[LINK] "Commuting snapshots across the Spacing map"

[rfmcdonald]

Spacing's Emily Richardson wrote an analysis of commuting of four Canadian cities using Statistics Canada data: Toronto, Ottawa, Montréal, and Halifax. The results are quite interesting. 70% or more of commuters in those cities use cars; increasing population density reduces the number of single-occupant vehicles but doesn't have much effect on the number of non-drivers, save in Halifax where the population density is so low that any growth; and, the availability of other means of commuting doesn't necessarily mean that they will be taken up. A great example of this is in Montréal, where despite having nearly ten times as many metres of bike lane per square kilometre as Toronto, the increase in the number of cyclists is marginal. Richardson's concludes, despite the fairly simple and not especially rigourous data she used in her study, something interesting is going on.

I would have loved to write about the kilometres of bike lanes per square-km; sadly only Montreal would have been greater than one. And to be fair, although Halifax and Toronto have somewhat comparable total areas (5,495.62 and 5,903.63 square-km, respectively), Toronto has vastly more bike-lane-suitable stretches of road, suggesting that its 90 km of bike lanes lags disproportionately to Halifax’s 70. Montreal’s bike network is far and away the most extensive of the four cities, but Montreal also has the greatest number of drivers of the four cities (by a 0.25% margin over Toronto). And even though a demarcated lane is a victory for most advocates of multi-modal transportation, in and of themselves, they do not appear make cycling easier. Ottawa, for example, with its 150 km of bike lanes, laments a number of concerns with on-road lanes, such as lanes ending in the middle of two merging roads.

This raises the question not whether lanes are worthwhile in encouraging cycling, but what programs and policies (e.g. bike-sharing, mandatory shower facilities in new commercial buildings), infrastructure (e.g. divided bike lanes and covered racks), incentives (corporate tax breaks based on percentage of employees who commute by foot or bicycle), and disincentives (gas and congestion taxes) ought to be coupled with lanes to encourage commuting by bicycle.

And more broadly, perhaps the question is not why we take the bus, walk, or cycle so little, but ratherwhy we drive so much. Each of these cities is served by a transit system, and although progress may be slower than many prefer, each is making efforts to increase bike-friendliness. Is it because transit planning can’t keep up with sprawl? Or is it because these cities are just too big to serve widely through alternate transportation? Is it because we would only change when we had to start paying for road congestion and air pollution? Or in the end, could it be that despite the rhetoric for more bike lanes and bus routes, we really do love to drive?

Commenters make great observations about the statistics she uses, most arguing that she needs to use data which go into greater detail on districts within cities. Links are included.