Today’s La Presse reports that the Agence métropolitain de transport, which oversees transportation infrastructure in Greater Montreal, wants to develop a bus rapid transit line on Pie-IX, which would be built and operated by a private investor. Thing is, the STM is already planning to build its own BRT line on the boulevard. Needless to say, it is not at all happy with the AMT’s plans. An epic showdown between the two agencies appears to be in the works.
La Presse has details on the two different BRT lines envisioned by the AMT and STM:
Le projet privilégié par l’AMT prolongerait la voie réservée du boulevard Pie-IX au nord de la rivière des Prairies jusqu’à l’autoroute 440, à Laval. Il inclurait la construction de grands stationnements incitatifs. Les autobus circuleraient sur des voies réservées permanentes situées en bordure du boulevard. Les passagers y monteraient donc à partir de quais aménagés sur les trottoirs.
Pour la STM, a affirmé hier M. Devin, la circulation des autobus « en rive », en bordure du boulevard, ne fonctionnera pas, et limitera les performances de ce service qui serait beaucoup trop lent. C’est pourquoi le projet de la STM rendu public, dans ses grandes lignes, la semaine dernière, prévoit l’implantation des voies réservées aux autobus en plein centre du boulevard Pie-IX.
Ce boulevard est une des plus importantes artères de circulation nord-sud à Montréal et est utilisé chaque jour par des dizaines de milliers d’automobilistes. Le projet des voies réservées aurait pour effet de retrancher complètement deux voies de circulation – une par direction – sur ce boulevard de six voies de largeur.
Les voies de circulation destinées exclusivement aux transports en commun seraient surélevées, par rapport aux chaussées des automobilistes, et le bitume serait peint d’une couleur contrastante avec l’asphalte noir conventionnel afin de bien différencier les voies réservées aux autobus des autres voies de circulation. Dans une étude préliminaire, le coût de réalisation de ce projet a été très sommairement estimé «entre 45 et 90 millions de dollars».
Until 2002, the AMT operated a highly successful rush-hour reserved bus lane on Pie-IX. Buses ran along the centre of the boulevard and passengers disembarked stations in a central median. The only hitch was that, in order for their doors to open onto the median, the buses ran against the flow of traffic. Service was suspended after a young woman was hit by a bus and it has remained suspended despite a coroner’s report indicating that the counterflow bus lane could be successfully maintained with only a few minor modifications.
Photo by caribb
4 comments
The 505 reserved lane bus was operated by the STM, not the AMT, I believe.
Also, although the definition of BRT is very broad, I don’t know if you can really call either project by this name if the buses don’t have a true right of way. They’ll still be hung up at traffic lights every block. Really this is just a dispute over where to put a reserved bus lane.
The main advantage of a counter-flow lane is that during rush-hour you can have all three lanes available to traffic, plus a reserved bus lane on the other side of the median. Buses and cars heading in the opposite direction would share the two remaining lanes.
But the problems with counter-flow are serious:
1. Because it’s designed only for use during rush-hour, there is no permanent barrier between the reserved lane and regular traffic. This can lead to head-on collisions between buses and cars.
2. Because the boarding platforms are on the median itself, the median has to be widened, and ways have to be developed to prevent people from jaywalking to them.
3. Left turns become problematic for drivers, who now have to worry about crossing four lanes of parallel traffic in both directions. Similarly, right turns for the buses are a problem.
4. Pedestrian crossing becomes very dangerous because of the much less predictable traffic.
I think bus traffic on Pie IX is sufficient to necessitate full-time reserved lanes, which would lend itself to the AMT plan. There are just fewer question marks for safety. It doesn’t look as cool, but it’ll get the job done better.
Personally, I would very much like to see some competition in Montreal urban transport on specific routes. At the moment we are hostage of the STM employees. I am sure that excessively the high salaries are a factor in the quality of bus service we get which is usually abysmal in off-peak periods.
Regarding private sector involvement, in Ireland, for example, the urban tram lines are run by a French firm as are some suburban rail lines. For urban buses London transport competes with many private firms which as far as I can judge provide excellent service.
Wheher it is the AMT or a private investor I would like to see a wedge driven in to the present monopoly, not so much held by the STM as its employees.
The prevous contraflow system in the middle of the road should be reintroduced. Of course it can be made safe by carefully eliminating conflicts between pedestrians and traffic. The existing conventional systems are very ineffective, what with parked cars and cars turning across the lane. In that I agree with the STM.
I would like to add that I am not a neo-liberal or whatever but I have no objection to private sector provision of public services providing it is properly regulated.
They should be left as permanent bus lanes and well separated (colour (as in Dublin, barriers, and whatever) as proposed by the STM. The buses would obviously have their own traffic lights which would halt the buses while traffic tursn across the lanes. At other times the would favour buses.
In Paris for example many permanent bus lanes exist, seperated from other traffic, with their own lights. The same for Geneva where buses have their own routes and traffic lights within the street network (and that for the past 20 years).
Pie IX needs a tramway.
And it is disgusting to suggest that workers have excessively high salaries. There has been so much corporate thievery recently, including plundering pension funds, to give the lie to that. Workers don’t have to be forced to work in precarious, poorly-paid jobs or compete against one another.
Of course you are a neoliberal.