One of the commitments that Paris made for this summer's Olympics was ensure that every single competition venue was served and accessible by public transport. In fact, if you look on their website, it clearly says "no venues in the Paris region are accessible by motorized vehicles."

For those who attended, this seems to have worked out quite well. So much so that Los Angeles just made a similar commitment for the 2028 Olympic Games (excerpt from the New York Times):

L.A. mayor Karen Bass said Saturday the city is working on expanding its public transportation system to hold a “no-car Games” in four years, which means spectators will have to take public transportation to all Olympic venues. To accomplish this, she added that L.A. will need more than 3,000 buses and plans to borrow them from around the U.S.

Of course, the built environment of Los Angeles is slightly different than that of Paris'. One was built around the car, and the other was not. And I think the success of Paris 2024 shows how a robust public transport system is uniquely equipped to absorb significant demand shocks when needed.

Here's an excerpt from Le Monde talking about transit during the games:

Not only was the audacious gamble of organizing the first Olympic Games completely accessible by low-carbon public transport, on bicycle and on foot successful. Not only was transportation to the many competition venues scattered around Paris and its surrounding region fluid. But the transit network and its agents also proved their ability to ensure, thanks to planned initiatives and adapted resources, fast, reliable and even pleasant travel. What's more, the Paris Olympics offered the pleasing spectacle of a large city mostly freed, for a time, from the clutches and nuisances of automobile traffic.

But regardless of built form, both of these examples represent one of the positive externalities associated with hosting the games. They force cities toward massive positive change, and that's always a good thing.

Scott Stinson gets a lot right in this recent Toronto Star article about road pricing:

There is a simple tool to combat traffic congestion that has been proven to be effective. There are real-world examples of where it has been deployed to great and long-lasting success. It’s called road pricing. And we seem to be deathly afraid of it.

This is even if the benefits are real and measurable:

Jonas Eliasson, director of travel accessibility at the Swedish Transport Administration, has first-hand experience with the effects of the congestion charge implemented in Stockholm in 2006. Public polling showed two-thirds of voters were against the road-pricing plan before it was introduced in a pilot program. A local politician called it the “most expensive way ever devised to commit political suicide.” But after it began, Stockholm traffic levels dropped by 25 per cent, more than double initial estimates. In a subsequent referendum, Stockholm residents voted to adopt the congestion charge permanently.

There are lots of reasons why road pricing is commonly opposed, but at the end of the day, it works, and we know all too well -- especially here in Toronto -- that the status quo sucks:

“Over the years, transportation economists and planners have pointed out that there really is no other solution to traffic congestion than more efficient pricing,” he said in an interview. “So every time somebody said ‘No, I don’t want road pricing or congestion pricing,’ they’re actually saying, ‘I want traffic congestion.’”

I've been writing about this topic for almost as long as I've been writing this blog. So at this point, I think we just need to run a pilot. No more studies and reports. No more protracted debates.

Let's try it out and see how many people prefer (1) less traffic congestion and (2) more money for alternative modes of transport.

One of the commitments that Paris made for this summer's Olympics was ensure that every single competition venue was served and accessible by public transport. In fact, if you look on their website, it clearly says "no venues in the Paris region are accessible by motorized vehicles."

For those who attended, this seems to have worked out quite well. So much so that Los Angeles just made a similar commitment for the 2028 Olympic Games (excerpt from the New York Times):

L.A. mayor Karen Bass said Saturday the city is working on expanding its public transportation system to hold a “no-car Games” in four years, which means spectators will have to take public transportation to all Olympic venues. To accomplish this, she added that L.A. will need more than 3,000 buses and plans to borrow them from around the U.S.

Of course, the built environment of Los Angeles is slightly different than that of Paris'. One was built around the car, and the other was not. And I think the success of Paris 2024 shows how a robust public transport system is uniquely equipped to absorb significant demand shocks when needed.

Here's an excerpt from Le Monde talking about transit during the games:

Not only was the audacious gamble of organizing the first Olympic Games completely accessible by low-carbon public transport, on bicycle and on foot successful. Not only was transportation to the many competition venues scattered around Paris and its surrounding region fluid. But the transit network and its agents also proved their ability to ensure, thanks to planned initiatives and adapted resources, fast, reliable and even pleasant travel. What's more, the Paris Olympics offered the pleasing spectacle of a large city mostly freed, for a time, from the clutches and nuisances of automobile traffic.

But regardless of built form, both of these examples represent one of the positive externalities associated with hosting the games. They force cities toward massive positive change, and that's always a good thing.

Scott Stinson gets a lot right in this recent Toronto Star article about road pricing:

There is a simple tool to combat traffic congestion that has been proven to be effective. There are real-world examples of where it has been deployed to great and long-lasting success. It’s called road pricing. And we seem to be deathly afraid of it.

This is even if the benefits are real and measurable:

Jonas Eliasson, director of travel accessibility at the Swedish Transport Administration, has first-hand experience with the effects of the congestion charge implemented in Stockholm in 2006. Public polling showed two-thirds of voters were against the road-pricing plan before it was introduced in a pilot program. A local politician called it the “most expensive way ever devised to commit political suicide.” But after it began, Stockholm traffic levels dropped by 25 per cent, more than double initial estimates. In a subsequent referendum, Stockholm residents voted to adopt the congestion charge permanently.

There are lots of reasons why road pricing is commonly opposed, but at the end of the day, it works, and we know all too well -- especially here in Toronto -- that the status quo sucks:

“Over the years, transportation economists and planners have pointed out that there really is no other solution to traffic congestion than more efficient pricing,” he said in an interview. “So every time somebody said ‘No, I don’t want road pricing or congestion pricing,’ they’re actually saying, ‘I want traffic congestion.’”

I've been writing about this topic for almost as long as I've been writing this blog. So at this point, I think we just need to run a pilot. No more studies and reports. No more protracted debates.

Let's try it out and see how many people prefer (1) less traffic congestion and (2) more money for alternative modes of transport.