Transportation

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 459–493 | Cite as

A comparison of the sustainability of public and private transportation systems: Study of the Greater Toronto Area

  • Christopher A. Kennedy
Article

Abstract

A macroscopic assessment of the impacts of private and public transportation systems on the sustainability of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is undertaken from economic, environmental and social perspectives. The methodology draws upon the urban metabolism and sustainability indicators approaches to assessing urban sustainability, but compares modes in terms of passenger-kms. In assessing the economic sustainability of a city, transportation should be recognized as a product, a driver and a cost. In 1993, the traded costs of automobile use in the GTA were approximately balanced by the value of the automobile parts and assembly industry. But local transit costs 1/3 to 1/6 of the auto costs per person-km, in traded dollars, mainly because local labour is the primary cost.Public transportation is more sustainable from an environmental perspective. Automobile emissions are a major contributor to air pollution, which is a serious contemporary environmental health problem in Toronto. Public transportation modes are less energy intensive (including indirect energy consumption) and produce CO2 at an order of magnitude lower, although these benefits are partially undermined by under-utilization of transit capacity and the source of electricity generation.The social benefits of automobile use are likely more significant than costs in determining GTA residents' preferential mode choice. The speed and access of auto use provide important economic benefits, e.g. relating to employment and product choice. Nevertheless, offsetting the service attributes of private transportation are large social costs in terms of accidents. The costs of automobile insurance provide one tangible measure of such negative impacts.In order to improve the sustainability of the GTA, innovative approaches are required for improving the performance level of public transportation or substantially reducing the need for the service level provided by automobiles. Efforts such as greater integration of bicycles with public transit, or construction of light-rail systems in wide roadways, might be considered. But to be sustainable overall, a transportation system has to be flexible and adaptable and so must combine a mixture of modes.

