A Comparison of the Sustainability of Public and Private Transportation Systems: Study of the Greater Toronto Area

Transcription

1 A Comparison of the Sustainability of Public and Private Transportation Systems: Study of the Greater Toronto Area Dr. Christopher A. Kennedy, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 35 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. M5S 1A4. October 2001 Keywords: sustainable transportation; sustainable cities; public transportation; automobiles; Greater Toronto Area Christopher Kennedy is an Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Toronto. His research is concerned with the provision of infrastructure for sustainable cities, including transportation systems, water systems and green buildings. 1

2 A Comparison of the Sustainability of Public and Private Transportation Systems: Study of the Greater Toronto Area 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 CO 2 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. 1.0 Introduction The automobile has had a dramatic impact on society during the twentieth century. Its proliferation has altered the design of cities, accelerated further technological growth, opened up mass tourism industries, and changed the way in which people go about regular activities, such as shopping, travel to work and basic social interaction. Nevertheless, as significant concerns are raised about the sustainability of modern society, the extent of automobile usage stands out as a particularly crucial issue (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). Consequently there is a renewed interest in alternative forms of transportation and perhaps a need for greater use of public transportation systems, especially in urban areas. As understanding of the serious consequences of current living style has increased, a body of literature concerned with the sustainability of cities has developed. Much of this work has focussed on the important task of developing and measuring sustainability indicators for cities (Alberti, 1996; Maclaren, 1996). Others have established a systems approach for describing the energy, water and material balances of urban ecosystems (Newcomb et al., 1978; Douglas, 1983; Alberti, 1996). 2

3 Building upon this literature, this paper takes a narrower, but more integrative approach. It focuses on a specific issue public transportation vs. privately owned automobiles and assesses the sustainability of the alternatives from economic, environmental and social perspectives. In doing so the work attempts to better define the links between sustainability measures, so that the impacts of decision makers might potentially be greater understood. The Greater Toronto Area (GTA), which serves as the focus for this study, is comprised of the new City of Toronto (formerly Metropolitan Toronto) and the surrounding regional municipalities of Durham, Halton, Peel and York, located in southern Ontario, Canada (Fig. 1). The City of Toronto, with a high population density and efficient public transport system, has been noted by some as a rare example of well-designed North American city (Kenworthy, 1991; Soberman, 1997). However, 2.2 million of the GTA s 4.6 million inhabitants live in the municipalities of the surrounding city-region, which has sprawled akin to many other cities over the past few decades. The outer municipalities are served by a Government of Ontario rail and bus service (GO transit). Nevertheless, the predominant mode of transport is the automobile; the network of highways running through the GTA includes the 401, which may be one of the busiest stretches of highway in North America during peak hours (Soberman, 1997). Construction of a second outer highway, the 407, began in 1993; the main section is now complete. While all five regions have local public transportation systems, the City of Toronto s network of subways, streetcars and buses, operated by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), is the most extensive. The overall objective of this paper is to present a macroscopic assessment of the sustainability of transportation systems in a city region. In examining the sustainability of the GTA s transport options the work draws upon other detailed studies and government statistics, which previously have only been assessed separately. The economic analysis first highlights the importance of the transportation sector as a product, a driver and a cost of the economy. A detailed comparison of the historical costs of public and private transportation then ensues, from the perspective of the region as an economic unit. An attempt is made to calculate the net economic gain to the region from its production in the transportation sector of the economy and the costs of utilizing transportation. With respect to the environment, the problem of air pollution relating to automobile use is first examined. Looking beyond current environmental health problems, the GTA s position with respect to long-term intergenerational sustainability issues: resource depletion, greenhouse gas emissions and reduction in biodiversity, is assessed. From the social perspective the analysis focuses on tangible measures of sustainability, although it recognizes that many social impacts of transportation are difficult to study on a regional scale. The levels of service, access, mobility and speed provided by competing transportation modes are highlighted as social measures of sustainability. Insurance costs, traffic accident statistics and employment are also important considerations. The study demonstrates that the use of public transportation in the GTA is quantifiably more sustainable than private automobile use from an environmental perspective. However, the net social and economic benefits of automobile use, while less quantifiably clear, are of significance to the region. 2.0 Assessing the Role of Transportation in Urban Sustainability This study is concerned with quantifying, where possible, the role of transportation in the sustainability of an urban region. Sustainable urban development is a broad concept. Richardson (1989) defines it as a process of change in the built environment which fosters economic development while conserving resources and promoting the health of the individual, the community and the ecosystem. 3

