[Bigtime]

I just found this over at the Calgary Herald, thought it would be a great topic to discuss country wide.

Canadians increasingly dependent on their cars

Shannon Proudfoot
Canwest News Service

Tuesday, January 22, 2008


Even as more Canadians profess concern for the environment and live in urban areas with access to better public transit, car dependence continues to rise.

In 1992, 68 per cent of Canadians aged 18 and over drove everywhere, according to a new report from Statistics Canada. By 1998, that proportion was 70 per cent. In 2005, the most recent year for which numbers are available, 74 per cent of Canadians were full-time drivers. Walking and cycling rates, meanwhile, are dropping.

Where people live makes a significant difference in their car dependency. Residents of central urban neighbourhoods are less likely to drive than those living further from the city centre or in small towns and rural areas.

Edmonton and Calgary residents are the most car-dependent in Canada's major cities, with 77 and 75 per cent of them making all their trips by car. At 65 per cent, Montreal residents are least likely to get behind the wheel.

The report - based on time-use data from the 2005 General Social Survey - also reveals that men are more likely to drive than women, with 81 per cent of them driving in a given day, compared to 66 per cent of women. Baby boomers aged 45 to 54 are 2.5 times more likely to drive than young adults aged 18 to 24.

People with children aged five to 12 are 1.6 times more likely to drive than those without children, and more likely to run errands and make trips during the day regardless of how they travel.

© Canwest News Service 2008
________________________________________________________________

So what do you think? Any truth to it where you live? I'd have to agree with the fact that Calgary is in one of the top spots, although we are slowly making steps in the right direction we have a long way to go to turn the tide.

[MrChills]

This doesn't suprise me... On a related note, its funny how most Canadians have their nose in the air when it relates to the envirnonment, we feel like we are a "green nation" and we are so quick to point fingers at the US and their destructive lifestlyes, when compared on a per capita basis we are just as bad or most times worst then they are across many areas. We rank extremly high in the world when it comes to car ownership per 1000 people of our population also. The federal government needs to work more with the municipalities to increase the funding and availability of public transit

Highest Car Ownership (per 1000 population) - source The Economist (2007)

1. New Zealand - 619
2. Luxembourg - 574
3. Canada - 564
4. Iceland - 557
5. Italy - 547
6. Germany - 546
7. Switzerland - 521
8. Malta - 518
9. Austria - 500
10. France - 492
11. Belgium - 473
12. United States - 468
13. Sweden - 458
14. Spain - 455
15. Slovenia - 445

[clynnog]

In 1992, 68 per cent of Canadians aged 18 and over drove everywhere, according to a new report from Statistics Canada. By 1998, that proportion was 70 per cent. In 2005, the most recent year for which numbers are available, 74 per cent of Canadians were full-time drivers. Walking and cycling rates, meanwhile, are dropping.
Edmonton and Calgary residents are the most car-dependent in Canada's major cities, with 77 and 75 per cent of them making all their trips by car. At 65 per cent, Montreal residents are least likely to get behind the wheel.


No matter how you spin it, the stats are depressing. I wonder what the %'s would be if you removed the rural and disabled and non-mobile proportion. Many children these days go to school via a school bus and then get shunted via car to after school activities.

Montreal with its relatively dense core, its underground city, high % of renters (many of whom have poor parking choices) seems to be doing well compared to others. It would be interesting to see the #'s in the "City" of Montreal vs the greater Montreal area; ditto for Toronto, and other large Canadian cities.

I also wonder how much of it is climate related.

[Boris2k7]

This doesn't suprise me... On a related note, its funny how most Canadians have their nose in the air when it relates to the envirnonment, we feel like we are a "green nation" and we are so quick to point fingers at the US and their destructive lifestlyes, when compared on a per capita basis we are just as bad or most times worst then they are across many areas.

