Stuck in traffic

Our rush hours rank with the world’s worst. Andrew Coyne has the solution.

by Andrew Coyne on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:20am - 216 Comments
Stuck in traffic

For one in four Canadians, the two-way commute takes more than 90 minutes | Janusz Wrobel/Alamy/Getstock, Fuse/Getty Images, Carlos Osorio/Toronto Star

Day breaks over Canada, and across the country, the morning commuter rises, dresses, hops into his car and is transformed into . . . traffic. Immobilizing, enervating, infuriating traffic, glaciers of metal improbably forcing their way down the nation’s roads each morning, only to have to force their way back up the same roads later in the day.

In Halifax, drivers seethe as they inch through the Armdale Rotary. In Montreal, it’s the seemingly hours-long grind along the infamous Autoroute Décarie. Toronto commuters visibly age waiting for something to move on the “Don Valley Parking Lot.” Calgarians have ample time each day to regret taking Deerfoot Trail, while in the Lower Mainland of B.C., drivers debate which is worse: the bottleneck on the Port Mann bridge or the eternal stretches of Highway 1 on either side of it.

We’re not imagining things: traffic really is getting worse. Statistics Canada reports the average time spent commuting to and from work nationwide increased from 54 minutes in 1992 to 63 minutes in 2005. In a year, that adds up to about 32 working days spent sitting in traffic (five more than in 1992). And that’s the average. In Calgary, it’s 66 minutes; in Vancouver, 67; in Toronto and Montreal, it’s now up to nearly 80 minutes a day. For one in four Canadians, the two-way commute takes more than 90 minutes.

In part that’s because people are travelling further to work: commute distances have increased 10 per cent in a decade. But it’s also because everyone’s moving slower: average rush-hour traffic speeds in Toronto, for example, declined by 24 per cent between 1986 and 2006. The result is to make these trips much longer than they need to be: as much as 37 minutes—nearly half—of the average Torontonian’s daily commute is due to traffic delays. In a year, that’s an extra 18 days in the car.

Indeed, for sheer mind-numbing, soul-destroying aggravation, traffic in our largest cities can compete with any in the developed world. A Toronto Board of Trade report earlier this year looked at commuting times in 19 major European and North American cities. Toronto’s ranking? Dead last: worse than New York or London, worse than Los Angeles. But other Canadian cities were scarcely better. Montreal was 18th, Vancouver 14th, Calgary 13th, Halifax 10th.

It’s not just the commute. There is nearly as much traffic at lunchtime today as there was at rush hour a generation ago. Not only are there more cars and trucks on the road—21.4 million registered vehicles, up from 16.6 million in 1992—but we’re using them for more things: driving the kids to sports, where once they would have walked. Total daily trips in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area rose by 56 per cent between 1986 and 2006.

Traffic is slowly strangling our cities. It’s the time wasted in traffic that could have been put to more productive use. It’s the late deliveries, the missed appointments, and the margin of error needed to cover the risks of either. It’s the extra repair costs from all those additional fender-benders. It’s the higher fuel consumption and consequent higher emissions to which stop-and-go traffic gives rise, to say nothing of the added wear and tear on roads, and tires, and engines—and heart muscles: being in heavy traffic triples your risk of a heart attack within an hour, according to German researchers. It’s the measurable drop in property values in areas overtaken by the traffic blight. It’s the noise, and smell, and general unsightliness. And much more besides.

Add it up and the costs are massive, and growing. A 2006 Transport Canada study put the cost of congestion nationwide, taking everyday and “non-recurring” congestion (accidents, road work and so on) together, at as much as $6.7 billion. (Interestingly, measured in congestion costs per vehicle-kilometre, Vancouver can lay claim to having the worst traffic in the country: see chart.) Yet even this is almost certainly an underestimate. The figures are in 2000 dollars, for starters, and traffic has appreciably worsened since the early years of the decade, when the study was conducted. Costs were estimated only in the nine largest urban areas, only at rush hour, only for cars (not trucks or buses), and only included the drivers’ wasted time and excess fuel consumption (and related greenhouse gas emissions).

