Introduction: Montreal at the Crossroads

As this book hits the presses, Montreal finds itself engulfed in a debate about the Turcot Interchange. One of the largest interchanges of its kind in Quebec, this elevated highway intersection handles over 280 000 vehicles a day, moving cars, trucks and buses to their destinations in different quadrants of the city. The Turcot was built in the 1960s, just in time for Montreal’s World Exposition. Now over 40 years old, the structure is showing its age. What is to be done?Engineers at Quebec’s Ministry of Transportation (MTQ) have been hard at work for years coming up with a proposal for replacing this crumbling infrastructure. Their solution is to replace this elevated structure with a new structure, built on embankments. It is important to understand that the MTQ proposal includes not just the messy knot of the Turcot Interchange itself, tying Autoroute 15 (North-South) to the 720 (East-West), but two other intersections to the West and South, as well as several kilometres of connecting highway, some elevated and some already on the ground (see colour images in the centre of this book). Increasing the road capacity slightly, the MTQ expects traffic volumes in the entire network (the Turcot proper and all its connected parts) to increase from 332,000 vehicles per day to 347,000 vehicles per day by 2016. They do not anticipate ambient pollution to increase, because (they argue) new cars will be more and more efficient and pollute less. So, even with more cars, there will be less pollution. There appears to be a consensus among critics on one important thing: whatever happens to the Turcot, the North-South structures and traffic volumes should probably be maintained as there are no alternatives for the foreseeable future to replace this critical segment of the national highway network. However, the relevance of rebuilding the East-West route along the 720, in the form of a highway, is much more debatable. I

t principally accommodates commuters, who could be moved using mass-transit. Indeed, they are very "clientele" recognised as potential mass-transit users in municipal initiatives to strengthen transit systems and dismantle intrusive and environmentally unsound urban highways. The new structure, it is argued, will be easier and cheaper to maintain, and hence will relieve future generations from a financial burden (a key component of the MTQ’s definition of “sustainable development”). The new intersection will be built to modern highway standards, with shoulders, and hence safer.

Critics argue that such a rationale misses the mark at numerous levels. The climate-change crisis and the health issues associated with our dependence on the car require more vision, and more immediate action. First, wherever possible, more sustainable modes of transportation need to be offered as an alternative to the automobile. Second, densely built inner-city neighbourhoods that were decimated by the construction of urban highways in the 1960s and 70s are the very areas into which urban development should now be funnelled. This is particularly true of the former inner-city sites of production that now sit empty. The current MTQ proposal, does nothing to fix the errors of the past by investing in improving the quality of life in Montreal, and would sacrifice, for generations to come, the development potential of a critical part of the city's centre.