Pretty much. Re:

Canada vs. the OECD : An Environmental Comparison (http://www.environmentalindicators.com/htdocs/PDF/FullReport.pdf)

The results prove that Canada has one of the poorest environmental records of the industrialized countries. The primary finding is that for the twenty-five environmental indicators examined, Canada’s overall ranking among OECD nations is a dismal 28th out of 29.

[miketoronto]

Sad, sad, sad stats. But it is to be expected as Canada stops putting focus on the core cities and downtowns of our cities, and instead promotes more suburban edge cities and growth.

The only saving grace is transit ridership is also growing. But it is all related to the city. If people are not going into the city as much as before, then transit ridership is going to lag, as suburb to suburb trips just can not be met as well with transit.

I wonder how that stat is calculated though. Because in most Canadian cities, even is a large number of people drive for most of their trips, there is also a large number of drivers who take transit for some trips.

I know in Toronto's case, even among drivers, something like 68% of residents use transit atleast twice a month. And something like 40 or 50% use it on a regular basis. Just it does not count for every single trip.

I also think the % of people using transit in places like Calgary is going up. But is only something like 14% of work trips or something.

[vid]

Ontario is having a contest where, if you quit smoking, you can win a car.

Which is great! Instead of a small stick that emits a tiny amount of toxic smoke for five minutes, you get a gigantic metal thing that can kill people AND emits about 600 times as much toxic smoke as a cigarette in the same amount of time!! Oh, but cigarettes are so bad!! :eek:

In one garage is 100 chain smokers. In another is a running car. Pick one. (I bet it will be the former.)

[LordMandeep]

however do not assume everyone who drives does not ever ever take transit.

Go transit ridership is exploding due to well... large parking capacities at their stations meaning higher capacity.

[KrisYYC]

This in another example of how so many Canadians act like owning a 4 bedroom house on a 1/2 acre lot is some kind of human right. Of course, they're same ones bitching that traffic sucks.

It's so funny how so many Canadians act all morally superior to Americans, when in reality most are exactly the same.

[Cambridgite]

The only saving grace is transit ridership is also growing. But it is all related to the city. If people are not going into the city as much as before, then transit ridership is going to lag, as suburb to suburb trips just can not be met as well with transit.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/89-613-MIE/89-613-MIE2005007.pdf

Here's an interesting, 68 page report on the changing commuting patterns in Canada's 8 largest CMAs. The findings show that, generally, suburb-to-suburb commutes and reverse commutes are the fastest growing types of commuting. The traditional commute downtown from the suburbs is losing relative importance.

[Boris2k7]

http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/89-613-MIE/89-613-MIE2005007.pdf

Here's an interesting, 68 page report on the changing commuting patterns in Canada's 8 largest CMAs. The findings show that, generally, suburb-to-suburb commutes and reverse commutes are the fastest growing types of commuting. The traditional commute downtown from the suburbs is losing relative importance.

Not surprising. That's been the general trend across North America for the past 50 years.

[miketoronto]

Not surprising. That's been the general trend across North America for the past 50 years.

Not it has not been the trend for the past 50 years. And it is a trend Canada must get out of pretty quick, to save transit use, and our cities from the drastic effects of sprawl.

Transit ridership is tied with the core city. And the Stats Canada report shows that.

Toronto up till the 1990's, was actually very good at making sure most jobs were located in the core downtown and surrounding area. What this meant was that as late as 1989, approx 45% of residents even in the suburbs(METRO suburbs) where taking public transit to work.
Since the 1990's, we have seen massive suburban employment growth instead of a focus on the city, and guess what? Transit ridership % wise is not as high as before.

We have got to focus on our cities again. That is why Calgary is seeing growing transit use. Because they are putting the focus on their downtown again.

It is city workers according to Stats Canada that is keeping transit ridership stable in most Canadian cities.

The suburb to suburb commutes are killing our cities and transit use. And it has got to stop.

[Boris2k7]

Oh, come on Mike. Even if our downtowns have stayed relatively strong in comparison to American downtowns, there's been a slow bleeding in both. They just did it faster by building freeways all over the place.