A more comprehensive estimate, conducted in 2008 for Metrolinx, the agency responsible for transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, put the annual cost of the congested state of the region’s roads at $6 billion, when knock-on costs to the surrounding economy are included. That suggests annual congestion costs for the country as a whole would today approach $15 billion, nearly one per cent of GDP. Now factor in the rapid growth in population that Canada’s major cities are expected to undergo in coming decades. Something’s got to give.

And yet, nothing ever does. Though the nation’s roads and highways get more congested with each passing year, municipal and provincial governments persist in the same approaches that got us where we are today, which is to say, stuck in traffic. A City of Toronto newsletter, after happily running through some of the city’s many “traffic demand management” programs, ends by cautioning residents not to expect them to work. “We can’t solve the issue of congestion,” it says, “but we are trying to manage it better.” (Instead, readers are urged to see the “positive side” of congestion, as “the sign of a vibrant city.”)

But we can solve it. That our cities have failed to do so is not for lack of proven alternatives, but in wilful defiance of one in particular, a solution that not only has an impressive expert consensus in support of it but is already having notable success in other cities around the world. There’s even a working model of it in place right outside Toronto.

We do not have to suffer this daily indignity, in other words. It is not natural or inevitable that urban traffic should move with the speed of industrial sludge. It’s not often true of other social problems, but when it comes to traffic, there really is an Answer.

Bookmark and Share
  • ColdStanding

    Is this article about transit. Yes. But one would be mistaken in thinking that it's intention is just about transportation and commuting issues.

    When I read the article I could not help but think that it was an analogy for healthcare reform, er, I mean two-tier healthcare.

  • Tony, SFO-YUL

    You’re better off in Los Angeles where traffic is crawling along a 6 lane highway at 17mph and where the weather, at least, is better than in Canada.
    Canada’s roads are too narrow for the 21st century.

  • Heather

    Given your arguments, I'm a little surprised you're not advocating further development and expansion of public transit systems. If there was a reasonable, timely link from your home in Guelph to your office in Mississauga, would you use it? Just wondering b/c the current public transit options available do not reflect current demographics, population densities nor work locations. Once we have realistic ways to navigate within and beyond our cities, toll routes would not be necessary.

  • Marc A

    I have lived in the suburbs and downtown. I have seen congestion from both perspectives. The first problem is the idiocracy that went into our city planning. When my grandfather was growing up in the 20's and 30's, you could walk everywhere in the city. School, church, university, shopping, entertainment, parks, recreation, etc. Everything was in walking distance. I'm not against the car, but I think that at the point where city planning became about cars and not people that we started tearing apart the fabric of what made Canadian cities such wonderful places to live. Of course people love suburbs, but they're blinded by the fact that their lives could be so much better and so much richer if the city planners and politicians forced the kind of development patterns we had in the older neighbourhoods. In any case, I support tolling all roads, because this will likely push people to rethink driving. Heck, just the exercise from walking should be an argument alone. An article just came out recently about how little exercise we're getting. Imagine you could get the exercise you need just by doing your every day routines. Imagine the heathcare savings down the road… le sigh…

  • Keith Pearce

    I think that the major component of traffic congestion are drivers not doing their fair share. How many drivers driving 10-20 carlengths behind the car in front to only allow 10 or so vehicles through a green light, rather than 25 or so if everyone accerated quick enough to follow 3-4 carlengths behind, which is perfectly reasonable at 50 kph. If you ever get to ride with a group of sportbikes through urban traffic you will quickly learn that a whole bunch of vehicles can move along the road a lot quicker, in total safety than is the norm out there. Get the dawdlers and inattentive drivers off the road and no more problem, although Andrew Coynes ideas make good sense if we have to be toally PC and ignore incompetent drivers.

    • bahamawaters

      ….Are you out of your mind? Are you seriously advocating tailgating as a solution to traffic congestion? And you offer gangs of sportbike idiots as evidence for safety? Retarded!

  • MontyBruce

    I agree with Andrew Coyne that road polls appears to be a great solution for making commutes more enjoyable. I consider green house gas emission reduction as a higher priority, and I believe a gas tax can support greenhouse gas reduction. I think bothe the road poll and the gas tax have a place, however please bring on the gas tax as a priority over the comfort of driving to and from work. I am much more interested in reducing environmental destruction than the personal gains to be had from comfortable driving.
    Monty Bruce
    Richmond, BC

    • bite me

      You are such an idiot

  • David B

    Yet another traffic article promising solutions. So, I look eagerly for the solution. Pay pay pay. How ridiculous! Especially since the real solution is staring us in the face every day.

