Toronto has the worst average commute in the world

[Eug]

Steve Munro has a very useful commentary on this in his blog. http://stevemunro.ca/

He goes a long way to describe the study's deficiencies, but then says:

Without question, the GTA has a lot of very long commutes thanks to the way it developed. This is not a Toronto problem, it is a GTA problem. It is the result of decades of paying lip service to planning principles and the need for a good transit system to keep pace with, no, to lead development and shape it around transit rather than auto travel.

ie. Commutes in the GTA are bad. They should improve, and transit will help.

 

[GraphicMatt]

That commute times in the GTA are, in fact, really bad doesn't excuse the study or its backers for being very shady in their methodology and research. Their errors deserve to be pointed out.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Honestly, after junking the report and the methodology, the rest is truism - traffic during rush hour in a region with more than what, 3 million people are bad, period - and do what you must to alleviate it, mainly through public transit. No amount of data massaging will change that well known conclusion.

AoD

 

[Haljackey]

Cities with the shortest and longest commute times

Here's something you might find interesting:

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

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

# cities ranked: 19

The Grade

# - City Name - grade - average commute time in minutes

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, and Tokyo.

Source: http://bot.com/Content/NavigationMenu/Policy/Scorecard/Scorecard_on_Prosperity_2010_FINAL.pdf

Interesting to see where these cities fit. Looks like cities with more highways tend to rank higher compared to those with more rapid transit systems (subways). Toronto does not have an extensive highway network nor does it have an extensive rapid transit network. That's a leading reason why it placed dead last.

I've been to Barcelona and I agree with its #1 rank. Barcelona has excellent transport infrastructure whereas Toronto is severely lagging in transport infrastructure.

Thoughts?

Possible solutions:
-Get the Gardiner underground and add another lane or HOV lane in each direction
-Add HOV lanes along the DVP or convert one lane in each direction to HOV lanes.
-Add more lanes to the 401 where it needs it. Fix up bottlenecks at interchanges with the 427 and 404 to relieve congestion and increase overall traffic flow
-Extensive additions to the subway network and rapid transit
-LRT and rapid transit extensions in the GTA including a line to Pearson Airport
-Introduce a congestion tax similar to London (extreme)
-Build a high speed rail line or two to reduce long distance car commuting
-Expand GO Transit extensively
-Build Highway 448 in the existing power corridor to relieve congestion on part of the DVP and 401.

 

[saiho]

funny how there is data unavailable for Hong Kong, Oslo, Paris,Shanghai, and Tokyo. Even though those cities have some of the densest (paris), fastest growing (shanghai), most efficient (hong kong) and longest (tokyo) mass public transit networks. i wonder how they compare with toronto.

 

[milanista]

I really disagree with anyone that proposes adding more lanes to existing highways and streets or adding entirely new highways to the city.

Rule #1 as far, as I'm concerned, when it comes to infrastructure planning, more and more lanes are simply not the answer. More streets and more lanes beget more cars.
I'm writing this as I look out my office window on Trafalgar (unfortunately) at 6pm. 3 lanes each way + left turn lanes, right turn lanes and in some places even 2 left turn lanes. All jammed. It would be jammed if it were 2 lanes each way, it would be jammed if it were 4 lanes each way. More lanes simply attract more cars and thats really all there is to it.
It's a psychological thing. The larger roads and highways attract more traffic while the smaller streets do not. If a street is perceived as too small or tight or a hassle to drive on, drivers just seem to avoid it. The same is true everywhere. Downtown's busiest streets are often University and Spadina, which are 2 of the widest (no coincidence, trust me).

Toronto has enough highways & Toronto has enough streets.
We've got expressways across the bottom (Gardiner), middle (401) & top, sort of (407) and along the western border (427) and the unofficial eastern border (DVP/404). That doesn't even include the other highways west of Toronto. So it makes absolutely no sense to call out for another highway because it simply is not necessary. Cities of much higher populations get by with fewer expressways so we really have no excuse to build any more of them.

We need light rail in those hydro corridors, not another highway. We need more subways and we need transit city to be built. But above all we need a mental shift in the way we approach transportation planning and to the way we simply approach getting around here in the GTA. It's been said over and over again, we need to start planning for mixed use lifestyles and highways and wide streets are by and large single use (Car). It's too easy to drive everywhere in the GTA, even with our terrible commute record. One would think that the worst commute times around we would start thinking differently, but instead we get the same tired arguments of wider streets and more highways. Nonsense.

