News   Apr 16, 2024
 480     3 
News   Apr 16, 2024
 413     1 
News   Apr 16, 2024
 773     0 

69% of people living in Canada's largest cities travel everywhere by car

299 bloor call control.

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
70
Western urban dwellers love their cars
REBECCA DUBE
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
January 23, 2008 at 11:15 AM EST

drive.jpg



City living doesn't mean a car-free existence - in fact, 69 per cent of people living in Canada's largest cities travel everywhere by car, according to a Statistics Canada survey released yesterday that details urban driving habits.

Most likely to buckle up are baby-boomer men in Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg, while Montreal women aged 18 to 24 are least likely to drive downtown.

But the biggest predictor of your driving habits is not who you are, but in what kind of neighbourhood you live.

"The way our cities are built has a huge impact on our dependency on cars," says Martin Turcotte, the study's author and a social-science researcher with Statscan.

Canadians increasingly depend on cars, despite growing concerns about pollution from auto emissions and even though we're steadily congregating in cities with public transit.

The proportion of adults who travel exclusively by car increased from 68 per cent in 1992 to 74 per cent in 2005, according to Statscan. Meanwhile, the proportion of Canadians who cycled or walked at least one trip a day fell to 19 per cent from 26 per cent during the same period.

The aging of the population may be partly to blame, Mr. Turcotte says, but the type of neighbourhood influences driving and walking decisions even more strongly than creaky knees. More people want to live in cities, but most new houses are built in low-density neighbourhoods far from the city centre, where people live a more suburban and car-dependent lifestyle.

"Many neighbourhoods are designed in such a way there's no other possibility than travelling with your car," Mr. Turcotte says.

Car culture influences everything from zoning rulings to the decision many cities make to plow snow off streets before they clear the sidewalks, says Preston Schiller, a professor with Queen's University's school of urban and regional planning.

"If we want to take this issue seriously, we need to start with feet first; we need to make communities more walkable," Dr. Schiller says. "You can't just plop down a high-rise condo out in the middle of nowhere and expect miracles to happen."

Mr. Turcotte found a huge difference in the composition of urban neighbourhoods across Canada. In Montreal, for instance, 93 per cent of inner-city neighbourhoods are high-density, defined as mostly multifamily homes and apartment buildings rather than detached single-family houses. By contrast, only 30 per cent of Calgary's downtown housing is high-density.

The different types of housing translate directly into different ways of travelling, Mr. Turcotte says. Only 29 per cent of downtown Montreal residents made all their trips by car, compared with 66 per cent of Calgary's inner-city dwellers.

Statscan looked at driving patterns gleaned from the 2005 general social survey, which asked Canadians about the trips they made on one particular day. Trips were defined as travel with a practical purpose - cycling or walking for exercise or pleasure did not count.
 
