autoroute 10 Autoroute 10 (Bonaventure - portion au nord du canal (boul. urbain))

[Né entre les rapides]

Guys guys guys... the only way to really fight sprawl is to reduce car use. We need FEWER lanes on the Bonaventure, not more. We want a SMALL capacity of VPD not a high one. We want some flow to accommodate shipping, emergency vehicles and external zone trips, but we don't want to make it an attractive option either.

 

Induced demand is an insidious beast. It works in so many ways.

 

1. Add more lanes, capacity and system performance improves, people are encouraged to drive more. New trips are created, new development alongside the highways is spurred and the road is back to being congested within 5 years or less.

2. Build a metro line... and people start using the metro instead of driving. What happens? Congestion goes down on the roads. System performance increases and the roads become a more attractive option. You once again get back to congested roads. Even building transit is insufficient. You need to build transit and eliminate road infrastructure in tandem.

 

Roads will always fill up to the maximum capacity you give them. Induced demand actually works in reverse though. If you reduce capacity, people will avoid driving and seek alternatives.

 

Carmaggeddon in L.A. didn't happen although it shouldn't really be a surprise. You reduce vehicle transportation supply (aka road networks) and a new equilibrium settles on lower vehicle transportation demand. Transit demand goes up to compensate.

 

Anyway long story short, there is empirical evidence to suggest that the correct course of action to reduce automobile dependency and fight suburban sprawl is to actually reduce automobile (vpd) capacity.

I've taken several courses in advanced transportation modeling. Trust me on this one. I'm not just saying some voodoo stuff here, these concepts are real and demonstrable.

 

There is indeed ample empirical evidence that an increase in road capacity (= supply) will lead to an increase in effective demand. That would be especially true in cases where current supply is much smaller than latent potential demand (ie. demand for road use from the mass of people needing to get to a particular location, eg. central business district, and who in their vast majority currently use public transit because of a combination of factors such as cost and time efficiency, but some of which would rather use their own car if the above mix of cost and time was modified (even somewhat) in favour of the car option, an occurence which ïs inevitably brought about by additional road capacity to the desired destination).

 

Clearly, such situations exist in places like London in the UK, and thus the obvious conclusion reached following a spur of "road improvements" in the recent past. On the other hand, in places where current road capacity exceeds (or even far exceeds) potential demand, perhaps for example Quebec City --admittedly a much smaller place than London--, effective demand may not succeed in "swallowing up" additional capacity. The point being made here is simply that the notion of "induced demand" as applied to transportation in urban areas is valid in broad, but not universal, circumstances. The same is true of certain "laws" of physics, likewise in economics...

 

Now let us go back to more normal situations, such as Montreal! It is correct to assert that an "equilibrium" is reached between supply and demand--in fact it just has to!! And indeed if supply is reduced (by way for example of reducing the number of lanes on certain roads), effective demand (for car driving in this part of town) will simply have to go down, and there will be a new equilibrium. Bingo! But this is not to say that such equilibrium is optimal. Searching for such optimality is thus a more complicated task, and requires introducing other important considerations, such as the impact on the environment and urbanity.

 

In this particular case of the transformation of the Bonaventure autoroute, I would clearly lean towards fewer cars and more quality public transit, with a view to improving environmental and aesthetic aspects WITHOUT imposing additional burdens on commuters, time-wise as well as in terms of comfort, inasmuch as possible. If not, some people will unjustly suffer--those who cannot afford to move to pricey downtown condos or more generally less affordable housing in proximity to efficient public transit. This latter point leads in my view to an issue which is inextricably linked to urban transportation ie. a comprehensive housing policy.

[JCC-Fromthere]

Agreed!

But you can't just build TEC alone, and you can't just reduce road capacity. You have to do both at the same time for the best results if you want to reduce sprawl and decentralization.

 

One good step towards TEC would be to actually build on top of the metro stations. I'm always baffled at how many stations are just little buildings covering an escalator. Add a few 30-40 story mixed used tower on top, and you have an almost instant increase in ridership.

[Cyrus]

Hein? Ils parlent de 5-6 voies de chaque bord! Il y a actuellement 3 voies de chaque bord sur l'autoroute.

 

Um, there are already the six lanes on the "boulevard" service roads in addition to the six of the freeway. The "boulevard" isn't a new construction!

 

 

Roads will always fill up to the maximum capacity you give them. Induced demand actually works in reverse though. If you reduce capacity, people will avoid driving and seek alternatives.

 

Like getting a job in Laval instead of downtown! I did...