 

[junctionist]

Interesting to see where these cities fit. Looks like cities with more highways tend to rank higher compared to those with more rapid transit systems (subways). Toronto does not have an extensive highway network nor does it have an extensive rapid transit network. That's a leading reason why it placed dead last.

Thoughts?

My thought is that I disagree with the comment that our highway network is not extensive. It's very extensive and the sprawl low-density development it has generated has made for slow commutes.

 

[saiho]

My thought is that I disagree with the comment that our highway network is not extensive. It's very extensive and the sprawl low-density development it has generated has made for slow commutes.

it is kind of a chicken vs. the egg thing, traffic slow because the are too little freeways for traffic slow because of of suburban sprawl caused by freeways. Also Toronto is in between when it comes to sprawl not as sprawling as LA, Houston and all those other suburban kings of america, but not as dense as New York, Vancover, and Montreal.

 

[Haljackey]

My thought is that I disagree with the comment that our highway network is not extensive. It's very extensive and the sprawl low-density development it has generated has made for slow commutes.

You've got to be kidding me. Toronto has one of the, or possibly the least developed highway network of any major city in North America. The only reason it may seem extensive to you is because the ones that do exist are so busy and so large.

Just consider a comparison between Toronto and Houston. Both citys have a similar metropolitan population.

These maps were taken from the same resolution and zoom from Google Maps.

Toronto

Houston

If Toronto had that more routes serving the metro region commute times would definately go down.
-Also look at the number of highways serving the downtown area. Toronto has 1 (DVP/Gardiner), Houston has at least 3 there plus a inner ring road.

Remember, this topic isn't about density, size, geography or sprawl, its strictly about commute time. I just wanted to get my point across that Toronto's highway network is in no way extensive.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Continuing to increase density and employment downtown will decrease commute times and offer many other benefits.

Houston is hardly enviable.

 

[Haljackey]

Continuing to increase density and employment downtown will decrease commute times and offer many other benefits.

Houston is hardly enviable.

Very true, a highway network is just one piece of the puzzle. Higher density usually means more localized congestion but a shorter distance to commute. As long as you have a system that can handle that increased congestion, then times will go down.

Also, Dallas (#2 on the list) is very similar to Houston.

 

[PukeGreen]

Great news, everybody! The National Post says commute times are fine in Toronto, and that everyone should just drive, and everything else you hear is just fear mongering from the "transit-industrial complex". Phew, what a relief.


The great gridlock joke
Terence Corcoran, National Post Published: Saturday, April 17, 2010
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto/story.html?id=2917948


Gridlock is allegedly killing our cities. Toronto, by the latest reckonings of the Board of Trade and other pied pipers of traffic doom, might as well be dead.

"Worse than L.A.," said a headline about a recent ranking that showed the average Toronto commuter spends 80 minutes bogged down in congestion going to and from work.

And the costs? Another killer. That 80-minute commute is a $5-billion annual burden to the Canadian economy, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris. Citing the number -- if the OECD says it, it must be true -- the Board of Trade called for "increased investment in public transit and policies that encourage Torontonians to leave their cars behind."

There were no shortages of people taking up these instant talking points.

We need tolls on roads, said Mississauga's Hazel McCallion, to pay for public transit. Toronto Mayor David Miller favours some form of road tolling, too. Everywhere there's talk of parking taxes, more transit subsidies, congestion charges, HOT (high-occupancy toll) lanes.

But now let us turn to what the congestion numbers really show, which is not what they say they show. Let's also look at where the numbers came from and why, in truth, they are all really just fabricated fodder from the transit-industrial complex that hovers over urban transportation policy around the world and has all but seized control of Toronto.

Torontonians are getting conned. There is no OECD study on Toronto congestion showing $5-billion in economic losses. It is also certain that the famed 80-minute commute that supposedly gives Toronto the worst gridlock in the developed world is at best statistically indefensible. It distorts Toronto commute times and misrepresents the true nature of urban travel.

What the real numbers suggest is that if the implied solutions to gridlock -- more public transit, taxes on cars and less use of the automobile -- were imposed, actual commute times would increase, not decrease. The costs of urban transportation, including losses attributed to gridlock and time spent commuting, will also increase.