Transit in Canada. It's a joke

johnBarber68x58.jpg
JOHN BARBER
January 23, 2008


I remember talking to an Edmonton friend about the Kyoto Protocol back when sophisticated opinion in Alberta held the thing to be little better than a Communist plot.
"What's the alternative?" he asked sarcastically, after a long, detailed denunciation of naive environmentalism. "Public transit?"
He was so scathing he shut me right up. But at the time we were riding a minivan through suburban Calgary, which is to say Calgary, so what could I say? Public transit was not an alternative. To suggest it was would have been blindly Toronto-centric.
A Montrealer might have made the same mistake, but the fact remains: The only Canadians for whom public transit is a welcome alternative to car travel generally live within a few kilometres of two, maybe three, widely separated city centres.
"Residents of Calgary and Edmonton are more dependent on their cars than those living in other large census metropolitan areas," Statistics Canada reported yesterday, summarizing the findings of a new study. But why single them out? With respect to car dependency, they are identical to Canadians in medium cities and small towns, indeed everywhere else except those few constrained centres.
Transit-dependent, pedestrian-friendly Canada - urban Canada, in effect - is vanishingly small in size.
Only 29 per cent of Montrealers living in the very centre of town travel everywhere by car, according to the study, compared with 43 per cent of equivalent Torontonians. But a majority of people living farther than five kilometres from the centre of each city travel everywhere by car. A majority of all Vancouverites, no matter where in town they live, still go everywhere by car.
No wonder successive national governments in this country, alone in the developed world, have pretended they aren't responsible for public transit: Seen clearly, the challenge seems hopeless.
It isn't getting any easier, according to Statistics Canada, despite demographic trends that are piling more of the country's population into urban centres.
Depressingly, the share of adult Canadians "who went everywhere by car" has risen from two-thirds to three-quarters since 1992, according to the study. Over the same period, the share of Canadians who occasionally walked or rode bikes has dropped from one-quarter to less than one-fifth.
Transit in Canada? A joke.
"How can we explain why Canadians, most of whom live in large metropolitan regions, now need their cars more than ever to go about their daily business?" the study asks.
There are lots of potential answers, beginning with the fact that there is still nothing remotely urban about so-called urban development in Canada today. But attitudes always show up. Age and sex are just as likely as location to create driving dependence, according to the study.
Male baby boomers, no matter where they live, are the worst offenders. They are also the ones, according to my own experience, who complain most trenchantly about the lack of alternatives. But if every car trip is so necessary, why do older people take more than twice as many of them as younger people? The answer is that they can afford to. Even given a reasonable alternative, Canadians who own cars overwhelmingly choose to use them, more and more, for every conceivable trip - including millions of unnecessary ones. They rationalize by saying there is no alternative, which is often true but just as often not.
Look to the future and what do you see? Suburban Calgary from sea to sea.
 
This is not too surprising, but I suppose when the permanent oil crash comes the suburbs will either be abandoned or spontaneously become multi-family units.
 
Nor does the statistic on the "very centre of Montreal," which has a much higher proportion of students than central Toronto. The Globe article said something about the nation's least car-dependent demographic being 18-24 y/o females in downtown Montreal. Why not just say that McGill students don't drive to class?
 
Just an aside, but this survey highlights:

Montreal women aged 18 to 24 are least likely to drive downtown.

The most physically attractive

and...

Most likely to buckle up are baby-boomer men in Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg

The least physically attractive segment of the Canadian population.

Too bad that the cities surveyed stopped short of Quebec City. I would imagine that that city has the lowest transit ridership of any city in Canada above 500,000 people.
 
My confession is that I live downtown and drive with great frequency (although mostly work related). To be honest the transporation equation still doesn't generally favour public transit for those who can afford not to use it. The amount in terms of fuel consumption I drive pales in comparison with suburban drivers however. I use maybe 50-60 Liters in a month including for work purposes. When not driving I far prefer to walk or cycle over public transit. This is not because I dislike public transit but because it just doesn't make sense. My everyday necessities are within walking distance and for longer inner city journeys such as on weekends or for nightlife, nothing is more convenient than a bike or taxi in Toronto.
 
Preville's take on this report....

A StatsCan report confirms the obvious this morning: the lower your neighbourhood’s population density, the more likely you are to travel by car. This does not come as news to the suburbs, which were invented by cars. The real burning question left behind in the report’s wake is this: who are the 43% of Torontonians who live within five kilometers of the city centre yet who drive their cars for all their daily trips? And, more to the point, what do they have to say for themselves? They could be reverse commuters; they could also be Rosedale residents who, despite having a subway line to shuttle them to and from work in minutes, drive anyway. Either way, they got some ’splainin’ to do.

-Posted on January 23, 2008 by Philip Preville


what do they have to say for themselves?

1. Reverse commuter. Most of my clients are located in Markham.
2. Time management. Even with the traffic, I still find it quicker to get around town in the car.
3. I love my wheels.
 
The real burning question left behind in the report’s wake is this: who are the 43% of Torontonians who live within five kilometers of the city centre yet who drive their cars for all their daily trips?

Me!

