Turcot Think Tank: independent experts held a press conference March 17th.
A team of independent experts calling themselves the Turcot Think Tank (TTT) have put their heads together to come up with a coherent critique of the Quebec Transportation Minister’s (MTQ) plans to redesign the Turcot interchange. St-Henri and NDG residents are worried about the impacts, and even the City has asked Quebec to re-think their plans, which do not so much as mention the municipal transportation plan. The project is going to BAPE environmental consultation later this month.
The expert panel includes an architect specializing in transportation infrastructure, an urban planner, a founding member of Quebec’s Green Party, a Concordia University professor, and two community organizers.
At a press conference yesterday, Mobilisation Turcot member Gaetan Legault said that that the BAPE must expand its scope: the environmental consultation process does not necessarily take into account the far-reaching impacts of highway development on the urban fabric.
The panel outlined their 4 main concerns:
1. Transportation:
Jean Décarie, a retired urban planner who has worked for the City of Montreal, pointed out that the MTQ’s plans would increase the capacity of the interchange by 20% rather than decreasing automobile traffic, a priority set out in the municipal transportation plan. The $1.5 billion dollar project makes no concession for public transit. Décarie emphasized that, while the 15 is an important regional axis which must remain fluid for the transportation of goods, highway 20 is used mainly by commuters from Montreal’s West Island. He says that much of the traffic on the 20 could be replaced with transit if an adequate infrastructure were in place.
2. The Structure:
The MTQ plans to deconstruct the tangle of overpasses and build on solid ground. However, the highway would be built on an embankment so that cross streets could pass underneath. Décarie pointed out that the proposed embankments are 3 times wider than the current highway structure, which is part of the reason that the project would require dozens of homes to be expropriated and demolished. The embankments would also become an impenetrable barrier, blocking movement and line of sight. Furthermore, the noise, pollution and possible danger associated with the highway would be closer to people’s living space.
The panel suggest several alternatives: either re-enforce the existing elevated structure, for instance with metal arches, or build the highway underground. Both these options would maximize the amount of space available for public use or redevelopment, and allow the urban fabric to be stitched back together at the ground level.
Elevated highways put distance between traffic, noise, pollution and local residents. The land underneath the highways, now that it is no longer used by CN, could become a park and could connect St-Henri with NDG.
3. Integration with the urban fabric and other projects:
Pierre Gauthier, professor of geography, urban studies and the environment at Concordia University, said that the MTQ’s investment should be an opportunity to repair the errors of the past: to begin to re-knit tears in the urban fabric caused by highway and rail development in the past and to reduce greenhouse gasses by favouring public transit over automobile dependency.
A document penned by the TTT proposes alternate routes which would deviate traffic around Pointe-St-Charles and St-Henri. It also lists some of the opportunities that the MTQ paves over with the proposed interchange: the plans do not consider the future airport shuttle, a possible tram line to Lachine, or plans to re-use CN facilities as ATM workshops. The falaise St-Jacques has potential to be developed as a park, and there is even the possibility of unearthing part of the the St-Pierre river, but these would become permanently inaccessible if the MTQ’S plans go through. Although the MTQ has included some green space in their plans, there’s no promise that it would actually be accessible.
4. Governance
The document concluded that, while the MTQ is responsible for building the interchange, land-use planning and design should be municipal. A project of this scale should require a plan particulier d’urbanisme, along with the consultation that entails.
—-
Fortunately, these citizen experts are going to raise their voices whether they are officially consulted or not. They have amassed 40 signatures from professional planners, academics from all 4 universities, and individuals representing various community organizations, on a letter outlining these and other concerns. The letter has been sent to Mayor Tremblay and the MTQ, as well as the provincial Ministers of the Environment and Municipal affairs.
A message board at the entrance to Village des Tanneries keeps locals informed about the project. Most of the Tanneries neighbourhood was razed when the original Turcot interchange was built in the 1960s. The current MTQ plans would take down another entire block as well as an loft with about 100 residents.
To get involved as a citizen, visit the Mobilisation Turcot website. This website also offers further information about the BAPE consultation process.
21 comments
I am not familiar with the plans nor the other options that groups are putting on the table but I must say that the Turcot interchange looks frighteningly old and weak. On my recent stay in the city I was stunned to see temporary stilts holding up sections of the decarie Interchange. The Met is another mess around Ville St Laurent. Yikes. What is it with our “leaders”? Two of the most trafficked road networks are left to disintegrate with little to no maintenance over 30 years. in front of our very eyes to the point where we have to rush to make decisions to avoid calamity.
When I found out about the original plans for the interchange I was blown away that they didn’t include any access for a rapid transit shuttle to the airport and the west island. It seems to me to be such a waste. If the cost of the project is an estimated 1.5 billion dollars then planning for the future should definitely be included. Let’s hope that those in charge of the project take the advice of their peers in the TTT.
