Boroughs

November 5, 2010

MAYOR ACCEPTS UNACCEPTABLE SOLUTION

RICHARD BERGERON RESIGNS FROM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Challenged by Mayor Tremblay to back the Executive Committee in supporting Quebec’s new Turcot Project –deemed ‘unsatisfactory’ by the mayor’s own admission– Richard Bergeron resigned from his Committee seat yesterday afternoon. In doing so, Bergeron followed through with the promise he made to Projet Montreal members gathered for the party’s General Council on October 30.

Quebec’s Ministry of Transport (MTQ) is expected to present the plan for the new Turcot Interchange on November 9, and according to recent reports, this version will not meet the criteria unanimously agreed upon in April 2010, by all three municipal parties as well as by Mr. Peter Trent, mayor of Westmount and representative of the demerged cities.  For one thing, the new project does not include any high-quality mass-transit alternatives, such as light rail.

“I am saddened and disappointed to see the Mayor renegging his own commitment to join ranks with his old political family in Quebec”, Richard Bergeron said.  “As for Projet Montréal, we will continue to fight for a better Turcot.” The MTQ is expected to start construction towards the end of 2011.  According to international practice, that one-year period is more than enough time to design a project of which everyone will be proud.

This announcement raised many questions that we will answer below.

1. Why should the MTQ comply with Richard Bergeron’s requirements?

The minimum guidelines supposed to govern the reconditioning of the Turcot Interchange are not solely Richard Bergeron’s. They were all unanimously agreed-upon in April 2010 by all three municipal parties, as well as by Mr. Peter Trent, mayor of Westmount, and representative of the demerged municipalities, and by the mayor of the Southwest.

These principles are consistent with a widespread view held by a majority of Montrealers. Among others, professionals from the community, public health, culture, engineering, architecture, city planning and environment sectors have all strongly supported the City’s guidelines (Note: these links are but a few examples of the numerous public interventions made by the various sectors mentioned).

2. Does Montreal demand a circular interchange?

No. Only the guidelines—not any specific type of construction—matter. The purpose of the project submitted by the City last spring was simply to demonstrate one possible way to apply these guidelines. There are other ways.

Mr. Pierre Gauthier, associated professor at Concordia University’s Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, and Mr. Pierre Brisset, architect with the Groupe de recherche urbaine, have developed another excellent solution (explanatory video on Turcot 375). Their approach has the added benefit of allowing a gradual replacement of the ramps, one by one, which would minimise traffic disturbance during the repairs.

3. You want to decrease the interchange’s capacity. Why would you want to increase congestion for traffic coming into Montreal?

In the case of Highway 15 (North-South bound axis): We wish to maintain the car capacity on this major road as is, partly because it is crucial to the transportation of goods.

As for the 20-720 highway (East-West bound axis): We are not talking about limiting the movement of people, but rather of automotive traffic. In order to do so, we must replace a significant amount of cars travelling with one passenger with a high-quality electric transit option. The tramway or another light train has to be built with the new interchange simultaneously.

The new concept should therefore decrease heavy traffic, its ensuing greenhouse gas emissions and losses in productivity. In fact, this answers the prayers of the West Island residents who sorely need a better access to public transit.

4. Is it true that your plan will make the cost of the project skyrocket?

For one, the MTQ projections are not based on any hard data. There is no reason to believe that the City’s project will cost more than the MTQ’s.

Also, we should avoid comparing apples and a whole orange grove. The MTQ is talking about an interchange. We, on the other hand, also suggest electricity-powered collective transportation and the development of an attractive entrance to the city, with a new district and a park. The MTQ wants to build a greenhouse-producing city-choking machine by bringing in more cars. We want to revitalize Montréal.

To appraise the value of an investment, you must consider all future benefits, and that’s what we would like to do with the MTQ, in a calm and sensible fashion.

5. The MTQ says it’s collaborating with the City. Why doesn’t Mr. Bergeron collaborate with the MTQ?

In December 2009, Richard Bergeron and mayor Tremblay met with the MTQ, to present Montreal’s expectations for the project. In spring, the MTQ presented a project that went completely against these guidelines, and that was rejected by all three parties and demerged municipalities. In September, the new version submitted by the MTQ had such minor changes that Richard Bergeron wrote to Gérald Tremblay to signify that if the mayor did gave in to the MTQ, he would have no choixe but to resign from his position on the Executive Committee.

The MTQ and Montréal’s Head of Urban Planning have been in contact on these three occasions only. And the word “collaboration” does not apply to any of them.

6. Isn’t Richard Bergeron uncompromising?

The guidelines that were unanimously adopted by the City of Montreal already make important concessions, compared to the project that Richard Bergeron and Projet Montréal initially wanted. To accept any further deviation would amount to another kind of resignation.

7. Did Richard Bergeron hope that his threat of resigning would get the MTQ to act?

He hoped that if he stood up to the MTQ, it would convince the mayor to defend the interests of Montrealers to the end. Unfortunately Mr. Tremblay did not have that courage.

