Mayor Plante announced Monday that 40% of the parking on Mount Royal – 300 parking spaces – would be returned to green space but it won’t be completed till 2026.
Also, adding later, some land near the old Royal Vic will be added to the park although not right away; no mention is made here of the issue about possible Indigenous or other burials in the area.
Some thoughts on La Presse on the need for radical change: If the messages from COP15 appeal to everyone, if they don’t bother anyone, if they are not “radical”, this will mean that the conference will not have achieved its goal.
Spi 17:50 on 2022-12-12 Permalink
Can we start by doing the simple things? Olmstead road itself needs some work, they’ve finally gotten around to closing some parts to let nature regrow after years of neglect, but that should be a cyclical thing.
Blork 18:52 on 2022-12-12 Permalink
Here’s some radical thinking that will no doubt elicit some knee-jerk reactions from too-fast readers who assume this is a closeted rant in favour of cars:
Removing parking from Parc Mont-Royal is essentially sending a message that the park is not really for “all Montrealers” but is primarily for people who live within walking, cycling, or short taxi ride distance of it. Because if you’re packing up a whole family, including kids and toddlers and all the stuff you need to grill some hot dogs and keep your kids amused on your Sunday afternoon in the park, you can’t really pack all that into the number 11 bus.
And that’s just fine! As long as there is a commitment to create similar green spaces for people all around the city. Parc Angrignon is fantastic for this, and Parc Maisonneuve is excellent for people in that part of the city (AFAIK). But there needs to be an equally large and accessible park in every borough, and every corner of the city, where people who live crammed into too-small apartments can pack up their kids and their families and spend their Saturdays or Sundays in the park, plinking on their guitars and grilling their hot dogs and napping in their hammocks, but within easy and inexpensive reach by taxi.
Context: not everyone who enjoys Mont-Royal is a fit 30 year old on a bicycle who goes there for half an hour twice a month. Go there (especially on Sundays on the western ends of the park) and you’ll see it is full of large groups of extended families spending the whole afternoon there, along with all the kit and caboodle that comes with toddlers and infants and whatnot. It’s a lot of gear to lug, and most of these people (from my observation) are not white European BoBos who could just as easily be spending time on the rooftop terrace of their million dollar renovated and converted duplex on Henri-Julien or Avenue Laval. No, most of them are working class people — typically but not always immigrants — who probably don’t have a lot of space in their apartments, and this is how they like to celebrate the fine weather and their extended families.
Mont-Royal is within distance for such families in Cote-des-Neiges, and maybe Park-Ex. But what about families in Villeray or Montreal-Nord and whatnot? Do they have such parks? Parc Jarry is big, but it’s highly developed, so is it good for hammocks and BBQs and leisurely afternoons?
Chris 20:21 on 2022-12-12 Permalink
Blork, your points are well-taken, but as I enjoy argumentation, some counter points…
>you can’t really pack all that into the number 11 bus.
True enough. But: a) we could retrofit some 11 buses to be like 747 buses and have more cargo space. b) you can pack it into a cab. Sure, not everyone can afford a cab. Well, perhaps trips to the Mountain will need to be looked at like other more distant vacations: where you have to save up a bit and do it more rarely.
>there needs to be an equally large and accessible park in every borough
Would that even be possible in some boroughs, without tearing down some buildings? (Perhaps a good idea!)
CE 20:36 on 2022-12-12 Permalink
Those parking lots near Smith House are insane and could probably be reduced by a third and still accommodate about the same amount of cars. Quite a bit of green space could be added just by ripping out all the roads that access the lots and by rationalizing them. The parking lots are a small part of a larger plan (thankfully only partially realized) in the 60s to cover the mountain in roads and parking. The interchanges at Remembrance/Côte-des-Neiges and Pine/Parc were part of the plan (with a few more never being built) and are finally no more. Anything that reverses this plan is good in my eyes.
Ephraim 20:40 on 2022-12-12 Permalink
I thought that they were talking about the parking lot just north of the Neuro and the parking lot next to the McTavish Monument. Plus about 290 spots from the main park. I am wondering though, how often is the parking full? And could we actually move away from large parking lots to a more decentralized parking with more green space? So smaller lots with trees with a few handicapped spots closest to the trails.
CE 20:44 on 2022-12-12 Permalink
The CBC article says “The city also plans to remove about 40 per cent of the 725 parking spaces next to the Smith House, at the summit of the mountain.” I’d be curious as to how often the lots are more than 60% full. If not often, this will be barely even noticed.
Tim S. 20:51 on 2022-12-12 Permalink
I’m mostly with Blork on this. The comments about the parking lot being empty 5 days a week drive me nuts: yes, that’s because of the way our civilization allocates leisure time. Waving away the fact that the park/parking lot is heavily used the two days a week most people actually have leisure time is insane.
So yeah, it would be great if we had a well-developed public transport network that let people get there easily ON WEEKENDS. But we don’t, and until we do the effect of this is just to reduce Mont-Royal to a Plateau- adjacent leisure space.
Chris: turning the 11 into a 747-style bus is a great idea. Making poorer people more miserable is not.
Kevin 21:51 on 2022-12-12 Permalink
Every time I go to Mt. Royal it is absolutely packed with cars and people. People park in spaces where it’s technically not allowed, but it’s accepted by the powers that be.
Further to what Blork said, getting to the park in a car is often cheaper, and certainly faster, for a family with food, skis, sleds, and other gear. And taking buses home with all that would be a nightmare as everyone leaves at the same time, reminiscent of the Ikea bus from New Jersey back to Manhattan…
We went through all these arguments three years ago and PM is showing that history rhymes if it doesn’t repeat: they’re presenting another declaration that the Mountain is *not* for all Montrealers, it’s just for the ones who live within walking distance.
walkerp 09:15 on 2022-12-13 Permalink
So because of existing inequalities and the much bigger issue of poor transit, we should not try and increase the green space on the mountain?
