Portrait of the Greater MontrÃ©al, 2010 edition - CommunautÃ© ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUTING5.2 Traffic congestion and itssocio-economic costsRising congestion costs estimated at$1.4 billion in 2003During the AM and PM peak hours, a considerable portionof Greater Montréal’s road and highway system experiencesrecurring congestion problems, in all five geographicsectors. 14 Between 1998 and 2003, related costs jumped50%, mainly as a result of the higher numbers of automobilestravelling in the area.The most recent research on traffic congestion in themetropolitain area, which was conducted by TransportQuébec in 2009, estimates that 27% of the trips madeduring morning rush hour in 2003 were hampered bycongestion. For the Montréal agglomeration, the figure was41%; for Laval, 33%; for the Longueuil agglomeration, 25%Traffic congestion during morning rush hour(6:00 to 9:00 a.m.), 2003Vehicle-kilometres total and congested (in thousands)Geographic sector MontréalagglomerationTotal congested %Montréal agglomeration 6,200 2,540 41%Longueuil agglomeration(excluding Saint-Bruno-de- 1,900 480 25%Montarville)Laval 1,870 620 33%North Shore 3,390 450 13%South Shore 3,390 450 13%Greater Montréal 16,360 4,470 27%Source: Ministère des Transports du Québec (2009), Évaluation des coûts de lacongestion routière dans la région de Montréal pour les conditions de référence de 2003.Calculations by the CMM, 2010.(excluding Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville); and for the North and South Shores, 13% each. The estimated costs of such congestionstood at $1.4 billion in 2003, $1.2 billion of which were delay related (i.e., time lost). Other costs can be broken down into fourcategories: vehicle usage ($114 million), fuel ($40 million), polluting emissions ($15 million) and greenhouse gases ($8 million).Socio-economic costs attributable to recurring highway and road congestion, 2003 and 1998(millions of 2003 dollars)44Geographic sectorMontréalagglomerationDelays2003Vehicle-usage costs(excluding fuel)2003Fuel costs2003Pollutingemissions2003Greenhousegas emissions2003Total costto society2003Total costto society1998Total costto society2003same methodas for 1998753.0 68.0 23.8 8.9 4.9 858.6 - -Variation (%)Longueuil agglomeration(excluding Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville)174.0 14.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 196.0 - -Laval 164.0 16.0 5.4 2.0 1.1 188.5 - -North Shore 76.0 8.0 2.8 1.0 0.6 88.4 - -South Shore 79.0 8.0 3.0 1.2 0.6 91.8 - -Greater Montréal 1,246.0 114.0 39.9 15.0 8.1 1,423.0 841.0 1,263.6 50.3%Source: Ministère des Transports du Québec (2009), Évaluation des coûts de la congestion routière dans la région de Montréal pour les conditions de référence de 2003.Calculations by the CMM, 2010.14 The data presented in this section come from Transport Québec’s Évaluation des coûts de la congestion routière dans la région de Montréal pour les conditions de référencede 2003, published in 2009. In this study, the geographic boundaries of the North and South Shores are somewhat different than for their CMM counterparts, the maindifference being that, in the Transport Québec study, the North Shore includes the RCMs of Rivière-du-Nord and part of the Pays-d’en-Haut RCM, and the South Shorecomprises the entire area encompassed by the La Vallée-du-Richelieu RCMs (including the municipality of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu) and the municipality of Saint-Brunode-Montarville,which forms part of the Longueuil agglomeration.