 

 

In this particular case of the transformation of the Bonaventure autoroute, I would clearly lean towards fewer cars and more quality public transit, with a view to improving environmental and aesthetic aspects WITHOUT imposing additional burdens on commuters, time-wise as well as in terms of comfort, inasmuch as possible. If not, some people will unjustly suffer--those who cannot afford to move to pricey downtown condos or more generally less affordable housing in proximity to efficient public transit. This latter point leads in my view to an issue which is inextricably linked to urban transportation ie. a comprehensive housing policy.

 

I really don't see how this can not impose a burden on commuters both in comfort and distance time. Already the Bonaventure is a major public transit corridor. There's no way any planned reserved "couloir" with at-grade intersections running on some alleyway is going to be faster than going on a freeway, and it is without saying that anyone in a private car or motorcycle is simply fucked.

Modifié 9 novembre 2011 par Cyrus

[Cataclaw]

There is indeed ample empirical evidence that an increase in road capacity (= supply) will lead to an increase in effective demand. That would be especially true in cases where current supply is much smaller than latent potential demand (ie. demand for road use from the mass of people needing to get to a particular location, eg. central business district, and who in their vast majority currently use public transit because of a combination of factors such as cost and time efficiency, but some of which would rather use their own car if the above mix of cost and time was modified (even somewhat) in favour of the car option, an occurence which ïs inevitably brought about by additional road capacity to the desired destination).

 

Clearly, such situations exist in places like London in the UK, and thus the obvious conclusion reached following a spur of "road improvements" in the recent past. On the other hand, in places where current road capacity exceeds (or even far exceeds) potential demand, perhaps for example Quebec City --admittedly a much smaller place than London--, effective demand may not succeed in "swallowing up" additional capacity. The point being made here is simply that the notion of "induced demand" as applied to transportation in urban areas is valid in broad, but not universal, circumstances. The same is true of certain "laws" of physics, likewise in economics...

 

Now let us go back to more normal situations, such as Montreal! It is correct to assert that an "equilibrium" is reached between supply and demand--in fact it just has to!! And indeed if supply is reduced (by way for example of reducing the number of lanes on certain roads), effective demand (for car driving in this part of town) will simply have to go down, and there will be a new equilibrium. Bingo! But this is not to say that such equilibrium is optimal. Searching for such optimality is thus a more complicated task, and requires introducing other important considerations, such as the impact on the environment and urbanity.

 

In this particular case of the transformation of the Bonaventure autoroute, I would clearly lean towards fewer cars and more quality public transit, with a view to improving environmental and aesthetic aspects WITHOUT imposing additional burdens on commuters, time-wise as well as in terms of comfort, inasmuch as possible. If not, some people will unjustly suffer--those who cannot afford to move to pricey downtown condos or more generally less affordable housing in proximity to efficient public transit. This latter point leads in my view to an issue which is inextricably linked to urban transportation ie. a comprehensive housing policy.

 

You're correct regarding the notion that in certain places where supply is so high and demand so low, demand may never get to "swallow up" additional capacity. However, those places tend to exist outside of urban areas so for all practical purposes I don't consider them. Even Quebec City, with its extensive highway network, is beginning to reach congestion points along many (if not most) of its segments. Have you been there lately? It's bumper to bumper at times. A city like Quebec has enough critical mass that induced demand will apply, even if the full effects are still a few years away.

 

I don't quite get your second premise though. Could you elaborate a bit more? You accept that an equilibrium naturally occurs between transportation supply and demand, and you say that you agree that reducing supply will reduce vehicle trips. Why is this equilibrium not optimal? This is precisely what we want. We want fewer automobile trips, which come at the expense of walking trips, cycling trips and transit trips. Naturally, it goes without saying that a shift towards sustainable transportation comes with a shift towards sustainable urban development as well.

 

I disagree with your last point. I strongly believe that the automobile is inherently inequitable as a means of transportation. Automobile operation and maintenance costs make up a significantly larger proportion of a poor person's budget than a middle-class or rich person. The costs are also significantly higher than a transit pass. There are a whole host of other reasons why automobile travel is more socially inequitable, but the point here is that you don't have to live in pricey downtown condos to use public transit. Transit is available in most places. Affordable housing is available in places where transit exists. In fact, areas where no transit service is available tend to be higher income areas to begin with, so the idea collapses under its own weight. Reducing automobile capacity on the Bonaventure will not disadvantage people who do not have the means to take transit otherwise. This would not be the case if transit options didn't exist, but they do, so we can and should decrease vehicle capacity. Critics gave the exact same arguments regarding demolished highways in Seoul, San Francisco and New York City. The negative effects never materialized. Transit use went up, apocalyptic congestion never materialized and a shift towards sustainable transportation and sustainable development was achieved.

