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
  • http://twitter.com/TammyFlores @TammyFlores

    I forgot to post this video in my comment [youtube kvPNMXzFTnM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvPNMXzFTnM youtube]

  • http://www2.macleans.ca/category/blog-central/national/andrew-coynes-blog/ Andrew Coyne

    But it's not just distance travelled that matters. It's when and where. The gas tax is a rough proxy for distance (very rough, alas, since mileage varies so much from car to car and year to year). But you pay the same tax whether you're driving a deserted country road at midnight or the DVP at rush hour.

    I'd still have a carbon tax, but for the specific task of capturing the cost of carbon emissions — which a road toll would be just as ill-suited for as gas taxes are for congestion. First rule of pricing externalities is to target them as precisely as possible.

    • quelips

      However a carbon tax would apply across the boards so to speak so that different municipalities could administer different rates; which could apply nontheless within one municipality, or one particularly congested highway. All of which is possible given gps technology albeit a bit big brother. Thusly, it could be as precise as needed. The big advantage would be a global system that would rely less on man/machine operated toll booths, which could be more costly in the long run. A carbon tax/credit could be incorporated into the already existing tax structure. In addition, public transit and secondary routes could be managed/encouraged whereas tolls could lead to overspill on secondary routes.

    • MediaBuff

      The weakest part of your article was when you handwaved on the privacy issue. The prepaid cellular model doesn't hack it either. Studies show nearly 100% success rate in identifying cellphone owners because they regularly go home with the phone.

      I like all the road pricing schemes, except the ones which can't maintain the anonymity of those who desire it. That amount and granularity of presence information is too ripe for abuse, and I would fight any system that made it mandatory or that imposed penalties for choosing anonymity. Just look at how governments abuse driver's licenses and plates for a clue to how pervasive vehicle tracking will evolve.

  • laroo

    get real, we are overtaxed and user pay poor already, car plates,gasoline tax, hst, are all user pay taxes.

  • mike bushell

    What a shock !! Couldn't be because our politicians and developers are trying to shoehorn people in together under the guise of "community living" could it? Second largest country on the planet and do you see how close houses and condos are built? WTF !?

    • madeyoulook

      Second largest country on the planet and do you see how close houses and condos are built?

      You want us to be evenly distributed across this great land of ours? You take the North Pole, Mike.

  • m. bush

    Doesn't traffic planning involve thinking about planning ahead for the future?

  • Kifaru

    Privatise roads, highways, bridges and ferries. Let the free market decide what to charge, what to build, what to offer.

    Andrew's suggestion is a good one if you assume that govt. should remain in control. That assumption is false.

    • Thwim

      And leave rural Canadians with no way to travel whatsoever.

  • Bert Debenham

    I think they should build the hi-Ways the same as they build housing congestion. I think that the heaviest vechicles on the bottom platform & so forth for the city & surrounding x-tra hi-ways for trucks only & all vechicles be able to buy a sticker depending on travel to & amount to where they travelled to. I think that they should only trucking area & parking lot where they could transfer to a small car those that are just driving through than they should pay a toll so are roads take the lest amount of abuse.

  • Bert

    The amount of trucking could be to the north in the Holland Marsh area. They could have it set up like the Mega Food Terminal. Where smaller trucks get enough for 1-2 days. What we need to do is keep them outside of the city central.

  • Bert

    What would be the ideal for vechicles should they need to be inside a city boundary. These vechicles should be battery powered period. A business works faster when they have to. If they had to stop at a lot an then transfer to a battery powered car. Its either the TTC or a battery powered transport. I'd love to see the board of directors have to have the head office & live at least 6 months where the majority is produced. It would be nice that they couldn't say they didn't know because they were in the USA.!

  • peter

    How about REDUCED federal/provincial/local corporate/property tax rates for firms that stagger their employee's hours? Since the only ones fretting about productivity are bean counters and the average employee would probably gladly trade a later (or earlier start time) for nearly a full day more of freedom per week it sort of seems a no-brainer for all….except those who wish to leverage payment streams into capital.