Not that anybody really knows what the costs are now. The $5-billion OECD figure now imbedded as authoritative in the Toronto psyche is not an OECD number, even though it does appear in the OECD's recent "territorial review" of Toronto, published in January. But the OECD did no research.

A big clue as to where the number comes from appears in the opening sentences of the OECD report on Toronto: "The OECD would like to thank the Mayor of Toronto, David Miller, as well as city, provincial and federal officials" who provided the imformation, data and context for the OECD analysis.

Regarding the $5-billion congestion cost, it is actually a U.S. dollar number -- converted from Canadian dollars (at an outdated exchange rate) -- based on Canadian dollar numbers provided to the OECD by Metrolinx, the Ontario government's transit agency for the GTA.

The authoritative $5-billion OECD number, in other words, is the product of the Toronto-Ontario transit-industrial compex's massive economic propaganda machine. In Canadian dollars, the actual Metrolinx claim is that "High car-usage rates have led to traffic congestion, with annual costs for commuters in 2006 estimated at around $3.3-billion per year and the annual economic costs at $2.7-billion for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area."

Metrolinx produced these numbers back in 2008, although the actual source is HDR Corp., an international engineering and economics outfit that seems to specialize in producing massive studies that promote the economic benefits of massive government spending. Metrolinx turned to HDR after it produced similar congestion reports on Chicago and New York. The common thread is that gridlock costs billions, but billions can be added to the economy by spending even more billions on public transit.

To arrive at its estimates, HDR performed an oft-used technique. It estimated the time car drivers would experience if the roads allowed cars to move at certain predetermined optimum speeds.

Assuming roads were clearer than they are now, the "economically optimal speed" in Toronto would be 69 kilometres an hour. But the current actual average speed is 42 km/h, creating a difference of 27 km/h.

That's a 40% reduction in optimality, which if calculated across the GTA can be massaged into a big number. HDR comes up with excess travel delays worth $2.2-billion in lost commuter time. Emissions costs, vehicle operating costs, accident costs and a few other items bring the total cost of congestion to $3.3-billion.

In another series of calculations and speculations, HDR figures that overall auto congestion on the roads of Toronto causes businesses to be less efficient and incur more costs.

That adds another $2.7-billion to the imputed cost of automobile gridlock, bringing the total to $6-billion. How realistic this number is remains unknown and untested, mainly because nobody really cares what the real number is -- so long as it's a big number that in the end can be marshalled to justify the Transit City light-rail spending extravaganza.

The objective is to get cars off the road and put people on mass transit LRT trains and subway cars.

The HDR/Metrolinx report performs its greatest economic feat via a giant macro-economic number-crunching game that produced a public spending miracle. By spending $31-billion (in 2006 dollars) over the next couple of decades on LRT, subway and other transit projects, the Toronto economy would receive total benefits of $46-billion, for a net present value gain of $15-billion and "an internal rate of return of 19%."

How will this actually work? All the calculations are based on assumptions, not the least of which is the idea that massive public transit benefits will overcome the automobile in efficiency, speed and reliability. To make sure that happens, cars must be taken off the road, and those left must be taxed to death. The mayor of Paris once captured the essence of such policies: "It is only by making it hell for car drivers that we will force them to give up their damned cars."

What the statistics on travel times in Toronto and other cities in North America actually show, however, is that public transit is slow and auto travel is much faster. A good portion of the alleged gridlock and auto congestion implied in the congestion numbers can be attributed to the inherent inability of public transit to get people where they want to go quickly.

The now-famous Toronto Board of Trade commute time of 80 minutes, allegedly slower than other major North American cities, is a good example of the private car versus public transit divide. The 80 minutes is an average for Toronto of all commuters using all forms of transport to get to work. It's from a 2005 Statistics Canada report, The Time It Takes to Get to Work and Back. But as the StatsCan report says, the most important factor in how long it takes to get to work and back is whether commuters use public transit. "All things being equal," says StatsCan, "commuters who use public transit to work ... spend an average of 41 minutes more on their daily commute than those using an automobile."

That 41 minutes more in public transit travel time brings the total commute time for TTC and GO transit users to 113 minutes (see tables). The average car driver spends much less, 72 minutes. Now I ask you: Is 72 minutes in a two-way commute to work an indicator of massive gridlock and congestion? Since when is a 36-minute drive to work an indicator of driving hell?