4 While assessment of urban sustainability primarily involves analysis of a specific urban region, such an assessment also has to include interactions beyond the city region, such as trade and contribution to global air pollution. This perspective is captured by Haughton & Hunter s (1994) definition of a sustainable city as one in which its people and businesses continuously endeavour to improve their natural, built and cultural environments at neighbourhood and regional levels, whilst working in ways which always support the goal of global sustainable development. The methodology of this study draws in part from the urban metabolism and indicator approaches to assessing sustainability (Alberti, 1996). Pertinent measures are established for the economic, environmental and social impacts of transportation in the GTA (Fig. 2). Several of these measures are expressed in terms of the total regional inputs or outputs for a transportation mode, such as energy use and pollutant emissions. The economic analysis also looks at transportation costs from the perspective of the region and its population as a whole. In this macroeconomic perspective, the value of the GTA s trade relating to transportation is quantified, as well as internal costs associated with the transportation systems. However, in order to make a fair comparison of the competing public and private modes, several of the macro-scale quantities are expressed in terms of person-kms of travel. The separation of economic, environmental and social dimensions in the assessment is somewhat artificial, although methodologically useful. There is clear overlap between the dimensions in some areas. For example, the impacts of social and environmental characteristics of cities on their economic competitiveness has been the focus of several recent studies. The ability to attract companies to a city has obvious economic benefits. It requires more than just site space for offices, or manufacturing or investment grants. Companies are attracted to cities for many reasons: cultural pursuits, shopping facilities, public transport, sporting features, ease of access to pleasant suburbs and villages, skills and education of the people (Duffy, 1995). Florida (2000) notes that to attract knowledge workers and build high technology economies, regions must make the quality of place and the amenities of the new economy central elements to their strategies Economic Sustainability The economic sustainability of a city depends upon its ability to maintain a healthy trade with neighbouring regions and other cities, in an increasingly global context. Jacobs (1985) argues that the economic life of cities develops by the process of import-replacement; cities keep their economies up to date by gradually replacing imports with their own more innovative production, thus creating new items for export; meanwhile cities will lose business to other cities as these cities innovate or companies move locations. Overall growth occurs because as one city loses export sales of one product it tends to gain the equivalent value in new exports. Cities that fail to innovate will decline. The process of trade between cities is complicated by the actions of corporations and governments. In the 1999 U.S. Fortune 500 survey, seven U.S. corporations made revenues in excess of $100 billion (Canadian), which is the approximate total income of residents of the GTA (Fig. 3). These seven included General Motors and the Ford Motor Company, with revenues of $280 billion (US. $189 billion) and $240 billion (US. $163 billion) respectively. The trading power that such corporations posses is not just a matter of size, but organization. In contrast, the GTA consists of five separate regional municipalities, each with limited jurisdictional power, which are given, and may be taken away, by the Provincial government (Duffy, 1995). Consequently, agreements between corporations and government, such as the 1965 US/Canada Auto Pact, have significantly impacted the nature of the GTA economy (GTA Task Force, 1996). 4

5 In assessing the strengths of the GTA economy particular importance should be attached to the traded economy, in which the transportation sector features significantly (GTA Task Force, 1996). In 1993, the automobile industry accounted for $4.6 billion of the GTA s total $38.5 billion trade (Table 1), making Toronto the second largest automobile centre in North America, after Detroit. The automobile industry is clearly important for the area s economy. Furthermore, vehicle assembly plants exist at several other locations in south-western Ontario, including Alliston, Cambridge and Windsor. It is also relevant to note that a large contribution to the GTA s traded economy, $7.1 billion in 1993, comes from distribution services, which includes communications, air, truck, rail, warehousing, logistics and pipelines. Economic activity within the GTA is supported by its transportation system. From 1986 to 1996, morning peak period traffic increased from 1.9 to 2.3 million person-trips on a typical weekday (Joint Program in Transportation, 1996). It is expected to increase 50% over the next 25 years (GTSB, 2000). Furthermore, an average of 248,100 truck trips per day are made within the City of Toronto alone (City of Toronto, 2000). Nevertheless, in addition to being a significant driver of trade, transportation is also a large component of the costs of living in the GTA, which may have implications for the costs of production. Between 1982 and 1997 transportation spending fluctuated between 15.1% and 18.2% of the total consumption by families and unattached individuals (Fig. 4). These costs, e.g., $7,156 per household in 1997, may be passed on to employers in the area through employee wage expectations, and so possibly impact the costs of production and the competitiveness of the city. The key to understanding the role of transportation in the economic sustainability of a city is to recognize it as a product, a driver and a cost to the economy. If these components can be quantified, then any imbalance should be seen as an area for potential innovation both political and technological. The first and third of these components can be quantified; these are the value of transportation-related production in the region and the net cost of purchasing and operating transportation vehicles. The difference between the two is a sort of regional balance of payments for the transportation-related sector. The second component the value of transportation as a driver of economic activity - is important, but less quantifiable. It is clear that access and mobility play an important role in the economic functioning of a city, linking suppliers, producers, services and consumers. However, robust methods for valuing the economic impacts of transportation infrastructure have yet to be developed (Banister and Berechman, 2000). This is partly because it is difficult to separate the relative contributions of capital, labour and infrastructure in the economy. Also, of particular relevance to this paper, it is hard to separate the contributions of public and private transportation in the economy, since the two are so integrated; use of one relieves congestion on the other. The inability to put a value on transportation as a driver of the economy is a limitation of the current work. Nevertheless, differences in the levels of accessibility and speed of public transportation and auto use are quantified as social measures in section Costs of Public and Private Transportation The first component of this sustainability analysis is to compute the absolute costs of alternative transportation modes. Such calculations involve several methodological considerations. The first calculations aim to establish transportation costs to the residents of the GTA through combined private and public expenditures. The analysis mainly considers historical spending over the period , although capital costs over a longer time period are examined to account for long-term fluctuations in 5

