We must salute the government’s desire to promote the development of eastern Montreal by implementing new structuring transportation. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the major investments will facilitate access to the city center and, above all, will serve as the backbone of the transformation of the sectors served to make them real neighborhoods where people can live, work, supply a few steps from home.
Posted yesterday at 10:00 a.m.
In addition to an economic project, structuring transport is a fundamental tool in the fight against GHG emissions. It must make it possible to create inclusive and multi-use living spaces that reduce travel and offer an attractive alternative to driving when you have to go from one neighborhood to another.
The social acceptability of the project is not limited to the structure of the mode of transport itself, but above all to its ability to transform the urban fabric in the direction of an attractive densification project. In this sense, the third version of the project will have to be based on the development proposal for the east of Montreal for the next generations.
Firstly, because the choice of the mode of transport and its route must correspond to the needs of the future, it is therefore necessary to have an idea of what is desired for the East. Also, because accepting a REM means accepting a development vision. We must avoid repeating the situation experienced in Pointe-Claire where, despite a density index well below the objectives set out in the Metropolitan Land Use and Development Plan of the Montreal Metropolitan Community (CMM), the City seems to want to contradict the objective of densification accompanying the REM and limiting residential development.
It must be recognized that the second version of REM 2.0 is greatly improved. The thinned and rounded shapes of the aerial structures, the concern for the urban integration of the stations and a first underground effort in a portion of the route in the city center testify to a real listening.
As indicated by the Quebec government’s committee of experts, the REM must promote a welcoming urban fabric and, as such, there is still work to be done. Beyond the integration of the stations in the urban landscape, it is the corridor itself which must be analyzed according to the development of attractive districts.
That said, despite best efforts, choosing an aerial structure in an urban setting will still result in a significant landscape footprint.
Considering its financial leeway and the weight of the budget allocated to roads, the government wanted to exclude this project from its accounting scope. This decision explains why it is not proceeding by call for projects and is turning to CPDQ Infra, which has only one product to offer: a REM. By doing so, the choice of transportation mode precedes the analysis of future needs and limits the routing options due to the constraints of light rail.
Even if the process is reversed, nothing prevents the Regional Metropolitan Transport Authority (ARTM), for which it is the responsibility, from informing us about mobility needs based on anticipated urban development. On the basis of this forecast, the agency will be able to give an opinion on the mode of transport and the optimal route. Given the reversal of approaches resulting from the government’s choice, the independent analysis of the ARTM is of the first importance to give credibility to the choice made at the end of the consultation exercise. By carrying out this exercise, the ARTM will recommend the options ensuring the best integration of the new service into the current métro network. This will allow us to verify, in particular, whether there is an alternative solution to the elevated passage on René-Lévesque Boulevard.
The other key player is the City of Montreal. In fact, for the ARTM to be able to consider future needs, Montreal must submit a development vision. There can be no REM without this proposal from Montreal. Beyond the sketches illustrating the REM itself, what must be established and imaged is the urban development expected from the realization of this project. The City must make known its vision of densification and evaluate, even summarily, the new public services, land requalification actions and park-type urban development, cycle and pedestrian paths that will be necessary.
In this regard, it should be noted that the proposal for active transportation under the REM must not make us forget the essential: to build a neighborhood of proximity, it is necessary to establish bicycle and pedestrian paths not to go from one station to another , but to connect home and work to the station. In the context where Montreal does not already have the financial resources to develop active transportation corridors to the station, it would be counterproductive to require it to pay for the one that connects the stations. Quebec’s financing of urban development and land requalification is an essential condition for the realization of the project and its commitments to this end should be part of the third version of the project.
We hope that the next version of the REM can include the answers to these questions and these considerations. If by chance the REM option is not chosen, the work of the ARTM and the City of Montreal will nevertheless serve as a basis for Quebec to launch a call for projects for another mode of transport. Quebec City’s desire to develop eastern Montreal can still be realized, this time by including it in the reporting entity.