The participatory approach analyzed consists of reducing traffic on the access routes to Mount Royal, located on the Camilien-Houde route, in Montreal.
In the context of this case study, the participatory approach analyzed consists of reducing traffic on the access roads to Mount Royal, located on the Camilien-Houde road, in Montreal. Due to the many issues present, a consultation project of the Office de consultation publique de Montréal (OCPM) was launched with the objective of ensuring a reduction in transit for private vehicles and leaving room for more space. safe. Since the Camilien-Houde route is used by several means of transport, it was following an accident between a cyclist and a car that a group of citizens initiated this process so that the function of the route could be reviewed. [1] Initially, this analysis will consist of a brief contextualization of the project and the organization while expressing the impacts of the situation on the participatory process, so as to illustrate the sequence of events that made it possible to get these results.
Problems and objectives
As mentioned above, the case mainly concerns the Camilien-Houde route, a road that seemed worrying due to a strong controversy related to its use by various users. In this context, the OCPM was mandated to:
1- Test the functions of the path;
2- Establish a future vision for the project. [2]
Through its presence and its recommendations, a pilot project involving the prohibition of access for private vehicles between June 2 and October 31, 2018 was set up on the Camilien-Houde / Remembrance (CHR) axis. As a result, access to these roads has been restricted to certain vehicles only, i.e. emergency and road vehicles, vehicles dedicated to maintenance, as well as tourist, school and Société de transport buses. from Montreal. In addition, access to pedestrians and cyclists remains possible. [3] Indeed, it is clear that Mount Royal Park is one of Montreal's main heritage sites. Thus, the possibility of going there and enjoying its facilities remains more than important for its citizens. [4]
However, it is possible to identify issues that must inevitably be considered regarding the Camilien-Houde route, including the convenience of accessing it from the east, as well as from the west. This is reflected in concrete terms by the fact that through traffic represents approximately 80% of its use. [5] In the same vein, it is essential to consider the constant growth of the presence of cyclists in this place.
With regard to the current case, we note that the OCPM has contributed to measuring "the level of user satisfaction, to providing activities and information on possible development options" [6] as well as '' to propose recommendations as to the development possibilities that would be available to the borough. The OCPM also collaborated, taking care to consult the targeted stakeholders, to adjust the vision of this sector and to identify criteria for acceptance of the population, which would meet the development objectives set by the Plateau borough. -Mont Royal. Indeed, we saw the need to feed into the reflections on accessibility, in concert with the supervision of the cohabitation of the trips of the different users. [7]
Moreover, we notice that the citoyen were strongly stimulated when the pilot project took place on the CHR axis. However, as one can imagine, it is clear that the population has however split up due to a perception that diverged from each other, which has also had a certain impact on the ease of joining. all stakeholders. [8] This was moreover perceived by the quantity of briefs submitted to the attention of the OCPM and the municipality, which demanded the withdrawal of the said pilot project by their position in disagreement with it. In fact, within the framework of such an approach, we can see the need to put forward a common vision encompassing such a project. [9] As a result, we see that the frustration of the various stakeholders comes from a defense mechanism that took shape because of this perception vis-à-vis the City as to its desire to eliminate the presence of cars in Montreal. [10] As a matter of fact, the City is perceived as conveying a message oriented towards “authoritarianism [and] decisions described as draconian” [11] .
Thus, the participation process of the OCPM is innovative since it enables it to go out and meet the population. We also note the effort put in place by using a range of tools and methods to seek everyone's opinion.
History and context
Social context
First, with regard to the social context of the organization, it is possible to determine the many actors who are involved or affected directly or indirectly by the present public consultation process taking place in the Plateau-Mont borough. -Royal. Furthermore, because of the current proposed pilot project, some of the stakeholders are acting in a position where they happen to be for, against or neutral with regard to the potential outcome that could result from it. [12]
On the one hand, it is clear that cyclists, neighborhood residents and environmental and environmental groups are among the players in favor of the pilot project due to the reduction in traffic on the access roads to Mount Royal. On the other hand, it seems obvious that the motorists taking the Camilien-Houde route, the traders as well as the workers going to their place of work daily do not want there to be a change of the current road which facilitates travel. In addition, the Office de consultation publique de Montréal is also another stakeholder present which appears in total neutrality from the moment it is normally mandated by the City of Montreal to provide objective recommendations to the executive committee. and the city council. [13] By the present situation, the OCPM was called upon by a group of citizens so that an approach could be established to analyze the impacts and present concrete recommendations to those concerned.