6 infrastructure investment. Some of the costs had to be estimated based on provincial data, since there is no statistical agency for the GTA. In particular, new car sales, fuel sales and repair and maintenance costs are based on the percentage of Ontario automobiles that are registered in the GTA, ranging from 36.1 % in 1988 to 38.6% in The costs of automobile transportation are dominated by private expenditures on new car purchases and fuel costs (Fig. 5). New car sales fluctuate with the strength of the economy, falling from $4.1 billion in 1988 down to $3.3 billion in the recession year of 1991, but then growing to $7.2 billion in Fuel expenses have grown more steadily from $2.6 billion in 1988 to $3.7 billion in 1998, with some fluctuation mainly due to changes in fuel prices (Rampersaad, 2000). Public expenditure on roads in the GTA is a relatively small component of the automobile expenditure, ranking after private expenditures on insurance and vehicle maintenance and repair. Road expenditures on capital, operations and maintenance by the municipal and provincial governments reached $1 billion in In the same year, private expenditure on automobile repair and maintenance is estimated to be of the order of $2.5 billion. Figure 5 shows a further $1.5 billion for insurance costs for the GTA in This is not the full amount of insurance costs, but the difference between total premiums paid and claims that were assigned to automobile repair or replacement, i.e., it is the sum of accident benefits and economic loss claims plus the administrative costs and profits of the automobile insurance business in the GTA. Full insurance costs provide a tangible measure of the social costs of automobile use and so are discussed later. Overall, the cost of automobile transportation in the GTA increased from $10.1 billion in 1988 to $15.8 billion in In the census year of 1996, the automobile costs were $13.3 billion, equivalent to 13.7% of GTA residents total income. Expenditure on public transportation, which is dominated by the TTC, is small in comparison to automobile costs. In 1996, spending on local transit and regional GO train systems were $1.21 billion and $0.23 billion respectively. (The financing comes from both fares and government.) Over 90% of transit spending is made by Metro Toronto (Fig. 6), although it has only 52% of the population within the GTA. Capital investment in the TTC was at an unprecedented high of $537 million in 1998 due to construction of a new subway line. The TTC s annual capital investments have varied considerably since 1954 (Fig. 7). Roughly speaking periods of major investment have occurred every 10 years. Thus, a ten year inflation adjusted average of $232 million for the period 1988 to 1998 can be considered a typical value of the capital investment required to maintain the capital stock in the longrun and allow for steady system growth. It should be noted, however, that ridership of the TTC declined from 1990 to 1996 due to a decrease in the route-kilometers operated and increasing ticket fares, when government operating subsidies were reduced (Rai, 2000). Capital investment in GO transit has also fluctuated significantly and as of 1998, it was down to a low of $45 million (Fig. 8). The ten-year inflation adjusted average is $112 million. A comparison of the relative costs of the public and private transportation systems can be made using trip measurement data from the 1991 and 1996 Transportation Tomorrow surveys, although recognizing that these surveys are based only on weekday trips. In 1996, the number of trips made by residents of the GTA during a 24 hour period was million. Of these trips, million were made by automobile and million by local transit (Table 2a). A further 101,000 trips were made by GO transit; this includes trips by residents of neighbouring Hamilton-Wentworth, but excludes bus trips from Barrie and Guelph, which lie outside of the GTA. Remaining trips not listed in Table 2 included walking and cycling. The average trip length by transit of 8.1 km is comparable with the 6