    As for accidents, perhaps not closing main roads everytime there is an accident while cops recreate the obvious would be helpful.

  • Beet

    Ok so you want to charge me for going to town. Then I will spend my money in the suburbs. Town centers except for jobs would die like fleas. You cant have your cake and eat it to. Make it financially hard for me to drive and I take my money out of the economy. In the long run you loose.

    • Matthew

      "Ok so you want to charge me for going to town. Then I will spend my money in the suburbs"

      Yes, I do believe that's the goal. Please, spend your money closer to where you live so that it reduces long-distance traffic for you and the rest of us. You made Andrew's point perfectly! Well done!

  • ABarlow

    This is a simple, elegant, market-driven solution with a successful and proven track record internationally.

    It therefore has no hope of ever becoming law here in Canada.

  • Lambotomy

    The article writers solution proposes to stomp on the poor or middle class who can't afford to pay high tolls to use roads or to travel downtown. Just because these draconian methods work over in Europe, doesn't mean it will work over here. For all those people who want to live so far from work, it's time you got a clue. I know so many people who spend hours in the car just so they can pay for a cheaper home but forget to factor in the price of fuel and all that wear and tear on their vehicles.

  • Guest

    What about those of us who require our vehicles as part of our job? I work in construction and have to go to many sites per day. What about those service companies (electricians, plumbers, roofers, computer repair….etc). I bet if these companies had to pay a toll, your repair fees would increase. Add to that, they would probably have to reduce their staff due to that increase and it would therefore take longer for you to get service.

  • Rodney

    Absolutely no chance of tolls as long as Toronto has Rob Ford at the helm !! He will be bent on finding ways to make driving cheaper and more convenient. Welcome to the dark ages Toronto !

  • motogp34

    hes a answer, stop letting all the minority's in this country…

  • westend

    Unfortunately, I just have to say blah, blah, blah… I'm curious where the author of the text lives and work. I live in Etobicoke ( 427 & Bloor area) and to go to work downtown. One option is GO train which is pretty good, if you are walking distance from Union station (otherwise you have to pay for metro pass as well). Second option, to take subway, it takes forever (bus to Kipling, subway, than street car). Conclusion, car is still the cheapest and FASTEST. My suggestion is that downtown businesses spread the work hours from 7AM. I'm sure there are many people that would like to work 7-3 to avoid 5PM traffic. Toronto can not be compared to London simple because our and their subway system is like comparing mouse and elephant. We have to build more faster subway lines ($$$)… I guess impossible task.

  • 5 whys

    The suggestion of tolls is a weak patch for lack of good planning. People are going to go where they need to go; therefore, the only result in the long run is the increase of costs to society, and increase of income to the cities with a marginal reduction of traffic jams. On top of the time lost, we will have the loss of money.
    The 20% impact reported in London refers to an area of downtown. In addition, to reach the praised "20%" we need to consider that London has much more and better public transit system than any Canadian city. In the long term this impact dilutes completely.
    Currently, in order to optimize the cities resources such as hydro installations, the densification of occupation guides the planning. Mississauga is the best example of downtown densification. In few years with the current rate of densification, traffic jams will be the norm. Then a moron will come up with the “brilliant” idea of a toll! The other mistake is the lack of incentives to create jobs far from the city center and areas already congested.
    The other side is the tolled and not tolled as suggested such as 407 tolled and 401 not tolled. Then you have 2 classes of citizen: the rich and the poor, yet both pay taxes to use all public facilities and services. What about creating two libraries: One with better books with an admittance fee and another one with less and not so good books that is free. This principle can be applied any public service. What about a toll to reduce the lines in emergency rooms? Or a toll to… you name it…

    • Nowhere Man

      I totally agree. Especially with the last part, which reminds me of apartheid, except money and not race is the distinction.

    • Nowhere Man

      I totally agree. Especially with the last part, which reminds me of the times of aristocracy where the rich dictated the rules, heavily skewed in their favour – I guess that we are going back to those days, that is if we ever left.

