Autoroute - Pont de la 25 (2011)

[cprail]

C'est 6,80$ qui devrait être indiqué sur le paneau, comme tous ceux qui ont le bidule doivent déjà savoir qu'il y a un péage et que ça leur coûte 1,80$ non?

[ProposMontréal]

J'y ai passé à quelques reprises et même ce 5$ m'a fait gagner beaucoup de temps. Ma question est la suivante. J'ai changé de véhicule et j'au un "transit". est-ce que ça veut dire que je passe gratuitement si je dois y passer ne ce moment ?

[Monsieur_MA]

Voici que que l'on peut lire sur le site de Concession A25.

 

J'ai plusieurs véhicules, est-ce que chaque véhicule doit être équipé d'un transpondeur?

Nous vous le recommandons fortement. Vous pouvez avoir plus d'un véhicule dans votre compte. Le transpondeur est l'option la plus économique pour vous si vous utilisez le pont avec plus d'un véhicule. Les véhicules qui traversent le pont sans transpondeur doivent payer des frais d'administration lors de chaque passage. Pour éviter de devoir payer ces frais, il est préférable d'équiper tous vos véhicules qui emprunteront le pont d'un transpondeur.

 

 

Que faire si je vends mon véhicule ou si j'achète un nouveau véhicule? Est-ce que je devrai payer pour un nouveau transpondeur? Est-ce possible de transférer mon transpondeur de mon ancien véhicule à mon nouveau?

Vous pouvez ajouter autant de véhicules à votre compte que vous le souhaitez. Nous vous encourageons à équiper tous vos véhicules de transpondeurs puisqu'il s'agit de la façon la plus économique d'utiliser le pont de l'A25.

 

Vous pouvez ajouter, supprimer ou modifier les informations de vos véhicules en vous connectant à votre compte en ligne, par téléphone ou en visitant notre Centre de service à la clientèle. Vous ne pouvez pas transférer un transpondeur d'un véhicule à un autre.

 

Vous pouvez vous procurer un transpondeur gratuitement (vignette) si vous ajoutez un véhicule à votre compte, mais vous devrez toutefois effectuer un paiement initial pour le solde payé d'avance pour le véhicule ajouté.

 

Si vous vendez un véhicule équipé d'un transpondeur autocollant, modifiez les informations de vos véhicules à votre compte et par la suite vous devriez retirer et détruire le transpondeur avant de céder le véhicule au nouveau propriétaire.

 

En conclusion, il faut avertir Concession A25 au moment de l'acquisition d'un véhicule, pour être certain de ne pas payer de frais administratifs de 5$.

Il faut aussi détruire le transpondeur du véhicule vendu, pour être certain de ne pas faire de cadeau au nouvel acheteur.

[Cyrus]

J'y ai passé à quelques reprises et même ce 5$ m'a fait gagner beaucoup de temps. Ma question est la suivante. J'ai changé de véhicule et j'au un "transit". est-ce que ça veut dire que je passe gratuitement si je dois y passer ne ce moment ?

 

Fort probablement. Essayez-le!

[monctezuma]

:highfive::highfive:

 

Y'é peut-être pas beau, mais y'é payant !

 

*******************************

 

Pont de l'A-25

Le gouvernement va récolter 5 millions $ cette année

Agence QMI

Véronique Prince

10/11/2011 21h39

 

MONTRÉAL - Le nouveau pont payant de l'autoroute 25 est tellement rentable depuis son ouverture en mai que le ministère des Transports va pouvoir récupérer plusieurs millions de dollars en vertu d'une entente sur le partage des revenus.

 

Selon cette entente entre Concession A-25 et le gouvernement, si le pont réussissait à amasser plus que 10 millions $ dans sa première année, le gestionnaire privé ne pourrait pas garder tout l'argent pour lui. Le reste doit être partagé à 50 % entre le gouvernement et la firme privée.

 

Déjà, on se dirige vers les 20 millions $ en revenus. D'après les calculs effectués avec les chiffres obtenus par TVA Nouvelles, cela signifie que le ministère des Transports va empocher au moins 5 millions $. Il va donc rester 15 millions $ pour le privé.