As for the rest of your post, I think you are preaching to the converted...

[401_King]

i havent used my car since early december...i miss my 401 =D

[ReginaGuy]

I drive once a week!

[Doady]

Highest Car Ownership (per 1000 population)[/B] - source The Economist (2007)

1. New Zealand - 619
2. Luxembourg - 574
3. Canada - 564
4. Iceland - 557
5. Italy - 547
6. Germany - 546
7. Switzerland - 521
8. Malta - 518
9. Austria - 500
10. France - 492
11. Belgium - 473
12. United States - 468
13. Sweden - 458
14. Spain - 455
15. Slovenia - 445

That doesn't mean anything. Canada and France and all those other Euro countries are more car-dependent than the US?? Give me a break.

My guess is that the higher car ownership in these cases are the result of having an older population, i.e. a higher proportion of the total population that can drive. The United States is lower on that list because it has one of the highest birth rates, if not THE highest, of all the developed countries and therefore has a younger population.

And of course, simply having less cars per capita doesn't necessarily mean that a county is less car-dependent because, for example, there is also a choice between public transit and getting a ride in someone else's car, which is still car-dependence. And it is clear that the US has MUCH lower levels of public transit usage than even Canada, let alone the European countries.

[miketoronto]

People can own cars, and not use them for every trip. So Europeans can own tons of cars. But it does not mean they are in them for everything.
Same goes for Canadian cities. The majority of transit riders in our cities actually do have access to a car whenever they want, but choose transit for some trips.
This is one of the segments we need to get more of onto transit.

These stats are so sad sometimes. Makes you wonder if we will ever build a balanced transport network again. People just won't ride transit.

On the other hand, we could show stats that show transit has a huge impact in Canada's cities. Something like 35% of Toronto residents(including the suburban sector) use transit to get to work everyday. So that could be seen as a good thing.

But sometimes you just do wonder if anything can be done about it. My biggest shocker is my urban planning professor. He is always saying how transit is important and you have to design cities around transit, and how all the great neighbourhood are the walkable transit neighbourhoods. And yet how does he get to work? He drives, eventhough he lives only 5KM from campus and lives on the same streetcar route that our campus is on. If the urban planners are not even taking transit, you gotta start to wonder what is happening in Canada :)

Also our urban design is key here. Our new suburbs are not like the older suburbs that actually had more transit friendly design, even if they seemed pretty sprawly.

[big W]

Highest Car Ownership (per 1000 population) - source The Economist (2007)

1. New Zealand - 619
2. Luxembourg - 574
3. Canada - 564
4. Iceland - 557
5. Italy - 547
6. Germany - 546
7. Switzerland - 521
8. Malta - 518
9. Austria - 500
10. France - 492
11. Belgium - 473
12. United States - 468
13. Sweden - 458
14. Spain - 455
15. Slovenia - 445

THis does not mean a thing. I own 2 cars and walk to work every day. I walk to the grocery/video/restaurants/pubs etc. Basically I own the 2 cars but only drive once or 2 times a week.

[Monetto]

from the perspective of the urban environment, yet, car dependence is really bad.
however, from an environmentalist perspective, the production of a car actually causes some 15x more damage than the total emissions during the car's entire lifespan. I'd say that car production is much more harmful than car dependence.

[Ruckus]

Forgive me if this post jumps around too much, a bit of a brainstorm session...

Speaking as a suburban dweller and someone who owns a vehicle (vehicle use is 40-50% of total trips per week). I utilize transit when convenient; 30 minute frequency doesn't suffice, if I had 15 minute frequency and reasonable service on weekends, trips by personal vehicle would be closer to 10% of total trips per week.

Vehicle ownership is also tied to auto manufacturers marketing campaigns and 0% financing provided through dealerships, as well as low interest loans provided by banks.

