Every five years, the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area (of southern Ontario) conducts something called a Transportation Tomorrow Survey. And I am told that it is the most comprehensive travel survey conducted anywhere in the world. So let's look at some of the data. The last survey was completed in 2022 and a mapping of the data was prepared by the School of Cities at the University of Toronto.
Population density:
Percentage of trips by walking:
Percentage of trips by bicycle:
Percentage of trips by public transit:
Percentage of trips by car:
Percentage of residents with a driver's license:
Percentage of households without a car:
Average trips by distance:
Once again, these maps remind us that the starkest contrast is between active and non-active forms of mobility. In other words, we have a central core where many, and sometimes most people (>50%) walk to where they need to go, and then there's absolutely everywhere else in the region where most people drive (>50%) and, in some cases, where people drive almost exclusively (>90%). Public transit ridership is more dispersed, but it's really only dominant in Toronto, and not in any of the suburbs.
Perhaps the only reasonably uniform finding is that average trip distances tend to be relatively short (<10 km) no matter where you live.
Maps from the School of Cities at the University of Toronto; cover photo by Juan Rojas on Unsplash
The key to making transit useful for people is not very complicated. It is highly dependent on population densities. In other words, it works best when it's proximate to as many people as possible. And so the more low density a city is, the harder it is for this to be true. It just isn't feasible to run that many lines. To that end, here's an interesting study by the School of Cities at the University of Toronto that compares rail transit and population density for 250 cities around the world.
This is what Toronto vs. Hong Kong looks like:
I chose Hong Kong because, according to this dataset, it has the highest percentage of people living within 1 km of a major rail transit station at 75.8%. Toronto, on the other hand, sits at 20%, which is frankly not very good (though I don't see our slow-moving streetcars on the above map). It's also why our bus network has to do so much heavy lifting to get people to rail. This places us 8th in the US and Canada (see below). Once again, when it comes to transit in this part of the world, there's New York, and then everyone else:
But add in the rest of the world -- most notably Europe and East Asia -- and New York drops down to 17th position:
This, to me, is a critically important metric. For what share of residents is rail transit close and convenient? In cities like Hong Kong, Paris, and Stockholm, it is the majority of the urban population. But for the majority of cities in Canada and the US, the answer is a very small percentage. To improve this, you can obviously build more lines. And that's certainly part of it. But to really maximize the value of these investments, you also need density. I hope our city leaders are paying attention to this metric.
My partner Kieran sent me this chart this morning:
It is a summary of the average weekday miles traveled by adults in private vehicles, including taxis and ride-hailing vehicles, for the 50 largest metro areas in the US (data is from the fall of 2023). At the top of the list with the most miles traveled is Raleigh, and at the bottom of the list with the fewest miles traveled is, not surprisingly, New York.
Every five years, the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area (of southern Ontario) conducts something called a Transportation Tomorrow Survey. And I am told that it is the most comprehensive travel survey conducted anywhere in the world. So let's look at some of the data. The last survey was completed in 2022 and a mapping of the data was prepared by the School of Cities at the University of Toronto.
Population density:
Percentage of trips by walking:
Percentage of trips by bicycle:
Percentage of trips by public transit:
Percentage of trips by car:
Percentage of residents with a driver's license:
Percentage of households without a car:
Average trips by distance:
Once again, these maps remind us that the starkest contrast is between active and non-active forms of mobility. In other words, we have a central core where many, and sometimes most people (>50%) walk to where they need to go, and then there's absolutely everywhere else in the region where most people drive (>50%) and, in some cases, where people drive almost exclusively (>90%). Public transit ridership is more dispersed, but it's really only dominant in Toronto, and not in any of the suburbs.
Perhaps the only reasonably uniform finding is that average trip distances tend to be relatively short (<10 km) no matter where you live.
Maps from the School of Cities at the University of Toronto; cover photo by Juan Rojas on Unsplash
The key to making transit useful for people is not very complicated. It is highly dependent on population densities. In other words, it works best when it's proximate to as many people as possible. And so the more low density a city is, the harder it is for this to be true. It just isn't feasible to run that many lines. To that end, here's an interesting study by the School of Cities at the University of Toronto that compares rail transit and population density for 250 cities around the world.
This is what Toronto vs. Hong Kong looks like:
I chose Hong Kong because, according to this dataset, it has the highest percentage of people living within 1 km of a major rail transit station at 75.8%. Toronto, on the other hand, sits at 20%, which is frankly not very good (though I don't see our slow-moving streetcars on the above map). It's also why our bus network has to do so much heavy lifting to get people to rail. This places us 8th in the US and Canada (see below). Once again, when it comes to transit in this part of the world, there's New York, and then everyone else:
But add in the rest of the world -- most notably Europe and East Asia -- and New York drops down to 17th position:
This, to me, is a critically important metric. For what share of residents is rail transit close and convenient? In cities like Hong Kong, Paris, and Stockholm, it is the majority of the urban population. But for the majority of cities in Canada and the US, the answer is a very small percentage. To improve this, you can obviously build more lines. And that's certainly part of it. But to really maximize the value of these investments, you also need density. I hope our city leaders are paying attention to this metric.
My partner Kieran sent me this chart this morning:
It is a summary of the average weekday miles traveled by adults in private vehicles, including taxis and ride-hailing vehicles, for the 50 largest metro areas in the US (data is from the fall of 2023). At the top of the list with the most miles traveled is Raleigh, and at the bottom of the list with the fewest miles traveled is, not surprisingly, New York.
The other cities on the bottom of this list probably won't surprise you either. But it's a good reminder of how built form determines our mobility choices. If you look up which US cities have the highest population densities and the most compact built forms, I think you'll generally find that it mirrors what you're seeing here.
The other cities on the bottom of this list probably won't surprise you either. But it's a good reminder of how built form determines our mobility choices. If you look up which US cities have the highest population densities and the most compact built forms, I think you'll generally find that it mirrors what you're seeing here.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