 

«Tout indique que le trafic et le niveau d'achalandage vont continuer d'augmenter», a expliqué Daniel Toutant, le président-directeur général de Concession A-25, la firme chargée de financer, construire et entretenir la structure.

 

«La règle de partage va continuer d'être appliquée et les revenus devraient être augmentés», a-t-il conclu.

 

L'entente sur le partage des revenus est valable pour les trente prochaines années. «Ces sommes-là sont investies dans un fonds routier qui permet de développer des activités et maintenir les infrastructures», a spécifié Mario Saint-Pierre, porte-parole pour le ministère des Transports du Québec.

 

En attente du recours collectif

 

Pendant que le gouvernement discute du partage des revenus, d'autres pourparlers se poursuivent entre les usagers du pont et Concession A-25.

 

En date du jeudi 10 novembre, au moins 200 d'entre eux se sont plaints formellement des frais d'administration auprès de l'Office de la Protection du Consommateur. Ils attendent encore l'autorisation pour un recours collectif.

[Cyrus]

What a system, the MTQ just "allows" a company to build a bridge and then gets free money until one day when they get a free bridge! Maybe they should do that on the 440 bridges and a variety of other projects for which the MTQ already has plans and ROW owned.

[peekay]

Sure thing peekay. In all sincerity, I understand your skepticism. I was highly skeptic about induced demand at first too... it seems incredibly counter-intuitive at first. It's only when I took a course in transportation modelling, started looking at examples around the world and crunching some numbers myself that I realized how powerful this often misunderstood phenomenon is.

 

According to Concession A25, the A-25 bridge has exceeded its average projections and is now topping 40,000 vpd on some days, and it's rising. New transponders are flying off the shelves like hot cakes.

 

"Le dernier, explique-t-il à La Presse, a été enregistré la veille, 17 mai: 40 894 automobilistes ont passé le pont.

Source: http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/regional/montreal/201205/23/01-4527793-pont-de-la25-un-anniversaire-un-record-un-recours.php

 

 

 

Before I get into this, let me define "trip". In transportation science, a "trip" is not grabbing your car keys and going to Quebec City for the weekend. A trip is more basic than that, and is simply defined as transportation from an origin to a destination.

If I leave my home and go to work, that's a trip. If I walk to the depanneur, that's a trip.

 

Changes to a network can affect traffic volume in a number of ways.

When a new link is created, several things happen:

 

1. People that would have previously foregone trips are now choosing to make those trips.

Example: It's saturday night, there is no nightlife in my area, I feel like grabbing a beer somewhere with some friends, but there's too much traffic congestion and I don't feel like negotiating all that, so I'll just stay home or go watch the game at a friend's place nearby. However, now that a fast and efficient road allows me to go to where the the bars and clubs are, I'll choose to go out instead of stay home. I'm generating a new trip that would have otherwise not been made, and I'm doing this solely on the premise that a deterrent (congestion) is now removed from my utility function.

 

Obviously, some people will still go out anyway, even if there is congestion, and some people will choose to stay home, no matter how efficient the roads are. But a certain percentage of users, who were "on the fence", will now start to make those trips.

 

2. Destinations will be change. Example: Suppose there's a local cinema I go to because it's close to me. There's a much nicer cinema with better selection but it's 30 minutes away. Adding a lane to the highway that takes me there allows the travel time to be reduced to 15 minutes. I'll now be tempted to go to that cinema instead of the local one. So I'll drive farther to go to the fancy cinema, but in doing so I'll contribute to the increase in volume along that highway.

 

3. Development will be spurred. New housing, offices and industries tends to pop up along highways, especially at exits and interchanges. Here is a classic example in the Montreal area: http://goo.gl/maps/0h0nb It doesn't take much to see how highways have shaped sprawl across the Montreal CMA. When new development appears along a highway, new trips will be generated. Buyers and developpers tend to make decisions based on induction and inference, and they rarely stop to consider future prospects for a transportation network.

