Lessons from Turcot closing should always be applied

So much for carmageddon. The dire predictions didn’t come true. The monster jams didn’t materialize. That the unprecedented fourday closure of the Turcot Interchange due to ongoing reconstruction failed to create the traffic nightmare that Transport Quebec had projected should be cause for serious reflection. Like, what did we do right? What measures made the most difference in diminishing the congestion? How can we make that the norm every day? We accept hellish traffic as a way of life in this city, to the extent that orange cones have become Montreal’s unofficial, if ironic, mascot. But why? It’s bad for the economy, sucking up almost a billion dollars a year in lost worker productivity, according to a 2015 study by Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission; it’s bad for our health and well-being, with Montreal commuters spending an average of 52 hours a year stuck in traffic, according to a 2016 scorecard by Inrix; it’s bad for our environment (not to mention motorists’ pocketbooks), with seven million litres of gas wasted annually on idling, according to a 2017 analysis by CAA. And we must disabuse ourselves of the notion this is a temporary annoyance to put up with during a major boom in infrastructure construction that will eventually come to an end. A 2016 city report obtained recently by the Montreal Gazette warns of decades of misery ahead because the road and watermain work backlog is so huge. (In other words: those orange cones are here to stay, if not multiply.) So to see an anticipated traffic disaster turn into a normal, if not light, day on Montreal’s heavily travelled highways merits some deep introspection. The lessons we draw from the Turcot closure could be applied every day, The unprecedented weekday closure (which included last Friday and Monday) prompted unprecedented outreach from Transport Québec. Much information was disseminated on its social media accounts. Warnings as well as detailed information about alternatives were issued to the press. Advertising emblazoned with a big red X was posted on websites, billboards and at downtown intersections, aimed at scaring drivers out of their cars. The public seems to have gotten the message. How else might public service announcements be used to influence commuter behaviour, inform people of their options and nudge them off the roads all the time? We urge people not to text and drive, drink too much or stop bullying, so why don’t we try harder to convince them to walk, cycle or take the bus, train or métro? The extraordinary closure of the Turcot also led to extraordinary transit offerings, such as extra commuter trains and free passes. It seems like a no-brainer that frequent service and lower pricing can succeed in luring more passengers aboard. Given the collective and individual costs of congestion, why should better, faster, cheaper service be the exception, rather than the norm? The Turcot shutdown also gave rise to restrictions on road use. Heavy trucks were prohibited from using Highway 20 between the Turcot and the St-Pierre interchanges during the morning and evening rush hours. Such limits have been contemplated in the past, namely after dramatic accidents, like the collision involving an airline fuel truck on Highway 40. But perhaps curfews for trucks and heavy vehicles should be considered on a permanent basis. In preparation for the four-day Turcot closure, employers and employees were also pushed to develop contingency plans. Allowing people to work from home or off-peak hours gives workers the kind of flexibility that helps them balance their careers with family life. So again, why are we waiting until we need to avert a crisis before rolling such policies out? And perhaps employers have a role to play in promoting public transit use in a competitive labour market by offering passes as a perk. Given the productivity losses caused by congestion, business might stand to gain by supporting workers’ transit use. These measures helped mitigate the daily scourge of traffic in one particular area of the city on one specific occasion. It was an all-hands-on-deck moment that involved government planning, private sector co-operation and myriad individual decisions. Disaster avoided, mission accomplished. But this may be precisely the kind of mass mobilization we need to tackle tie ups and reduce snarls all the time. Transportation is among Quebec’s largest sources of emissions, and one that continues to rise. Massive investment in public transit and better land-use planning are the big changes needed to turn the tide. In the meantime innovative measures like these can certainly help. If we did it on Monday, why can’t we do it every day?