The Toronto congestion story is all story, myth and statistical illusion.

Toronto gets congested on some key roads and arteries for some periods of time during the average weekday. But getting around by car, and commuting to work, is mostly easy and efficient. Compared with public transit, it's a no-brainer. As StatsCan put in its report: "It is therefore not surprising that despite higher fuel costs and increased environmental concerns, most workers continue to use mainly their automobile to get to work."

Will spending $31-billion on new public transit change the situation? It is hard to see why or how.

As for the comparison with U.S. cities, the first point is that experts say the U.S. commute numbers are likely severely out of date, since they are based on an obsolete 2000 U.S. definition of major metropolitan areas. As a result, the U.S. travel times -- which are also based on different survey techniques--are likely not strictly comparable. That likely explains why Toronto and Montreal are at the bottom of the list.

Still, it is interesting to see that the cities with the least volume of public transit use -- Dallas, Los Angeles, Seattle -- are the cities with the fastest commute times. Could it be that's because they build more and better roads instead of massive public transit operations that are costly to build, expensive to operate --and slow?

 

[GTS]

PukeGreen, Los Angeles used to be a joke in commuting and traffic jams but they have heavily invested in public transit since 1984 before which they only had city and highway buses because they ripped up the last of the streetcar tracks in 1963. The current system has a total length of 126.5 km. with two subway lines (Red & Purple Line) and three LRT lines (Blue, Green and Gold Lines). This is all completed in a little over 25yrs. I am sure this massive investment in public transit has taken a bit of a load off their highway system. For a city the size of LA they have a long way to go but every urban area has to start somewhere. California is bankrupt yet they are still finding the funds to plan and build more lines, commuter trains as well. The expo line is due for completion this year and it will add 14 k to LA's network.

 

[junctionist]

You've got to be kidding me. Toronto has one of the, or possibly the least developed highway network of any major city in North America. The only reason it may seem extensive to you is because the ones that do exist are so busy and so large.

If Toronto had that more routes serving the metro region commute times would definately go down.
-Also look at the number of highways serving the downtown area. Toronto has 1 (DVP/Gardiner), Houston has at least 3 there plus a inner ring road.

Remember, this topic isn't about density, size, geography or sprawl, its strictly about commute time. I just wanted to get my point across that Toronto's highway network is in no way extensive.

You've compared Toronto with an extreme example of overbuilding a highway network. I can't say our network doesn't look extensive on that map. Downtown is served by two highways, the Gardiner/QEW and DVP/404. The rest of the city has huge highways. Why would our downtown have more highways? Would it be preferable for Spadina to go from vibrant and historic urban arterial with lots of pedestrians and businesses to a trench with a lot of noise and pollution, surrounded by a dead zone. Vancouver has less developed highway network. Even considering their smaller size, so how do you account for the fact that they're not at the bottom of the list for commutes?

Building more highways is not a good idea. Highways work to dump more cars onto existing arterials. They then have to widened, which can cause a lot of damage to neighbourhoods. It's impossible in the older parts of the city without destroying a lot of what makes this city great: history and cohesive and walkable neighbourhoods. It also requires more wasted land on parking. Transit can handle our commuting needs a lot more efficiently and without the damage.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Haljackey, I'm going to agree that we bust up some Toronto neighbourhoods to increase the number of highways.

Under one condition!

You move to Toronto and live next to one of these brand new and oh-so-bloody-necessary highways to commuter heaven.

Ah, right, didn't think so.

A livable city (which short commute times are amongst the indicators of, I'd say) is not achieved by a critical mass of highway infrastructure. Just thought I'd point that out.

Building more highways is just as regressive and oppressive as 90 minute average commute times. Hence, barely the answer to the question.


PS: North American cities are hardly a model to aspire to. Well, maybe they are if you're so convinced of your inalienable right to live 60km from work behind a garage fronting a face-less suburban backwater cul-de-sac, with the supermarket offering so much parking it looks like an air field in sattelite imagery and the drive-through of your favourite "restaurant" no more than ten minutes away and your neighbourhood not being burdened by such mundane and archaic concepts such as character. Well, if that's you....I dare say, the highway is thine destiny!