Cars are not the answer

Cars were a great invention as they expanded the mobility options in many ways.

They transformed the way we live, work and play. We could move goods and provide services as never before.

Unfortunately cars no longer fit onto our streets, as there is just not enough physical space to accommodate cars for our rapidly growing population.

Research from the City of Munster in Germany shows that to move 72 people you need:

- 72 bicycles that use 90 square metres,or

- 1 bus that uses 30 square metres or

- 60 cars using 1,000 square metres.

When we see top executives in NYC travelling by helicopter, it seems like a nice idea.

That is until you find out it works out well for 100 people, but not for 1 million or more. The level of cost, noise, emissions, and safety issues would not make it viable. Similar is the case for cars; what is good for some does not work for all.

Clearly all cities need a combination of public transit, cycling, and walking as the primary mobility for rush hour. Cars will continue to play a role at night, on weekends, for people with special mobility needs, and for commercial and other uses.

New forms of car-use will also develop; in 2006 just 2,000 Torontonians were affiliated with car-share services; today it is over 22,000 and it is growing fast.

We have been building cities for over 5,000 years, but it is only in the last 60 years that we have been building cities driven by car mobility rather than on people’s happiness. Car focused cities not only generate isolation and congestion, they are also unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists and expensive to residents.

In 2009, according to the Toronto Police, a pedestrian was hit by a car the equivalent of every 4 hours and every 7 hours and 10 minutes a cyclist was hit. People using cars as the main mode of transportation spend over 25 per cent of their income on mobility compared to less than 9 per cent if they used transit.

Thousands of cities have tried to solve the issue of mobility and traffic congestion through building more road infrastructure, many adding expensive two and three story highways; there is not one city of more than one million residents that has accomplished the goal of solving congestion by focusing on private car use.

Throwing money at transit is not an option either; it has to be done in a smarter way.

Currently the municipal, provincial and federal governments are building 8.6 kilometres of subway extension in the north-west at a cost of $2,600 million (yes, $2.6 Billion) which will not even reach 5 per cent of the population. That investment is equivalent to 40 per cent of the Transit City plan which would cover all the city with Light Rail Transit and Bus Rapid Transit in dedicated corridors to move almost as fast as the subway but at a fraction of its cost (streetcars cannot continue to operate in the middle of cars, where 100 people inside one streetcar go behind a car with 1 person).

Within cities, mobility is not so much a technical or financial issue. It is political. Citizens need to participate and decide how we want to live, then decision makers can find the right system.

By the way, regardless of the combination of transit options selected, we need to keep in mind three realities: one, no transit system will pick you up in your place of origin and drop you off at your place of destination. Two, every trip, regardless of whether of you travel by car, bike, or transit, begins and ends with walking.

Three, even in the wealthiest and most sprawled areas of the city, over a third of the people do not drive: everyone under 17 years and 30 per cent of people 60 years or older. If the area is not as wealthy and is more compact, non-drivers can be over 70 per cent of the population. Great walking and cycling infrastructure is not just something nice to do, it is a human right: the right to mobility.

On election day, keep in mind that to move Toronto from a very good city to a great one, we need to be a great walking, cycling and transit city; this is not about left or right politics. It is about doing things right and especially, about doing the right things for transportation, the environment, public health, equity, and fairness.

About Gil Penalosa

Comments

[Brad]

The only way people will change their behaviours is if they are provided a viable alternative. Right now, public transit is not a viable alternative for many commuters. Fix that and then watch people change. Judging people for their choices based on others values doesnt solve anything.

[aym]

Nice article. It requires foresight in building as well. We are creating things in a half hazard way and then trying to link them up meaningfully. We need to create mixed use neighborhoods, with enough zoned business so that people can get local goods and services. And when we build these places, we need to make sure that some sort of plan exists to support them with alternative transportation to cars. Doing it the other way is proving to be expensive and time consuming.

[Greg N]

The problem with the final paragraph with putting aside our differences, is that to do so we have to conform to leftist thought. Equity and fairness is contrary to Liberty, Freedom, and conservative thought.

Personal freedom means that I need to be in control of my ability to travel and not reliant upon the government to provide my means of transportation. Public transportation in cities of course, means more taxes, more money, and more control over neighborhoods by committees and boards that will decide what is best for the common good. Which is often against the wishes of the local community that it controls.

Cities like Dallas, TX are wonderful to travel in due to the high number of highways that apart from promoting cars, also promote low density housing, and more green space. Toronto on the other hand is barely moveable in comparison with the city intentionally choosing public over private transportation for the last thirty years.

I always love the math that people throw out... studies show... studies show... hey how about the study that shows how much money we spent on light rail, and now can't replace the cars... how much was that per commuter mile? How much do we spend on fixed location transportation services? How much pollution do we make getting to these hubs to take light rail? How much pollution do we create providing services that nobody uses (late busses etc)? Its all great at rush hour... take a look at the big picture!

Government doesnt provide efficient services of ANY KIND. But of course public transportation is different... no unions... no politics... just hard core rational decisions... rofl.

The right to mobility.... the ability to walk and bike anywhere... in the snow... because I cant afford a car because of taxes on gas... taxes on my home.... yeah... paradise

[Transity Cyclist]

As Jane Jacob's said, the car itself is a wonderful invention, enabling humans to travel farther and perform more rigorous tasks. The real problem is unnecessary over-dominance by a single mode of transport at the expense of city neighbourhoods and other transport modes. At the time of its invention, one car was supposed to replace about a dozen horses. Instead, we had a dozen cars replace every horse, and that's problematic.