Moreover, c

ritics argue that embankments are a rural solution to an urban problem. Embankments have no place in the city. The MTQ proposal results in walls that divide neighbourhoods, create dead-end streets and small isolated pockets of near-useless land, with sterilized land values and diminished tax revenue for the city, and entail a highway with a tripled footprint (an embankment on either side of it), wasting additional hectares of valuable inner city land.In the MTQ proposal, the new road must be built beside the existing one in order to maintain traffic flow during construction. Once completed, traffic can be rerouted and the old structure demolished. The additional space required during construction means the expropriation and demolition of nearly 200 units of good quality housing in a tiny sub-neighbourhood of Saint Henri, called the Village des tanneries. (Anyone taking the ramp going East off the Décarie Expressway can get a glimpse into the curtained bedroom of a loft apartment, a mere 30 feet from the curving concrete. Some of the housing is that close!) The Minister has offered to build affordable replacement units “nearby” and to financially compensate tenants and homeowners, as stipulated in Quebec law. But many residents may not be eligible for these new units (the programs are very restrictive). Residents are understandably upset at the partial demolition of their neighbourhood, and what is left of it may not survive the shock.The MTQ promises to plant dense vegetation on the embankments: residents are sceptical, as a survey of Quebec’s highways shows nothing comparable to the beautiful renderings provided by the MTQ during public consultations.The cost: the MTQ estimated in 2006 that their embankment project for the Turcot will cost 1.5 billion dollars. No one takes this estimate seriously, for reasons only a Montrealer can really understand. One recent example of escalating costs will suffice to make this point. Cost estimates for the Notre Dame highway project, just east of downtown Montreal, jumped from 750,000$ in 2006, when the project was approved to 1.5 billion, in less than two years. The MTQ acted swiftly to halt the project and it is currently under review again. The Minister claims this will not happen with the Turcot projections — they have budgeted for “les imprévus”, the unexpected — but many remain sceptical.* * *Hundreds of thousands of people drive this through the Turcot Interchange every day. Hundreds of thousands of others hear about it on morning and afternoon radio. For some, those who don’t drive, it is a mysterious place, living only in their imaginations, a place with stalled cars in the left lane, or perhaps “easy going”. For others, leaving each morning in their car for work, it is an almost necessary route. And a gamble. Will I get stuck today? These Montrealers listen like hawks to the radio, trying to guess the best way to navigate the city to their destination.* * *Something must be done about the Turcot, all will agree.The MTQ claims to have reviewed the renovation option in 2004, and rejected it as too costly, requiring more time than demolition and reconstruction option they ultimately adopted. But the documents that show this analysis have not been submitted for public consultation and remain internal. Since the collapse of a Montreal overpass, de la Concorde, in 2006, which killed five people and injured many others, Quebec has been extra vigilant. An article in the French daily paper Le Devoir dated October 2008 calls the Turcot Interchange “la structure la plus surveillée au Québec.” Literally hundreds of repairs have been made on the structure in the past 5 years. Drivers can’t avoid glancing up nervously at the steel mesh tacked onto the undercarriage of the concrete ribbons as they drive under them. Many drivers sense its imminent collapse. But the 24 hour inspections, costing millions each year, help inspire confidence. People still use it.Can the Turcot be repaired? Should we reduce its capacity and move people differently, on trains, trams and buses? Should we simply dismantle it?Should it be preserved as a monument to Modernity? * * *This volume is a contribution to the debate.It is vitally important to conduct this debate now. The MTQ hopes to begin construction on their project before the end of 2009. Public hearings on the project have begun in earnest (accelerated by a government eager to get the project moving), managed by the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE). Residents, groups and even the experts are overwhelmed by the volume of information contained in the Environmental Impact Assessment, technically the object of public hearings, while at the same time arguing that they do not have enough information (or more precisely the right kind of information) to make an informed opinion. The Conseil régional de l’environnement de Montréal (CREM), an environmental lobby group with considerable influence, has argued—and to some extent, successfully—for a broader debate than that allowed by the BAPE rules. A letter that the CREM submitted to Line Beauchamp, minister responsible for Sustainable Development, the Environment and Parks, is included as Appendix B. Another group has launched a legal appeal, arguing that hearings must be delayed until we have additional information. A group of urban planners, academics and community groups has argued that the MTQ is a technical solution to the wrong question (how do we move this volume of cars at this speed to these places?) and what is needed is a much more general debate—leading to a more holistic solution— about how to achieve mobility goals inside a better-designed city. We include their appeal in Appendix A.Many cities and their residents the world over are questioning how best to deal with aging infrastructure built for the automobile, during the cheap fuel era. Montreal is no exception, and must not shirk from this debate. This volume brings together a range of viewpoints that we hope enriches the discussion and suggests new ways of thinking about our city and its future.We hope that this modest contribution stimulates debate and brings about the best possible Montreal, for all residents.* * *

This book is structured around the major debates and issues that have been raised in the past year about the Turcot, in dozens of networks across the city.

Some of the material has been written by seasoned experts and academics, others by students who have conducted careful research on focused areas, and yet others by emerging community leaders.

This book, then, contains a multiplicity of voices. Let us guide you through these chapters and introduce you to the concerns.

Montreal’s current transport system is characterized by both automobile dependence and transit orientation. In Chapter 1, Jeff Kenworthy and Craig Townsend argue that rebuilding the Turcot Interchange for cars, while neglecting mass transit, will increase automobile dependence and weaken transit competitiveness. The authors provide data comparing Montreal’s transportation system to other cities around the world and conclude that Montreal needs improved transit and does not need more high-capacity roads.

Alternatives to the current Ministère des Transports du Québec (MTQ) proposal are offered. In Chapter 2, Pierre Brisset and Jonathan Moorman advocate a transit-oriented vision for the Turcot interchange consistent with the Montreal Transport Plan of 2008. Their proposal combines transit improvements and disincentives for car users to reduce the number of drivers commuting from the West Island and inner city neighbourhoods to the center of Montreal. It will then be possible to redesign the interchange and reduce the size of the Ville-Marie Highway in three phases. The authors propose an exciting long-term vision where the Ville-Marie is removed from the Turcot to Atwater and the Turcot Interchange is converted into a three-way junction.

Pieter Sijpkes contributes a vivid and impassioned chapter to the book. Sijkpes, in Chapter 3, argues that the Minister’s proposal for the Turcot is mistaken on two counts. First, rather than scrapping the concrete structure, we should focus on what still works. The roadbed could be supported with a steel understructure. This approach would prolong the life of the structure for years to come, cost less, enable ongoing inspection and repairs, and – crucially neither disrupt traffic flow during construction, nor require demolition of homes. Second, he argues against the MTQ proposal to relocate highway 720 and the CN rail lines up against the Falaise Saint Jacques. Instead, Sijpkes proposes to broaden this linear park, restore the St. Pierre River and screen the park from highway 720 with careful landscaping.