7 mean automobile trip: 9.8 km for drivers, 7.5 km for automobile passengers. Average GO train trips are much longer at 30.8 km. Expressing the total annual costs (Figs. 5,6,and 8) in terms of the cost per person trip, local transit is the cheapest at $2.87 per person, compared with $5.17 per person for automobile trips. The cost of GO transit, at $7.49 per trip, is greater, but these trips are on average much longer. Expressed as costs per person-km, the GO system is the cheapest at $0.24, followed by local transit at $0.35 and automobiles at $0.55. The same order of relative costs occurred in 1991 (Table 2b); local transit is cheapest in terms of person trips, GO transit is cheapest in terms of personkilometers. 3.2 Internal vs. Traded Costs A further consideration when comparing mode costs is whether these transportation expenditures originate inside or outside of the region s economy. As noted previously, in 1993 the value of automobile production in the GTA was $4.6 billion, while the cost of automobile usage was $10.6 billion. However, comparison of these numbers might not be meaningful, since the production amount is traded value while the usage includes costs that are internal to the economy. The next step, then, is to express the transportation costs in terms of traded or external dollars. The external costs of automobile usage can be estimated using retailers and wholesales cost of goods sold (Statistics Canada) and gasoline pump price components (Natural Resources Canada). For new automobiles, from 1988 to 1995, the average cost to retailers of goods sold was 84%, while a similar value of 85% was found for wholesalers. Consequently 70% of the cost of new automobile purchases was estimated to be external to the GTA economy. The cost to the retailer of goods sold by Ontario service stations from 1993 to 1995 averaged 58% and the wholesale value of automobile parts accessories and supplies averaged 73% in Canada from 1988 to So 42% of automobile maintenance costs were estimated to be external. Between 42% and 52% of gasoline pump prices were calculated to be external costs, even when assuming that excise taxes are returned to the GTA economy by equivalent federal and provincial government expenditures. Road construction and maintenance were assumed to be 100% internal costs; this might fail to account for some relatively small material costs, but it is consistent with The Boston Consulting Group s treatment of construction trade in Table 1. Insurance costs were also assumed to 100% internal to the GTA economy. Estimates for 1993 suggest that the external costs of automobile use are approximately of the same order as the value of automobile production in the GTA, which was $4.6 billion. Over the period 1988 to 1998, estimated external automobile costs range from $4.6 to $7.9 billion, with the purchase of new cars being the largest component (Fig. 9). For 1993 the estimated cost was $4.8 billion. Given the assumptions of the estimation procedure this cost should be treated as approximately the same as the value of automobile production. An example of one aspect that is not accounted for in the calculation above is the wealth gained by residents of the GTA due to equity ownership in corporations in transportation related sectors. Such wealth effects can at best be crudely measured. To gain a sense of the magnitude of share ownership gains a single company was analysed Petro-Canada which being a large predominantly Canadian corporation is easier to assess than most. Based on median share prices from 1993 to 1998, with adjustment for inflation, the value of Petro-Canada shares is increasing by an average of $1.88 per year. An average dividend of $0.26 has also been paid during the last 3 years. So the average total wealth gained by the holders of Petro-Canada s 271 million shares is $580 million per year. If it is crudely assumed that 100% of these shares are owned by Canadians and are regionally distributed in relation to income, then 19% of this value, i.e. $110 million might be gained by GTA residents in an 7

8 average year. In actual fact 20% of Petro-Canada shares are owned by the Government of Canada, but it may be reasonably assumed that government gains are distributed evenly across the population. The external costs of local transit in the GTA are relatively small; estimates range from 12% to 33% of full costs depending on the year (TTC, 2000). This is because most of the cost of transit is for local labour. Estimates were based on a breakdown of TTC capital expenditures for the period 1988 to Most of the TTC s vehicle purchases have been made outside of the GTA in recent years. It was assumed that 50% of other capital projects were also external. Operating expenses, which generally exceed capital costs (Fig. 7), were considered to be internal costs, except for power and fuel expenses. For the outer four municipalities, which have relatively low public transportation expenditures (Fig. 6), capital and operations costs were assumed to be external and internal respectively. For the period 1988 to 1996, the external local transit costs were found to be in the range $115 to $235 million. Data was not sufficient to conduct the calculation for GO transit. The relative external costs of local transit were found to be considerably lower than those for automobile use. In 1991, the cost per person trip was estimated to be $0.26 for transit, compared to $1.85 for automobiles. In terms of external cost per person-km, local transit was just $0.03, compared to $0.20 for car use. In 1996, by which time the economy had emerged from recession, the external costs per person-km were estimated to be $0.07 for local transit and $0.24 for automobiles. The overall indication then is that it costs the region as a whole about three to six times more to transport residents using automobiles than using public transport. Although, as discussed later in section 5.1, the two modes do not necessarily provide the same level of service. 4.0 Environmental Sustainability The impacts of transportation on Toronto s environment can first be gauged from a comparative study of world cities conducted by Newman & Kenworthy (1999). These authors present sustainable transportation indicators from a World Bank study of 37 cities (Table 3). The Toronto data is for the City of Toronto only. While Toronto compares favorably against the U.S. average with respect to release of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile hydrocarbons (VH), its emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO x ) at 27 kg/capita, sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) at 2.3 kg/capita and volatile particulates at 3.9 kg/capita are exceptionally high. In fact Toronto s emissions of all three of these pollutants exceed the values determined in all 10 U.S. cities that were studied. Furthermore, the Toronto transportation emissions exceed the average European levels in all categories. The problem of air pollution in Metro Toronto has been further highlighted by recent studies which suggest that six common pollutants could cause approximately 1000 premature deaths and 5500 hospitalizations per year (Toronto Public Health Dept., 2000). An epidemiological link between air pollution and mortalities in Canadian cities is well established (Burnett et al., 1998), although medical understanding of the processes remains weak. The study conducted for the Toronto Public Health Department used 1995 air quality monitoring data from six Toronto stations and a range of risk coefficients from published epidemiological studies. Upper estimates, using risk coefficients from the Hamilton Air Quality Initiative (HAQI) suggest that 1350 premature deaths and 7610 respiratory and cardiac hospital admissions per year can be attributed in whole or in part to air pollutants (Table 4). The two pollutants suspected of giving rise to the most mortalities are carbon monoxide (441 deaths) and nitrogen dioxide (511 deaths), both of which are primarily produced by transportation. Estimated emissions of air pollutants due to human activity with Metro Toronto are shown in Table 5. Automobiles account for 57% of CO emissions, 27% of NO x emissions and 19% of VOC emissions. 8