TrickyRicky, you may as well have described my transportation situation as well.

I essentially live downtown. Less than 500 paces separate my building's lobby from the nearest subway platform.I own a car, but that is only because it is required for my job. Most of my personal trips are within walking distance, which for me is anything up to 2km away. For destinations that aren't, I still live central enough that I seldom have to travel more than 5 km to anything.

The TTC's fare structure is heavily geared toward suburban residents whose average trip might be 10-20 km. My average trip on the TTC only involves the subway, and would be about 2 km in length. Based on my car's fuel efficiency and the price of gas, that works out to about 20 cents per trip. The same trip on the TTC costs at minimum $2.25 (10 times more!!!), which is absurd. The bottom line is that the majority of the trips that I can't walk to are made by car, regardless of the presence of convenient transit.

As part of the introduction of smart cards, the TTC should offer special fare by distance versions of the card in which you only pay 10 cents per km travelled. Give me that option, and I would cut back my car use at least 95% - after all I LOVE the subway. But until then, I'd rather treat myself to a couple fancy meals per month (and of course drive to the restaurant) than pay costly transit fares.
 
I'm in the boat too. Despite living near the subway, and streetcar line - and getting to Main GO station is pretty easy as well, I tend to drive to the 12.5 km work - near Oriole GO station ironically (despite this there isn't any way to take GO). No matter what transit route I take (and I've tried a few), travel time is about 60-65 minutes on average. Driving in rush-hour tends to take 25 minutes (20 on a good day, 30 on a bad day) - but most of the time, I'm driving outside of rush-hour (waiting until 9:20 or so to leave), and it takes 15 minutes. If I actually show up at work on time (8 AM) I have to leave the house at 6:55 AM. But if I drive at that time in the morning, I can get to work at 7:10 AM.

So why don't I take transit daily? Because I'd rather spend the extra 7.5 hours a week with my family. Also, about 1/4 of the time I need the car because I have to travel somewhere for work, or transport equipment. And about 1 day a week I'm not in the office, and have to travel out of town. So even if I did wan't to take transit, the pricing isn't a great incentive.

Now, it's a great back-up on days where the driving looks like it's going to be bad (snow), I'm just too tired to drive, cars in the shop, I have to attend meetings in locations where the transit becomes more convenient, or have to stop downtown one way or another. And it's nice being able to sit reading the newspaper, or a book instead being cut off by insane drivers. But as long as the transit takes 4 times the amount of time ... I'm not there. If the travel time got down to about 45 minutes, then I could see me being there more frequently, as at that point, the extra time, would be compensated by the lower stress, and time to read, talk on the phone, etc.
 
2. Time management. Even with the traffic, I still find it quicker to get around town in the car.

I've driven around in my girlfriend's car a little more often this month and I definitely get what you're saying. Even the inner city is very accommodating for car drivers. For every slow stretch like King, Queen, Dundas, Church or Bloor, there is an equivalent road like Richmond, Dupont, Avenue or Jarvis that facilitates very easy motoring even in rush hour.

The only obstacle seems to be finding parking (and that's not really tough outside of RH when nobody is really looking for parking, anyway). The only way to limit car use and encourage transit in this city is to cut back on the number of on-street parking spaces and raise Green P parking rates. Of course, merchants would cry bloody murder if you did this.
 
As companies establish offices in the burbs, that also makes downtown living less of a transit-friendly proposition. So what if there's good transit to get downtown from the inner suburbs, if an increasingly large share of employers are located out in the transitless hinterland. I know quite a few people who live downtown, yet have to drive for an hour to get to work in Saug, Markham, etc.

Not to mention that using TTC even just to get around downtown, outside of subway lines, is a pain in the ass and is barely competitive with walking.
 
This is not too surprising, but I suppose when the permanent oil crash comes the suburbs will either be abandoned or spontaneously become multi-family units.

Assuming cars still run on oil at that point.

It strikes me as a bit old-fashioned to see the two intrinsically linked forever and ever.
 

Back
Top