  • Larry

    It’s really too bad the Dutch proposal stalled: it would have seen the phasing-out of taxes and charges related to ownership (tax on new cars, reg fees) in favour of paying for use, with funds going to improving transit AND roads. Would have been a good example to point to of how to tackle congestion.

  • Michael Peterson

    I love toll roads, specifically the 407 ETR.
    I wish there were more of them in Toronto.
    Not only is it reliable,as the article makes the point it is cheaper in the long run on some many levels.
    I think as Torontonians we should be brave enought to test it.

    • http://twitter.com/TammyFlores @TammyFlores

      The problem is the tolling regime. Let's fix this problem and then explore some ideas. Maybe the public at large will be more accepting if the "powers that be" hold this tolling regime accountable for it's business practices.

    • bahamawaters

      …..Congratulations! It sounds like you've got plenty of disposable income………and little consideration for those with less.

  • cdc1505

    I believe Andrew's thoughts on the traffic situation need to be given serious consideration. In Ottawa, the debate about spending billions on Light Rail is ongoing. I personally don't believe LR is the answer, as the Andrew's article notes , people loves the convenience of their cars.
    One way to move the costs of highways from "governments (taxes) to user pay could be a "tax credit" for $$ paid in user fees. This would leave money in governments coiffers for transportation needs and to address the fact that not all citizens drive.
    Building bigger highway and expensive LR does not appear to be the answer.
    Perhaps a private company could see a business in a private LR scenario??

    Don

  • James

    I live in London and I'd like to say that In London the congestion charge zone actually hasn't worked as well as intended (or as billed in the article) despite the charge to access it now being £10 (or around $20 CAD) a day.

  • http://www.toviaduct.com Jose Ramon Gutierrez

    Congestion charging in London is a bad example, since traffic levels are going back to where they were in 2003, and businesses in the central districts have suffered since its implementation. That is why it was rightfully rejected in Edinburgh, Scotland.
    The right solution is to just build more capacity. If you let cities grow, you have to accomodate the increasing demands on its infrastructure with more sewers, larger electrical grid, increased transit routes, and more roadways. The defeatist notion of: "you can't build your way out of congestion", makes no sense, since roads get busier with increasing development, not by induced demand.
    The problem has been that for the last 4 decades, North America has almost stalled in its road network improvements, while real estate development has increased exponentially. That is why, every little km of new road capacity that has been added since the 1960's has gotten filled up rather quickly, and not because people have nothing better to do than to fill up road space.
    The dumb side has not been on the cities residents' work and home choices, but on disfunctional and irresponsible urban planning for over 40 years.

  • john g

    Here's why I think Coyne's toll solution would work. Look at the plastic bag example, and what a simple 5 cent "toll" accomplished.

    Metro Inc. began charging five cents per bag in June 2009. A month afterward, the chain reported a 50% drop in demand for plastic bags. Now, demand is down 80%.

    “Five cents might not be a lot of money, but it seems to be enough to make people change their habits,” said Metro spokeswoman Marie-Claude Bacon

  • Embe

    The solution is ‘co-working’ eg: move the offices closer to the people and collapse the commuting. How can one office move toward its many employees – by sharing the rent of one office space with other unrelated companies. Share the office, share the eqpt, share the admin support, whatever. Have a bunch of employees who live in the same district in that office; have only two. Benefit from lower rents, shorter commutes, happier employees and unplanned ‘synergies’ with other businesses. Worried about your employees floating away to a competitor sharing the same office space? Find out who else is working there or put a caveat in the rental agreement. Clearly, a spread of this practise would take a big, big piece out of the gridlock.

    • Heather

      Why complicate it? Why not just fix the problem – current public transit systems are based on demographics information from the 1970's and 1980's, which are completely different from current reality. If we update public transit to reflect our transportation needs, more people could actually use public transit and still arrive at their destinations after a reasonable travel time, rather than the current system which sees people spending an hour on public transit to get to destinations that are a 15 minute drive away.

From Macleans