Mount Royal’s future in hands of OCPM
The people have spoken and, boy, did they have a lot to say. Montrealers gave their input on the future of cars on Mount Royal in such great numbers, that records for participation were shattered and the Office de consultation publique de Montréal is going to need extra time to sift through the responses. This should hardly come as a surprise. No issue generated as much of a furor in 2018 as the pilot project to block through-traffic over the mountain this summer, creating two cul-de-sacs. Montrealers have always cared deeply about Mount Royal. And the population is increasingly divided on the place of vehicles in this city. Put these two things together and it’s no wonder there was such a passionate outpouring before, during and after the traffic-taming measures were put in place. Now that the consultation has closed, the OCPM said it will deliver its report in March or April, providing recommendations on the way forward. And Mayor Valérie Plante told city council this week she will respect the public’s views in finding a permanent solution for Mount Royal. This all sounds positive, like the way things ought to have gone from the start. The hasty, haphazard way the pilot project was announced, the belated solicitation of citizen feedback, and the quick declaration by Luc Ferrandez, the executive committee member in charge of parks, that the five-month trial was a success, left many feeling the new configuration of the roadway is here to stay. The OCPM’s eventual report will allow everyone to take a few deep breaths and hit reset. But it’s not clear from the preliminary results that the OCPM will be able to find any broad consensus from the glut of opinions offered. The groups who presented their positions at public hearings — from CAA- Quebec to Vélo Québec — were often at odds. And what we know so far is that 58.7 per cent of the 12,000 Montrealers who completed a survey evaluating the pilot project thought the restrictions on vehicles were a bad idea. That statistic might seem like a clear majority expressing opposition to closing the road. But there could also be a large proportion who support the principle of preventing Remembrance Road and Camillien Houde Way from being used as a shortcut across the city, but were unimpressed with the confusing method used to stop it. The OCPM also says that 48 per cent of participants thought there was no improvement to safety. This should be food for thought since the death of an elite cyclist who slammed into an SUV making an illegal U-turn as he descended the steep incline in 2017 was one of the catalysts for the experiment. Cyclists and motorists have been pointing fingers at one another ever since over the other’s risky behaviour. A summary analysis of the pilot project tabled with the city executive committee in November found “conflictual situations” and “dangerous behaviour” persist. There is clearly much room for improvement when it comes to addressing basic security concerns. If there was any common ground between the groups who gave feedback, it’s that public transit access to the mountain is inadequate. This provides fodder for those who favour keeping the route open to cars and offers a possible fix for those seeking to restrict the passage of vehicles. The pilot project dramatically reduced the volume of traffic on the mountain, to Ferrandez’s delight, from 10,000 to 3,700 vehicles weekdays on Camillien Houde and 10,800 to 2,700 weekdays on Remembrance. Weekend traffic was also slashed in half. But between 300 and 700 cars a day flouted the restrictions and made illegal crossings anyhow. So perhaps the number of vehicles alone is not the best measure of success, given everything else that is at stake. The pressure is now on the OCPM to reframe a debate that has been polarized from the beginning. If we start with the premise that the mountain should no longer be used as an express route, but that vehicles are needed for the elderly, families and equipment-toting outdoors enthusiasts to reach its heights, how can we create a park road that is safe and easily accessible for all users? Dare we dream the OCPM will propose something better than a parking lot bottleneck; that out of all this discord, a vision will emerge that is worthy of a beloved heritage site with the stature of Mount Royal? The OCPM certainly has it’s work cut out for it.