Imagine a
growing mid-sized city just south of the 49th parallel that has a booming
technology sector, a diverse, international population and innovative
approaches to transportation and land use.
My family
and I recently visited this place: Montreal.
Seattle and
Montreal are roughly comparable in metro population and economic size (Montreal: 3.8 million people vs Seattle: 3.5 million; Montreal GDP: $148B, Seattle: $235B). But one seems to be making strides when it comes to
livability.
Last time I
visited, in the early 90s, the economy was slumping as Quebec bled business,
the city’s population was declining and infrastructure was uneven.
Today, visitors
find a city with an integrated transportation system, including 4 subway lines and 5 suburban rail lines (with more to come). Stations are efficient
transfer points with drop-off parking, taxi stands and conveniences like
markets and stores. The city is an easy place to walk (cars don’t get free
right turns; all-way pedestrian crossings are common). There's even a citywide
network of safe places to commute by bike — including streets through downtown
where a row of on-street car parking has been replaced with protected cycle
tracks.
Recently Montreal
replaced
an overhead highway interchange in a park and is planning to remove another
elevated expressway. Earlier citizens refused a plan to build a freeway along
the waterfront. Instead of mega projects, they’ve replaced these 1950s-era elevated
highways with wide boulevards and a well-connected street grid that distributes
traffic more effectively.
Land use
rules encourage density, resulting in vibrant commercial core around transit.
In the Griffintown neighborhood adjacent to downtown, an old industrial area is
being filled with offices and housing. The overall result is you can get to
services, stores, restaurants, etc. without fighting traffic and parking – and
activity on the street makes walking to transit an attractive option even in
rain or snow.
How have
they pulled this off? One key seems to be a unified
regional government that handles land-use planning, economic development,
housing, infrastructure, waste management and other regional issues. In 2002,
led by the province, the 28 municipalities on island of Montreal unified (an
area of 141 square miles including about 1.6 million people). A single agency
coordinates trains, buses, park-and-rides, etc.
By contrast,
in the Seattle area regional government seems off-limits. Several-dozen
governments and at least eight transit agencies compete with each other and pursue
often-conflicting goals. The city of Seattle has turned down proposals to bring
others into its fold by refusing to annex unincorporated territory along its
southern border.
If Seattle
is to remain a desirable place to live, we have to use our resources more
wisely. One way would be to take a regional approach to transit, land use and
other matters. This could start at the state level, as it did in Quebec.
More
broadly, we need to learn from places like Montreal and embrace new ideas with
enthusiasm. If we create more walkable, livable, urban neighborhoods with great
transit, then jobs and opportunity will follow. Smarter government would be a good start.