March 18th, 2009
Up to BAPE: Turcot’s environmental day in court begins
By Jacob Larsen // 4 Comments
Today, Radio-Canada report that the Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement would make public the information it had on the Turcot project on Tuesday, March 24, beginning the tribunal's several month process of consultation.
While it might seen preemptive to publish a blog post about news in the future, this initial disclosure will establish the terms upon which the hearings will proceed. In that sense, I think it's well worth a look at what's to come:
end of March: a 30 day period for the public to consult the BAPE's file on the project.
early April: part 1) an initial presentation by the presenter (the MTQ) and acceptance of written depositions by affected parties. [short pause]
part 2a) first, oral presentations by those who deposited depositions in part 1; 2b) the MTQ "rectifies" any facts that it deems necessary and the tribunal begins its deliberations.
My uncertainty about the exact details is due to the BAPE's unique website orientation, which bizarrely requires that users consult the provincial statutes to understand the basics of the hearing process.
That the results of this 1.5 billion (minimum) dollar project will dramatically shape Montreal's physical landscape for the next 50 years goes without saying. Residential demolition; neighbourhoods cut-of; a profound statement about transportation priorities and expectations of the future: this project raises some big questions.
But if attending all-day hearings at a government building isn't your idea of a good time, you can be sure Spacing Montreal will have its nose to the ground, sniffing out the interesting developments.
Loading ...
Comments
Neither the author nor Spacing necessarily agree with the comments posted below. Spacing reserves the right to edit or delete comments entirely. See our Comment Policy.
Why can't we just fix Turcot? Why do we have to tear it down, demolish, recreate. There is nothing wrong with it. It just needs masive repairs one section at a time. Simple. Other cities can manage there large interchanges without destroying houses along the way. Montreal is such a weird weird city. I don't understand it.
We've been fixing Turcot for years. It's beyond fixing and it's ugly. Everything is wrong with it and it will fall apart within the next few years.
Tear it down and replace it with something sensible.
Julia, I would agree if the context in which the interchange was built hadn't changed.
Back then, the interchange had to be high for ships to be able to pass under on the Lachine canal. Ships no longer pass by the canal.
Second, there was a huge rail yards that is now gone and left a huge patch of land circled with highway.
This reconstruction is a unique opportunity to place this interchange on the ground, which would make it much cheaper to maintain in the future. Furthermore, the yards would be opened up by pushing the highway just a bit north. It's a great opportunity to redevelop a very interesting land.
Hopefully the minister plan is to widen the road without adding lanes to give a layaway in case an accident happen and for emergency purposes, it's much easier to do it on land, than a suspended structure.
Finally, the residents neighbouring the Turcot won't have to deal with huge slabs of concrete and an abandoned sector underneath it... all of it would be greened.
Hmmm. That is indeed the rumor, but be warned: There are quite a few inaccuracies in that Radio-Canada report: First, it is a Think Tank (TTT) of experts and not 'Mobilisation Turcot' that is making the statement. Second, the reporter is suggesting that all of the experts agree on a metal structure as being the best option -- Not true; just one possible solution among many.
Finally, the 24th may well be the last day that the MTQ can make public the environmental impact study, without the lengthy BAPE hearings running into the summer recess period... Speculation is that after that date, the government will likely postpone the whole thing until the fall.
Let's cross our fingers.
Comment by Jody Negley
March 18, 2009 | 1:51 am