News   May 21, 2024
2444 Yonge Street Adds Height via Minor Variance while Excavation Advances
 45     0 
News   May 21, 2024
News Roundup for May 21, 2024
 400     0 
News   May 21, 2024
Into the Mist
 355     0 

Toronto has the worst average commute in the world

Eug said:
True, the statement that Toronto is the worst commute in the world may or may not be accurate, but IMO that's missing the point. As you and many have said, the main point is to emphasize that Toronto commutes suck. You can criticize the study all you want, and you can talk about justifications as to why Toronto commuting "scores" did bad, but the bottom line here is that Toronto commutes suck.

I also find it curious that the Toronto Board of Trade chose to publish this so close after the announcement that transit funding had been gutted. Personally I'm glad the Toronto Board of Trade decided to publish this when they did.
Click to expand...

No, the point of the study is not that commutes are bad. We already know that. The study is trying to make people and the city less satisfied and less happy with commutes by setting up the media to attach a WORST IN THE WORLD label - using some dubious stats, of course - to Toronto. Then, people and governments will be more likely to listen to and support the Board of Trade. With these rankings, the actual state of commuting (or any other metric, from air quality to unemployment) is irrelevant. What is important is that cities get ranked so somebody's the best (good for bragging and boasting and boosterism) and somebody's the worst (good for keeping people worried and miserable and goading and urging governments to change policies). The Board of Trade wants more transportation infrastructure, and they think WORST IN THE WORLD might help their cause. Strong reactions could theoretically get the province to change its mind and retain funding for transit, but strong reactions could also get the Liberals kicked out of office...and changes in provincial governments haven't been especially kind to transit in Toronto. Angry people are good at getting things stopped but bad at getting new or different projects moving.
 
scarberiankhatru said:
No, the point of the study is not that commutes are bad. We already know that. The study is trying to make people and the city less satisfied and less happy with commutes by setting up the media to attach a WORST IN THE WORLD label - using some dubious stats, of course - to Toronto. Then, people and governments will be more likely to listen to and support the Board of Trade. With these rankings, the actual state of commuting (or any other metric, from air quality to unemployment) is irrelevant. What is important is that cities get ranked so somebody's the best (good for bragging and boasting and boosterism) and somebody's the worst (good for keeping people worried and miserable and goading and urging governments to change policies). The Board of Trade wants more transportation infrastructure, and they think WORST IN THE WORLD might help their cause. Strong reactions could theoretically get the province to change its mind and retain funding for transit, but strong reactions could also get the Liberals kicked out of office...and changes in provincial governments haven't been especially kind to transit in Toronto. Angry people are good at getting things stopped but bad at getting new or different projects moving.
Click to expand...
After that post, I have to say I think you're projecting far too much into this.
 
Eug said:
After that post, I have to say I think you're projecting far too much into this.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you. Data is so incomparable to be near useless. Even the original OECD report is lacking in any detailed analysis. Scarberiankhatru is correct. This is a play by the BOT.
 
Hipster Duck said:
Are you kidding? Have you been to an American city like Los Angeles, Houston or Dallas?

Heck, we don't even have to compare ourselves to sprawly, auto-centric Sunbelt cities. Try Madrid, the Ruhrgebiet or Frankfurt for size.

Yes, all those orange lines are bonafide freeways.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, none of those links work. I stick to my comment, citing the 18 lane 401 which may be a single line on a map but equals at least two freeways, if not three. Then there's the DVP/404 and Gardiner/QEW. There's the 403/410, 427 and 400 (both the latter two are very wide as well), and 407. We don't have as many lines on a map, but our highways are so wide as to be comparable with some of the worst. Maybe we don't have the absolute most overbuilt system but it can easily be deemed "overbuilt" nonetheless.
 
Eug said:
After that post, I have to say I think you're projecting far too much into this.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what "projecting" means? The Board of Trade is trying to influence elections and government policy. That's not a secret, that's their explicit goal. They know that 'highest average commuting time amongst global cities for which data is available' is picked up by the media as WORST IN THE WORLD and discussed by people such as ourselves. If this sort of public displeasure helps transit get funded, that's great, but it's not very likely.
 
Glen said:
This is a play by the BOT.
Click to expand...
Thanks for stating the obvious. Of course it's a play by the board of trade. The point of my post was that it's at best hyperbole to invoke the angry masses rising up and kicking out the Liberals over this. Pretty unlikely. More likely is that it will serve as a reminder to the public that transit improvements can have impact to other aspects of the health of the city, not just a few commuting individuals.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Report:

http://www.bot.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Scorecard&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4433

Section on commute (p. 43 of pdf)

Labour Attractiveness Indicators
Commuting time***
# cities ranked: 19

Definition
Calculated as the average time (in minutes) of a trip to and from work, based on: US: 2008 Canada, Europe, Sydney: 2006.

Significance
CMAs associated with low commute times are considered to be more attractive places to live. With the highest average commute time, Toronto ranks last among the 19 metro areas for which data are available.

What about Toronto?
With the exception of New York, the US CMAs do well on this indicator. London, Montreal and Toronto are the only CMAs to receive “D†grades.

