To say that Catherine Morency is an automobile critic is an understatement. A professor at Polytechnique Montréal and holder of the Canada Research Chair in the Mobility of People, she questions like no other the central place occupied by the car in North American societies, including that of Quebec. She is attacking this sacred cow with the help of factual data. Interview.
The share of road transport in Quebec’s total greenhouse gas emissions was 36% in 2018. Is the automobile not, in the end, one of the main culprits of the climate crisis?
Yes, in good part, and with the difference that it is our addiction to the solo car that must be pointed out. Let’s get on well: the car is a great mobility tool. It is sometimes essential for our trips. I myself have a car, because I have children who play sports that I have to drive. This is the reality that many Quebecois parents live in, and we are no exception. But to say that we all have to have one, I don’t agree. We are not investing enough in vehicle sharing, public transportation, active transportation infrastructure. We do not put enough emphasis on the solutions that would allow a suburban household to do without having two, three or even four cars.
Why is it so bad to have such a fleet parked in front of your house if it allows us to move around?
Because it is staggeringly ineffective! It is said that an automobile sleeps the vast majority of the time. With the pandemic and the advent of teleworking, it has certainly not improved. On the contrary: the minute of use has become even more expensive! Not only for the individual, but also for the society which must assume the consequences which flow from such a choice. On the island of Montreal, where the percentage of car trips is among the lowest in Quebec, it has been calculated that 78% of the road network is dedicated to it. In addition, we are not talking about subcompacts, but rather large tanks which are often occupied by a single person during peak periods, in addition to being dangerous for others. The number of sport utility vehicles on our roads has been steadily increasing for twenty years.
Are you implying that the size of the vehicles is an issue?
It is in itself a source of iniquity. In the Montreal region, 44% of drivers are responsible for 80% of the kilometers traveled. It is this minority that undermines the efficiency of our roads and eats up public space for which there is fierce competition. There is nothing fair about steel carcasses taking over the streets of our city centers. A motorist who leaves his car parked consumes considerably more public space than any other category of citizen. Why is space allocation so illogical? Where do such distortions come from? This has a direct impact on the way we build our cities in order to adapt to climate change, by making them green to fight against heat islands, for example.
How are these distortions in terms of urban development reflected in concrete terms?
In fact, everything can be boiled down to a simple question of sharing space-time. Think of a busy street corner where several users want to cross simultaneously. Who do we give priority to? And for how long? Another example: what should be done on an unused roadside? Bike-sharing stations? Parking? A bus stop ? Fortunately, it is possible to quantify this reasoning. Is it better to allow – let’s be generous – five motorists to take advantage of a physical space to park their car there during the day? Or is it better for 400 bike-sharing transactions to take place there instead? We have just multiplied by 80 the real capacity of this space for the same duration, it is enormous! Unless, of course, we estimate that a motorist is worth 80 cyclists. Which is the systematic bias that prevails right now.
That this car is electric therefore does not change the calculation. However, our decision-makers are making the electrification of transport their hobbyhorse in the fight against climate change. What to think of it?
In my opinion, this is a mistake. It is not by having a vision in a vacuum that we will solve problems which, by definition, are global. It is also not by converting a fleet of nearly seven million vehicles to electricity that we will change fundamental problems, such as congestion. I would even go further: it’s scandalous to take collective money and give it to individuals to buy electric cars. There is something really twisted about this. Why don’t we fund those who decide not to own a car? These individuals, after all, decide to pay more for their housing in central neighborhoods to overcome this need. We should rather encourage these behaviors which, all things considered, have a greater impact on the environment.
To solve the growing problem of congestion, the provincial government is proposing to widen and multiply the roads. We can see it with the third link project between Quebec and Lévis.
The scientific literature is clear on this point: this has the effect of further increasing motorization, urban sprawl and the mileage traveled by motorists. A few years later, we are back to square one, but this time with lots of undesirable side effects for society. This is called the phenomenon of induced trafficking. With the third link, Quebec will simply welcome the negative externalities of others, including residents of the South Shore. The reverse is however less true. It is not the citizens of the central districts of Quebec who will suddenly go shopping in Lévis. Again, this is unfair. When a motorist drives through a residential area, he doesn’t give a damn about screwing up the quality of life of those who live there. Make no mistake: my goal is not to make people feel guilty. I would simply point out that these aspects are not taken into account when planning transport projects.
As a researcher, how can you help us collectively free ourselves from this auto addiction?
I believe in the presence of scientists in public discourse. We saw it during the pandemic: they were omnipresent; a chance ! It should be the same with the climate emergency. It is absolutely necessary to clarify the issues, to shed light on them with objective and convincing data. In terms of mobility and transportation, there is still a lot of work to be done, if only to quantify the problems of inequity. Take the example of street sharing. They say it needs to be improved, but no one is able to quantify it at the moment. Result: nothing happens, of course. What we do not measure, we neglect.
Watch video
Reference-feedproxy.google.com