    1 – Better driver training. Not just requirements to wear glasses, but stepped driving licenses commensurate with ability (drive in daytime only, off peak hours only, right lanes only, no passengers, no passing, etc.).

    2 – Get rid of all the road blocks created by the wizards who reduce turn lanes and make passing impossible. A typical example can be seen on any road leading to an expressway ramp. While 75% of the traffic is heading onto the ramp, only one lane can enter. When in fact two or more cars can fit in that one lane.

    3 – Make the traffic and turning lanes part of the solution and we could reduce 50% of all traffic. If 75% of the cars are entering the ramp, make 3 of the 4 lanes possible turn lanes, instead of backing traffic up for miles.

    4 – Don’t stop capable drivers who can make quick, safe decisions from improving traffics. Don’t subject all drivers to sitting behind the most fearful, undecided and slowest of the lot. We have multi-lane roads so drivers can drive at different speeds and improve traffic – not so 4 cars can straddle all four lanes while moving at the same speed.

    5 – Enforce tickets for driving in the wrong lanes until drivers learn how multi-lane highways work – eg; slowest on the furthest right and move into the left lanes ONLY to pass cars that are slower – and then GET BACK into the right lane until you have to pass another car. The faster you go, the more you are passing traffic, the further left you will be. And ONLY while passing. That would reduce traffic by another 30%.

    6 – Stop thinking about paying for solutions, when paying attention is all we have to do. Million dollar studies are wasting our tax dollars to find more ways to tax us. When it’s simply common sense.

    • SkipinFL

      Excellent suggestions,especially #5

  • SkipinFL

    Why not start by susidizing transit to the same extent we do highways and offer lower costs to get people out of their cars?

  • bahamawaters

    This is INSANE!! Citizens advocating for more taxation? What is wrong with you people? This is perhaps the worst idea I've ever heard put forward in print. Not surprisingly, it appeared in Maclean's. Rag. Why don't we start charging ourselves for the road system that we already paid for? Well, one good reason is that we already paid for it! Sure, traffic is a hassle, frustrating, and a waste of time. Don't like all the congestion in the big city? Move somewhere else. This proposal is nothing but economic classism. As a Canadian living in the U.S., it boggles my mind to hear about all the new taxes up there. For Pete's sake people, stand up for yourselves! Government will never get tired of dreaming up reasons to take just a little bit more of your money. Let's hope this idea never gets off the ground.

  • bahamawaters

    Bravo!…… You nailed it all down. I was outraged when I read this article…….Obviously written by someone with plenty of disposable income. I certainly don't want to pay some cockamamie fee every time I get in my car, just to make his commute a little easier. Fu#k off!!! And thanks for pointing out the outrage that is the ETR……Publicly funded infrastructure sold to a private, for profit entity…….what a disservice to the people! Outrageous!!!!

  • Dave

    I don't claim to know what the solution to this problem is, but I certainly have thoughts on what is NOT…

    "Densification" has been brought up by many posters here. I suspect many of them are the sort who have the means to avoid having to live that way; being crammed into overpriced multistory rabbit hutches is only for the plebs. Same goes for public transit. The most unpleasant, unsafe, noisy, stressful environments to live in are uber-dense cities of the type we see in places such as Japan, China, and the Third World.

    Humans are social creatures, but they are not ants. Trying to force people to live in this manner creates conflict, alienation, and anger. As an aside, overly dense societies require a level of micromanagement and "big brother" oversight that the average Canadian will balk at. We already have enough government busybodies (in particular, at the municipal/city level) attempting to control every moment of our lives.

    In the late 40's and 50's, suburbia grew for this reason. Residents of densely packed inner cities voted with their feet, leaving in favour of single family accommodations, privacy, lower crime, and larger/cheaper homes. A postage stamp yard is better than no yard at all, and always will be.