The Grade
1. Barcelona A (48.4)
2. Dallas A (53.0)
3. Milan A (53.4)
4. Seattle A (55.5)
5. Boston A (55.8)
6. Los Angeles A (56.1)
7. San Francisco B (57.4)
8. Chicago B (61.4)
9. Berlin B (63.2)
10. Halifax C (65.0)
11. Sydney C (66.0)
12. Madrid C (66.1)
13. Calgary C (67.0)
14. Vancouver C (67.0)
15. New York C (68.1)
16. Stockholm C (70.0)
17. London D (74.0)
18. Montreal D (76.0)
19. Toronto D (80.0)

Data unavailable for Hong Kong, Oslo, Paris, Shanghai, Tokyo.

***Commute time data from Eurostat is available only at the regional level. However, the boundaries of these “regions†are not strictly defined and vary greatly across European metro areas. In addition, data for US cities was calculated using the boundaries from the 2000 Census. These boundaries are much smaller than the MSA regions used to estimate GDP. Therefore, US commute times might be underestimated.

_______

Comparing apples and oranges and having the gall to use it in a composite index without any adjustments.

AoD
Click to expand...

AoD, upon reading this "study" in the Star this morning, I had a feeling the findings would be skewed in some way.

It seems to me that the Board of Trade simply utilized US city data according to the city's precise geographical borders, while not taking the entire region's population into account. Sure, within LA's city boundaries there are about 4 million people, but LA's MSA contains about 13 million people. Incorporate the outer suburbs of the "Inland Empire", which adds another 4 million to Greater LA's population and the region contains over 17 million people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GreaterLAmap.png

Having been there numerous times, I find it hard to believe that average commute times for Angelinos would be under 60 minutes. The entire region sprawls over an area more than double that of the GTA, and possesses an expansive freeway system. Besides driving, there are no significant commuter options in the LA area.
 
scarberiankhatru said:
No, the point of the study is not that commutes are bad. We already know that. The study is trying to make people and the city less satisfied and less happy with commutes by setting up the media to attach a WORST IN THE WORLD label - using some dubious stats, of course - to Toronto. Then, people and governments will be more likely to listen to and support the Board of Trade. With these rankings, the actual state of commuting (or any other metric, from air quality to unemployment) is irrelevant. What is important is that cities get ranked so somebody's the best (good for bragging and boasting and boosterism) and somebody's the worst (good for keeping people worried and miserable and goading and urging governments to change policies). The Board of Trade wants more transportation infrastructure, and they think WORST IN THE WORLD might help their cause. Strong reactions could theoretically get the province to change its mind and retain funding for transit, but strong reactions could also get the Liberals kicked out of office...and changes in provincial governments haven't been especially kind to transit in Toronto. Angry people are good at getting things stopped but bad at getting new or different projects moving.
Click to expand...

I had the same reaction. They even wrapped it in a nice big report which ranks Toronto as average-to-above average in many other categories, just to lend it legitimacy.
 
Last edited:
Eug said:
Thanks for stating the obvious. Of course it's a play by the board of trade. The point of my post was that it's at best hyperbole to invoke the angry masses rising up and kicking out the Liberals over this. Pretty unlikely. More likely is that it will serve as a reminder to the public that transit improvements can have impact to other aspects of the health of the city, not just a few commuting individuals.
Click to expand...

WORST COMMUTE IN THE WORLD is not a reminder of the urban health benefits of transit, it's hyperbole. That's what hyperbole is.

Riling people up for the provincial election is a task for next year's scorecard, but riling them up to support transportation infrastructure is an ongoing process. It is the Toronto Board of Trade, but they know who pays for transportation. First, people need to be riled up for the municipal election in October, which is why this year's scorecard "is part of the Board of Trade’s VoteToronto2010.com campaign." They will care about the 2011 election because they know a change in government could, for better or worse, drastically change transportation plans and timelines, not to mention other economic policies.

Seems some obvious things do need to be stated.
 
translude:

Well, the data is so incomparable, using it as an indicator AND publishing the results as fact is shockingly blantant - quite frankly, it's meaningless to draw any sort of conclusion - and for the BOT to endorse that report is so unbelievably shameful.

AoD
 
LA used to be a joke when it came to congestion. Before 1984 the only public transit the city had was buses. Now they have a subway and quite a few LRT lines. They also have a regional rail system which is taking a lot of cars off the congested highways. They still have congestion but it is improving, they still have to catch up to San Fran and the BART system when it comes to public transit but they are making inroads. California is broke but they are still funding transit initiatives in that state, Ontario should really not fear making this investment because it will help Toronto and Ontario remain economically competive helping us work on paying down the deficit as well. An added bonus is that it really helps the environment as well.
 
GTS said:
Ontario should really not fear making this investment because it will help Toronto and Ontario remain economically competive helping us work on paying down the deficit as well. An added bonus is that it really helps the environment as well.
Click to expand...

Borrowing on your Visa to pay your mortgage is seldom a good strategy! Transit is good....we all can agree on that. But transit does not pay for itself, let alone produce money to pay down debt. Borrowing to fund transit is a pre-agreement to fund additional transit operating costs every year going forward. Transit does not pay down debt...transit does not reduce deficits every km of additional transit increases future defecits.

Now that may be ok.......or it may not .....but transit should not be put forward as a deficit reduction strategy.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top