Several groups and citizens took advantage of the consultations on the City of Montreal’s Urbanism and Mobility Plan to plead in favor of a vast tramway network on the territory of the island. Less expensive than a REM (Metropolitan Express Network) train, this tram could serve a much larger territory, they argue.
The Office de consultation publique de Montréal (OCPM) has been holding hearings since last week for the presentation of briefs on the future Urban planning and mobility plan of the City of Montreal (PUM) 2050, which will detail the main principles in terms of planning and transportation for the next 25 years. Promoters, representatives of organizations and citizens marched in front of the commissioners to talk about densification, protection of green spaces, urban planning and mobility.
For Jean-François Lefebvre, lecturer in the Department of Urban and Tourism Studies at UQAM, the future of Montreal depends on an efficient transportation network. He therefore presented himself to the commissioners on Friday with a 130-kilometre tram network project developed with a team of students from several universities. With four main lines and approximately 200 stations, this network could link Lachine and LaSalle to Pointe-aux-Trembles and Montreal North and even include sections in Laval and Longueuil. This project, he maintained, would have a cost equivalent to that of the Metropolitan Express Network (REM) envisaged by CDPQ Infra in the east of Montreal and in Longueuil. A tramway project between Lachine and the city center is already in the cards of the Quebec Ministry of Transport (MTQ), he recalled.
According to him, CDPQ Infra’s REM de l’Est was a bad idea. With its aerial structures and underground sections, it was too expensive in addition to arousing strong opposition. CDPQ Infra withdrew from the case last May. The project has been entrusted to the Regional Metropolitan Transport Authority (ARTM), which must examine several scenarios, including that of a light train with a driver.
Less expensive to build and operate, a tramway would have the advantage of serving a larger territory, argued Mr. Lefebvre. If the promoters of the automated REM boasted of reduced travel times between two points, they neglected travel between the home and the REM stations, underlined Mr. Lefebvre. “According to the calculations we made, for 90% of people, it’s longer with the REM because of the time it takes to get to the stations,” he said. “What we show is that with the same budget, we are able to create a much more developed network, especially in the East. »
The implementation of such a network would lead to an increase in public transit ridership of at least 30% after two years, he said.
When it is pointed out to him that the consultations on the PUM are perhaps not the best forum for promoting a tramway, since transport planning is the responsibility of the ARTM, Jean-François Lefebvre retorts that cities must present a vision clear about their needs.
Jean-François Lefebvre is not the only one to have presented the tram as an advantageous solution for Montreal within the framework of the OCPM consultations. Urbanism and urban planning students also came to praise the merits of this mode of transportation.
Densify “Montreal style”
However, the consultations on the PUM provided an opportunity to discuss many other issues. The President and CEO of the Urban Development Institute (IDU), Jean-Marc Fournier, pleaded in favor of greater densification and higher heights in targeted sectors, in particular on the Bridge-Bonaventure site and that of the old hippodrome.
According to him, the City must show greater flexibility in terms of heights, density and “urban form” in order to create the “critical mass” necessary for the deployment of local services and a public transport network. to encourage people to leave their cars behind. Privileging heights can also free up floor space to create interesting layouts for pedestrians. “If we want to promote 15-minute neighborhoods and attract people to the city rather than the suburbs by giving them green spaces, we have to choose heights. But the height should not be scary,” he said.
Incidentally, Jean-Marc Fournier points out that in its report on the Lachine-Est eco-district project, the OCPM recommended last August that the maximum heights be limited to eight floors, instead of fifteen. According to Mr. Fournier, reducing the heights jeopardizes the possibility of implementing a structuring mode of transport such as the desired tramway. “There is a consistency problem,” he argues.
On the issue of heights, Héritage Montréal believes that existing buildings should be enhanced rather than concealed and be concerned about views that can easily be obstructed. While acknowledging the particularities of downtown Montreal, the organization’s assistant policy director, Taïka Baillargeon, is of the opinion that we must think about densification that takes into account the nature of Montreal. “Montreal is a city on a human scale. We are known for that. The densest neighborhood is Le Plateau-Mont-Royal, which is three to four stories high,” she explained. “Everyone agrees on the fact that we need to densify, but perhaps we should find a way to densify that would be “Montreal style”. »
Héritage Montréal also believes that the PUM must pay particular attention to vacant heritage. “The City is proposing transformation projects for vacant industrial districts. We are proposing that a vision and a strategy also be developed for the conventual, religious and institutional heritage which has the same problems. »