9 Further sources of air pollution located upwind of the City of Toronto, include three coal fired generating stations in Ontario and several more in the U.S. mid-west (Toronto Public Health Dept., 2000). In 1995 the nearby Lakeview generating facility in Mississauga (Peel region) produced as much sulphur dioxide as all of the City of Toronto, and by 1998 it was emitting 1.5 times the amount. In 1998 the Nanticoke and Lambton generating stations, upwind by a few hundred miles, emitted 7 times and 2.5 times respectively as much sulphur dioxide as the City of Toronto. Furthermore, from 1995 to 1998 emissions of nitrogen oxides from Nanticoke increased from 0.33 to 1.5 times that of the City of Toronto. Using data from the Toronto Burden of Illness analysis and Ontario Ministry of the Environment emission sources, upper estimates of 408 premature deaths and 1606 hospitalizations per year in the City of Toronto alone can be attributed to automobile emissions (Table 6). Most of these mortalities can be attributed to CO (252 deaths) and NO 2 (137 deaths). With respect to the other pollutants, it was assumed that 50 % of sulphur dioxide and ozone in the city come from generating stations upwind of Toronto. These assumptions do not significantly impact the total calculated mortalities. But, the estimated number of hospitalizations due to ozone (222) may well be questionable, since VOC emissions are used as a surrogate measure to proportion emissions between automobiles and other sources. Ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides react with VOCs in the presence of sunlight (Toronto Public Health Department, 2000). Conducting a similar calculation using emissions data from Table 5, indicates that 11 premature mortalities and 71 hospital admissions could be attributed to railroad transportation emissions in Metro Toronto. These are primarily due to nitrogen dioxide emissions (10 deaths, 65 hospitalizations). Passenger transportation only accounts for 10% of rail transportation in the GTA. In framing the above estimates it is recognized that air pollution impacts all members of society, but it especially affects the weak (Toronto Public Health Department, 2000). The premature deaths occur mainly among the elderly with pre-existing health conditions. Air pollution may be shortening life expectancy by a matter of months or years. Children and those with respiratory or heart conditions, such as asthma or congestive heart failure, are also very vulnerable. Nevertheless, all members of the city may be affected by respiratory infections or reduced lung function. The Burden of Illness report indicates that further to the 226 premature deaths associated with inhalable particulates in Toronto, there are 1,500 cases of adult bronchitis; 7,600 emergency room visits; 15,000 cases of child bronchitis; and 92,000 asthma symptom days. 4.1 Putting Electricity Consumption in Perspective While electric forms of public transport are less damaging than gasoline or diesel vehicles, the environmental impacts of electricity generation for transportation are not insignificant. The energy used by TTC streetcars is 3.02 kwh/km or 0.24 MJ/seat-km; for subways it is 2.61 kwh/km or 0.15 MJ/seat-km (City of Toronto, 1991). These values are significantly lower than those for gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles (Table 7). In 1994, TTC subway and streetcars operated 63.8 million and 11.2 million kms respectively. This required GWh of electricity, which is 2.15 % of consumption by residents of Metro Toronto, or 0.68 % of GTA consumption (Table 8). In order to assess the environmental impacts of TTC electrical power requirements it is necessary to look at the power usage relative to the province s requirements. Until recent reorganization, Ontario Hydro was the dominant electricity provider in Ontario. Of Ontario Hydro s 147,502 GWh supplied in 9