Of course, we cyclists, transit riders, and pedestrians should never expect the car to disappear (some people truly need a motorised vehicle). If that were our vision, we'd be yelling "Ban cars from Metro Toronto!", and the rhetoric "war on car" would be very true.

Our message, in contrast to this irrationality, is to allocate surface streetspace more equally amongst different types of travelers, so that everyone could enjoy the same convenience and safety. While this space takes away a miniscule amount of roadspace, examples repeatedly proven over the past 50 years that traffic chaos and congestion is not an outcome of this reallocation. Jacobs also goes on to mention that traffic engineers noticed a slight decrease in traffic as a result of certain road closures.

In defense of Light Rail overall, what would a city rather have:

1) One stubway line, barely 15 km in total, serving only one corridor of the city, or

2) Seven Light Rail lines, totalling almost 100 km in length, serving many neighbourhoods, almost as fast as a subway (faster than subways when grade separated).

Toronto is not alone in choosing this so-called "inferior" transport option. Many cities with our density and population opted for LRT, not only for its low operating and capital costs, but also because of its inherent advantages, such as:

-being able to run through urban areas without physically severing it
-being able to be physically close to passenger destinations (yes, grade-separation can be a barrier for seniors, handicapped, and spontaneous passenger trips).
-having flexible station spacing, without increasing the operational costs

While space will be reallocated to more efficient modes of transport, cars would still be left with the majority of roadspace, even if we squeeze in a bikelane and sidewalk! This is no way a war on cars, it is simply preparation for future traffic conditions, where cars, bikes, walking, and transit all would have equal amounts of roadspace.

[tommygun]

AYM

The problem with your right to mobility, expressed as a right to freedom and liberty, is that it is in effect contrary to the fundamental theory of freedom. It has been said that freedom is ones ability to do as they please, without infringing upon others rights to do the same. That is freedom. If your definition of freedom infringes on others right to freedom, you're behaving tyrannically in the name of freedom, the epitome of hypocrisy. Driving a car into a traffic jam and congesting mobility, IN THE NAME OF MOBILITY, is foolish. Environmental degradation erodes peoples right to a healthy life. The incredible hypocrisy of people claiming a sense of 'entitlement' about progressive policy is that they are exerting the utmost in entitlement by assuming the right to ignore the social and environmental consequences of their actions. I understand your frustration with 'studies show' but discrediting research an expertise in general is absurdly foolish. Apparently there's a reason education and left-leaning politics are highly correlated. Investing in sustainability, creativity and social justice are the most prudent investments we can make. If it comes at the expense of your desire, NOT RIGHT, to sit alone in your car in a traffic jam, so be it.

[JT]

I agree that cars are not the answer for everything, but Brad is right in that there is not a viable alternative for everything. I live in Etobicoke and work in Vaughan. The drive to work every day takes me about 20 to 25 minutes. To get there via public transit? I'm not even sure how I'd do that. Maybe go to Kipling station, take a bus north to Steeles, another bus east to Weston... that portion of the journey would easily take over an hour, and that's not including the time spent waiting for the busses to arrive. I'm not sure if there's a TTC bus that travels the last leg of my trip. If so, then it's another 15 to 20 minutes on that, plus probably another 10 to 15 minutes of walking depending on where it drops me off. In total, that works out to minumum 1.5 hours, and it's only a couple of dollars cheaper than driving.

Bottom line for me (and I'm sure there are many others in the same situation) is that we currently have no other choice but to drive. As for driving downtown, if there's no traffic it takes me 20 minutes compared to an hour on the TTC. Unfortunately, there's never "no traffic".

[Garry]

This is research?

"Research from the City of Munster in Germany shows that to move 72 people you need:
- 72 bicycles that use 90 square metres,or

- 1 bus that uses 30 square metres or

- 60 cars using 1,000 square metres."

Looks like simple math to me and very unimpressive. And while that bus could carry 72 people - that's all seats occupied and aisles jammed - how many hours of the day will it be full, and how many hours will it lumber around with 2 or 3 people aboard? And those 72 bike riders will trundle along at a slow pace for their maximum 10k trip (half hour or so), head to the at-work showers and get changed (another half hour), and finally start work. And at the end of the day, head back to their bikes and hope all its parts are still attached.

Jane Jacobs was highly overrated. Any comments quoting her wisdom are usually suspect. Like others of her ilk, they live a downtown life in a small living space where everything they need is close at hand because the city they are living in provides the wide variety of goods and services for the much larger area beyond their tiny perfect world.

[Patel Child]

In the past people had the horse and buggy to get around for longer journeys. The car essentially replaced that to a certain extent and gave people quicker access to far off places. The thing about public transit, is that it is not convenient. You have to essentially wait for a bus to come to you while you stand on a city street. Usually the buses are over-crowded depending on what time of day you decided to take a bus. Many people are unlikely to want to give up their motor vehicles for public transportation. For myself, is it generally the inability to come and go as you please. If one was concerned about carbon emissions, then they could look at hybrid or electric vehicles. Trains are good for very long trips, but probably still need to be modified so that they are greener.