REM de l'Est: 23 stations of doubt and 32 km of unanswered questions

Two years after the signing of the declaration to revitalize Montreal's east end, the REM de l'Est is presented to us as the only viable solution for serving a sector that has been neglected for too long. However, beyond the desire to improve public transit service in the east end of the island, an objective that is widely supported, this project raises important issues and divides Montreal's neighbourhoods rather than creating this link between the east end and the rest of Montreal.

Although enthusiastic about the idea of structuring transportation to serve Montreal's east end, Héritage Montréal was quick to oppose the overhead route, first at the city centreand then on Notre-Dame and Sherbrooke. Such an elevated structure would inevitably create a fracture in the urban fabric of neighborhoods. The experience of residents, workers and walkers would be greatly impoverished, landscapes obstructed and heritage undermined. But beyond questions of urban integration, several aspects of the project also seemed problematic. It was against this backdrop thatHéritage Montréal refused to take part in the project. expert committee set up by the government to develop an architectural charter for the project. In order to better demystify the many issues at stake in this project, we have renterviews with experts and citizens in parallel with the CDPQ Infra information sessions.

Last September, in the wake of these meetings, Héritage Montréal organized a week of activities designed to better equip the general public to examine this project. In collaboration with the Collectif en environnement Mercier-Est and the Regroupement des riverains de Notre-Dame, we first invited the public to a citizen survey exercise, in the form of an exploratory walk from Morgan Park to downtown, which enabled us to examine the proposed route from the street. For the occasion, Héritage Montréal developed a map of places of interest along the route, so that citizens could better understand the implications of the route from their own experience.

We then organised three expert round tables on three issues raised by the REM de l'Est, namely the planning and financing of public transport and its contribution to the development of Montreal.

This article is both a review of these activities and a continuation of a reflection on this project which, it is hoped, will be revised so that it is a real contribution to the greater Montreal community rather than an object of uncertainty and tension.

A project that must be linked to metropolitan transport planning

If the choice of an aerial infrastructure for a large part of the REM de l'Est eastern route ignores its impact on neighbourhoods, landscapes and existing buildings, the project's connection with public transport in Montreal is also a major problem. The history of public transit in Montreal dates back to 1861 with the arrival of horse-drawn trams. Over time, a complex network has been built, notably with the construction of the metro starting in the 1960s. Any new infrastructure project cannot be imagined, carried out or operated without being linked to existing structures, which are themselves being developed and modernised to meet current and future needs and practices.

Since 2017, it is the Autorité régionale de transport métropolitain (ARTM) that plans, organises, finances and promotes public transport in the Greater Montreal area. This body was created to offer an integrated, fluid and efficient mobility experience to the citizens of the metropolitan region in a perspective of sustainable development and regional cohesion. However, while the ARTM assures us that it is working "with all [the transport companies] to ensure full integration with the existing networks", it did not participate in the design of the REM, even though it will have to coordinate the network and finance its operation. Why did the government mandate the Caisse de dépôt without a call for tenders for this project? How is it that such a body can work alone and avoid the planning of public transport under the aegis of the ARTM?

A project that must take into account the needs of today and tomorrow

During the activities we organised on the REM de l'Est, several people raised incongruities in the planning and financing of this project. On the one hand, it was mentioned that the project only partially meets the public transport needs identified in the east of Montreal. Although a rapid service to downtown is useful, the practices and needs identified in the east in terms of mobility are largely rooted in the east.

In the East, 55% of transport demand comes from the East, for a modal share of public transport of 18%. It is therefore for trips within the territory that efficient public transit services that are competitive with the automobile must be improved. 

Study of the demand for mobility in the east end of MontrealTrajectoire Québec, 2019.

However, only four stations will be located there, while eleven will be located downtown. It is understandable that public transit stations located downtown generate more ridership, but since the proposed route duplicates the Green Line route, one wonders about its true usefulness. In addition, the proposed section to Assomption Boulevard will run parallel to and relatively close to the Pie-IX BRT, which is scheduled to open in 2022 and 2023. Several experts see this as a cannibalisation of existing or already planned infrastructures, since the REM will likely inherit a share of their clientele and the funding dedicated to them. Any infrastructure project must meet the current and future needs of the population, complementing the current offer. Moreover, we do not yet know the impact of infrastructure under construction, such as the BRT and the western REM, on ridership.