I know this seems obvious to most, but public transit needs to progress it's image towards mainstream, an "everyone's doing it" approach, popularize it. Not only should they assert such a position with clever marketing, but also make strategic investments to increase frequency of service, comfort elements (seating, internet access, food service?)...but an important question creeps up, do transit operators (cities) really have the $$$ to compete with the marketing budgets of large auto manufacturers, or $$$ to invest in upgrades to improve service? Seems $$$ is a sticking point for those of us hoping for a boost to public transit systems.

The cold weather is a factor for those who despise wearing layers, can transit improve upon existing infrastructure (bus shelters, no bus shelters, heat, lights, security, seating)?

I'm not sure if this would increase ridership (may also increase revenue for operators): Perhaps sections of a bus can be divided into defined user spaces (Segments: sleepers; readers; talkers; web surfing; and others). Implementation might be tricky, but the aviation industry or passenger rail industry have some models we can build upon.

Our manufacturing base is depleting, and we are progressing towards knowledge based industries, how can public transit better assist or support a knowledge based economy? Mobile lectures, learning sessions, perhaps documentaries or other informative elements can be incorporated. Should transportation systems really be about getting from point A to point B? What happens between point A and point B, especially when that period is greater than 30 minutes?

Knowledge workers also need downtime, relaxation, escapes away from everything, perhaps public transit can provide an outlet for escaping (similar to those who commute alone in their car, truck, or van).

Just as paved highways support the movement of freight, and utilities provide the necessary elements to initiate and sustain productive functions, so too should public transit serve a vital role in sustaining but also initiating knowledge based operations.

Also worth mentioning as did previous posters, the layout of our developed and developing suburban communities hinder public transit's ability to work effectively. How do we address this? By building employment/retail centers closer to suburbs (already occurring in larger cities); design neighborhoods with transit use as front and center (TOD projects in larger cities); make policy require greater density development within existing and future communities (prepare for NIMBYISM!).

Several of the above mentioned issues are related primarily to my experiences in Saskatoon, and to a lesser extent Calgary.

[waterloowarrior]

No matter how you spin it, the stats are depressing. I wonder what the %'s would be if you removed the rural and disabled and non-mobile proportion. Many children these days go to school via a school bus and then get shunted via car to after school activities.

Montreal with its relatively dense core, its underground city, high % of renters (many of whom have poor parking choices) seems to be doing well compared to others. It would be interesting to see the #'s in the "City" of Montreal vs the greater Montreal area; ditto for Toronto, and other large Canadian cities.

I also wonder how much of it is climate related.

here is the link to the study
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-008-XIE/2008001/article/10503-en.htm

check out table 2

here are some charts

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-008-XIE/2008001/charts/10503/chart1-en.gif

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-008-XIE/2008001/charts/10503/chart2-en.gif

[miketoronto]

I thinkt his issue has to be looked at more then just people not taking public transit.
People are not using any form of alternative modes of transport. Be it walking, biking, or transit.

What is it in our society now a days that people don't even want to take a 10min walk to the milk store, or bank?

Yes many of us live in suburban areas. But even in most suburban Canadian communities, you can walk to some places. May not be the most pleasent walk, but you can do it. Yet people will won't walk, bike, or bus it.

Design has a lot to do with it. But I also think attitudes are the biggest problem that we need to look at overcoming.
Forget the bus for a second and think of other things like why do people hate walking :)

These are big issues that need to be discussed, because it is impacting people's very health, and communities.

People don't need to give up their cars fully. But really, there are many trips that people do not need to be tied to a car for, even in suburban areas of our cities.

[Perspective123]

Yes many of us live in suburban areas. But even in most suburban Canadian communities, you can walk to some places. May not be the most pleasent walk, but you can do it. Yet people will won't walk, bike, or bus it.


In my area next to no one walks anywhere at all. If I walk say to the nearest corner store, I will literally have atleast 5 people who will say to me later that they saw me walking and will ask why I didn't drive the distance instead. There are people here so in love with their automobile that I can't ever envision a time or situation where they would take public transit, bike or walk as an alternative. I'm not exactly sure why, but I think GM has a lot to do with it.