 

You're right about housing policy though, it is definitely tied to transportation. In transportation modeling, housing policy is represented at the beginning of the 4-stage model (in that it reflects a portion of transportation demand). After the final stage of the model, integrated modeling approaches take into consideration system performance in determining land use and shaping housing policy. A feedback loop is created. We didn't use to think this way, but we're starting to realize that housing and transportation go hand in hand.

 

We need a paradigm shift towards denser, urban and sustainable living arrangements while simultaneously tying them to transit and reducing vehicle network supply. It has to occur all at once. You have to proceed on all fronts simultaneously or you'll end up with problems.

 

(We're not even talking about peak oil yet and the likelihood that gas will be 2$/L in 3 years or less... but that's a whole other matter but one equally important to consider in the future)

Modifié 10 novembre 2011 par Cataclaw

[Malek]

Cars will always fill up capacity.... well because there will be more people in the long run.

 

Cars don't magically multiply or drive themselves around lol (not yet).

 

I hope you acknowledge that.

 

 

The real questions here are:

 

1-Do we want Geater Montreal to keep its same population levels?

 

2-Will mass transit become more comfortable/reliable/practical so that people won't bother with their car even if the roads are wide open?

 

3-Do we want downtown Montreal to stay the dominant node in Greater Montreal?

 

 

The current trends (IMO):

 

1-Montreal keeps growing by about 30k a year, with no mass transit nor roads capacity following up this increase.

 

2-Some efforts have been done, but are just a drop in the ocean, namely: new metro stations, new metro trains soon, new train line, ... but capacity in general for the metro and suburban trains are way behind real demand. (and metro is still ghetto).

 

3-Nodes outside downtown are being invigorated, job creation is 5-6 times faster outside downtown Montreal... this is something that has to be adressed, or we'll be in a situation where Greater MOntreal will have many nodes scattered around, at the expence of downtown Montreal.

Modifié 10 novembre 2011 par Malek

[Cataclaw]

I actually agree with your assessment 100% Malek!

 

Induced demand does depend on growth and a shift from transit to cars, yes. There is a theoretical maximum to this phenomenon, you're also right about that. We're not at that point though but it is a valid point.

 

We need Montreal to keep growing (in terms of population AND economy), and we need new metro stations!

[joaobruno]

Reportage a radio-canada

 

 

http://www.radio-canada.ca/audio-video/#urlMedia=http://www.radio-canada.ca/Medianet/2011/CBFT/2011-11-07_18_00_00_tj18h_1874_02_500.xml&pos=0

[Né entre les rapides]

Hey Cataclaw, thanks for your detailed and sensible response. By and large, I share your views, but I will also attempt to submit an elaboration that you sought on the topics of optimality, as well as related secondary points.

 

We both agree that in "normal" circumstances, ceteris paribus, a reduced road capacity implies a reduced car usage and an increase in public transit (or combined with other means of transportation such as walking/biking). Thus a "new" equilibrium appears. You provide reasons why this is new eq. is to be preferred to the previous one, as I had written that the new one was not necessarily "optimal". Obviously, I could not have been implying that the previous (more cars) eq. was "optimal" either. As (social) optimality, at least in a democratic society, refers to the sets of personal preferences of all individuals concerned, it remains highly subjective by nature. So it was after reading your comment that I realized that I should have used a different formulation to convey the point that I had wanted to make. So here it is ( very briefly): will the transformation result in an improvement to the social and economic well-being of the community? And if so, will there be some "losers" along with the "winning" majority? Again if so, should the "losers" be "compensated" (or not, for reasons). To conclude on this, the "transformation" might very well lead to an improved equilibrium, but that is not to say the "final" result is optimal. Let's call it a "step in the right direction".

 

 

Other related points:

 

1) My concern over "imposing burdens on commuters" refers particularly to those people who for specific reasons (eg. child day care, frequent mobility during working daytime, poor quality/frequency of public transit at their place of residence) NEED to drive their car to work. I realize there cannot be a perfect solution for all, but at least substantial improvements to the set of characteristics that can make public transit a great option for MANY should be a must. (There would then be a much lower number of people "absolutely" needing to drive their car to work)

 

2) With respect to the availability of affordable housing in proximity to public transit, I would be very happy to be able to share your perception, but what I see (at the present time) is significantly different. Sure, wealthy suburbs such as Senneville and other locations along Lake of Two Mountains-to take an example- tend to have poor public transit but the people living there do not need it/would not use it. But for hundreds of thousands of residents of Montreal's second and third "belts" , public transit is infrequent, its capacity is minimal and the travel time to downtown Montreal is unbelievably long: it meets the needs of a few, but just a few. Granted, not all those people travel downtown, but even for those having to get to the industrial parks in the West Island, for example, there is no real options. Older housing in central Montreal may very well be affordable, but it is virtually fully occupied, and thus NOT available for new residents. As for newer housing developments on the Island, they tend to be too pricey for many.