 

Here's an example: Imagine two new lanes are added to a highway passing through a undevelopped stretch of land within an urban agglomeration. Let's even throw in a new exit or two for good measure. Developpers will be attracted to the land because it will provide their customers with quick and easy access to the highway network. Today, we know that performance increases along urban highways tend to last for 5 years maximum, on average. So for those 5 years following a highway widening, performance will be fast, and new houses will be built. Folks will buy up those houses and start living there. Development will occur for as long as performance of the road network is adequate. Here's the problem though. Let's say the highway widening added 20,000 vpd of capacity, and let's say 8,000 new residents move into the area over those 5 years. According to the 2008 Montreal OD Survey, on average those category of residents will use the highway on average several times per day, but let's be generous and assume only 2 trips will be made per person. That's 16,000 vpd of new usage -- from the new sprawl alone. Now when you consider the other factors I mentioned, plus toss in the other land uses, like commerical (say, a new Dix30-style mall) and industrial (some development lining the highway, as we so often see) our timid 16,000 vpd estimate easily ramps up to 40,000 vpd and beyond. What you end up with is even more congestion than you initially had, because people were "fooled" into thinking the new and improved highway would last like that forever. In reality, it's gone in 5 years or less.

 

In the early years, many deniers tried to pick apart research findings and look for mistakes. Even today, many deniers will often cite the UC Berkeley study from 1973-1990 which found that a 1% increase in capacity was met with a 0.9% increase in volume in under 5 years. They claim that the study didn't use enough data and therefore it's all wrong. Deniers often act like this is the only study we've ever done. The problem is, hundreds of new studies have been performed since then, with extremely reliable data using advanced techniques and the most cutting-edge computer software. With every passing year, the already-enormous mountain of evidence grows further still. To deny induced demand today, with everything that we've learned, is like denying that humans ever set foot on the moon.

 

 

 

You're absolutely right in thinking it'll be 10% or less. Honestly, the figure will probably be somewhere around 1-4%. I threw around an extremely generous 10-20% hypothetical to show that even if we condeded such a large reduction, it still wouldn't matter.

 

And yes, you're correct in stating that many things can and will affect transportation models.

Classic road engineers, such as the ones we have at the MTQ, tend to look at very static models that don't take much into account. It's been like this for decades.

Urban transportation experts have been leading the revolution with integrated approaches that DO take into consideration all the factors you just listed, and many more.

The reason why most projections are poorly done and are way off the mark is because it takes an incredible amount of time and money to produce accurate figures.

You need to do precise traffic enumeration, you need rich disaggregate data (such as the data found in the Montreal OD Survey), you need good utility functions, you need all the socioeconomic data and trend forecasting info you can get your hands on, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. You have to create a statistically reliable model that correctly balances all these variables. It is a mountain of work, let me tell you. Traffic engineers operating on a meager budget can't and won't do all that.

Often their numbers are merely linear extrapolations, concocted in less than a day. I'm not joking.

 

In the end, even the most precise models crafted by teams of urban transportation experts over the course of 5 years with budgets of millions of dollars... won't be 100% accurate. You can never be 100% accurate. But I can guarantee you those models and projections are more accurate than the crap we get from the MTQ.

 

The moral of the story here is that everything we've learned over the last 60 years points to one conclusion: You can't build your way out of congestion, and even if you could, the side-effects would significantly outweigh any of the benefits. It's like trying to fight an ant infestation in your kitchen by leaving a bunch of food in your living room in the hopes of luring them away. In the end, you'll just end up with ants in your kitchen AND your living room. It's pointless.

 

The only viable solution is to densify, invest in transit, and reduce our automobile dependence. I'm not saying tear down all the highways (although some of them will need to go, eventually) all I'm saying is stop aggravating the problem by building new ones.

 

We need some cars and some amount of road infrastructure, but we're way passed just "some". We're in "way too much" territory.. The balance is tiltd 80-20 in the wrong direction, and we have a lot of work to do to try and bring it back to a sensible, sustainable equillibrium. The amazing thing is, we could stand to significantly bolster our economy too. On average, every dollar of transit spending more than doubles the economic output of a dollar spent on roads. Every dollar of transit spending generates more jobs too, because transit improvements are more labor-intensive (whereas road improvements are more material intensive.) This means more dollars in people's pockets, which means more spending and a stronger economy. Highways cost a lot to repair and maintain, and they generate sprawl which is highly inefficient and wasteful infrastructure-wise. The list goes on and on...