The Liberal government (which, I imagine, most of Spacings’ readership supported) seems dead-set on ramming through as much autoroute construction as Montréal can bear, despite basically everyone’s wishes. The 25, the autoroute Notre-Dame, Turcot, not to mention the “plan” for the North which will likely amount to the same thing. Train de l’est is, meanwhile, being botched spectacularly.
No doubt Spacing’s readership would appreciate an alternative government, one willing to ban new autoroute construction and build new transport infrastructure.
Unfortunately, during my latest election-time stroll through the McGill campus I saw an “Anybody but Conservatives” sign modified to read “Anybody but PQ” (Huh? Even the ADQ?!?!).
SO, unless the enterprising young anglos find a way out of this bizarre, conflationary impasse, Montréal’s likely to keep receiving this kind of concrete.
1 (Jean Décarie!) Le problème de l’autoroute 15 (Décarie) n’est pas «Spaghetti jonction»*, mais le rond-point Décarie avec l’autoroute 40, et le tronçon entre Décarie et l’autoroute des Laurentides (la 15 au nord de Métropolitain). On a là deux autoroutes à 6 voies qui doivent se partager 6 voies. La solution serait carrément de construire au moins 10 voies élevées le long de Ville Mont-Royal.
On se souviendra que les rhodésiens† de Mont-Royal avait insisté pour que le boulevard Métropolitain soit construit au ras du sol afin de constituer une barrière physique contre l’invasion des pouilleux de St-Laurent (tout comme la clôture le long de l’Acadie pour les protéger contre les pouilleux de Parc-Extension). Gageons que le même esprit de solidarité sociale se manifestera encore une fois, et que le gouvernement n’aura pas les couilles de résister contre Mont-Royal, du moins tant que les libéraux inféodés aux rhodésiens seront au pouvoir.
Avec un peu de chance, lorsque le Parti Québécois reviendra au pouvoir, il refusionnera Montréal, mais correctement, c’est à dire avec beaucoup moins de ménagement et fera une job de bras bien musclée en abolissant tous les arrondissements et centralisant absolument tout à l’Hôtel de Ville de Montréal, tout en élevant une taxe spéciale supérieure pour les ex-citoyens des villes défusionnées avec, en sus, une taxe supplémentaire punitive contre ceux qui ont signé les registres pour demander les référendums de défusion.
De plus, afin de préserver la vie sociale, tous les gens ayant occupé un poste d’élu au sein des villes défusionnés seront inéligibles à briguer les suffrages municipaux ou provinciaux pour une durée de 15 ans.
2 La structure actuelle sera arrivée à sa fin de vie dans moins de 20 ans. Le traffic est au moins 80% supérieur à la capacité maximale estimée lors de la planification, il y a 45 ans de ça. Renforcer avec des arches en métal ne donnera strictement rien, car les poutres en béton précontraint ne sont pas conçues pour êtres supportées ailleurs qu’aux extrémités. En fait, on n’aurait fabriqué un viaduc plus solide que requis car devant supporter EN PLUS le poids de l’ancienne structure…
3 La falaise St-Jacques a déjà été aménagée en parc, mais est abandonnée depuis au moins 10 ans. Une piste cyclable a été aménagée, mais n’a pas été entretenue et présentement est envahie par les arbres…
——
* C’est comme ça que les cheminots du CN surnommaient l’échangeur Turcot du temps que le triage était encore ouvert…
† Des gens qui s’imaginent être supérieurs du simple fait qu’ils soient anglais. Mont-Royal est un cas intéressant; on a là des cadres supérieurs qui s’imaginent qu’ils mènent le pays, mais qui en réalité ne sont que les sous-fifres de ceux qui mènent réèllement le pays, et qui habitent sur la montagne à Westmount. Il est amusant de constater que le niveau de paranoïa à Mont-Royal (cadenas dans les portes de la clôture durant l’Hallow’een, sécurité publique qui harcèle les piétons le long de la fameuse clôture, et jadis, avant la Communauté Urbaine, police qui expulsait ceux qui entraient avec une vieille auto) est de beaucoup supérieur à ce qu’on retrouve à Westmount (zéro harcèlement; les pouilleux de Notre-Dame-de-Grâce sont bienvenus pour passer l’Hallow’een).
newurbanshapes, you seem to have a short memory. In 1999, it was a PQ government that revived the plan to turn Notre-Dame East into a full-fledged expressway. The Liberals don’t have a monopoly on highway building.
Once again, though, you insist on tarring Spacing’s readers and contributors with the brush of your own petty prejudices. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve never voted for a party that supports new highway construction.