5.3 Public transitOne of the metropolitan areas with thehighest share of public transit commutertripsIn major North American metropolitan areas, theautomobile is still the main means of commuting. This is thecase, in particular, for the United States: in most metropolitanareas, fewer than 10% of residents use public transit to getto work. Greater Montréal truly stands out for its publictransit ridership. It ranks second, with Toronto, in all of NorthAmerica (22%), behind only New York City (30%).With population densities more conducive to theestablishment of large public transit networks, the city ofMontréal and central cities in the other areas of comparisonboast higher percentages of public transit commuter tripsthan the rest of their respective areas. For Greater Montréal,the figure both inside and outside the central city is relativelyhigh in relation to the other metropolitan areas.Share of commuters using public transit, 2006New YorkTorontoGreater Montréal22.0%Ottawa-GatineauVancouverCalgaryWashingtonSan FranciscoBostonChicagoQuébecEdmontonPhiladelphiaSeattleBaltimorePortlandLos AngelesPittsburghDenverMinneapolisClevelandMiamiAtlantaSan DiegoHoustonCincinnatiSacramentoSt. LouisPhoenixDallasRiversideTampaDetroit0% 10% 20% 30%TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUTINGSources: Statistics Canada, Census of Population 2006; US Census Bureau,American Community Survey, 2006. Calculations by the CMM, 2010.Share of commuters living in the central city usingpublic transit, 2006City of New YorkCity of WashingtonCity of Montréal34.7%City of TorontoCity of BostonCity of San FranciscoCity of PhiladelphiaCity of ChicagoCity of VancouverCity of OttawaCity of PittsburghCity of BaltimoreCity of SeattleCity of CalgaryCity of AtlantaQuébec CityCity of MinneapolisCity of EdmontonCity of PortlandCity of ClevelandCity of MiamiCity of CincinnatiCity of Los AngelesCity of St. LouisCity of DenverCity of DetroitCity of HoustonCity of SacramentoCity of DallasCity of San DiegoCity of PhoenixCity of RiversideCity of Tampa0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%Sources: Statistics Canada, Census of Population 2006; US Census Bureau,American Community Survey, 2006. Calculations by the CMM, 2010.Share of commuters living outside the central cityusing public transit, 2006Ottawa-GatineauVancouverNew YorkGreater Montréal12.1%WashingtonTorontoSan FranciscoBostonChicagoSeattlePhiladelphiaPortlandLos AngelesQuébecPittsburghDenverMiamiBaltimoreMinneapolisAtlantaClevelandSt. LouisEdmontonSan DiegoCalgarySacramentoPhoenixCincinnatiRiversideTampaHoustonDallasDetroit0% 10% 20% 30%Sources: Statistics Canada, Census of Population 2006; US Census Bureau,American Community Survey, 2006. Calculations by the CMM, 2010.45
Page 2 and 3: BTo consult this issue of Metropoli
Page 5 and 6: IntroductionThis first issue of Met
Page 7 and 8: Greater Montréal: five geographic
Page 9 and 10: Land use:a relatively densearea, bu
Page 11: 2 DEMOGRAPHICS2.1 Total population
Page 14 and 15: demographicsGradual decrease in cen
Page 16 and 17: demographics2.4 Demographic growth
Page 18: demographicsGreater Montréal losin
Page 21 and 22: 2.6 LanguageFrench declines as the
Page 23 and 24: 3.2 Cost of living and businessoper
Page 25 and 26: A diversified economy that has embr
Page 27 and 28: 3.5 Quality of life indicesQuality
Page 29 and 30: 4 LAND USE4.1 Total area and urban
Page 31 and 32: 4.2 Population densityAn unusually
Page 33 and 34: 4.3 Housing constructionMarked incr
Page 35: Housing density falls off sharply a
Page 38 and 39: land useThe need to optimize land u
Page 40 and 41: 38land useDiversified agriculture b
Page 42 and 43: land use4.6 Forest coverForested ar
Page 44 and 45: TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUTINGAs conc
Page 48 and 49: TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUTINGDowntow
Page 50 and 51: TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUTINGWith re
Page 52 and 53: 506 ENVIRONMENT6.1 Waste management
Page 54 and 55: 52.................................
Page 56: How well do you knowyour Greater Mo

Portrait of the Greater MontrÃ©al, 2010 edition - CommunautÃ© ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?