Summary#
Montréal city council adopted this motion unanimously on August 25, 2026. It sets out the city’s position and asks the Québec government to assess ways to preserve expertise from the Blue Line extension project and study whether to keep the tunnel-boring machine “Lisette” in Montréal after the work is complete. The stated goal is to support future public transit development; the motion does not itself require the machine to be kept.
- The council asks Québec to assess options for preserving expertise from the Blue Line extension project office and study the conditions for keeping Lisette in Montréal.
- The assessment is to consider economic, technical and environmental benefits of reusing the machine for future metro projects or other underground public transit infrastructure.
- The council invites Québec, the Autorité régionale de transport métropolitain, the Société de transport de Montréal and other partners to identify metro projects that might use the machine.
- The motion also stresses the importance of maintaining Montréal’s metro assets and continuing to develop regional public transit, and recognizes Lisette St-Onge, the metro’s first woman operator.
- The council will send the motion to Québec and regional public transit agencies and organizations.
What it means for you#
- Residents and transit riders: The motion does not directly change transit services, fares or access to the metro.
- Québec and transit partners: The council asks or invites them to assess options and work together. The motion does not require them to keep Lisette, fund future projects or take a specific action.
- Taxpayers: No new tax, fee or payment is created by the motion.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The motion asks for an assessment of potential economic benefits but does not set a budget or say who would pay for the assessment or for keeping, storing or reusing Lisette.
What is unclear#
- Who would carry out the assessment, when it would be completed and what criteria it would use.
- What keeping Lisette in Montréal would cost, and who would pay.
- Whether the machine would be technically suitable and available for any future project. No publicly available information.
- What decision would follow the assessment; the motion does not require that Lisette be retained or reused.
Case for#
- The motion identifies a specialized machine that, it says, was designed for Montréal’s soil and was costly to acquire, transport and put into service. Assessing reuse could help determine whether that investment can serve future projects.
- It asks for economic, technical and environmental benefits to be considered before a decision is made.
- The motion argues that preserving project expertise and planning future work continuously could help control costs and delays.
Case against#
- An assessment and invitation to collaborate do not guarantee that Lisette will be kept or reused; the motion sets no decision deadline or follow-up requirement.
- Keeping or adapting the machine could have costs, but the motion gives no estimate or funding plan.
- The motion does not identify a future project that would use Lisette or establish whether retaining the machine would be more practical than other options.