Transportation Planning and Sustainable Development in Montreal: Procedures for Public Debates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of highway infrastructures has come to involve a complex process attempting to integrate requirements for improved mobility, economic development, road safety and environmental protection. In such a context, the integration, within a sustainable development framework, of transportation, territorial planning and environmental issues, has become a new requirement of local public action. Moreover, since the beginning of the 1990s, conflicts and oppositions raised by the construction of new highway infrastructures have increased in most large metropolitan areas. This paper examines procedures for public debates – inquiries, public consultation, environmental mediation, etc. – implemented in the Metropolitan Region of Montreal to integrate interventions on the road network with territorial planning, within the framework of sustainable development. Starting with an examination and transversal analysis of the major public debates on such issues in the Metropolitan Region of Montreal for the last fifteen years, the author questions the substantial effectiveness of such procedures to develop integrated solutions. The analysis comes to the conclusion that, even if the public debate appears unavoidable today, it is not as such a panacea for the crisis in transportation planning. Indeed, the public debate process on highway infrastructures contributes to raise issues of sustainable development. However, it does not warrant the development of a global vision, nor the coherence of public action at the metropolitan level, nor the elaboration of integrated solutions. For procedures of public debate to become the instruments of sustainable development, institutional and procedural innovations are required; those innovations should be designed to take into account the whole metropolitan highway network as well as to provide answers for institutional fragmentation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".