 

The evidence points to an undeniably resounding conclusion: our society is too auto-centric and auto-dependent, and we could stand to gain tremendously by moving towards a healthier transportation mix. Unfortunately, car culture is so ingrained in our brains that we get defensive whenever somebody takes up an inch away from cars. From the time we're infants, playing with toy cars, to the the time we're 16 and told that getting a car is a rite of passage, to all the cars we see on TV, in movies and song lyrics... we're just inundated with cars. It's easy to see why people get defensive and irrational. It's one hell of an uphill battle, let me tell you... but we'll get there. Change has already begun, and it will only accelerate.

 

Thanks for the reply. very interesting. I was quickly dismissing 40,000 vpd as actual new vehicles not new trips.

However, surely these trips came from people who no longer take the PIE-IX bridge? I mean, what is there to do in that part of Laval? There's nothing in that area. I'm pretty sure that people who take the A-25 bridge must be ex-users of the other bridges, no?

I would really love to see the numbers. Do they exist? Does the MTQ even look at that? I highly doubt it.

 

I remember this following scene, it reminds me of your views and what the majority of people in North America believe in.

 

In the 1992 movie Singles, Steve (played by Campbell Scott) has a grand vision of a "supertrain" for Seattle — it will cut down on traffic and be good for the environment. He explains the idea to his friend, who nods in approval, then hesitantly replies, "But I love my car."

 

Steve eventually gets a meeting with the mayor, where he explains the great benefits of the supertrain. The mayor is silent for a moment, then says, "People love their cars." The supertrain dream is dead.

[Cataclaw]

Thanks for the reply. very interesting. I was quickly dismissing 40,000 vpd as actual new vehicles not new trips.

However, surely these trips came from people who no longer take the PIE-IX bridge? I mean, what is there to do in that part of Laval? There's nothing in that area. I'm pretty sure that people who take the A-25 bridge must be ex-users of the other bridges, no?

I would really love to see the numbers. Do they exist? Does the MTQ even look at that? I highly doubt it.

 

I remember this following scene, it reminds me of your views and what the majority of people in North America believe in.

 

The changes in traffic flow occured across a large portion of the network. So yes, you're absolutely correct abtu the Pie-IX bridge.

Some new trips are being made exclusively by residents that live close to the A25 bridge, but the majority of those trips are undoubtedly coming from users of the former bridges, who then switched over to the A25.

So to be clear, yes most of the A25 crowd came from other bridges. In doing so, however, they freed up a lot of volume on the other bridges, which was then quickly absorbed by other folks.

It's easy to think of urban highways and bridges as gas in a balloon. It fills up to occupy to space you give it.

 

As for your second point, a certain percentage will always opt to take their car whenever possible. These are the people who just love their cars, as you put it. Even if you provide a high speed train, they wouldn't take it.

I don't have the OD survey in front of me, but in Montreal in 2008 I believe the number was around 20%. Then there's another 20% or so that don't drive, refuse to drive, and wouldn't drive even if you made it convenient to drive. These are the folks who will walk, cycle and take transit no matter what. A large majority of users, ~50-60%, will take the mode of transportation that simply: a) costs less, b) takes less time and c) is most convenient.

 

So the 20% die hard car people and the 20% die hard transit people are not worth trying to "lure". But the 50-60% mass is. Who cares if 20% still cling to their cars. That's their right as free citizens. But we can and should try to improve transit and make it attractive, fast and desirable so that most people feel compelled to use it.

 

In the U.S. the numbers are a bit different and slightly more skewed towards cars, but not by a lot. People do have a natural preference for cars, and in transportation modelling we usually apply "bonus coefficients" when dealing with utility functions that determine people's mode choice. If transit is strong, people will take it. People love their cars, but studies show that they also love good fast efficient transit too, and they will take it.

 

But anyway, gasoline will be 1.80$/L+ in the next 5 years, so change is going to have to happen one way or another.

[Gbx]

The changes in traffic flow occured across a large portion of the network. So yes, you're absolutely correct abtu the Pie-IX bridge.

Some new trips are being made exclusively by residents that live close to the A25 bridge, but the majority of those trips are undoubtedly coming from users of the former bridges, who then switched over to the A25.

