i'll convince you, Cyrus, and that's fine. I respect your point of view if you respect mine. Understand that I do see the merits of highways as engines of economic growth. It's no luxury car, but I do love my Focus ZX5, and I love a drive in the country like anybody else. But you must also see my side of things as an urban planner -- too much of anything is never good! That goes for highways too!

Modifié 19 mai 2011 par Cataclaw

[Malek]

Que sommes-nous supposés comprendre de ton article?

 

Des infrastructures performants = économie performante.

 

Pas compliqué... les conteneurs du vieux port ne seront pas jolie sur le boulevard notre-dame, surtout quand il N'Y A PAS D'ACCÈS À L'EAU!

[Malek]

 

What?! You'd have to demolish a giant swath of city to build the A-19 along Papineau.. the destruction would be catastrophic. Not to mention you would utterly rape the quality of life in the area and create a variety of physical, visual and psychological barriers. Do it in a tunnel (if we had the cash) and sure, not a problem. But above-ground? No way in hell... that's just madness!

 

Pas une grosse perte, ce quartier est une poubelle, je verais plus la 19 passer sur Iberville/Frontenac.

 

[sTREETVIEW]http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=frontenac,&aq=&sll=45.546349,-73.58398&sspn=0.012443,0.033023&ie=UTF8&t=h&rq=1&ev=p&split=1&radius=0.96&hq=frontenac,&hnear=&ll=45.540153,-73.571345&spn=0,0.033023&z=16&layer=c&cbll=45.540153,-73.571345&panoid=Pqc9FlaGh-V3d9v-W-qXLg&cbp=12,308.11,,0,1.23[/sTREETVIEW]

 

 

Je crois en tunnel PPP / péage ça serais moins cher, que de racheter tous ces terrains.

Modifié 19 mai 2011 par Malek

[Malek]

I don't want to talk about Park-Pine, I was there the other day stuck at a series of red lights for trying to turn right! Some of them didn't even have a cross-street just a empty cross-walk... I'm happy not to work or live in that area...

 

It's hard to believe, but a few months back when there was major works on Parc ( i didn't know ), there was only one lane open northbound, I was freaking out about being stuck in that shithole.

 

But believe or not, I did Mont-Royal to Jean-Talon in 6-7 minutes tops during the evening rush hour!

 

How can it be?

 

Cops controlling the lights and letting the traffic flow freely!!!

 

This can easily be done on major arteries, let's put people to control those lights and let the traffic flow.

[Cyrus]

I know it can be hard to accept, it's certainly counter-intuitive, but believe or not, removing road capacity can sometimes increase efficiency and reduce congestion by the law of induced demand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

Thousands of studies around the world have shown that in certain cases (and i stress -- in certain cases -- not everywhere) adding capacity puts more cars on the road and ultimately increases traffic, and vice versa.

 

Traffic is good, it supports densification of the surrounding land-use What is so sprawly of Atlanta or Phoenix as compared to Montreal? They have a bigger geographical footprint but also a bigger population... drive up the 15, it is basically a consistent urban development for a really long distance, and the Champlain bridge congestion stretches out to A-35 in the morning... we have plenty sprawl here

 

Vancouver's placing on quality-of-life studies makes me question the methodology... I mean if you are fantastically wealthy it is great, but if you run up and down Hastings St it's terrible. I remember the last one of those studies (Economist, 2011) placed Vancouver as #1 but also Toronto at #4 and Calgary #5. Toronto has 14+ lane freeways all over the place and Calgary has a wide number of "expressways", while both cities have tons of sprawly factors (Vancouver development is spotty but geographically wide, Toronto has the 905, and Calgary annexes land every couple of years because of how fast the sprawl moves (but granted, the population growth is extremely high)).

 

Phoenix and Hotlanta must be doing pretty well in "quality of life" as well since they have very rapid population growth as well, and to be honest, last time I was in Phoenix, a wonderful sun and 28 *C greeted me who had left Montreal at -18 *C But the traffic on US-60 was ridiculous and I nearly missed my flight to get out of there (and I left super early to beat it!). I hear now they have done improvements to US-60 which I sure hope they have done, it was gridlock with traffic lights starting before Sun City (!), I was considering offering a $5 to one of the thousands of Mexican workers to give me a piggy-back ride to Sky Harbor, I would have been faster

 