Mr Naimard – it takes a lot to offend me but boy, you certainly succeeded. Bravo. Turning this blog into a hate rant against Anglophone Quebecers is really unwelcome on this blog. That you continue to harbour such feelings circa 1955 shows how out of touch you are with reality. I am sure that many residents of Town of Mount Royal and Westmount of non-Scottish and British decent but happen to be Anglophones would also take great offense to your comments. Rhodesians?? Everything that you and your cohorts have accused and demonized the English-establishment of Montreal for 50 + years -an establishment that no longer exists by the way- you have become the model for. Again, Bravo.
Where do you guys see no place for a train passing on an east-west axis thru the future interchage??? In the first plan you can clearly see a train… please remove your biased goggles :)
BTW, PQ, ADQ and Liberals all support highways when it serves their intrests or when they are in power… please, spare us the politic bs.
It’s government’s role to build and maintain infrastructure, that includes highways in good shape able to serve the population and industries.
There is one thing that has become increasingly clear throughout the debate about Turcot and other infrastructure projects, such as the long promised train from the airport to downtown, that connect with it. There simply is no plan, let alone a general philosophy as a guiding principal, regarding transport in Montreal. There are billion dollar mega projects in the works but none of them appear to have any connecting themes or rationale, aside from keeping traffic moving. The one thing I have been saying all along is that it looks like they are going to HAVE to do something sooner than later, and that the projects submitted so far run the very real risk of being obsolete before they are completed, well, maybe even obsolete when the first shovel hits the ground. It’s seems that because we stubbornly refuse to look at the future here realistically, that we are going to continue to commit to the same old program that is putting us in trouble in the first place. We need to change infrastructure not simply replace it. Change requires courage and the past is only a refuge for those who refuse or are unable to accept the challenge of meeting the future today.
Were all of the experts men?
Edward: glad I have offended you (I’m posting this in english to make sure you get the gist of my argument). My experience tells me that you don’t get far by brown-nosing.
This very blog itself is a confirmation of my “circa 1955 feelings”. The fact that people would talk in english about the second largest french city in the world goes a long way in proving the total absence of cultural sensibility the english (and I mean those who, themselves, live in the world’s sacond largest city) have, proving that they put themselves apart from mainstream society.
(And then they say they are “excluded”. Heh. They exclude themselves).
Jean, you should also take into account the supply problems we’re likely to encounter with petroleum in the short or medium term. (If you think about it, Devimco’s recent threat to invest in Dix-30 rather than Montréal is particularly hilarious in this light.) A forced re-merger and a punitive tax do seem rather unlikely, though. PQ or no.
I agree with Jean, this blog does display a certain disregard (or contempt, if one is less generous) for francophone society, displayed in its total absence of French versions of entries (save for a few token entries in French and some occasional blockquotes from La Presse), and to top it all off, Mr. DeWolf’s pointed defrancisiation of the toponomy at every chance. This is ostensibly for grammatical reasons. Though this hangup doesn’t stop writers from mentioning about the Centre Pompidou ( http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/30789/empty-exhibitions/?page=1 ) or the Karl Marx Allee ( http://imomus.com/stalinallee.html ). Are they “wrong”? Or just more sensitive to their cultural contexts?
Dismissing current pronounced provincial highway activism as “Political BS” or cynically dismissing all political parties as “all the same” ignores the real differences between political parties. Which serves the Liberals well, I suppose, as the Anglo vote remains monolithic and in their favour. Do a poll of Spacing readers, if you think I am way off-base here.
I think if you temporarily cease to be obtuse and imperial, and do a bit of research, you’ll see that the PQ has consistently rated the best among the major three parties in Québec on environmental issues, according to various organizations:
http://www.cpaws.org/news/archive/2008/11/questions-to-the-parties-addre.php
“The PQ surprised environmental organizations by its boldness in a number of portfolios, including: its opposition to liquefied natural gas terminal projects on the St. Lawrence River and the Saguenay; its opposition toward the Trailbraker pipeline project that would bring tar-sands oil from Alberta to Quebec; and, its support for the extensive development of renewable energy and energy conservation projects. In addition, the PQ has pledged to impose a moratorium on all new highway construction projects, to collaborate with the Federal government to ensure that by 2012 12% of Quebec’s marine territory is included in Marine Protected Areas, and to make it obligatory that all genetically modified food products are labelled.”
On the Québec website ( http://www.autoroute30.qc.ca/en/a30-historique.asp ) we find:
“1977 to 1985 – Moratorium on new highway projects in Québec. No segments were added to Autoroute 30.”
Etc etc.
Sure, environmentalists would love a Green Government overnight, probably. Until that party gets their act together (and stops losing its leaders to the PQ), choices will have to be made among the realistic options.