Political context
Secondly, at the political level, we can see that public consultation has been put in place since it is an important step in the democratic process. Indeed, this allows an efficient, transparent and credible execution of the process and the project while ensuring a certain credibility towards the project. [14]
Moreover, as briefly mentioned, it should be noted that the process took place following a request initiated under the right of initiative allowing citizens to request a consultation. This process stems, among other things, from a decision taken when the new party in power came to power in the borough, the objective of which was to prohibit access to cars in Mount Royal Park. This is also a public debate that has gained momentum and is currently receiving more media attention due to a tragic event that took place there. [15]
Also, given the impact that the OCPM can have on projects, it is expressed that the organization must detach itself from the political aspect which could potentially influence the orientations of the consultation process. However, we note that the OCPM only has the power to recommend. Indeed, the decThe final decision to implement the recommendations obtained remains a political decision, the judgment of which only involves the borough's municipal council. [16]
Historical context
In another vein, with regard to the historical aspect, we note that this type of process, which relates to the right of initiative to which citizens can resort, is carried out on an ad hoc basis depending on the mandates received by the OCPM. In fact, it seems that the consultations resulting from the right of initiative are less numerous since it is a field of intervention that has recently appeared. [17] Moreover, the case analyzed concerning the access roads to Mount Royal is one of the first eight consultations of this kind, as well as among the only two consultations that took place specifically in the heart of the borough of Plateau-Mont-Royal. [18]
Then, despite the fact that the said consultation stems from a request from citizens, we see the importance of explaining in detail the different stages of the process and the objectives of each of them given that very few participants immediately understand the operation of the various public consultations. We see the need to ensure that the process is carried out so that everyone participates in full knowledge of the facts by providing all the information essential to its understanding.
In the light of the reflections and observations conveyed, the traffic reduction pilot project was therefore born in order to visualize the extent that such a change could have and facilitate its modulation according to future findings.
Cultural and organizational context
Finally, at the level of the cultural and organizational context, it is more than obvious that this consultation will have a significant impact at the level of the borough, but also for all the citizens likely to circulate by this place.
Undoubtedly, public consultations are an integral part of civic life which notably promotes the improvement of the quality of life for all, but it is more than important to ensure that all stakeholders are able to understand the process of the entire approach to avoid ambiguities. Given the current situation, which may seem problematic, we perceive a context of dissatisfaction among many stakeholders from the early stages of the process. [19]
In order to meet the challenges presented by the participatory process, the OCPM ensures that everything is done in a way that responds to clearly identified values. To this end, it is essential that everything be done in full transparency. Thus, stakeholders must have access to information by setting up tools that will not only offer the possibility for all to participate, but also promote a certain representativeness of the target audiences. In this way, an effective participatory process is ensured, which is carried out impartially, which makes it possible to present recommendations that meet the expectations of the various participants. [20]
Organizing, supporting and financing organizations
First of all, the incident which caused the death of a person on the CHR axis caused a lot of ink to flow in the local press and was the opportunity to rethink the vocation and the functionality of this axis which had been initiated a few years ago. In light of the events, a panoply of stakeholders became involved in the situation to defend various issues. The pilot project set up by the City was a temporary initiative in order to find a consensus on the long-term solution to be adopted, which aimed at a better cohabitation of users of this road. On the other hand, the temporary withdrawal from the circulation of private cars was not appreciated by everyone. [21]
Recruitment and selection of participants
The situation was critical; a citizen consultation seemed to be the best way to, on the one hand, legitimize the final decision that will be taken in the future by the municipality and the borough and, on the other hand, identify the issues that will be raised by citizens in order to find a solution that will be unanimous, or almost.