10 1994, 62% was nuclear power; 24% hydroelectric and 10% from fossil fuels (Ontario Hydro, 1994). Table 9 summarizes a few of the environmental impacts of Ontario Hydro operations and indicates the equivalent proportion of releases that TTC electrical energy use would account for. The TTC s equivalent emissions of 40 tonnes of NO x is very small in comparison to the estimated 20,186 tonnes produced by automobiles in the City of Toronto. However, the TTC equivalent of 144 tonnes of SO 2 is significant relative to the 1,229 tonnes from automobiles. The TTC proportion of nuclear waste is 7 m 3 of low level waste, 0.4 m 3 of intermediate level waste and 2.1 tonnes of nuclear used fuel. The share of Ontario Hydro s spills of PCBs, oils, other chemicals, sewage and contaminated waters is very small; this is almost certainly smaller than the TTC s own direct spills, the data for which has not been collected. There are many other environmental problems relating to power generation, which are not captured in Table 9, such as particulate emissions, radioactive emissions to water, releases of mercury and over 30 other toxic metals (Ontario Hydro, 1994; Ontario Clean Air Alliance, 1998). 4.2 From Environmental Health to Sustainability To some extent the discussion in this section has so far focussed more on contemporary issues of environmental health, relating to transportation in the GTA, rather than long-term sustainability. Issues such as production of greenhouse gases (GHG), exploitation of non-renewable resources and loss of biodiversity are perhaps more significant sustainability concerns. Estimates of CO 2 emissions from automobile transportation in the GTA are much higher than those from public forms of transportation. A City of Toronto study in 1991 found emissions from diesel buses (11 g C/person.km), subway (11 g C/person.km) and GO rail (7.5 g C/person.km) to be an order of magnitude lower than emissions from a single occupancy car with efficiency of 15 litres per 100 km (101 g C/person.km) (Table 7). Only a 7 litre per 100 km car carrying 4 persons is comparable to public transport (12 g C/person.km). The City of Toronto (1991) values should, however, be adjusted for capacity utilization and updated with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. Based on a mean local transit journey of 7.4 km by Toronto residents, the million TTC trips in 1994 produced 2,873 million passenger-kms. Relative to the total seat-kms provided of 9,320 million, this indicates a mean occupancy rate of 0.31 for the TTC system, which is similar to that of automobiles. Occupancy rates for the specific TTC modes: subway, streetcar and buses, cannot be calculated, but it may be estimated that energy-use values in Table 7 should be 3.2 times higher than those shown. Nevertheless, the CO 2 emissions for streetcars and subway shown in Table 7 are probably still overestimates. Ontario Hydro data for 1994 indicates that 7.95 g C of GHG are emitted for every 1 MJ of energy produced. So, including the above adjustment for occupancy, the equivalent GHG emissions for streetcars and subway should be 6.2 g C and 3.3. g C per passenger-km, respectively. It is noted, however, that between 1994 and 1999, Ontario Hydro GHG emissions more than doubled due to greater use of fossil fuels; the equivalent streetcar and subway emissions for 1999 are 14.2 and 7.7 g C per passenger-km. A calculation based on more recent data also suggests that the automobile CO 2 emissions are even higher than those in Table 7. Three recent studies suggest that approximately 3.12 kg of CO 2 are produced from a litre of gasoline, including both the refining and combustion processes (Environment Canada, 1998; Oak Ridges National Laboratory, 1998; Socolow, 1997). Based on an estimated consumption of billion litres of gasoline for 1995, the total automobile emissions of CO 2 by GTA residents is 14.9 Tg per year. With 66 million person.km traveled by automobile per day, this translates into 620 g CO 2 /person.km or 170 g C/person.km. 10

11 Energy consumption provides a simple measure of exploitation of natural resources; but in using this measure it is desirable to look beyond direct energy consumption by vehicles and include indirect energy used in the construction and maintenance of vehicles and infrastructure. The City of Toronto (1991) evaluation showed that direct energy use by public transportation modes is lower than that for automobiles, even after adjusting for occupancy rate (Table 7). An older study in the GTA by Wilbur Smith and Associates (1980) indicates the same result when indirect energy use is included (Table 10). The energy required to construct, maintain and rehabiliate a road over a 50 year service, and the energy for vehicle manufacture were estimated to total from 1.37 MJ/veh.km for a freeway to 1.59 MJ/veh.km for a two-lane road. Adding direct energy costs based on an efficiency of 17.2 L/100km, the total energy intensity for automobiles ranged from 7.37 MJ/veh.km for a freeway to 7.88 MJ/veh.km for a two-lane road. The indirect energy consumption for public transportation modes, including construction and manufacture of guideways, stations and railyards annualized over a 50 year service life, vehicle manufacture and annual operations and maintenance, are MJ/veh.km for streetcars, MJ/veh.km for the subway and MJ/veh.km for commuter rail. Total energy use for these three modes was estimated to be MJ/veh.km, MJ/veh.km and MJ/veh.km respectively. In terms of energy intensity, the public transportation modes at between 0.42 MJ and 0.66 MJ/seat.km are more efficient that the automobile options at 1.47 to 1.58 MJ/seat.km. Furthermore, in a commuter crush, the efficiency of streetcars, subways and commuter rail improves to 0.17, 0.10 and 0.33 MJ/person.km respectively. So the overall indication is that automobile use consumes about three times more resources than public transit, when calculated in terms of MJ/seat.km. The impacts of transportation on the ecology of the city are much more complex. In many ways they are too sophisticated to be quantified by a simple measure such as energy use. Furthermore, separating impacts due to transportation from those due to other attributes of the built environment is difficult. For example, the transportation system contributes to the detriment of water quality in rivers throughout the GTA, as stormwater runoff from roads and parking lots picks up heavy metals, oils and other pollutants (City of Toronto, 2000). Studies that quantify ecological impacts in the GTA are developing (City of Toronto, 1998), but even these fail to adequately account for sustainability concerns such as destruction of biodiversity. Techniques for valuing natural capital might be considered (Costanza et al., 1997), despite criticism of the fundamentals of ecological economics (Bockstael et al., 2000). If a simple measure of the ecological impact of transportation can be given, then perhaps land-use area is most pertinent. Studies of land-use in the urban region of the GTA indicate that 20 to 30% of land is covered with pavement (Wright, 2000). This is generally greater than the area of rooftops, which ranged between 14 and 28% in the study. Rail based public transportation is less consuming in this respect; a two lane subway has the capacity of a twelve lane highway, and does not require parking space except at stations. So automobile infrastructure potentially uses about five times the land area that public transportation of equivalent capacity would use. A more sophisticated measure of ecological impact is the ecological footprint (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996), which expresses the resources consumed and wastes produced by a population in terms of an equivalent area of biologically productive land and water. The footprint of the City of Toronto is estimated to be 280 times the size of the city, with the average Torontonian consuming 7.6 hectares of land (City of Toronto, 1998, 2000); even greater figures would be expected for the GTA. Transportation is estimated to account for 24% of Toronto s footprint. 5.0 Social Sustainability 11