So to be clear, yes most of the A25 crowd came from other bridges. In doing so, however, they freed up a lot of volume on the other bridges, which was then quickly absorbed by other folks.

It's easy to think of urban highways and bridges as gas in a balloon. It fills up to occupy to space you give it.

 

As for your second point, a certain percentage will always opt to take their car whenever possible. These are the people who just love their cars, as you put it. Even if you provide a high speed train, they wouldn't take it.

I don't have the OD survey in front of me, but in Montreal in 2008 I believe the number was around 20%. Then there's another 20% or so that don't drive, refuse to drive, and wouldn't drive even if you made it convenient to drive. These are the folks who will walk, cycle and take transit no matter what. A large majority of users, ~50-60%, will take the mode of transportation that simply: a) costs less, b) takes less time and c) is most convenient.

 

So the 20% die hard car people and the 20% die hard transit people are not worth trying to "lure". But the 50-60% mass is. Who cares if 20% still cling to their cars. That's their right as free citizens. But we can and should try to improve transit and make it attractive, fast and desirable so that most people feel compelled to use it.

 

In the U.S. the numbers are a bit different and slightly more skewed towards cars, but not by a lot. People do have a natural preference for cars, and in transportation modelling we usually apply "bonus coefficients" when dealing with utility functions that determine people's mode choice. If transit is strong, people will take it. People love their cars, but studies show that they also love good fast efficient transit too, and they will take it.

 

But anyway, gasoline will be 1.80$/L+ in the next 5 years, so change is going to have to happen one way or another.

 

Cataclaw,

 

Merci, fort intéressant. Juste quelques piste de réflexions comme ça, sur lesquelles j'aimerais connaitre ton opinion:

 

- Les phénomènes que tu décris ne se limite pas, d'après moi, à la circulation routière mais s'observe dans de nombreux domaine de la sphère économique: l'augmentation de l'offre supplémentaire créee des surplus pour les utilisateurs qui finissent par se résorber à long terme à mesure que les agents économiques modifient leur comportement. Prenons par exemple l'augmentation de l'offre gaz naturel (disons grâce à une nouvelle technologie d'extraction, i.e. gaz de schiste) qui entraine à court terme une diminution importante du prix du gaz naturel. Cela créé des surplus importants pour les utilisateurs de gaz naturels qui voient leur facture d'énergie diminuer considérablement, cool. On note alors plusieurs effets: i) les consommateurs existants d'énergie vont favoriser le gaz naturel par rapport à d'autres types d'énergie (pétrole, renouvelable, nucléaire, mazout etc...) ii) ceci entraine une baisse générale des coûts de l'énergie iii) la baisse générale des coûts de l'énergie entraine une augmentation de la demande en énergie en attirant de nouveaux consommateurs ou en augmentant la demande des consommateurs existants (e.g. un procédé industriel auparavant non-rentable car consommant beaucoup énergie devient rentable grâce au coût d'énergie réduit, entrainant l'apparition d'une nouvelle demande) iv) la nouvelle demande finit par résorber l'avantage comparatif du gaz naturel et créé des pressions sur l'offre d'énergie en générale de sorte que le niveau des prix de l'énergie se stabiliser à un niveau à l'état initial v) les surplus des consommateurs originaux de gaz naturel suite à l'augmentation de l'offre a disparu. Ce phénomène est bien connu par tous les économistes/prévisioniestes et même les simples petits analystes comme moi.

 

- Tu sembles souvent inférer que puisque le niveau de congestion sur le réseau (le point d'équilibre offre/demande) va retourner au point initial que l'on construise ou pas de nouvelle route, il ne sert à rien (pas de bénéfice économique) de construire de nouvelles routes ou dans mon exemple le prix du gaz naturel finit par retourner à son point de départ, l'apparition d'une offre supplémentaire de gaz ne produit pas de bénéfice économique. C'est une affirmation assez déroutante pour un financier! Premièrement il y a bien la création d'un surplus certes temporaire mais tout de même bien réel pour les utilisateurs existants mais surtout le nombre de trajet total finit par se stabiliser à un niveau plus élevé de façon permanente grâce à l'augmentation de la capacité, même si le point d'équilibre est in fine le même qu'au départ. Ainsi le nombre de trajets total effectués sur le réseau routier sera plus élevé après qu'avant que la route soit construite ou l'énergie totale consommée sera plus importante grâce à la nouvelle offre de gaz naturel. Il y a donc plus de gens qui se déplacent qu'avant, or si ces gens se déplacent maintenant alors qu'ils ne le faisaient pas avant, c'est qu'ils y voient un bénéfice à le faire. Il y a donc création d'un bénéfice économique perpétuel pour ces nouveaux utilisateurs.

