CHUM and Réseau express vélo | You have to walk in the same direction

The CHUM’s opposition to the extension of the Réseau express vélo (REV) on rue Viger surprised and disappointed.

The institution opposes the construction of a protected bike lane in front of the emergency entrance on Viger, between Saint-Denis and Sanguinet streets.

Deputy CEO, Danielle Fleury, assures that she has nothing against cycle paths and bicycles, she would only like the REV to go elsewhere for reasons of safety and fluidity. She affirms that the CHUM is still awaiting the studies of the City on the traffic of the future section.

For its part, the City ensures that it has done its homework and proposed several mitigation measures to the CHUM, to no avail.

We are faced with a sterile dialogue.

On the one hand, the City, which is determined to deploy its express bicycle network. On the other hand, the management of the CHUM, which expresses fears about safety in the vicinity of its hospital and which expresses them in a brutal way by putting the City on notice. Both parties turn a deaf ear to each other’s words.

We will not try to find out who is wrong or who is right. The priority right now is for these two people to sit down together and get along.

The City has learned a lot from its mistakes in this area. Following the development of REV Saint-Denis and Bellechasse, the office of the ombudsman of the City of Montreal had been overwhelmed with complaints – more than 300! The criticism that came up most often: poor communication on the part of the City. In his report, the ombudsman pointed out that if the City was not required by law to hold consultations, it perhaps had a moral obligation to do so.

City officials took notes and improved their approach. They communicate better and more. They consult more, too. According to the president of Vélo Québec, Jean-François Rheault, Montreal’s approach and technical skills are now among the best practices in the world.

That said, some of the fears expressed by the CHUM are valid. It must be said that by choosing to settle in the heart of the city centre, the hospital center did not make life easier. To the ambulance traffic, we must add the cars of patients and employees, paratransit, delivery vehicles and taxis which all rush into narrow one-way streets, a few meters from the entrance of a highway… Yes, chaos is possible. And the City must listen to the CHUM’s fears.

But that does not mean that the REV should be moved. The examples of Vancouver and Toronto show us that it is possible to install a bicycle path in front of the entrance to a hospital in complete safety.

In Toronto, cyclists can cycle on the University Avenue track (also known as Hospital Row because there are not one, but five hospitals!). The City worked with the institutions to find a layout that suited everyone. Same thing in Vancouver, where a protected bike path has been built on the 10^e Avenue, in front of the emergency entrance of the Vancouver General Hospital. Special signage warns cyclists that they are approaching a potentially dangerous area.

If these two cities have succeeded, Montreal can too.

It’s not normal for an institution like the CHUM – which embodies values ​​like health and physical fitness – to put obstacles in the way of a project like the REV. Especially since its employees, and some of its patients, will be the first to benefit.

The REV is an excellent idea, an incredible asset for Montreal, as much for mobility as for public health, tourism and the economy in general. The City should pedal a little harder to get everyone on board. When we are the initiator of a change, the burden of proof rests on our shoulders. You have to explain, and explain again.

As for the management of the CHUM, it must show openness. It is not by issuing formal notices or threatening the City with an injunction that we give the image of an institution open to dialogue.