Patrick Asch develops this park concept further in Chapter 4, arguing that the Falaise Saint Jacques is an undiscovered jewel among Montreal’s green spaces. It rivals Mount Royal Park in size, and with the addition of several strategic green links along existing rights of way, this linear park could become the backbone connecting over 500 hectares of green spaces in the South-West of the island. Asch also makes a bold proposal to swap contested land in nearby Meadowbrook for an equivalent number of hectares in the Turcot Yards, to enable residential redevelopment. Asch warns us that the MTQ proposal to move the highway and railways against the Falaise will destroy this green space, eliminating its natural, social and even economic function in our City.

In Chapter 5, Raphael Fischler reminds us how complicated urban planning is in Quebec and urges public debate on the issue. Fischler sheds light on the complex and overlapping jurisdictions and institutions that are involved—or feel they should be involved— in planning major road projects. The “problem” of the Turcot Interchange, for Fischler, is at once a technical problem, an urban problem, and a political problem.

Pierre Gauthier discusses the problems associated with the spatial integration of urban highways in densely populated urban areas in Chapter 6. He introduces a method that could help to evaluate the impacts of highway on the urban form and the quality of life of the neighbouring populations. He argues that if a highway construction cannot be avoided, use of such a method could at least produce criteria to guide our actions. A redevelopment proposal for the Cabot area of Côte-Saint-Paul is used to exemplify the relevance of the approach.

Elham Ghamoushi, Jonathan Moorman, Erika Brown and Munaf Von Rudloff, in a thought-provoking chapter (Chapter 7), examine how well the MTQ plan for the Turcot and the Brisset-Moorman alternative (Chapter 2) conform with current environmental and transport policies. The authors analyze 13 policy documents intended to guide decision-making in the Montreal region towards a higher level of sustainability. They identify 124 goals related to noise, transport and socioeconomic aspects of the Turcot’s reconstruction. They then assess the impacts of the two alternative proposals against these policy directives. The authors conclude that the public-transit approach is far more consistent with sustainable policy goals than the current MTQ proposal.

There is an impressive body of evidence that traffic has deleterious effects on the physical and mental well-being of people who live near highways. In Chapter 8, Meaghan Ferguson, Robert Moriarity, Frederic Gagnon and Melanie McCavour provide a brief overview of the current scientific research on health effects of road traffic with an emphasis on air pollution and noise. Impacts are particularly pronounced within a distance of 200 metres from highways. They conclude that assessment of the health risks requires more detailed research and measurement near the Turcot Interchange and adjacent highways 720 and 15 than conducted to date.

In Chapter 9, Jacob Larsen tackles the argument that inner city highways – and specifically the trucking they enable – are needed to support the urban economy. Larsen reviews how Montreal has historically approached the transport of goods and, highlighting the findings from the Nicolet Commission (2003), shows us how one could reroute many trucks away from the densely populated corridors in the south-west of the city. This article helps us to understand the kinds of incentives and disincentives we can employ to encourage change in driving behaviour.

In Chapter 10, Ian Lockwood and Joel Mann share their experience and thinking about highways, transportation and urban planning. They provide an overview of how today’s transportation strategy came to be, how it has delivered, and the major issues that could and should cause it to change in the future.For historical interest, in the last part of the book we include key political documents that have galvanized debate in the past months on the Turcot Interchange and the MTQ plans, as described above. The book concludes with an afterword from the editors.***Special thanks to Lisa Bornstein, Jill Prescesky and Grace Keenan Prince for commenting on these chapters, and also to Zack Taylor for assistance with the layout and final editing. This volume contributes to the work undertaken by the community-university research alliance (CURA): Making Mega-Projects Work for Communities, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).***As this book goes to press, the Conseil régional de l’environnement de Montréal is announcing that the BAPE will indeed hold special hearings on the major transport projects on the drawing table for the East-West corridor in Montreal. These projects include the long-awaited airport train shuttle; the Lachine tram-train; and reserve bus lanes. Chapter 2 shows how these projects, if implemented properly and in concert, could reduce East-West volumes significantly. Other chapters of this book include information and perspectives that inform public debate, whether in the BAPE hearings or in other forums. In addition, it is our hope that the material contained in Montreal at the Crossroads, though focused on Montreal and the Turcot Interchange, will enrich similar discussions in other cities where aging infrastructure must be rebuilt, refurbished, redesigned or rethought. As our older models, of transport, urban development and urban life, are called into question, such debate is an essential part of establishing a common vision, direction and set of actions for our future cities.Pierre GauthierJochen JaegerJason PrinceMontreal, May 2009