Methods and tools used
From the first meeting, heIt turned out that a participatory process was crucial since citizen mobilization was strong and the stakes were divergent. The mandate was given to the OCPM in order to identify the needs, expectations and concerns of all stakeholders. Thus, as mentioned previously, the elements on which the OCPM had to look to guide the City in its future decisions consisted of [22] :
· Gather relevant data;
· Consult the public;
· Test new functions;
· Measure user satisfaction;
· Feeding the reflections of accessibility;
· Obtain cohabitation of trips;
· Provide entertainment;
· Develop planning options.
Given this situation, the OCPM then had the mandate to interact with the public as part of the interaction activities in order to coordinate on two major principles. On the one hand, it involved the implementation of a pilot project to withdraw from transit traffic for private vehicles on the CHR axis. The objective was above all to provide transparent information on the pilot project adopted by the City and the mitigation measures granted by the authorities to accept certain proposals. On the other hand, a vision for the future was established for the CHR axis, which is part of a global vision for the redevelopment of access to Mount Royal. In this context, the OCPM then had the mandate to fuel reflection through proposals formulated by citizens. [23]
Thus, the approach was aimed at issuing recommendations on requests for changes to the regulation of transit via the CHR axis. This approach is also part of the policy of the City of Montreal which promotes the engagement of citizens in the decision-making process in order to make them aware of their duty of citizenship. [24]
What happened: process, interactions and participation
In the light of the events presented, a timeline has been drawn up so as to explicitly illustrate the various major stages perceived in this process. [25] and [26] (see Annex 1)
Timeline
1992: A public debate on a plan for the enhancement of Mount Royal takes place.
1992: The Bureau de consultation de Montréal indicates that it is necessary "to interrupt transit traffic on the CHR axis by the construction of two distinct terminal loops" [27] .
September 22, 2008: The filing of the OCPM report on the Mont-Royal enhancement project (recommendation to reduce through traffic).
April 2009: Adoption of the Mount Royal Protection, Enhancement and Protection Plan).
October 2017: The Service des grands parcs, du verdissement et du Mont-Royal was mandated to lead a working committee on the future of the CHR axis, in collaboration with the Service des infrastructures, de la routeie et des transports .
March 14, 2018: The start of the OCPM mandate (given by the municipal administration).
May 2018: The first consultation activity was held.
1 June 2018: The implementation of the pilot project.
October 31, 2018: The end of the pilot project.
90 days after the consultation and interaction process with the public: The filing of the OCPM report.
Influence, results and effects
The whole process was seen as timeless. This is a process that failed to use time to its advantage and was seen as rushed and thoughtless. The process of citizen participation did not take into account the main partners and stakeholders by not consulting them beforehand. The consultation took place in a context of intense mountain traffic. [28]
The commission indicated that the objectives were not clear and therefore neither were the results. Likewise, the mayor's office made errors in processing information, which created social resistance to the project. Likewise, the main flaw in social acceptability was essentially that it affected the daily transportation of many people. [29]
The information obtained from the evaluations carried out by the participants and the information provided by the municipality were not sufficient for the commission to agree with the promoters of this citizen consultation. The coexistence of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians has always been complicated in this sector, so much so that rules are necessary to promote harmony between all. [30]
Although in general no final decision has been taken, the reflection generated by the process of citizen participation has made it possible to sensitize the population. For example, the actual value of the mountain for the city was given. The diametrically opposed points of view have turned into compromises. It is important to underline that it has been discovered that it is not possible to act on mountain traffic without first reinforcing public transport. [31]
Analysis and lessons learned
Thus, the commission's vision for the future is to pursue the vision of Olmsted, who is the person who designed Mount Royal Park. It is essentially a question of recognizing that the site has two capital characteristics, namely to benefit from a “global and democratic work of art [and to allow everyone to] recharge their batteries in contact with nature” [32] .
References
Ministry of Culture and Communications. (2018). Conservation plan for the Mont-Royal heritage site. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/Plan-Mont-Royal .
OCPM. (2019). Access routes to Mount Royal. In Public consultation report . Retrieved from http://bit.ly/OCPM-MontRoyal .
OCPM. (2021). The right of initiative and the access routes to Mount Royal. [PDF document]. Retrieved from Moodle.
