Words reflect our intentions and it is important to choose them carefully, especially when it comes to distinguishing between “investment” and “spending” in the public sector. A well-rehearsed discourse too often confuses these terms, to the point of making them lose their essence. It’s as if we were painting concepts with the same color that should nevertheless vibrate with distinct nuances.
In the world of Quebec transportation, these two terms collide to the point of creating a dissonance that confuses understanding. Under these conditions, trying to untangle the threads that connect investment in infrastructure to operational expenditure would be enough to mislead even the most seasoned forest ranger. Even on the edge of a simple urban woodland.
By examining the landscape of sustainable mobility, we can question what it really means to “invest” in road infrastructure, which is used almost exclusively for automobile transport. This question is even more relevant when we become aware of the environmental consequences of the combustion of fossil fuels and our chronic dependence on automobiles. On the carbon footprint front, even a fleet of electric vehicles cannot compete with the efficiency and sustainability of public transport.
On the Ontario side, the commitment is clear: over ten years, starting in 2023, more than 72% of funds devoted to infrastructure will be allocated to public transit. Meanwhile, in Quebec, we remain modestly around 30%, a proportion which even fell slightly in the last Quebec Infrastructure Plan 2024-2034. We must now hope that our aspirations to catch up with our Ontario neighbors will also become a leitmotif in terms of sustainable mobility.
Talking about innovation often means hoping that the energy transition and the electrification of transport will open the way to a bright future. However, simply replacing a vehicle’s energy source does not ultimately constitute real progress.
Let’s take a concrete example: electrifying mechanical street sweepers does not disrupt municipal management. The nature of the activity remains unchanged with the introduction of electricity. In truth, innovation does not lie in the transition to an electric formula, but in the reinvention of the objectives pursued and the methods used. The challenge is to question established practices to achieve meaningful transformation. The key to urban innovation lies there, in challenging the status quo which allows us to lay the first stone of a truly innovative city.
In transportation, we are often seduced by the illusion of technology. It is believed to be synonymous with innovation. However, although the product may be innovative, its use is not always intrinsically innovative.
Imagine for a moment the possibility of coordinating your urban travel through a combination of mobility services, all orchestrated by open access to data from various operators such as Bixi, Communauto, the STM, Netlift, and others. Now imagine an application that would allow you to seamlessly book and sequence your modes of transport — bicycle, metro, shared car — with a simple touch of your finger.
What if, in addition, we offered you monthly billing calibrated to the most advantageous package based on your actual usage? Add to this the advantage of a unified municipal digital account, a true digital identity centralizing access to all these services in a single location. This is a vision of mobility that truly combines technological innovation with a profound transformation of our transport practices.
Clever use of real-time travel data would help us refine the management and planning of our mobility services. This method, especially relevant in our era of teleworking, would also make it possible to adapt the transport network more precisely to current needs.
The idea of such a transportation business model is not new in Montreal. It was at the heart of the Montreal in Common project, which earned the City the prize in the federal Smart Cities Challenge competition in 2019, with a budget of $50 million to explore new mobility models, such as integrated. Unfortunately, due to conflicts of jurisdiction over pricing, the ARTM directly contributed to putting an end to this project, subsequently contenting itself with introducing payment for transport by Opus card through the smartphone as a substitute. replacement project. Let’s be honest, this initiative does not represent real innovation.
Cities like Rennes, Lyon and Helsinki were sources of inspiration for Montreal. These are evolving towards a similar innovative business model in terms of mobility. It is essential that Quebec consider a similar approach for the future of transportation. It would be wise to put aside childish quarrels over areas of jurisdiction in order to bring together all parties around this financial challenge and to rethink the business model from a perspective of integrated mobility, as Montreal had envisaged in 2019. This is how we will succeed in innovating, with technology as an essential lever to achieve these objectives.