A week ago, the STM launched a new bus network for the north end and West Island to better connect routes with the REM and make other changes to boost efficiency. The off-island Presqu’île sector of Exo also made similar changes to better connect travellers with the Anse-à-l’Orme REM station.
The STM’s major overhaul of West Island routes, probably the biggest since 1997 when it created routes like the 207, 217, 218 and 268, or at least 2005 when it launched the 470 express bus to Côte-Vertu, was an opportunity to make a lot of commuters’ lives easier, reducing the number of connections, simplifying routes and getting people from Point A to Point B as fast as possible.
But a week later, West Island and off-island commuters are piling on the complaints, saying the changes have made things worse:
- Off-island students who took Exo buses to CEGEP Gérald-Godin in Ste-Geneviève and Vanier College or Côte-Vertu, which also serves Vanier College, faced having to make two transfers after the Exo buses were redirected to the REM. Their protests led to a temporary extension of those buses, but only until the end of this week.
- Off-island residents travelling to anywhere on the western leg of the Orange Line complained that replacing the 40 express bus with buses that go to the REM made their commutes significantly longer. Petitions were started and local MNAs involved. But besides the accommodation mentioned above, no changes were made.
- Even those who want to go downtown found that the REM did not save any time compared to taking the commuter train.
- Northern Beaconsfield NIMBYs protested about buses using their streets during rush hour.
- Many West Island residents complaining in general that a route that used to be a single bus now requires a connection.
Normally, there’s a great way to avoid these problems, one governments love to require: public consultations. You present something to the public, get their thoughts on it, and consider those comments when making a decision.
The STM did this with its bus network overhauls. From 2018 to 2024 it held consultations in various sectors of the city, inviting the public to present their feedback and thoughts about a new bus network. You can even watch the videos of the events (many of which were online because of the pandemic), like this one for Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue/Baie-d’Urfé.
Having attended some of these consultations, I can’t say they were horrible. They did hear from plenty of people, and asked good questions, like which destinations people wanted to access or what links were missed with the previous network. People expressed legitimate concerns that I hope were taken into account.
The problem is that there was no further consultation after the changes were designed. No proposed routes were presented to the public. There was no opportunity for people to comment on new routes, route cancellations or changes. Everything was presented as a fait accompli a few weeks before they took effect, and no further changes were going to be considered.
Without disparaging what I’m sure was a lot of hard work by the employees involved in setting up these initial consultations, I feel like it was more for show than anything else. I don’t think the changes that were made are significantly different from what would have been done without these consultations. And I think the comments made about the changes after they were announced are far more helpful than asking people whether they think it’s important that they can get to school by bus.
Overall, I think the network overhauls by the STM and Exo did more good than bad. According to the STM’s data, more people will save time than will lose time on the new network, though most people won’t see any time savings with the REM. Some corrections can be made in the future by adjusting the new routes to deal with the unforeseen issues that come up.
But the next time a government wants to make changes like this that affect people’s daily lives, it might be a better idea to tell people what you’re going to change before asking them for their thoughts about those changes.
Steve, n’oublie pas que consultations et planifications ne sont pas des exercices à coût nul. Il ne s’agit pas non plus de referendums. De plus, la refonte a dû être réalisée dans un contexte de crise de financement des sociétés de transports (pas exactement la même chose que le nébuleux «?gouvernement?»), mais tout ça, tu ne le mentionnes pas. Les consultations auxquelles on a participé étaient adéquates. Toutes tes revendications sont de degrés variables de pertinence et il y a un rendement décroissant à les appliquer. Tu dis que les résultats de la refonte ne seraient pas si différents sans les consultations que tu juges déficientes?; en fait les résultats seraient probablement très similaires, même avec des consultations encore plus exhaustives.
En suivant la couverture médiatique sur la refonte, entre autres tes publications et la chronique de Allison Hanes sur comment un rabattement sur une nouvelle ligne de métro léger ne couvre pas exactement les même besoins qu’une ligne de train régional (shocked pikachu meme), je me rend contre à quel point collectivement notre « littératie de la mobilité » est pauvre. Il y a un peu dans toute cette « controverse » de l’aversion à la perte et au changement, mais aussi cette outrecuidance qui donnerait à tout les usagers un droit de regard sur chaque modification du réseau… pas surprenant que le développement des transports en commun soit si difficile quand même une refonte correcte deviennent matière à des think piece.
C’est quoi le coût de publier des routes proposées sur un site web et donner la chance aux citoyens concernés d’offrir leurs commentaires? Je gage que c’est beaucoup moins que le coût des portes ouvertes et kiosques d’information qu’ils ont fait pour nous présenter les faits accomplis.
Les divers problèmes avec la refonte auraient été évités avec une vraie consultation.
Agreed