Does the REM de l'est put the cart before the horse?
Transit project has a lot to like but questions about accountability, transparency remain
Never look a gift horse in the mouth, or so the saying goes.
Perhaps this is especially true when it comes to massive investments in public transit, like the game-changing project announced by the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec just before Christmas.
The $10-billion REM de l'est, which will reshape the city's east end, has elated Premier François Legault, whose green strategy hinges on the electrification of transportation. It has also given Mayor Valérie Plante a victory for part of her proposed Pink Line of the métro and a release valve for the usually overcrowded Orange Line. It has been cheered by environmentalists and transit activists for knitting together far-flung and underserved neighbourhoods where cars rule. And business groups hope it will open up disused industrial lands for redevelopment.
Construction is set to start as early as 2023 — warp speed by transit standards. And it is to be financed by both private capital and public funds. So what's not to like?
Well, for starters, it might have been nice to see how Quebec's first experiment in handing the planning, design, construction and control of a major public infrastructure project to a pension fund manager worked out before embarking on a second. The mammoth REM de l'est will steal the title of Canada's most expensive transit venture from the Caisse's original REM to the West Island and South Shore. It's now under construction but behind schedule and over budget because of leftover explosives in the Mount Royal tunnel and the instability of the leg beneath Mcgill College Ave.
But more importantly, isn't analyzing, planning and funding major transportation infrastructure in the Greater Montreal area supposed to be the job of the Autorité régionale de transport métropolitain? The ARTM was just putting the finishing touches on the region's first integrated, comprehensive strategic transit plan last spring when the pandemic hit. After a pause, it released its big-picture outlook for the coming decade last October and is seeking public input online.
The ARTM'S 10-year strategy is long on objectives (like increasing the modal share of commutes taken by public transit to 35 per cent by 2031, from 25 per cent in 2018) but short on details, precisely because it wants to identify which corridors, routes and types of transport have the most potential to get us there.
The strategic blueprint was supposed to be a departure from transit announcements that are more about politics than good policy. While it's true the ARTM is a layer of bureaucracy most Montrealers are unfamiliar with, the reason it was created was to foster co-operation, improve cohesion, and distribute scarce resources across a vast territory.
Then, with great fanfare, the REM de l'est materialized, once more putting the cart before the horse.
That's not to say the Caisse's 32-kilometre, 23-station elevated electric train is a bad idea. It will go from Pointe-aux-trembles to Central Station downtown, with a north-south axis up to CEGEP Marie-victorin in Montreal North. It will connect to the Green and Blue Lines of the métro. It promises to be life-changing for people who live on the periphery of this vast island city.
The Caisse has surely done its homework and has a track record to get the project done quickly.
CEO Charles Emond believes the REM de l'est can eventually turn a profit, despite the steep price tag. And the Caisse is looking to secure more design/build/ operate transit contracts all over the world, with the two REM lines helping prove its bona fides.
But do the Caisse's strategic business interests align with the transportation needs of Montrealers? That's a whole other matter.
How do we prevent the impoverishment of existing transit agencies, like the Société de transport de Montréal or Exo, which are currently the backbone of public transit, as the gleaming REM siphons away riders?
And how open is the Caisse to changes that might drive up costs? It's clear the design of the REM de l'est has more to do with economics and finding the path of least resistance than esthetics. The elevated portion along René-lévesque Blvd. downtown and through residential neighbourhoods has raised eyebrows among urban planners, architects and heritage preservationists, including Phyllis Lambert. A group signed an open letter in La Presse questioning the unsightliness and obtrusiveness of the pillars, noting “it's not easy to beautify concrete.”
There's no doubt we should be grateful that not one, but two transit projects of the REM'S magnitude will rise in short order on Montreal's landscape. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask tough questions about accountability, transparency and acceptability.