    Do we really want to regress to the days of inner-city tenements? Most people will answer with an emphatic "No!". But this is what our politicians, "urban planners", and wealthy green hipsters are planning for us, for "our own good".

    Sorry, but you will have to pry my car out of my cold, dead hands. I would rather spend an hour or two stressed out from my commute than be stressed out 24/7 by "high density" living…

  • Jared Gordon

    Wow, I must say I love the idea of usage based billing to curb traffic bandwidth. Billing me more for using my car during peak times at peak areas? I guess that way we can all pay more for gas, and have to pay to use the road during rush hour. It’s a win win situation, that way you don’t have to upgrade the roads to accommodate higher traffic demands with the rise of suburban sprawl, and the oil companies get their stop and go fix as well. Wanna know the way to solve this? Automated rush hour traffic, when you enter the highway during rush hour you punch in your exit number, this way traffic can move much faster. This also would open up an entirely new public transit / carpool option. Think it’s too complicated? Assign a lane like the HOV lane meaning only people who upgrade their vehicles can use the automated lane. Think there’s too much of a legality issue? I’d rather be hit while my car was driving itself, no problem for me. Also, we all are always complaining about how people don’t pay enough attention while driving, people are horrible drivers etc. Some people may not be comfortable with a computer driving their own car, but I’d be much more comfortable knowing a computer was also driving yours.

  • Anonymous

    Where are our Super Highways here in Ontario, Canada? Tell me please. (Google it and find out how they will work in Ontario)

    The only thing here in Canada is an old inefficient 60 mph (100 kph) highway system dating back from the mid 1950′s. Actually Ontario, Canada has some of the slowest speed limits in the entire developed world. Even developing countries such as Pakistan have higher speed limits than Ontario, Canada has (bloody embarrassing to have to admit to). No wonder the manufacturing jobs are leaving North America. We’re simply not globally competitive in so many ways. (High labour costs, high material costs, high energy costs, high taxation, heavy government regulation, slow inefficient transportation network in both road and rail…………and the list goes on).

    Our outdated slow highway system is just another example of our inability to compete globally.

    As for this article………..More tolls or highway taxation? Brilliant!! With enough taxation we can become exactly like England.

  • briguyhfx

    Isn't the logical corollary to your argument that cheaper transit and more efficient routing will result in more ridership and thus less congestion? Or is there a point where transit costs become so low that people just take it for granted, and drive a lot despite having a bus pass in their wallet?

  • Healthcare Insider

    In Calgary they did the opposite. They started charging $3.00 per day for transit riders to park their cars at the park and ride stations. Suddenly the price of the monthly transit pass went up exponentially. We do not have a great transit system like they have in Toronto to start with.

  • quelips

    Another advantage would be establishing more accurate insurance premiums. If someone owned a car but used it rarely, he or she would keep or earn more credits.

  • YYZ

    That technology exists already for insurance – North American companies are lobbying regulators to keep it out because they'd be at a disadvantage to the insurers who invested in the technology. Google "Pay-as-you-go" insurance UK.

  • bigbadjock

    Try Jakarta!

  • André

    I'm guessing this article was inspired by the OC Transpo strike. I'm also guessing you've never experienced it thoroughly. It is an excellent system. It is that good because Ottawa was built around it, not vice versa. It's planning and design precedes everything else. It does help though that its biggest industries were civil servants and high tech bureaus.

    Toronto, on the other hand, thought it need the roads to move the wares from the port the various industries throughout the city. Then it shoehorned its public transit on that infrastructure.

  • cbcb

    In Calgary we already have a congestion pricing scheme for downtown – its called absurdly high parking charges.
    I take transit to downtown, because I work downtown, and cost of parking is prohibitive. the cost of the parking is the only reason I take transit. I would love to be able to afford to park downtown. being crammed in like animals on the C-Train is not my idea of utopia. probably the reason I have high blood pressure and have to take expensive medication.

    I have an idea, why not mix commercial and residential areas together ? and I'm not talking all hi density, not everyone wants to live in a box in the sky as well as work in one. how about spreading jobs and housing more evenly instead of putting housing in one place and jobs all crammed into one center ?