12 Beyond its economic and environmental impacts, transportation has a large impact on society influencing many characteristics such as access to amenities, recreation, employment, well-being, noise and basic social interaction. Many of these impacts are difficult to quantify. For example, studies have found that traffic noise negatively impacts social interaction, measured by sidewalk activity in residential areas (Appleyard & Lintell, 1972); and leads to decreased individual performance and decreased sensitivity to others (Broadbent, 1979; Jalowica & Vanderburg, 1989). Conversely, of course, automobile use facilitates social interaction on a larger scale. The rest of the discussion here will focus on more tangible measures of social sustainability: quality of service, insurance costs, accident data and employment, but it is recognized that there are other lessmeasurable social characteristics of importance. 5.1 Level of Service An important consideration in comparing social aspects of transportation modes is level of service. Sustainable development is concerned with maintaining quality of life, and in the context of transportation this includes comfort; quality of mobility in terms of access and speed; and satisfaction of other passenger demands. The automobile clearly outperforms current urban public transportation with respect to many aspects of service. Most notably, the automobile provides for higher average travel speeds in urban regions and access to areas of low density, where public transportation is limited. Furthermore, the automobile is beneficial for multi-purpose trips, for personal security, transport of young children and for storing purchases. The relative importance of these attributes depends on the individual; travelers are not homogeneous. The higher level of service currently provided by automobile use in the GTA, relative to trips involving public transportation, can be demonstrated by computer simulation. A traffic simulation model (EMME2) of the GTA has been used to generate automobile and transit flows for the peak morning rush hour. The simulations are calibrated with traffic data from the 1996 Transportation Tomorrow Survey. Travel speeds averaged between origin and destination (i.e., door to door) for road and transit trips are shown in Figure 10(a). The average speed for simulated automobile trips is 47 km/hr, while the average for simulated trips involving transit is 12 km/hr. The model also indicates that few trips involving public transportation reach average speeds greater than 30 km/hr, while over 90% of automobile trips do. The distributions should not be considered exact, since the modeling results are idealizations and do not account for accidents, weather conditions, etc. Nevertheless, the results clearly show the greater speeds that are obtained by automobile trips. Greater speed saves on travel times, creates flexibility in employment opportunities, facilitates greater choices of products and permits lower density living. The accessibility provided by transit and automobiles in the GTA can also be compared using the modeling results. The time taken to reach one zone in a city from other zones in a city is one way of measuring accessibility. Figure 10(b) shows a cumulative accessibility measure, averaged over all 1,677 zones in the GTA model, with weighting based on the employed labour force in the source zone and employment locations in the destination zone. Greater accessibility is achieved using automobiles, relative to public transportation trips. For example, the model results suggest that 50% of conceivable 12

13 home to work trips could be achieved in 37 minutes by automobile, whereas only 10% of such trips could be achieved in the same time by public transit. 5.2 Accidents and Insurance Offsetting the greater speed and flexibility of private transportation are social costs resulting from accidents. The costs of automobile insurance provide one tangible measure of the negative impacts of the automobile on society. For this study, insurance costs have been calculated for the GTA using annual Ontario Insurance Experience Reports for three statistical territories in the Toronto area. Most of the costs are incurred in one central territory covering the City of Toronto, and most of York and Peel regions. Costs for the Halton region were estimated from statistics for the Hamilton- Wentworth/Halton territory based on automobile registration. Data from a third territory covering Durham and parts of York region was also included. Total premiums for private automobile ownership (excluding farmers) were found to range from $1.8 billion in 1992 to $2.3 billion in The total premium paid is a combination of the repair and replacement costs for automobiles; personal damages, i.e., deaths, injuries and economic loss; and the administrative costs and the profits of insurance companies. The total costs of vehicle repair and replacement were estimated from claims under collision, comprehensive, all perils and specific perils policies, and 50% of third party claims. The remaining third party claims, and claims under excess economic loss, accident, underinsured motorist and uninsured automobile policies give a measure of further personal damage. Figure 11 shows that in most years since 1992, insurance payments for damage to people and property in the GTA are close to $1 billion, and exceed payments for damage to vehicles. (Note that the use of insurance data as a measure of damage, does not undermine the obvious benefits of insurance in spreading financial risks across society.) Road safety accident statistics provide a further direct measure of automobile impacts. There are close to 100,000 accidents per year in the GTA, most involving property damage (Table 11). In 1997, 220 deaths resulted from these accidents. The annual death rate is fortunately decreasing. Nevertheless, injuries resulting from road accidents are increasing, reaching 42,000 in The social cost of road accident deaths in the GTA can be estimated from a provincial study conducted by the Ontario Safety Research Office using data for While insurance premiums do provide an economic measure of automobile damage, it is questionable whether they adequately cover the social costs of deaths resulting from vehicle crashes. Estimates of the social cost vary considerably depending upon the value placed on human life. Based on a willingness to pay analysis, the Ontario study estimated the social cost of crashes to be $9.1 billion in 1990 (Table 12). Human consequences account for $7.3 billion of this total, given an estimated value of life of $5.3 million in An alternative approach based on discounted future earnings analysis, puts the total social cost to Ontario at $3.2 billion in 1990, as it places a much lower value on human life. Based on the parameters of the former, willingness to pay, approach the estimated social costs of crashes in the GTA are between $1.9 and $2.0 billion (in 1990 dollars) for the period 1993 to 1997 (Table 11). Accident statistics and claim costs incurred by public transit should also be considered as indicators of social impact. Accident claim costs for the TTC have typically been of the order $10 million per year in recent years. This is approximately 5% of the insurance costs for automobiles per person-km. The lower cost for public transit reflects that accidents and especially fatalities are much less frequent. There was a TTC crash in August 1995, in which 3 people were killed and 36 injured when a subway car missed a red light. Such accidents are fortunately rare for public transportation in the GTA. 13