OCPM. (2021). Access routes to Mount Royal. [Online video]. In Presentation on the OCPM by Élise and Akos . Retrieved from Moodle.
City of Montreal. (2013). The challenge of participation. In Democratic Life . Retrieved from http://bit.ly/DéfiParticipation .
City of Montreal. (2021). Right of initiative in public consultation. In Democratic Life . Retrieved from http://bit.ly/DroitInitiative .
Notes
[1] OCPM. (2021). Access routes to Mount Royal. [PDF document, page 19]. In Transit traffic on Mount Royal . Retrieved from Moodle.
[2] OCPM. (2019). Access routes to Mount Royal. In Public consultation report . (page 52). Retrieved from http://bit.ly/OCPM-MontRoyal .
[3] Idem , page 3.
[4] Idem , p.17.
[5] OCPM. (2021). Access routes to Mount Royal. [Online video]. In Presentation on the OCPM by Élise and Akos . Retrieved from Moodle.
[6] OCPM. (2019). Access routes to Mount Royal. In Report ofpublic consultation. (page 52). Retrieved from http://bit.ly/OCPM-MontRoyal .
[7] Idem.
[8] Idem , p.61.
[9] OCPM. (2021). Access routes to Mount Royal. [Online video]. In Presentation on the OCPM by Élise and Akos . Retrieved from Moodle.
[10] OCPM. (2019). Access routes to Mount Royal. In Public consultation report . (page 61). Retrieved from http://bit.ly/OCPM-MontRoyal .
[11] Idem .
[12] OCPM. (2021). Access routes to Mount Royal. [PDF document, page 21]. In Transit traffic on Mount Royal . Retrieved from Moodle.
[13] OCPM. In Presentation of the OCPM . (page 2). Retrieved from http://bit.ly/OCPM-Presentation .
[14] OCPM. (2021). The right of initiative. [PDF document, page 3]. In Our Mission. Retrieved from Moodle.
[15] OCPM. (2021). Access routes to Mount Royal. [PDF document, page 19]. In Transit traffic on Mount Royal . Retrieved from Moodle.
[16] OCPM. (2019). Access routes to Mount Royal. In Public consultation report . (page 93). Retrieved from http://bit.ly/OCPM-MontRoyal .
[17] City of Montreal. (2021). Right of initiative in public consultation. In Democratic Life . Retrieved from http://bit.ly/DroitInitiative .
[18] OCPM. (2021). Access routes to Mount Royal. [Online video]. In Presentation on the OCPM by Élise and Akos . Retrieved from Moodle.
[19] OCPM. (2021). Access routes to Mount Royal. [PDF document, page 19]. In Transit traffic on Mount Royal . Retrieved from Moodle.
[20] OCPM. (2021). The right of initiative. [PDF document, page 3]. In Our Mission. Retrieved from Moodle.
[21] OCPM. (2021). Access routes to Mount Royal. [PDF document, page 19]. In Transit traffic on Mount Royal . Retrieved from Moodle.
[22] OCPM. (2019). Access routes to Mount Royal. In Public consultation report . (page 52). Retrieved from http://bit.ly/OCPM-MontRoyal .
[23] Idem.
[24] City of Montreal. (2013). The challenge of participation. In Democratic Life . Retrieved from http://bit.ly/DéfiParticipation .
[25] OCPM. (2021). The right of initiative and the access routes to Mount Royal. [PDF document]. Retrieved from Moodle.
[26] OCPM. (2019). Access routes to Mount Royal. In Public consultation report . Retrieved from http://bit.ly/OCPM-MontRoyal .
[27] Idem , p.14.
[28] Idem, p.23.
[29] OCPM. (2021). Access routes to Mount Royal. [Online video]. In Presentation on the OCPM by Élise and Akos . Retrieved from Moodle.
[30] Idem.
[31] OCPM. (2019). Access routes to Mount Royal. In Public consultation report . (page 5) Retrieved from http://bit.ly/OCPM-MontRoyal .
[32] Ministry of Culture and Communications. (2018). Conservation plan for the Mont-Royal heritage site. (page 30). Retrieved from http://bit.ly/Plan-Mont-Royal .