 

- Tu dis que le bénéfice économique du TEC est supérieure au bénifice du réseau routier car le TEC sont des infrastructures plus intensives en capital (humain, ,financier etc...). Le bénéfice économique ne peut se mesurer qu'en terme de plus value (rapport avantages/coûts), pas en terme de dépenses directes, autrement les projets les plus couteux seraient toujours les meilleurs! Rien ne me semble moins sûr que le rapport avantages/coûts d'un projet de TEC soit meilleur que celui d'une route. J'ai déjà participé à des études pour des projets de TEC (lien Dorval-CV notemment), bien sûr uniquement sur les aspects financiers/techniques (s'assurer du calcul correct des coûts financiers etc...) et non sur la méthodologie économique mais les conclusions sur les avantages quantifiables coûts n'étaient pas, le moins que l'on puisse dire pas, exactement convainquants et on ne pouvait pas traiter les commanditaires des études d'anti-TEC, bien au contraire... Je ne peux juger de la méthodologie employée sur les études auxquelles j'ai participé, mais as-tu des bases pour tes affirmations?

 

- Je suis un "die hard" du TEC, pas d'auto, toujours vécu près d'une station de métro proche du CV etc... ce n'est pas ce que j'observe chez la plupart des mes collègues/amis, y compris les plus sensibles aux questions environementales. Bien sûr ce n'est qu'une observation personelle basée sur un échantillon pas forcément représentatif mais il me semble quand même que la question du style de vie i.e. la maison avec cour, quartier calme, école, piscine etc... difficile à trouver pour un prix raisonnable proche d'un réseau de TEC en général, l'emporte largement sur l'efficacité/coût du transport. Je ne partage malheureusement pas ton optimisme par rapport à la demande à long terme pour le TEC, qui me parait fort "inélastique" et très probablement très peu corrélée au prix de l'essence étant donné le profil socio/économique des banlieusards. Je suis toujours choqué de voir à quel point les investissements en TEC à Montréal ont produit de médiocres résultats en terme d'aménagement urbain. En dehors des stations de l'hyper centre, les quartiers désservis par le métro depuis des décennies ne me semblent pas particuliérement plus dense - à vu d'oeil - ou connaitre un développement plus rapide que ceux n'en bénéfiant pas. C'est particuliérement marqué sur la ligne bleue, mais même à Rosemont où j'habite, à quelques stations du centre financier, il y a encore à distance de marche du métro de nombreux terrains vagues / immeubles industriels décrépits d'un étage servant d'entreposage pour pneu (je ne parle pas de Lionel Groulx ou Vendôme encore plus proche du CV). L'offre en TEC est là depuis longtemps, le developpement immobilier aurait donc du se prioriser à cet endroit plutôt que dans la grande couronne montréalaise... si qui n'est pas le cas lorsqu'on regarde les tendances démographiques passées où à venir. Il va passer pas mal d'eau sous le pont de l'A25 avant qu'on commence à voir les gens revenir de Laval à Montréal, tout au mieux un ralentissement de "l'exode" mais plutôt du à des choix de style de vie par une augmentation de la durée du "séjour" proche du CV (marriage et premier enfant plus tardif) qu'à des choix purement économiques (les gens d'après moi vont couper sur la taille de leur char pas mal avant de déménager dans HOMA). Dans tous les cas, il me paraitrait nettement plus économique si en temps que société on veut développer le TEC (me semblant déjà abondant par rapport à son potentiel d'utilisation) d'essayer d'emmener les gens près des infras existantes existantes que l'inverse... Qu'en penses-tu?