 

3) To conclude for now: an urban policy that would focus SOLELY on reducing road capacity (or at best: not increasing capacity in tune with population growth--a generally more accurate description of recent developments in the Montreal area) is likely to generate unexpected (?) consequences, such as huge land price increases in the few areas well served by transit, besides the unsurprising consequence of traffic congestion/pollution/waste. I realize I am using the terms "solely" in the full knowledge of actual efforts and future plans to improve transit capacity throughout the region, but this serves to outline the point that such efforts and "plans" may be largely unsufficient in view of the challenge ahead. Improved public transit is definitely part of the answer, but it is just that: a part. Housing in so-called transit-oriented developments is another part. But a strategy must also pay attention to the future location of jobs and other destinations such as schools, hospitals and other service providers. On this, zoning has a role to play, but this is not sufficient; governments can also play a more direct role by their choices of location of establishments, especially when considering that such choices dictate, in turn, the locational decisions of firms that gravitate around them, either as service providers to such establishments or to their clients. Finally, ways must be found to conciliate the apparent or real rival interests of the various municipal or sub-municipal administrations (they are not "governments", strictly speaking) concerned, this latter point belonging to the realms of "governance". Quite a task indeed, but it must be done right, we cannot afford too many mistakes!

[Cataclaw]

Good post Né entre les rapides, thanks for the clarification. Now that I see what you're getting at, I can say that I agree. It's true, certain equilibrium points may not be optimal given the parameters of the living arrangement. However I believe there is a solution. I'll get to this more later. I think we're on the same page overall.

 

1) The problem with changing our transportation patterns is that our living arrangements have to change too, as I alluded earlier. This isn't always easy and I'll freely admit that. Even If we put tolls on all the highways tomorrow, reduced their capacity and built tons of transit to replace it, folks that live in car-dependent areas won't necessarily have the luxury of being able to move to denser walkable neighborhoods overnight. For starters, such housing may not even be available of affordable! (yet..) The solution of course is to redevelop, convert or build new settlements in a dense, walkable urban fashion. The parents with kids at day care won't need a car if they can walk 50 meters and drop them off because the daycare center is on their mixed-use street. Again though, we need to build those nice mixed-use high-density streets too.. they won't magically pop up over night.

 

2) I hold the belief that people, even those in upper middle-class neighborhoods, might still opt for transit if it proves to be faster. Transit becomes faster if service is improved, new lines are built, and if roads remain congested. The solution is therefore to NOT increase automobile capacity but instead increase transit capacity and boost its performance. I've read some interesting studies on NYC and transit in America. There is a three dimensional relationship between transit use, social class and urban density. Generally poor people use transit, rich people drive cars. But as density increases, this relationship gets muddled. In NYC for instance, everyone uses transit, even the businessmen and wealthy suburban commuters. It's faster and more convenient than the roads in many instances (although admittedly not all.) So I think if we invest big time in transit, even Senneville residents might be lured to transit.

 

In predicting transportation demand, we use logit mode-share models that generally assign alternative specific constants (ASCs) to car mode share. This is a bonus that reflects the predominant preference for automobile use (your own private space, your own music in the car, lots of breathing room, etc.) So to fight this tendency we REALLY have to make transit attractive to lure people away from the car. The best way to do this is to make cars less attractive (limit VPD capacity) while making transit more attractive. Basically, we need to subsidize transit and cut down on automobile incentives. We don't want to make driving impossible either, because some people will always choose to drive 100% of the time no matter what. Besides, you can't really ship goods and products on a metro train! We need some amount of road infrastructure.

 

Anyway, i'm kind of deviating from the point I was trying to make here. Basically it is possible to lure even rich suburbanites to transit. It's just much, much harder.

 

As for your point regarding the inner belts, I totally agree. In fact, I think that new metro lines should first and foremost be build in these areas. Yes Longueuil eventually needs metro service too, but the blue line extension ought to be priority #1. I also believe that the orange line is insufficient to handle current let alone future demand. I would build a new north-south line along Saint-Laurent itself (or 1 street away), or perhaps along the Parc axis. There are bunch of lines i'd like to see, but that's another issue for another thread.