This question leads to another: how will changes in employment practices or new factors, especially those brought about by the pandemic, be taken into account? With the explosion of teleworking and e-commerce, the pandemic is bringing about new changes that will last for decades to come. In this context, would it not be necessary to take a step back to ensure an optimal project, taking into account these new realities?

A project that must go beyond financial objectives

The REM, which is currently being completed, has a different financing model from the one that generally prevails in the metropolitan region, since it is a public-private partnership rather than an essentially public one. This is likely to be the model for the REM de l'Est. Consequently, as one of our guest experts pointed out, the REM is less concerned with meeting mobility needs than with financial objectives, despite major public investments. During its information sessions, the CDPQ Infra often invoked economic profitability indicators, without reference to the collective or social profitability of the proposed infrastructure. However, such infrastructure certainly generates collateral costs. Who will have to pay for the redevelopment of the sectors crossed? Who will benefit and who will suffer the consequences? Before embarking on such a project, it is essential to carry out a cost-benefit analysis to identify the best solutions in the light of all the direct and indirect costs, benefits and consequences. Has such an analysis been carried out for the Eastern REM? Our invited experts doubt it, pointing out that they have not had access to all the studies that were carried out for this project. After numerous requests from experts and the general public, CDPQ Infra has finally begun to release its studies. However, concerns remain. Greater transparency is needed.

A project that must be concerted

To maximise the social benefits of a project such as REM, it must meet a wide range of needs. Our guest experts spoke of 'co-benefits'. In other words, the project must have positive effects beyond the primary objective of mobility. This means ensuring that not only public transport users will benefit from the new infrastructure. Neighbours, whether they are residents, entrepreneurs or others, as well as all the neighbourhoods crossed should also be able to benefit. In order to do this, it is necessary to investigate with the citizens: what are the needs of the sectors crossed? What are the weaknesses of the project? How can it be improved so that it benefits the community? Can we diversify the economic development of the neighbourhoods crossed? Can we favour the actors who are already in place? It is still necessary to ensure that all stakeholders (citizens, businesses and workers) are consulted during the planning of the project and that regular monitoring is carried out throughout its development. Although the CDPQ Infra held information sessions over the summer, several citizens' groups are disappointed with the lack of consultation and transparency regarding the project, particularly upstream of the decisions regarding the call for tenders, the mode and the chosen route.

What remains to be done

While the current project proposed for the REM de l'Est is presented to us as the only possible option, what else can be done to ensure that the project has positive effects on the neighbourhoods around it? How can we obtain a project that will be innovative in all respects and will be able to shine beyond its technical qualities alone? First of all, we must certainly continue to inform and educate Montrealers (in this regard, be sure to register for our next City Talk on the challenges of sustainable mobility!). But as several of our guest experts have mentioned, we must also mobilize and make ourselves heard by the Quebec government. Just as urban planners Sandy van Ginkel and Blanche Lemco saved Old Montreal from the construction of an overhead expressway 60 years ago, we must act to counter such an unacceptable project.

Given its destructuring and devaluing effect on the territory and the architectural and urban heritage, its impact on the existing transport network and the lack of consultation with the Montreal population, it is necessary to demand that the REM East project be reassessed.

• Let's participate widely in the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (BAPE) consultations that will be held on the project.
• Let's ask Gouvernement du Québec and Ville de Montréal to re-evaluate the proposed route and airborne mode, diligently putting in place alternative scenarios.
• Let us demand that citizens be consulted in a serious, informed and transparent manner on the development of the project.
• Let us demand a project whose benefits are not limited to public transport users.
• Request that this project be slowed down to allow for an evaluation of post-pandemic mobility patterns.

Demand a project that benefits everyone!

To learn more about the challenges of sustainable mobility, register for the Urban Exchange on September 27: https: //www.musee-mccord.qc.ca/fr/activite/mobilite-durable/

To view Table 1 on REM and public transport planning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMbIBsZZhDM&t=375s

To view Table 2 on EMN and public transport funding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt8ajiy4LNo

To view Table 3 on the development of Montreal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSgklFMdEnk

To download our Citizen's Guide to surveying the REM de l'Est route: https://www.heritagemontreal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/REM-de-lEst-carte-FINAL.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3sc_D5fhiQKrTDwaGSQbsSrMztGCtN-tno5UmoxSFb8viIVgCxLrpucxU

***

Each spring, the General Assembly of Heritage Montreal adopts resolutions on issues that are important to it and that it considers a priority. Over the course of the following year, we publish a blog post for each resolution to share our thoughts in greater depth. In 2021, five resolutions were adopted. The article you have just read is the first in this series.