[Cataclaw]

Gbx, Est-ce que ça te dérange si je répond en anglais? Le clavier de mon portable est incapable de produire des accents sans que je fasse "alt 0223" pour un accent grave, etc. D'habitude j'écris en français sur mon ordinateur maison, mais là c'est trop fatiguant!!

 

Ok. Regarding traffic equillibrium. Yes, arterial roads tend to soak up demand no matter what we do. However, you are correct, there are very real advantages to building roads. They do create jobs. They do stimulate development. They do stimulate the economy. Road construction creates positive externalities.

 

Now.. the problem is, roads also create serious negative externalities. The consensus among experts today is that in many cases, new roads and highways generate more negative externalities than positive ones. For example, roads are expensive to maintain and must be repaved constantly. Snow must also be removed in the winter. Roads induce suburban sprawl which is extremely inefficient for many reasons. In Quebec, on average, a housing development for 5000 people at 40 units/hectare will cost 100$million less to build and maintain than a development at 20 units/hectare. This is because infrastructure like sewers will service fewer people per kilometer, even though they are structurally able to handle larger loads. Roads induce car travel which increases atmospheric emissions as well as noise pollution. Automobile infrastructure is also land-intensive, requiring a lot of space to build highway interchanges. This is land that is not available for development, and therefore not taxable. There are literally hundreds of negative externalities, and these are just a couple that come to mind. If you'd like, I could dig up some resources and give you a more comprehensive list.

 

So: traffic tends to reach an equillibrium and congestion is unavoidable. Highway and road construction does provide some economic benefits, but those benefits are outweighed by the tremendous environmental, social and economic costs.

 

As for transit, it is dollar-for-dollar superior for many reasons. I listed just 1: being more labor-intensive during construction. You're correct in pointing out how that applies only during construction. But it doesn't just stop there. Transit is more spatially efficient, being able to transport more people in less space. It's more energy efficient. It generates less pollution. And it has the ability to attract dense development in a way that highways simply cannot. En français, on dit souvent que le TEC a le potentiel d'être "structurant", dans le contexte du "transit-oriented development".

 

En ce qui concerne le futur du TEC, ne soit pas si pessimiste. Good things are coming In 2008, during the height of the financial meltdown, the price of oil soared to record highs. Studies were done on the impacts of high gasoline prices. It turns out between 2008-2010, in many cities across the U.S.A., a sharp reversal occured. The suburbs began to lose population, people began to drive less, and transit usage increased! The same is true for Montreal. Every 5 years, we perform a very detailed study called the Montreal OD Survey (Enquête sur les origines et destinations). What the data from this expensive and time consuming study shows is that Montreal is beginning to experience a decline in the growth of automobile ownership, usage and kilometers travelled. Meanwhile, transit usage is growing rapidly. People's habits can change, and the price of gas is more elastic than you think. The elasticity of gas is directly related to the avaialbility of alternative modes of transportation. That's why, if we want to increase our quality of life and build a sustainable future, we have to start building transit TODAY! We can't expand the metro 20 years from now. We have to start doing it immediately.

 

In the next 10-15 years, you will see suburban sprawl slowly grind to a stop. It's already slowed down dramatically. We tend to forget how fast the sprawl was growing just 20 years ago. It's gone down a lot since then. Development will be almost entirely in-fill of medium to high density.

 

The main thing you will see in the next 10-15 years is the "urbanization of the suburbs". Longueuil and Laval are already experiencing this. My street in Longueuil used to be lined with 1-floor single-family detached homes. Over the course of 30 years, as the houses burned down or were bought up and demolished, they were replaced with progressively denser constructions. 1-floor single-family homes were replaced by 3-floor 6-unit apartment buildings. Semi-detached homes were replaced with 4-floor condos. Today, my street has twice as many units as it did just a few decades ago.

 

We see in-fill all over the place in Longueuil and Laval, and even some Transit-oriented development in a few places. Metro Longueuil is a good example.

 

So don't be too pessimistic. Things are changing, and not just in Montreal. With very few exceptions, around the world the trend is densification and transit development.

 

We don't have a choice. If we want to sustain our economic growth, we have to continue these trends. It's not optional anymore. Our economy, our environment and our society depend on it.