 

3) Very well said Mr. Rapides. A strategy has to be comprehensive. We can't just build transit and hope it all gets better, nor can we just reduce (or let stagnate) road capacity. It's a big complex machine with many moving parts, and they all have to be tackled at once. I think of the Bell HQ moving to Nun's Island as one example... this HQ went from a transit-accessible area to a car-dependent area. (I know there are shuttle buses, but it's not the same as direct metro access.) The Bell HQ, as nice as the building is inside and out, is a step in the wrong direction. Housing is definitely a huge piece of the puzzle, and I wish governments would step in and develop more affordable housing.

 

Ironically, dense urban developments are actually cheaper overall to construct and maintain than suburban developments. Maintenance costs are much higher in the suburbs, taxable land is lost to public infrastructure such as public parking and massive clover-leaf interchanges. Unfortunately the savings aren't reflected in reality due to other economic pressures. If a shift towards dense, urban and sustainable housing were made, prices across the board would go down in the medium to long term. Cities in Europe (well, some of them are expensive.. I know..) don't all suffer from exorbitant land values just because they're dense.

 

Your last point is critical but often overlooked -- we have to do this right because we cannot afford to make mistakes.

 

Some cities in the U.S. that are hypermobile and utterly 100% car dependent will be in big trouble 'if' (or I should say 'when') gasoline prices really start to surge. Given past trends, the current geopolitical landscape and the reality that oil production rates have been in a plateau for half a decade now, gasoline may well hit 2$/L in short notice. (I and several others at the oil drum web site predict in 3 years or less) Hydrogen will not save us (takes more energy to make than it produces), hybrids will help but ultimately won't save us either, tar sands won't save us either (even if Alberta pumps out 5 million barrels per day by 2016, that's not enough to make up for losses in Mexico, Russia, the Gulf of Mexico and other places that are drying up.)

 

So yeah. We do have to get this right. We can't afford to make mistakes! The future depends on it.

[Cyrus]

Some cities in the U.S. that are hypermobile and utterly 100% car dependent will be in big trouble 'if' (or I should say 'when') gasoline prices really start to surge. Given past trends, the current geopolitical landscape and the reality that oil production rates have been in a plateau for half a decade now, gasoline may well hit 2$/L in short notice. (I and several others at the oil drum web site predict in 3 years or less) Hydrogen will not save us (takes more energy to make than it produces), hybrids will help but ultimately won't save us either, tar sands won't save us either (even if Alberta pumps out 5 million barrels per day by 2016, that's not enough to make up for losses in Mexico, Russia, the Gulf of Mexico and other places that are drying up.)

 

So yeah. We do have to get this right. We can't afford to make mistakes! The future depends on it.

 

How exactly? Gasoline was running $1.32/L today, $2 would imply a 52% increase in fuel costs. I spend a lot of money on gasoline but it isn't a very large chunk of my relatively small salary. I'd be annoyed but particularly considering the inflationary effects of fuel costs, $2 would be annoying for a while but wouldn't put me on the street. I could buy a more fuel-efficient car and spend less money on fuel than I do today, but that more fuel-efficient car would cost more than the savings, and also, the expense isn't bad enough to put me in a boring appliance-mobile or really change my habits in any way... except perhaps ride my motorcycle more often (I plan to ramp up my biking anyway...)

 

Fuel expenses sound like a ludicrous idea to support reducing road capacity or really to change anything about road improvements. A reason to improve transit service, yes, but not to create congestion. The "worst" thing if fuel prices skyrocketed and the transit was there is maybe some people would use transit and the roadway would work at a better LOS.

 

I think it is important to look at "that which is seen and that which is not". The Bonaventure project is simply drastically reducing the level of service for access to downtown from the south shore via automobile, and also reducing it for transit, at best, marginally. If I worked at Bell I'd certainly prefer to go to Nun's Island and avoid that particular mess now to be created. If we look at the rapid development of employment nodes in other areas of the urban region, and the growing desire of people to not work downtown (as noted in several news stories posted around on this site "I don't want to cross a bridge anymore"), it strikes me as more likely that the people will just drive to a new office with an easier commute. Who wants to travel every day to an area that explicitly doesn't want them there?

 

Governments developing more affordable housing strikes me as a very alarming suggestion! I can hardly think of something more liable to turn a nice city into a post-apocalyptic hellhole. From Pruitt-Igoe to Communist panelaky passing through our own HLM's and British council estates when did that ever work out well?

Modifié 10 novembre 2011 par Cyrus