automobiles Greater Toronto Area public transportation sustainable cities sustainable transportation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alberti M (1996) Measuring urban sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16: 381-424.Google Scholar
  2. Allport RJ & Thomson JM (1990) Study of Mass Rapid Transit in Developing Countries. Report 188. Crowthorne, UK: Transport Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  3. Appleyard D & Lintell M (1972) The environmental quality of city streets: The residents' viewpoint. J American Institute of Planners 38: 84-101.Google Scholar
  4. Badoe DA & Miller EJ (2000) Transportation-land-use interaction: Empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling. Transportation Research Part D, 235-263.Google Scholar
  5. Banister D & Berechman J (2000) Transport Investment and Economic Development. London: UCL Press, 370 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Bockstael NR, Freeman AM, Kopp RJ, Portney PR & Smith VK (2000) On Measuring Economic Values for Nature. Environmental Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  7. Broadbent DE (1979) Human performance and noise. In: Harris CM (ed) Handbook of Noise Control. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  8. Burnett RT, Cakmak S & Brooke JR (1998) The effect of the urban ambient air pollution mix on daily mortality rates in 11 Canadian cities. Canadian Journal of Public Health 89(3).Google Scholar
  9. City of Toronto (1991) The changing atmosphere: Strategies for reducing CO2 emissions. Special advisory committee report on the Environment, report number 2.Google Scholar
  10. City of Toronto (1998) Toronto's ecological footprint, www.city.toronto.on.ca/energy/footprint.htm.Google Scholar
  11. City of Toronto (2000) Clean, Green and Healthy: A Plan for an Environmentally Sustainable Toronto.Google Scholar
  12. Costanza R et al. (1997) Nature 387: 253-260.Google Scholar
  13. Douglas I (1983) The Urban Environment. London: Edward Holder.Google Scholar
  14. Duffy H (1995) Competitive Cities, Succeeding in the Global Economy. London: E & F.N. Spon, p 195.Google Scholar
  15. Employment and Immigration Canada (1988) Canadian Automotive Repair and Service Industry. Ottawa: A Human Resources Study, 77 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Environment Canada (1998) Canadian Passenger Transportation SOE technical supplement No. 98-5.Google Scholar
  17. Florida R (2000) Competing in the Age of Talent: Quality of Place and the New Economy, report prepared for the R.K. Mellon Foundation, Heinz Endowments and Sustainable Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  18. GTA Task Force (1996) Greater Toronto Report of the GTA Task Force. Publications Ontario.Google Scholar
  19. Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB) ( 2000) Removing roadblocks to continued economic prosperity for the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario and Canada: A strategic transportation plan for the GTA and Hamilton-Wentworth.Google Scholar
  20. Haughton G & Hunter C (1994) Sustainable Cities. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers and Regional Studies Association.Google Scholar
  21. Jacobs J (1985) Cities and the Wealth of Nations: Principles of Economic Life. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  22. Jalowica K & Vanderburg WH (1989) The Social-Psychological Effects of the Built Environment as Infrastructure, research guide prepared by the Centre for Technology and Social Development, Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  23. Joint Program in Transportation (1996) Transportation Tomorrow Survey. University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  24. Kenworthy J (1991) The land use/transit connection in Toronto: Some lessons for Australian cities. Australian Planner 29(3): 149-154.Google Scholar
  25. Maclaren VW (1996) Developing Indicators of Urban Sustainability: A Focus on the Canadian Experience. Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research.Google Scholar
  26. Mohan D & Tiwari G (1999) Sustainable transportsystems: Linkages between environmental issues, public transport, non-motorized transport and safety. Economic and Political Weekly XXXIV(25): 1589-1596.Google Scholar
  27. Newcomb K, Kalma JD & Aston AR (1978) The metabolism of a city: The case of Hong Kong. Ambro 7: 3-15.Google Scholar
  28. Newman P & Kenworthy J (1999) Sustainability and Cities, Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Washington, DC: Island Press, 442 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Oak Ridges National Laboratory (1998) Scenarios of US Carbon Reduction and Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies.Google Scholar
  30. Ontario Clean Air Alliance (1998) Electricity Competition and Clean Air.Google Scholar
  31. Ontario Hydro (1994) Sustainable Development Environmental Performance Report.Google Scholar
  32. Ontario Safety Research Office (1994) The Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Ontario. Publications Ontario.Google Scholar
  33. Pushkarev B & Zupan J (1980) Urban Rail in America. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rabinovitch J & Leitman J (1996) Urban Planning in Curitiba: A Brazilian city challenges conventional wisdom and relies on low technology to improve the quality of urban life. Scientific American, March issue.Google Scholar
  35. Rai K (2000) A Performance Study for Toronto Transit Systems. Bachelors' Thesis, University of Toronto, Department of Civil Engineering.Google Scholar
  36. Rampersaad A (2000) Establishing the Total Costs of Automobile Based Transportation for the Greater Toronto Area. Bachelors' Thesis, University of Toronto, Department of Civil Engineering.Google Scholar
  37. Richardson NH (1989) Land Use Planning and Sustainable Development in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Advisory Council.Google Scholar
  38. Ridley MA (1995) World Bank Experiences with Mass Transit Projects. Washington DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  39. Soberman R (1997) Rethinking Urban Transportation: Lessons from Toronto. University of Toronto, Department of Civil Engineering.Google Scholar
  40. Socolow R (1997) Fuels Decarbonization and Carbon Sequestering. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Toronto Public Health Department (2000) Air Pollution Burden of Illness in Toronto-Summary Report.Google Scholar
  42. Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) (2000) personal communication.Google Scholar
  43. Wackernagel M & Rees W (1996) Our Ecological Footprint-Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Webber MM (1976) The BART experience-what have we learned? The Public Interest 79-108.Google Scholar
  45. Wilbur Smith & Associates (1988) Metropolitan Toronto Area Transportation Energy Study. Summary Report.Google Scholar
  46. Wright RW (2000) The Evolving Physical Condition of the Greater Toronto Area: Space, Form and Change. Toronto: Neptis Foundation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher A. Kennedy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations