Sustainability of Public vs. Private Transportation Systems in the Greater Toronto Area

Christopher A. Kennedy, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 35 St. George St, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A4
E-mail: cak@ecf.utoronto.ca

This study assesses the sustainability of public and private transportation in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) from economic, environmental, and social perspectives.
Methodology: Combines urban metabolism and sustainability indicators approaches, comparing modes based on passenger-kilometers (pkm).
Economic Sustainability: Transportation viewed as a product, driver, and cost.
- In 1993, costs of automobile use in GTA were offset by the value of auto production.
- Local transit costs are lower than automobile costs per person-km due to labour being the primary cost.
Environmental Perspective: Public transport is more sustainable.
- Automobile emissions severely contribute to air pollution, impacting public health.
- Public transport is less energy-intensive and lowers CO2 output, though issues arise from transit capacity and electricity sources.
Social Factors: Significant social benefits for automobile use influence residents' choices; however, accidents constitute a major cost, reflected in insurance costs.
To enhance sustainability, innovative strategies for public transport enhancement and reduction of automobile reliance are necessary.
Key recommendations include integrating bicycles with transit and developing light-rail systems.

The proliferation of automobiles has significantly affected urban design, technological advancement, mass tourism, and daily human activities since the 20th century.
Current societal concerns about sustainability make automobile usage a critical issue.
Literature on urban sustainability focuses on developing and measuring sustainability indicators. Prior works establish system approaches for urban ecosystem balances.
This study narrows down to public transport vs. automobiles, analyzing sustainability from economic, environmental, and social perspectives.
GTA Overview: This urban region includes the City of Toronto and surrounding municipalities of Durham, Halton, Peel, and York, with varying density and transportation systems.

Definition of Sustainable Urban Development: Given by Richardson (1989) as a change process fostering economic growth while conserving resources and promoting health.
The study includes external interactions (e.g., trade) in assessing urban sustainability.
Utilizes urban metabolism and sustainability indicators to evaluate transportation's impact in the GTA.
Expresses economic, environmental, and social impacts through region-wide transport metrics.

Economic sustainability underlines trade maintenance with neighbouring regions and innovation over imports.
The GTA’s traded economy includes a significant transportation sector.
In 1993, the automobile industry contributed $4.6 billion to the GTA’s trade, establishing Toronto as a major North American automobile center.
- Distribution services add $7.1 billion to the traded economy.
Traffic analysis indicates increases in morning peak period trips and truck trips over time.
Transportation costs remain significant, impacting residents' living costs (15.1% to 18.2% of total consumption from 1982 to 1997).
- Average household spent $7,156 on transportation in 1997, affecting local economy's production costs.

Analysis through combined private and public spending, focusing on historical costs from 1988-1998.
- Automobile Costs: Dominated by private expenses including new purchases and fuel, with public expenditure on roads being smaller.
- Total automobile costs rose from $10.1 billion in 1988 to $15.8 billion in 1998.
- In 1996, public transport spending was $1.21 billion for local transit and $0.23 billion for GO transit, heavily concentrated in the City of Toronto.
Cost Comparison (1996): Average trip costs were calculated, showing local transit as the cheapest ($2.87/trip) versus automobiles ($5.17/trip) and GO transit ($7.49/trip).
Costs per person-km: GO transit $0.24, local transit $0.35, automobiles $0.55.

Misaligned comparison between internal (usage costs) and traded (production value) figures complicates cost analysis.
External Costs: Estimated using retailer and wholesaler cost analysis reflecting external market interactions.
Value of automobile production in the GTA is close to $4.6 billion, maintaining external costs proportional.

Air Pollution Indicators: Toronto's emissions of key pollutants are higher than US averages.
Epidemiological studies link these emissions to significant health issues, including estimated premature deaths attributable to pollutants.
Automobile emissions account for a significant portion of CO, NOx, and VOC emissions.
Electric Transportation: Public transit modes have lower energy footprints but still contribute to environmental degradation indirectly through power generation.

Energy use by transit modes (e.g., TTC streetcars, subways) corroborates their lesser direct pollution compared to automobiles.
Sustainability Considerations: Greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity generation, particularly involving fossil fuel sources in Ontario.

Transportation impacts social dimensions such as access, employment, and public well-being.
Characteristics like traffic noise, social interaction, and employment patterns are considered relevant indicators.

Automobiles provide superior service quality, affecting residential preferences.
Differences in travel speeds (automobiles vs. transit) illustrated via simulations show lower average speeds for public transit, limiting accessibility.

Insurance costs detail automobile-related social impacts; the total premium for automobile insurance ranges from $1.8 to $2.3 billion annually, with significant claims for property damage and personal injury.
Road safety statistics highlight ongoing accidents and increasing injury rates.

The GTA transportation sector provides significant employment opportunities.
67,100 employed in automobile manufacturing; TTC and GO Transit employ over 10,000 and 1,011 people respectively.
Long-term sustainability concerns raise questions about the nature of employment linked to automobile dependence.

Urban transport sustainability reflects conflicts among economic, environmental, and social indicators.
Public transportation is seen as better for environmental sustainability, while automobile use presents a higher level of service.
Strategies for improvement must navigate both public transport enhancement and urban design changes to alleviate automobile dependency.
Proposals include increasing bicycle use, enhancing public transportation flexibility, and integrating transit systems with bicycling infrastructures.

Extensive literature citations from various publications and studies relevant to urban sustainability and transportation.