Research on mobility and transport shows that the cocktail of modes – walking, cycling, private car, car-sharing, taxi, bus, light rail and metro – and the variety of journeys constitute the best solution to the needs of the inhabitants of large cities. cities and metropolises, and the best strategy to induce modal shifts towards public transport.
Posted at 12:00 p.m.
For a long time, the movements of most public transport users reflected the strong preponderance of the city centre. Hence the radial configuration of the infrastructures built between the middle of the 19and century and the 1960s, whether it be the commuter train, the tramway or the metro. The emergence of sub-centers and new job distribution patterns have made this configuration less relevant.
If the networks inherited from this era remain useful, they are far from responding in an entirely satisfactory manner to changing needs. This is why it is necessary to propose alternatives.
This is the argument invoked by several defenders of the Eastern REM to justify the competition favored by its Y layout and its extension to the city center. Is this argument admissible? To answer the question, we must first stop at the term competition. the Robert gives the following definition: rivalry between several people, several forces pursuing the same goal and relationship between producers, merchants who compete for customers. This is precisely what is at issue here.
CPDQ Infra intends, according to the words of its officials but in more politically correct terms, to cannibalize the other components of the system for its own benefit, to the detriment of their traffic and the finances of the organizations responsible, in this case the Société de transport de Montréal (green and blue metro lines, SRB Pie-IX) and EXO (train de l’Est).
However, this competition is from the outset unfair.
The law that allowed the creation of CPDQ Infra specifies that the organization can require managers of other components of the public transit system to bring their users to its stations. On the other hand, the law allows CPDQ Infra to obtain compensation for any form of competition with which it is engaged. Thus, for example, no carrier on the South Shore can use the Samuel-De Champlain bridge to get to the city center, while the Réseau de transport de Longueuil and EXO must reduce their routes to REM stations, it does not matter that this obligation is not optimal for many users. Not only does competition find its full acceptance here, but it is also unfair because of the rules established by the law adopted by the Couillard government.
In fact, defenders of REM confuse, knowingly or not, competition and complementarity.
Unlike competition, which is an aberration in public transit, complementarity aims to deal optimally with the great diversity of user needs, by offering alternative routes and a variety of modes adapted to the needs and expectations that can be very complex. Subordinated to a business model, the route and the mode – a light aerial train for a large part of the route – promoted by CPDQ Infra without serious prior analysis – the organization acknowledges that it does not plan public transport − totally contravenes this principle .
Some do not hesitate, despite everything, to justify this competition by arguing that for many users, it will result in significant time savings. This is to forget that the origin-destination surveys reveal that only 13% of trips by residents of the East end in the city centre.
Why then invest so much money to add a radial corridor, if not to stretch the route – extremely profitable for CPDQ Infra – of these users?
But defending competition in this field means above all concealing the fact that the REM serves very poorly some of the most important centers of activity in eastern Montreal and leaves many residents in the lurch, in particular those of Rivière-des-Prairies. .
It is therefore legitimate to wonder whether, when citizens only have access to an extremely incomplete supply of public transport, it is legitimate to wish to improve the lot of those who are already fairly well served. Especially when this improvement financially compromises the possibility of planning and proposing a bonus of a fair offer for all. We would like the defenders of the REM to explain themselves on this too.