I would be curious of the demographics of the people who drive to the mountain. How many of them are truly deprived of access to greenspace and how many of them come over from the west island who could just as easily drive to parks outside the city? Because if you are driving from anywhere within metro distance, than you can just as easily ride your bike (and yes carry bbq and sporting equipment with you).
I agree that there are bigger problems of inequality, but to use those to argue against removing parking spaces tells me that you are still locked into the car addiction model.
Janet 10:03 on 2022-12-13 Permalink
If what we want is to reduce the heat island effect and increase rain absorption, are there technical solutions that could help, such as installing turf grid pavers under a tree canopy? While this would not be as robust as pavement, it could be employed in areas where parking is limited to high-use weekends.
Kevin 10:29 on 2022-12-13 Permalink
I’m now trying to picture a multi-generational family of 7 carrying BBQs and whatnot up Mt. Royal on their bicycles.
Why not just put up a sign at city limits saying “Able-bodied people only”?
Ephraim 10:45 on 2022-12-13 Permalink
@Janet – There are many ways, including making permeable asphalt, permeable blocks or breaking it up with trees. We are going to see more of this. And then there are things like “true grid” which lets grass through. See https://youtu.be/vlFX_WTFIis for an example
Marco 13:30 on 2022-12-13 Permalink
It looks like we are going to have to rebuild the Funicular to accommodate all of the people who can’t get up the mountain by any other means other than by car.
Chris 13:55 on 2022-12-13 Permalink
>…getting to the park in a car is often cheaper…
That should change as a matter of policy. The cheapest option should not be the most environmentally destructive one.
>…And taking buses home with all that [gear] would be a nightmare…
Only because of policy that could be changed. The 11 schedule could change to have more buses when there are regular peak usage periods (closing time of skating rink, etc.)
This parking removal really should be coupled with an improvement in alternatives though.
>Why not just put up a sign at city limits saying “Able-bodied people only”?
Because it’d be false. There will still be hundreds of parking spaces. Even the current 725 spaces mean that the 726th non-able-bodied person can’t come. Oh, the injustice!
Sorry, but one person’s “right” to drive to the mountain, does not trump everyone’s else right to clean air and a healthy environment.
Kevin 14:29 on 2022-12-13 Permalink
Chris
You’ve ignored the key clause of what I wrote: for a family.
Projet Montreal keeps making mobility proposals for fit individuals who live alone, instead of for families with varying levels of fitness, mobility, and physical capabilities.
walkerp 14:51 on 2022-12-13 Permalink
Families can ride bikes and carry more stuff than an individual, so they are actually better placed to bike to the mountain with their equipment.
Kate 15:09 on 2022-12-13 Permalink
Not to be contrary, but if a family is a young couple with one or two active kids, or kids small enough to be toted – yes. But I’ve observed family picnics in Jarry Park that included at least three generations, some of the older folks probably not fit or safe to go up Mount Royal on a bicycle. Also – again thinking of Jarry Park – what about women in a sari or abaya? They don’t usually cycle.
DeWolf 15:45 on 2022-12-13 Permalink
Kevin, that’s a big presumption on your part. Maybe it’s because you live in the west end, which is the worst part of Montreal for active transportation, but over here on the other side of the mountain it’s certainly not just fit young single people who take advantage of all the active mobility infrastructure. Every day I see people in electric wheelchairs using the REV and other bike paths, not to mention the many families here in Rosemont that tote their kids around on cargo bikes.
Back to the topic of Mount Royal, parking is obviously necessary. The question is how much. 750 spots? 1000? 2000? You can’t ignore the environmental impact of having 60,000 square metres of asphalt in a public park. Of course accessibility is important, which is why there needs to be a focus on improving bus service to the mountain. Personally, I’d also support maintaining the current amount of parking as long as the asphalt is replaced by permeable paving and more trees. You’d still have a huge chunk of the park given over exclusively to car storage, but at least the ecological impact would be mitigated.
As it stands, reducing parking by 40 percent over four years isn’t exactly radical. There will still be a huge 450-spot parking lot on the top of the mountain. Anyone who wants to drive up the mountain with a barbecue, folding tables and their entire extended family will still be able to do, but it may require a little bit more patience on their part. At least when they get there they’ll have more space to picnic.
Kevin 01:06 on 2022-12-14 Permalink
DeWolf
I’m thinking of my own permanent injuries, and those of people I know, who don’t qualify as disabled but who are certainly incapable of certain tasks.
It’s not a question of the flesh being weak, it’s that the flesh and bones are broken.
Joey 13:37 on 2022-12-14 Permalink
LOL to Chris’s notion that trips to the mountain should be like “distant vacations.”
Seriously, though, is there really a meaningful ‘heat island’ effect because of parking on the mountain? Obviolusly the parking lots will be hotter than the rest of it, but so what? Are people hanging out on the road between the chalet and the Smith House?
jeather 13:44 on 2022-12-14 Permalink
It’s a good thing that electric wheelchairs are easily and inexpensively available to everyone who could use one (not just require one, but would be helped by one) so people with mobility issues can still schlep their stuff.
I don’t have the knowledge to say what level of parking, or of access, is best — will there be a dropoff area? Could there be weekend shuttles THAT ARE FREE (because, as always, once you have more than 2 people it’s almost always cheaper to drive than to pay public transit if you don’t have a monthly pass).