8. Is Richard Bergeron insinuating that the engineers working for the MTQ are incompetent?

Quebecois engineering is one of the finest in the world. However, for a major construction project directly in the heart of Montreal, we have the obligation to consider more issues than simply the engineering: the living conditions of the people inhabiting areas directly surrounding the complex; their health; the potential for urban development; the maximization of exceptionally situated areas; alternatives to a strictly car-oriented project; Quebec's target for the reduction of Greenhouse gas emissions; the relevance (or not) for Quebec to continually devote its investment towards a type of transport which is dependent upon fossil fuels; economic, demographic tourism-related attractiveness of our city, etc.

9. Isn't it urgent to get construction underway in order guarantee public safety?

The MTQ foresees beginning construction towards the end of 2011. According to standards shared everywhere in the world, one year is all it takes to plan-out projects of similiar complexity –even projects of great beauty that everyone would be proud of. For our purposes, there are two projects already on the table: both the city and the '2 Pierres' (Pierre Gauthier and Pierre Brisset) came up with their own high-quality plans...and that in only a few months. The MTQ can use this next year to get bogged-down in their own flawed project, or they could take advantage of the extra time to create a better plan that we can all agree upon.

10. Why have we wasted so much time already?

Eleven months have passed since the first meeting between Richard Bergeron, Gerald Tremblay and Julie Boulet (December 8^th, 2009). What has the army of engineers at the MTQ done in these 11 months? They’ve been perfecting their flawed project. From today until the day when the work starts (slated for the end of 2011), 13 more months will have passed. What will the army of engineers from the MTQ be doing during this time? They’ll be continuing to perfect the same flawed project. These two years that the MTQ claimed to not have to wait around, they did have and they wasted one; all the same, we have another year untouched before us. The MTQ has all the time it needs to rethink its project in order to adequately respond to the legitimate expectations of Montrealers.

Do you have other questions on the Turcot interchange?

Write us at info@projetmontreal.org

"TURCOT : UN PROJET URBAIN DURABLE POUR LE XXIe SIÈCLE. Projet Montréal supports and adheres to the following principles and invites all Montrealers to encourage their elected officials at all governement levels to do the same.

Urban Planning :

• Sustain and consolidate existing housing
• Reinforce urban continuity between neighbourhoods by eliminating the shoulders
• Maximize development potential by clearing a maximum of land
• Improve existing landscapes, particularly that of the St. Jacques Escarpement, the Lachine Canal and the Aqueduct
• Create an attractive entrance for the city, one that reflects Montreal's dynamism
• Increase greening of the sector

Transportation :

• Consider and plan for collective transportation as the backbone for development
• Implement collective transportation options as mitigation measures before initiating the road work
• Reduce traffic capacity on the east-west axis and maintain capacity on the north-south axis
• Encourage carpooling
• Diminish greenhouse gas emissions
• Maintain facilities for transporting goods

(Source: "TURCOT : UN PROJET URBAIN DURABLE POUR LE XXIe SIÈCLE", April 21, 2010, City of Montréal.)

Quebec’s Ministry of Transport (MTQ) did not subscribe to these principles in the elaboration of their plan, and that is why Projet Montréal rejects this plan and encourages all Montrealers to the same.

What may seem to be a technical battle among experts is in fact a clash between two radically opposing visions of the very nature of the project, as well as its importance for the future of the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. In our opinion, the current dead end is the result of a fruitless dialogue between two radically opposed visions of the project and the issues that pertain to it:

In short, the Turcot reconstruction is not limited to transportation. It is also a question of planning, public health, environment and economy, an issue that will impact the quality of life of Montrealers and their children for decades to come.

Finally, based on the location and breadth of the works to be implemented, Montreal believes that this represents an exceptional opportunity to initiate the demographic and economic boost so strongly needed by the metropolis of Quebec.

Understanding the Turcot debate: recommended reading

To get up to speed with the events, read the two Walking Turcot Yards blog posts by Neath Turcot (Ken McLaughlin):

• City Proposal A Better Project (April 22, 2010) >
• MTQ Responds Quickly (April 23, 2010) >

To gain a good grasp of the issues, read Pierre Bouchard's six blog entries on the subject (in French only):

• Échangeur Turcot: pour se faire une idée >
• Échangeur Turcot: le projet de la Ville de Montréal >
• Échangeur Turcot: un projet urbain ou de transport ? >
• Échangeur Turcot: deux visions, deux séries d'arguments >
• Échangeur Turcot: peut-on réduire la motorisation en réduisant le nombre de voies? >
• Échangeur Turcot: à quand une analyse des deux projets? >

To take a step back from Ministre Boulet's "6 B$" fear campaign, read Marie-Claude Lortie's article, which pertains to the MTQ's  financial argument against the City's suggested plan. La Presse, April 23, 2010 (in French only): L'inquiétant réflexe du bon marché >

To gain insight on the MTQ's attitude and general approach, read the blog post by Luc Ferrandez, mayor of Plateau-Mont-Royal (in French only): Turcot: same old, same old >