The Municipality of Mont-Saint-Guibert has issued its opinion on the Communal Mobility Plan (PCM) project for Court-Saint-Étienne. The communal college emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive approach to mobility, as daily travel extends beyond administrative borders and occurs within a shared living area. While the plan's general directions, aimed at promoting more sustainable mobility and improving the living environment, are welcomed, several specific points have drawn remarks and proposals.
Supported objectives include enhancing safety around schools, developing cycling connections and pedestrian paths, strengthening public transport services, promoting alternatives to individual car use, and limiting through traffic in residential areas.
However, the communal college has issued a negative opinion on the proposed new traffic plan, which includes making certain roads one-way. It questions the concrete consequences of these changes, which could lengthen journeys, affect accessibility to shops and services, and potentially reroute traffic to less suitable roads. A more in-depth study of the impacts and consideration of alternative solutions in consultation with the concerned municipalities are requested.
Regarding the cycling network, the opinion is favorable, subject to adjustments. Mont-Saint-Guibert wishes for better consideration of connections between the two municipalities, suggesting the integration or reinforcement of streets such as Mélèzes, Beaurieux, Moulin, and part of Saussalle street. Improvements are also proposed for the cycling facilities on Ruchaux street.
To enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists, the college suggests studying the widening of the sidewalk and extending the planned school street on Hayeffes street to Mont-Saint-Guibert street, with necessary exceptions for residents and people with reduced mobility.
Attention is also drawn to public transport line 30. Mont-Saint-Guibert requests that it be recognized as a regular line, not solely a school route, given its role in connecting the municipalities and its links to express lines and train stations. The opinion is favorable pending this adaptation.
Finally, concerning routes for heavy goods vehicles and agricultural transport, the college questions the definition of restrictions, which appear to be based on administrative boundaries rather than actual service areas. It calls for a review of the proposed approach to better consider on-the-ground needs and destinations. Consequently, the opinion is unfavorable on the proposed signage plan for heavy goods vehicle restrictions.