  • Brian in Ontario

    I live in the Hamilton Ontario area and commute one hour to Mississauga Ontario daily for work. Why? Its simple economics. A nice townhouse in Hamilton is $150,000 compared to the $300,000 in Mississauga. Condos fees are rediculous in Mississauga (approx. $700/mo.). Its not a question of will tolls keep me off the roads; Its would still be cheaper to commute and the GO transit system in Canada is a joke. The other major foreign cities sited in the survey have realistic public transit systems that are a viable solution. For me to take the public transit system here, it would take me 3 hours to get to work (I looked into it when I started).

    If you seriously wanted to remove congestion then rural cities and townships need to make more land available for industry. North Americans have a desire to put all industry in small little sections of our country and then complain when its difficult to get to work.

  • Tony, SFO-YUL

    My solution: I live 2.5 miles (4km) from my job and I don’t need to drive anywhere in a hurry on any day.

  • jody1

    Living near work is not viable, with Toronto sprawling outwards more and more, and careers moving people around every 3-4 years.
    I think if most people had the choice of 60 minutes of hellish driving, or 75-80 minutes of being in a LRT/Subway, chatting, reading or playing games..the car would start to lose out. It costs a lot to own a car, insure and drive it (for me, $15-20/day). If a suitable option was available for <$10, many would jump at it. The only solution really is rapid expansion of lines, subway/lrt virtually everywhere so more people can benefit from them. If tolling the 401 would help, i'd be in. But you know that any money raised will go into studies and decades of mismanagement.

    But there is little incentive for the government to help when they make $8B from gas taxes and have an economy based on car production and maintenance.
    Regardless, we have been crippled with so many bad design flaws. Looking just at Toronto, the 401 is sadly the only viable option to get through Toronto. The 407 is too far north. The DVP south has westbound 401 exits on either side, but you have to be on the west side to get into 401 eastbound (and only into the collector which is jammed). Taunton (Steeles) drops from 4 lane to 2 lane just at the border of Pickering/Markham where lanes are most needed..

  • Heather

    Yes, thank you. Further to your point about Toronto – look at where the majority of people who drive into Toronto are coming from and then examine their public transit options to get them into work. Not viable at all. For instance, the only GO train from Hamilton that would get a person to work on time would pull into Union station (i.e., downtown Toronto) at 7:45 am. Their only option to get into Toronto at a more reasonable hour (i.e., 8:15) is to drive to Burlington, which is a half hour drive away, then catch the train there, thereby paying for gas and parking in addition to the fare. This solution is totally redundant because the time spent driving to Burlington is equivalent to the time one would be trying to save by not arriving at work at 7:45 in the morning. Among the driving commuters at my office (which employs over 200 people), the only reason anyone gives for driving to work is that there are no reasonable options for them. Most come from reasonable distances but either the connections don't exist or the timing is way off and does not reflect a typical workday.

  • Heather

    How about improving on the public transit system, such as providing more reasonable links between Hamilton and Missauga? The problem is that we're relying on public transit systems that reflected the demographic reality of the 1970's but our reality is substantially different today. We need public transit that reflects where people actually live and where they actually work. It's not about needing more land or moving entire, existing systems, it's about moving people in a reasonable, comfortable, timely and affordable manner.

  • Heather

    Yes, this is exactly correct. The frustrating part is that plans for an expansion of Toronto's subway system has already been developed and the infrastructure to make it happen relatively easily exists. The money that could expand the subway line right up to York University, across the North end of the city and put a second East-West corridor in was blown on the Sheppard extension. Studies and mismanagement are unnecessary. We just need decision makers with the balls to pony up the money. Not sure what's so scary about it but we, as voters, need to take some of the blame for it not having happened yet and start demanding access to public transit that reflects our current demographics and not those of 30 years ago.

  • eric

    One of the issues that needs to be addressed with regards to congestion is the size of the vehicles. Large vehicles take more space, have greater impact on the roadways, and on require greater starting/stopping distances. Tolls are a valid way of placing the costs with the user, but they need to also be scaled based on the size/weight of the vehicle. As an extreme example, a stretch of roadway could move more smartcars per hour than SUVs simply because more of the former will fit on that stretch of roadway at a given time.

    It is beyond time people paid the real costs of their choices.

From Macleans