Over the last few days two major announcements have been made in Québec relating to planning, urban liveability and transport, to which can be added an ill-informed electoral pitch.
The two major announcements concern a report about transport in the Québec City region, and the uneviling of Montreal’s new urban plan, projecting the city forward over 25 years.
The ill-informed pitch comes from Pierre Poilievre, the leader of her majesty’s official federal opposition.
Trams, plans and Poilievre
The Quebec and Montreal documents – different in nature since one is policy advice, the other a statutory urban plan – have in common that they both propose long-term investment in public transport, and notably in tramways.
These investments are important, over the medium- to long-term, because they can provide a meaningful alternative to cars. They are hard infrastructure which, as opposed to bus routes, can inspire long-term confidence in users and property developers. They can therefore structure future urban development along corridors of accessibility, and make it increasingly reasonable to advise people to reduce car usage, at least towards the centre of cities. Trying to discourage car use if there is no alternative will simply not work, or will lead to considerable hardship.
So, alternative methods of transport are critically important, if car useage is to be reduced not only for climate reasons, but also for reasons of congestion and land use. Getting cars off streets, *if their is a meaningful alternative to get around and across the city*, can improve liveability, city greening, play areas, etc…, for residents and for visitors.
Although the history and culture of European cities differ from that of North-American cities, even North-Americans seem to enjoy the walkability of cities in Europe, which has been increased – in many – by the introduction of tramways.
Poilievre, rather than attempting to understand the climate, congestion and liveability crises faced in most cities, has chosen to ridicule investment in public transport.
The only investment he would brook, were he prime minister, is for more roads. He has bravely stood up in parliament denouncing the government’s (and the bloc québécois’) “war on cars” and their obsession with waging this war.
The problem with Poilievre is his absence of ideas
Some readers may be tempted to suggested I am criticizing the conservative party’s ideas. Unfortunately, they would be wrong. Rather, I am tired of Poilievre’s complete absence of ideas or constructive proposals.
He simply ridicules everyone elses’ ideas, without displaying any understanding and without proposing alternatives. This is a pattern. Off the top of my head I recall him arguing that the bank of Canada should not be independent, saying that supervised injection sites were failed experiments, claiming that residential school victims needed a stronger work ethic rather than compensation…
As a politician he has a pattern of making incredibly ill-informed claims for purely electoral and populist reasons. These claims are painstakingly unpicked by people who know about each issue, but to little avail.
The need for a well-thought-out conservative urban vision
In the case of urban planning and transport in Quebec, Poilievre prefers to name-call and denounce a so-called war on cars, rather than set out a policy vision. Such a vision, were he capable of articulating one, would inform us about whether, and if so how, his government would address climate change, congestion and liveability in cities over the next 25 years.
A well-thought-out conservative plan would no doubt include interesting solutions and mechanisms, and would certainly contribute to debate about the future of our cities.
Of course, no urban plan or vision will garner universal acceptance: rather, any well-thought-out plan would be a constructive contribution to the important, even existential, debate about urban liveability over the next few decades. Ultimately, governments will need to make hard decisions, hopefully on the basis of good information, fair analysis, and debates across many points of view.
For the time being Poilievre simply runs away from debate, and has no vision.
Richard Shearmur 