The Regional Council for the Environment (CRE) produced a white paper of singular rigidity proposing to charge all on-street parking in Montreal. The organization has the merit of advancing the reflection on the disproportionate place granted to the automobile in the occupation of the territory, but it has produced a document so ambitious that it has little chance of being applied.
There are plenty of good reasons to take an inquisitive look at the parking space. To motorists who rail against the proliferation of reserved lanes and cycle paths, the CRE report does a useful job of establishing the facts. In Montreal, the 475,000 on-street parking spaces occupy 27% of the road (7 km2), or 12 times more space than lanes reserved for public transit and bicycles.
Citing supporting studies, the CRE estimates that on-street parking costs taxpayers at least $1,275 per year. On the street, barely 4% of spaces are priced in one way or another, so much so that we can see in this further proof that in Montreal, as in all North American cities, land use planning has dictated by an unshakeable faith in the cult of the chariot.
Mentalities are changing, with a lot of curbs and bike paths, but not yet fast enough to meet climate change goals. Montreal will have to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by nearly 40% compared to 2018 levels in order to reach the target set by the Paris Agreement by 2030. The slope will be steep. In the Montreal agglomeration, the automobile fleet is growing faster than the population. It is to be hoped that the solo car will drop by 30% by 2030, while the trend is the opposite. From 2016 to 2021, the modal share of the car has increased from 53 to 59% in the agglomeration, can we read in the white paper.
For these considerations, as well as equity concerns for the third of households that pay for road maintenance through their property taxes, even if they do not have a car, the CRE has come to the conclusion that we must both reduce the number of spaces available and tax all on-street parking by 2035.
From then on, the report takes a big turn to the left which raises questions. After the waiting lists for places in CPE, access to a psychologist, day surgeries, services at the SAAQ, we would now be entitled to a whole new incongruity if the recommendations of the CRE were applied: the waiting list for on-street parking. It’s hard to imagine that a public administration as costly and stiff as that of the City of Montreal would be able to effectively manage this merry mess.
The CRE pays little attention to the impact of its proposals on citizens and on the attractiveness of Montreal to households. His proposal to tax parking specifically targets Montreal, its 19 boroughs and as many kingdoms, and related cities. Nothing on Laval, Longueuil and the other cities of the metropolitan region of Montreal, which would certainly gain in popularity. A reform of this magnitude cannot be carried out by the City of Montreal alone, at the risk of it being isolated and unduly penalized when an inevitable popular discontent rises.
The Plante administration, usually eager to jump on the climate change bandwagon, greeted the report with cautious enthusiasm. The head of transport and sustainable mobility on the executive committee, Sophie Mauzerolle, indicated that parking pricing was not envisaged in the short term. “For us, parking pricing is one of the levers of sustainable mobility, but it’s hard to ask people to make a modal shift, to abandon the solo car and put a financial burden on Montrealers if they don’t have no alternative,” she commented.
This is where the problem lies. The CRE applies an approach dear to environmentalists, namely “Reduce-Transfer-Improve (RTA)”, recognized in sustainable mobility. Reduce transport demand first. Then transfer to active and collective modes of transport. Ultimately improve vehicle and travel efficiency. This is a risky approach to generating support, unless you want to address only the circle of active and public transport converts. Which motorist will want to put a cross on his parking lot and let go of the wheel, without prior assurance that he will not be confined to the sardine class in the metro, or that he will not have to double his transport time because he lives in a neighborhood poorly served by public transport?
Before taxing again, let’s think about other solutions: densify the territory, improve the public transport offer, reduce parking where possible, especially in large areas that are sorely lacking in greenery, apply modular pricing according to hours and zones, for parking lots already priced, create a register of available spaces, etc.
The CRE’s reflection is salutary, but its solution arrives prematurely, by burning several red lights on the road to social acceptability.