Jump to content

Cataclaw
 Share

Quelle phrase aimez-vous?  

17 members have voted

  1. 1. Quelle phrase aimez-vous?

    • Démolissons toutes les autoroutes et prolongons le TEC partout!
      0
    • Démolissons quelques autoroutes et prolongons le TEC à certains endroits
      0
    • Statu quo pour le réseau autoroutier et misons sur le TEC
      3
    • Améliorons certains segments ici et là mais en gros statu quo. Investissons en TEC.
      7
    • Ajoutons des voies sur quelques routes (A10, A15) ; construisons des nouveaux liens (exemple A-13)
      1
    • Doublons le nombre de voies sur certaines autoroutes; construisons quelques nouvelles autoroutes
      2
    • Doublons le nombre de voies sur toutes les autoroutes ; doublons le nombre d'autoroutes aussi
      2
    • Autre : spécifiez
      2


Recommended Posts

Le transport en voiture semble être un des sujets les plus divisifs sur mtlurb.

 

J'ai crée un sondage pour voir quelles sont les opinions des membres!

Edited by Cataclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cat knows how I voted :D

 

I don't know if it even makes sense what I clicked but that is the spirit of it.

 

What is necessary is to have adequate mobility for people and goods. From a planning perspective, IMO this needs to be reactive and not proactive in order to meet the desires of the users. Roads and public transport should be financed from the users uniquely and this would give a clear mechanism by which to provide the necessary infrastructure. People who spout about "modal shift" drive me nuts, they can pry the wheel from my cold, dead hands :D If "pollution" is a problem then this is easily solved through engineering, and indeed, it has - look how smog problems have basically disappeared in the developed world despite more vehicles on the road driving further.

 

Roads to nowhere are a waste of money and by consequence are bad. Insufficient roads are if anything worse.

 

In regards to capacity issues, better planning is needed. Montreal's Metropolitan Boulevard is a clear example of bad planning - this road was only intended as a quick shortcut within its area for local traffic, not the main branch of the Trans-Canada Highway and the only decent east-west route in the entire Montreal region. In addition, its design precludes any capacity increase and brings us to the horrible situation we are now in where the road may fall down at any time, yet cannot be rebuilt because of the severe impact to traffic. At least the newer, ground-level parts of A-40 can be (and have) easily rebuilt and overpasses replaced with little trouble (even overnight, like was done last year on Highway 417 in Ottawa)

 

In Alberta I've seen many roads built as a 2 lane, at-grade facility in underdeveloped areas, but with the ROW preserved for a second carriageway and interchanges at the cross roads. As the area develops and traffic increases, it is easy to build the second carriageway without disrupting traffic, and fix that. Then interchanges at minimal impact and then perhaps 6-laning the corridor towards the median. One example I'm thinking of is Highway 22X that cuts along the south side of Calgary, it was built around 1980 as a 2-lane rural highway (100 km/h), was twinned to a 4 lane divided standard around 2000 (w/traffic lights at major intersections) and is currently being rebuilt to a 6 lane freeway (110 km/h limit) as part of the Southeast Calgary Ring Road project. The 6 lane freeway has plenty of room to be expanded to 8 lanes, which is expected to occur sometime around 2050 with the predicted growth of the city.

 

The ROW that the road sits on is even bigger than the road, it is a kind of supercorridor (part of the Transportation and Utility Corridors that the province acquired around Edmonton and Calgary in the 1970's) that is used for highways, oil and gas pipelines, electric power lines, aggregate extraction for the road building (i.e use gravel naturally on site) and a significant amount of farming (at least in the early stages). Thus, there is some talk of building light-rail rapid transit lines in the area (popular in both cities), however the current plan for Calgary has the light-rail rapid transit extending on city-owned ROW that goes in an "X" shape not a ring like the TUC, but there seems enough room for it if they wanted to do so. (a 90 km (well okay, 45) trip on an LRT around the suburbs doesn't sound much fun...)

 

Because the ROW has been reserved for a long time, the communities along it have been all built and designed for the road, and because of its width, there is no real offensive results (noise, etc) from the highways, powerlines and even a potential gas leak, and the cost of the land was very little to the government since it was acquired "in the middle of nowhere" and not in the middle of the city as it is now.

Edited by Cyrus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 pans

 

1-Sous-traiter les déplacements individuels aux TEC durant les heures de pointes, se concentrer là-dessus, emmener et ramener les gens de leur boulots le plus vite et moins cher possible.

 

2-Laisser les déplacements individuels en dehors des heures de pointes, optimiser pour avoir des tragets les moins couteux en essence et temps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dans un monde ideal, on aurait des autoroutes a 4 voies/direction partout mais également un système de transport en commun efficace, qui couvrirait la majorité du territoire. À partir de ce moment, les gens serait libre de faire le choix qui leur convient, et qui correspond à leur priorités tant environnementales que monétaires (après tout, ce n'est pas tout le monde qui veut/peut payer un stationnement a 200$ par mois au CV. Le marché dicterais également les choix des gens, on a un nombre X de places de stationnements au CV, si trop de gens les veulent, le prix va monter, et cela va mener des gens au transport en commun.

 

Mais bon, on est pas dans ce monde ideal ou on peut se permettre les 2, il faut donc faire des choix. Certaines autoroutes on besoin d'être élargies, certaines prolongées mais pas la totalité.

 

D'un autre coté, on a besoin d'un meilleur service de TEC, un SLR sur l'estacade, prolongement du métro vers Anjou, boucle ligne orange, augmentation de la fréquence du train de banlieue, voies réservées.

 

Il y a moyen de combiner les 2, ajouter une 3e voies a certaines autoroutes, mais cette voie n'est disponible que pour le covoiturage/autobus aux heures de pointes, comme la voie sur la 15 nord, et cela c'est une étape qui encourage les gens à être plus responsable d'un coté environnemental (covoiturage) mais qui néanmoins, laisse un liberté que le TEC ne peut pas procurer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...