People in Toronto are deeply and rightly frustrated about our traffic. We have truly world-class congestion. But here's the thing, the way we're going about solving this problem is all wrong.

Transportation staff seem to believe that congestion charges would not reduce or deter traffic from coming into Toronto. Never mind all the global precedents, never mind that we have the tolled 407 highway to look to, and never mind that economics tells us that when the price of something increases, the quantity demanded decreases.

Instead, we seem to think that we can solve this problem with fewer bike lanes, improved traffic management, and better policing, including higher fines for disobedience. (Interestingly enough, higher fines are supposed to deter people, but congestion charges won't do the same. I'm confused.)

None of this will fix the mess we're in.

This is a case of politics over data and experience. Identify something that people are pissed off about, and then create the illusion that you're doing something to fix it. Good politics. But the reality is that this problem is much trickier to solve. It will require vision and meaningful change. That's a much tougher sell.

Think of this way. Can you identity a large car-oriented global city with millions of people that doesn't have a traffic congestion problem? Even the Katy Freeway in Houston, which counts as many as 26 total lanes, has a congestion problem. And the last time I checked, it didn't have any bike lanes.

Now let's look at the largest city region in the world -- Tokyo. The city proper has about 14 million people and the broader region has about 41 million. This is the entire population of Canada in one city region, and yet it's generally viewed as being one of the most well-run and efficient cities in the world. How do they do it?

Here are the modal splits within Tokyo's 23 wards (2018 data):

• 36% public transport (rail and bus)

• 27% passenger cars

• 23% walking

• 14% bicycles and motorcycles

Now compare this to the splits in Toronto's census metropolitan area (2021 census data):

• 76% passenger cars

• 16% public transport

• 5% walking

• 1% bicycles

• 2% other

Of course, if we were to look at the modal splits within the core of the city they would look quite different and much closer to Tokyo's numbers. This is why it can be so hard to achieve consensus on many city building issues -- we are quite literally a divided and different kind of city.

In the end, this is the root cause of our traffic problem. The vast majority of people in this city region drive. And they are not to be blamed. It's because we've designed this to be the only practical option.

But if we're serious about solving congestion, it's going to require some bold changes. It's going to require reducing this 76% figure. We can fool ourselves into thinking that better construction coordination, fewer bike lanes, and higher fines will somehow solve this enormous and deep-rooted problem, but the inconvenient truth is that they won't.

What we need are real solutions. Is anyone going to take the lead?

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.

People in Toronto are deeply and rightly frustrated about our traffic. We have truly world-class congestion. But here's the thing, the way we're going about solving this problem is all wrong.

Transportation staff seem to believe that congestion charges would not reduce or deter traffic from coming into Toronto. Never mind all the global precedents, never mind that we have the tolled 407 highway to look to, and never mind that economics tells us that when the price of something increases, the quantity demanded decreases.

Instead, we seem to think that we can solve this problem with fewer bike lanes, improved traffic management, and better policing, including higher fines for disobedience. (Interestingly enough, higher fines are supposed to deter people, but congestion charges won't do the same. I'm confused.)

None of this will fix the mess we're in.

This is a case of politics over data and experience. Identify something that people are pissed off about, and then create the illusion that you're doing something to fix it. Good politics. But the reality is that this problem is much trickier to solve. It will require vision and meaningful change. That's a much tougher sell.

Think of this way. Can you identity a large car-oriented global city with millions of people that doesn't have a traffic congestion problem? Even the Katy Freeway in Houston, which counts as many as 26 total lanes, has a congestion problem. And the last time I checked, it didn't have any bike lanes.

Now let's look at the largest city region in the world -- Tokyo. The city proper has about 14 million people and the broader region has about 41 million. This is the entire population of Canada in one city region, and yet it's generally viewed as being one of the most well-run and efficient cities in the world. How do they do it?

Here are the modal splits within Tokyo's 23 wards (2018 data):

• 36% public transport (rail and bus)

• 27% passenger cars

• 23% walking

• 14% bicycles and motorcycles

Now compare this to the splits in Toronto's census metropolitan area (2021 census data):

• 76% passenger cars

• 16% public transport

• 5% walking

• 1% bicycles

• 2% other

Of course, if we were to look at the modal splits within the core of the city they would look quite different and much closer to Tokyo's numbers. This is why it can be so hard to achieve consensus on many city building issues -- we are quite literally a divided and different kind of city.

In the end, this is the root cause of our traffic problem. The vast majority of people in this city region drive. And they are not to be blamed. It's because we've designed this to be the only practical option.

But if we're serious about solving congestion, it's going to require some bold changes. It's going to require reducing this 76% figure. We can fool ourselves into thinking that better construction coordination, fewer bike lanes, and higher fines will somehow solve this enormous and deep-rooted problem, but the inconvenient truth is that they won't.

What we need are real solutions. Is anyone going to take the lead?

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.