My opinion is just demand-based... if an infrastructure is failing then it isn't good... As for 14 lanes, they have it in Toronto and there is plenty urban in TO

 

PS just adding to my post, that same quality-of-life index had Melbourne as #2, and they have:

Melbourne has a very high dependency on the automobile for transport[176] particularly in the outer suburban areas where the largest number of cars are bought[177] with a total of 3.6 million private vehicles using 22,320 km (13,870 mi) of road, and one of the highest lengths of road per capita in the world.[176] The early 20th century saw an increase in popularity of the automobiles, resulting in large scale suburban expansion[178] and today it has an extensive network of freeways and arterial roadways used by private vehicles including freight as well as public transport systems including bus and taxis. Major highways feeding into the city include the Eastern Freeway, Monash Freeway and West Gate Freeway (which spans the large Westgate Bridge), whilst other freeways circumnavigate the city or lead to other major cities, including CityLink (which spans the large Bolte Bridge), Eastlink, the Western Ring Road, Calder Freeway, Tullamarine Freeway (main airport link) and the Hume Freeway which links Melbourne and Sydney.[179]

Modifié 19 mai 2011 par Cyrus

[Cataclaw]

Pas une grosse perte, ce quartier est une poubelle

 

Justement. Si on veut l'améliorer, c'est pas comme ça qu'on va y arriver..

 

De Laval à la Métropolitaine, ok. Mais après ça, on coupe à travers des quartiers parmis les plus denses de l'amérique du nord... ça serait totalement fou! La seule option c'est en tunnel ou pas du tout!

[Cyrus]

It's hard to believe, but a few months back when there was major works on Parc ( i didn't know ), there was only one lane open northbound, I was freaking out about being stuck in that shithole.

 

But believe or not, I did Mont-Royal to Jean-Talon in 6-7 minutes tops during the evening rush hour!

 

How can it be?

 

Cops controlling the lights and letting the traffic flow freely!!!

 

This can easily be done on major arteries, let's put people to control those lights and let the traffic flow.

 

You don't need cops, you can do this by robots, and heck, even just by timing the lights properly which in Montreal is generally unheard of...

 

Justement. Si on veut l'améliorer, c'est pas comme ça qu'on va y arriver..

 

De Laval à la Métropolitaine, ok. Mais après ça, on coupe à travers des quartiers parmis les plus denses de l'amérique du nord... ça serait totalement fou! La seule option c'est en tunnel ou pas du tout!

 

okay fine... nothing is wrong with tunnels, they are just more grade-separation I just mean the lineups on the south side near the bridge are too much. I would say a tunnel is maybe too much south of... de Maisonneuve, there is nothing there but maybe hippies would be a factor. For north of the Met it is just a no-brainer the space is already reserved and the exit numbers are set up for it too. Imagine a A-19 direct freeway to the Met with a stack instead of that circle

Modifié 19 mai 2011 par Cyrus

[Cataclaw]

Traffic is good, it supports densification of the surrounding land-use What is so sprawly of Atlanta or Phoenix as compared to Montreal? They have a bigger geographical footprint but also a bigger population... drive up the 15, it is basically a consistent urban development for a really long distance, and the Champlain bridge congestion stretches out to A-35 in the morning... we have plenty sprawl here

 

Atlanta density: 1,552/km2

Phoenix density: 1,188.4/km2

 

Montreal density: 4,439/km2

 

A typical suburb in Atlanta (actually not even a suburb but part of Atlanta itself and barely 5km from downtown)

 

A typical suburb in Montreal (Longueuil)

 

Now do you see my point? You can debate it all you like, but the numbers and pictures don't lie. They're facts. Then again, you never seem to acknowledge I may be right about anything, ever.

 

Phoenix and Hotlanta must be doing pretty well in "quality of life" as well since they have very rapid population growth as well

 

Dude, that's ridiculous. There is no correlation between population growth and quality of life. Have you been to Africa lately?

 

My opinion is just demand-based... if an infrastructure is failing then it isn't good... As for 14 lanes, they have it in Toronto and there is plenty urban in TO

 

TO has fewer highways but they have more lanes, so it's about the same.

 

Finally something we can agree on: falling infrastructure is bad. We can both agree that serious investments need to be made all across the Montreal region. Fixing highways, roads, bridges and bike paths alike.

(And while you're at it, double the lanes on A-15/20 between Turcot and Champlain. Two is nonsensical.)

Modifié 19 mai 2011 par Cataclaw