Then don’t participate in this blog. It is called choice and freedom. But by all means, contribute in French. Frankly, it is disappointing that people feel the need to come here and write entries that are provocations that hash up old stereotypes and dated thinking. That there can’t be an blog about Montreal in English is the same as saying there shouldn’t be an English newspaper or TV station in Montreal. I don’ t get these hyper sensitivities. And I hardly think that because there happens to be more English than French on this blog is showing contempt for anyone. Respect works both ways.
BTW Mr. Naimard, thank you for writing in English but it is not necessary. I get what you have to say. Your only reason for writing in English is to try to prove that you are intellectually superior.
The english vote is monolitic because it is ethnic votes.
It is as simple as that.
And as long as the english will keep working against the french, they certainly shall not expect flowers as a matter of course.
As a US Montreal lover this kind of controversy makes me sad. In fact I’ve been following this blog and admiring its bilingual nature – an English blog that welcomes French contributions, and where an original source is in French, it is posted that way. As an outsider, perhaps I’m not entitled to an opinion, and I have way too many feelings about this to condense into a comment here. But suffice it to say that I think it is tragic that a discussion of a freeway junction can digress into an indictment of the English oppressors. That seems so 20th century. All my Montreal Anglo friends speak at least passable French – most fluent – and are perfectly happy to do it whenever appropriate. Likewise my Montreal French friends are incredibly sensitive to include me in their conversations despite my poor French, and locals I encounter are always welcoming and tolerant of whatever miserable French I can conjure. Sad to know that so near the surface of such conviviality is this anger, still.
I support the PQ and I have a very tough time believing that the PQ is anti-highways … they are only so because 1) they are in the opposition and as so, are against anything the govt in power wants to do 2) they stopped all the highways projects in the 70s-80s for economical reasons which has nothing to do, and i mean at all, with ecologism and green thinking, which wasn’t even on the political spectrum back them. 3)And because the Québecois people wanted nothing to do with big projects after the Olympic Stadium fiasco.
Just to prove my point, the PQ supports the other design of highway 30, the one that the Liberals did not chose, because it was first chosen by the PQ before loosing the elections…yes, thats how good we have it in Québec, anything a party in power does, the next party comes and has to do the exact opposite.
If the PQ was in fact against highways, they would have none of that.
Man, everyone’s getting mad snippy in March. I’m sitting here hoping that people start posting in Spanish just to mix it up all the more.
Back on the subject of the Turcot, the main hurdle here is the extraordinarily highway-focused mindset of the MTQ, which is a factor ingrained deeply in its organizational culture. That’s remained quite stable for forty-odd years, during governments of various stripes, and is likely to continue to do so. It would take a great deal of political capital and attention to even start to break that down, and I unfortunately don’t see that happening soon.
So you get a ministry that always has big-time highway plans ready to go, and governments — Liberal and péquiste alike — that want to woo swing ridings on the North and South Shore (and to a lesser extent in the regions). This dynamic has persisted across very different approaches to urban governance.
All the political parties have had plenty of opportunity to do something about the state of transport infrastructure here in Quebec. If anyone had really been paying attention to infrastructure and not the politics of transportation, then 5 people in Laval would not have died from an overpass collapse. All the political parties are guilty of not spending money on proper maintenance of our road systems. Perhaps, though, we should take comfort in the fact that this has been a trend across North America over the last 40 years or more?
Transport Qc had a meeting in the Village des tanneries (the neighbourhood where they are wanting to expropriate people before even having the OK from the government for the project… anyways)
So I went to meet a representative from Transport Québec to tell her was worried about the environmental impact the lowering of the highway would cause. She said that she hoped that the cars would produce less pollution in 15 years, so that the amount of pollution would be the same as it is now.
Are you kidding me? I looked at her incredulously. That good ol’ “let’s rely on the technology to save us” argument is getting old. Shouldn’t we all be trying to find ways to LESSEN our environmental impact on the planet, not keep it the same?
Ah… I can’t wait to here what the BAPE has to say about this… Will they raise concerns or simply rubber stamp the go-ahead?
We’ll know on March 24th.
If they build a new highway the proper maintenance won’t be done and the new road will crumble and we’ll be back at the drawing board again in 40 years. Turcot shouldn’t be crumbling. It is crumbling because Quebec can’t take care of roads, new or old. Why build new things that will turn to garbage in 4 years. We can’t maintain anymore roads.
I am against needless heritage demolition in St.Henri. Is there any groups trying to keep these buildings up? Can the adresses be posted I woulike to join. Thanks.
Julia, you should contact the people at Mobilisation Turcot to get involved.
http://www.mobilisation-turcot.info/