I know many are skeptical, but let's do an imagination exercise and imagine going around Québec 10 years from now with a comprehensive province-wide transit network.
In this scenario, you have hourly or bi-hourly regional trains connecting Montréal to Sherbrooke, Québec via North and South shore, Ottawa, Shawinigan, etc., but also Sherbrooke to Quebec and to a certain extent on the south shore.
More importantly, these connections calls at important regional hubs, like Drummondville, Granby, Saint-Jean sur Richelieu, Joliette, Trois Rivières, where a local bus network allows you to reach villages and natural parks that today are off-limits for care-less people
With a yearly pass, a car-free family or person can use it to move around freely within a transit rich core (essentially Montréal and Québec)during the week, but reach regional destinations for a short weekend or even a day trip. Why not hop on a train and go to Mt Saint Hilaire?
People from the region can come easily to in city destinations, avoiding the typical weekend congestion of people that want to reach the Mt Royal, other big city parks or central city shopping areas by car. Or they can go to another small town nearby, why not?
Québec has already a quite developed, growing and very popular network of leisure bike and pedestrian paths. The bike+train combo, a largely successful experiment in Europe, could work here to: biking till Granby and the Yamaska and back by train
We have SEPAQ and Park Canada deep into an environment protection discourse, but whose parks are accessible only by car, even when they aren't in remote regions (most are not). That image of Canada as a depopulated land is simply false and it's an excuse to keep the statuquo
Canada, as most of the US, is a deeply urban country that does not assume it but would greatly enjoy a province-wide approach to transit as a way to provide greater and more sustainable accessibility to an area that goes beyond a tiny Island.
For that to happen would need a complete shift of paradigm from governments I don't see in sight, as they prefer to pour billions in a underwater freeway (3e lien) instead of rethinking ymobility.
The most optimistic scenario in 10 years is people being stuck on endless jams on the bridges and motorways leaving the metropolitan region to enjoy nature, but in electric cars. And we car-less folks biking around an empty city. That's unfortunate.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ I keep asking myself why, despite a lot of talking about electric mobility, there aren't more new trolleybus lines around. But there are a few.
The recently opened Rimini's BRT, or better TRT (Trolleybus Rapid Transit) is an interesting experiment in intermediary systems
2/ The city of Rimini (151k inh. and birthplace of Federico Fellini) is the center of a linear urban area of some 350k, that developed along the coastline. It emerged as a major seaside destination during the 1950-60s economic boom. Population can soar to 1M during summer months.
3/ The city already has a 12.2 km mixed traffic trolleybus line, opened in 1939 and connecting Rimini railway station to Riccione, along a boulevard lined with hotels and resorts, very close to the beach. But commercial speed is low and inner areas are poorly served.
I had a couple of exchanges here about a planned development in Jersey City
One thing that helps understand my criticism is to put it in the light of the centrality of urban design in the European planning approach, especially in continental Europe. I'll give you some examples
When I qualified, maybe a bit too hastily, that particular design in Jersey city as uninspiring it's because what I have in mind is a type of approach where what we call "la città pubblica", the public domain, is designed together with private development
Take the ZAC Paris Bercy, a 1990s redevelopment of former depots in Paris with a parc, housing, commercial spaces etc. Buffi's detailed plan didn't simply mandated FAR, heights or alignements, it went in detail on the relationship between public and private spaces.
1/ I❤️Lyon.
You know why? Apart the fact of being a nice city and the only place outside of Italy and (maybe) Spain having acceptable cured meat, it boasts one of the most interesting and diverse transit system, with metro, tramways, funicular, trolleybuses, tram-train, etc.
2/ The métro is a modern creature, the first being built in France after Paris at the same time of Marseille in the 1970s. It has now four lines, line C being the conversion+extension of a former rack rail to the working class neighborhood of Croix-Rouge
3/ The cheesy trainset design, especially 1980s MPL 85 for the automated line D is simply😍, especially in the full orange livery. Station design reminds me Montréal, somehow: large, colored. A pleasant brutalism.
We are back in a mild lockdown here in Montréal. As a reaction, I decided to do regular walks around my area, one of the fastest changing among the central neighborhoods.
Here is the first one to the MIL campus of UdeM, in the former site of Outremont rail yard
The masterplan is a rather plain. They basically just moved the rail and extended the existing grid, with a new main E-W street, that is already getting well patronized by cars. A lost opportunity for a car-free connection in a transit rich area.
The main features of the public realm are the triangular central square and the connection across the rail to Acadie metro station, right in the middle of the new UdeM building. With the university closed, the area is pretty deserted
It's time for Québec to open a serious discussion about the use of expropriation/eminent domain and the alternatives. The Grand Parc de l'Ouest is a paradigmatic case in which a different approach, like for example a form of Transfer of Development Rights, would have been better
In part of the area (140ha, orange) that has been expropriated there was a proposed (not approved, proposed) development and the owner is now reclaiming compensation for that on top of the actual land value
Those kind of policies that prevent further sprawl and provide a large park at the metropolitan scale cannot be jeopardized by the claim that every single project that is in the mind of a developer is part of a right to build that must be compensated in any case
1/ If you take the 3 world smallest cities with a metro, all in Europe, there are quite interesting comparison one can make
Lausanne (140k inh.)
🚇2008, 5.9 km, 31 M/year
Brescia (200k inh.)
🚇2013, 13.7 km, 18.7 M/year
Rennes (210k inh.)
🚇2002, 9.4 km, 32.8 M/year
2/ Of course, the three systems are all quite recent and were made possible by the development of automated light metro technology on steel (Brescia) and rubber (Lausanne, Rennes).
The three systems boast very short trains:
Lausanne: 🚃30 m
Brescia:🚃39 m
Rennes: 🚃26 m
3/ But the most remarquable thing is that Brescia, despite having the longest trains and line, has the lowest ridership, around 60% of its peers and an even lower ridership/km, at 1.35 M/km compared to 5.25 M/km for Lausanne and 3.48 M/km for Rennes