Summary#

Montréal city council rejected the motion Pour un audit des artères et intersections dangereuses (“For an audit of dangerous arterial roads and intersections”) on March 23, 2026. It would have directed the City and its Service de l’urbanisme et de la mobilité to expand road-safety audits, set priorities using a common data grid, and report to council within six months.

• The motion would have required a new audit of arterial roads and intersections identified as high-risk in consolidated collision analyses.
• It would have required a public comparison of bicycle routes already selected for audits with intersections identified as significantly risky.
• It would have directed the City to use collision data, incident severity, travel-mode share and documented risks in a uniform decision grid.
• It would have directed the City to prioritize safety measures at the highest-risk locations, including traffic calming, reducing conflicts between road users and improving visibility.
• It would have required a consolidated report to council within six months. Because the motion was rejected, it creates none of these duties.

What it means for you#

• People travelling by foot, bicycle or car: The rejected motion does not require new audits, safety work or a report. The motion’s text says the City had announced targeted audits of some bicycle routes; this decision does not establish whether or how those audits will proceed.
• City staff: The motion does not assign the proposed audit, data-grid or reporting work to the Service de l’urbanisme et de la mobilité.
• Residents: The motion does not change road rules or directly create a new service.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The rejected motion included no cost estimate or funding source, and it authorizes no spending.

What is unclear#

• The material does not say why council rejected the motion.
• The motion did not specify how “high-risk” locations would be defined or how the different data in the proposed grid would be weighed.
• It did not give a cost, staffing plan or details for carrying out the proposed audits and interventions.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the motion is that it would have applied safety analysis to arterial roads and intersections as well as bicycle routes.
• A shared data grid and a public comparison could have made the City’s safety priorities easier to examine.
• A six-month report would have set a deadline for presenting audit results, risk analysis and an intervention plan.

Case against#

• The proposed audit and data work could require staff time and money, but the motion gave no estimate or funding plan.
• It did not explain how the City would rank risks when its measures pointed to different priorities.
• It called for prioritizing safety work but did not set a schedule or specify which measures would be used at each location.