14 5.3 Employment The provision of transportation and the manufacture of automobiles provide a significant amount of employment within the GTA. In 1999, the TTC and GO Transit employed 10,049 and 1,011 employees respectively. Even more people are employed in activities relating to automobile use. In 1993, 67,100 people were employed in the automobile manufacturing sector (GTA Task Force, 1996). The car maintenance and repair industry also employs a large number of people in Toronto; in 1988 it was estimated to be 25,000 (Employment and Immigration Canada, 1988); the number would likely be larger today. Further automobile related jobs that have not been quantified in this study, but which are nevertheless significant, include automobile sales, insurance, road construction and repair, and gasoline station attendants. A high rate of employment is presumably necessary for a high quality of life and is a sign of a healthy economy. Nevertheless, when considering long-term social sustainability, the nature of employment is perhaps as important as the amount of employment. For example, employment associated with the automobile industry is certainly of current social benefit to the GTA. However, in the long-run it could also be viewed as a disbenefit, depending upon the opportunity given up in employing people in the production and maintenance of automobiles. For instance, in the event of lower automobile use in the future, many of the 25,000 or more highly skilled workers who currently maintain and repair automobiles in the GTA could be employed in green industry producing exports for the GTA. The greatest social sustainability is achieved by having a flexible and adaptable workforce. 6.0 Conclusions and Discussion: Towards More Sustainable Transportation Sustainable urban development is a process of change that balances economic, environmental and social considerations. With respect to the transportation systems in Greater Toronto Area, it is apparent from a summary of the analysis, shown in Table 13, that these three dimensions can be conflicting. The sustainability indicators used in this study follow from definitions of urban sustainability by Richardson (1989) and Haughton and Hunter (1994), discussed in section 2.0 (see also Fig. 2). The economic indicators focus on the cost-effectiveness of the alternative modes, but also include the role of automobile production in the local economy; the production provides employment and contributes to the tax-base that supports the social system. The environmental indicators cover both concerns over the health of the local ecosystem, in particular air pollution, and global sustainability concerns, in particular greenhouse gas production. Energy intensity is used as a proxy for consumption of nonrenewable resources. The range of social indicators describes the impacts of transportation on the quality of life and well being of individuals in the GTA. These indicators are by no means the only ones that could be considered. Further indicators to describe the impacts of transportation on biodiversity and on local communities would be desirable. Nevertheless, the indicators chosen provide a broad, quantitative, aggregate analysis, covering the three pillars of sustainability in a city-region. The indicators summarized in Table 13 have different degrees of accuracy. Some values are from carefully recorded data, such as accidents and insurance costs. Other measures can be considered as good quality engineering estimates, such as energy intensity and mode costs per person-km. The travel speeds and accessibility measures are less accurate, being estimates from a calibrated transportation model. The human impacts of air pollution are upper estimates based on epidemiological research. Perhaps the least robust values are the estimates of mode costs in terms of traded dollars. The 14

15 sensitivity of these numbers to the relaxing of assumptions is shown in brackets. Upper and lower limits to transit costs are given by considering external capital costs, other than vehicle purchases, to range from 0 to 100%. The upper adjustment for external automobile costs is given by assuming that 50% of construction costs are external to the economy and none of the federal gasoline taxes are returned to the city. The CO 2 data is fairly robust for the TTC, based on well documented Ontario Hydro statistics and appropriately adjusted for capacity utilization. The automobile CO 2 emissions are based on a rate of 3.12 kg CO 2 per litre of gasoline, which is consistent with three others studies. Nevertheless, the calculated equivalent emission of 170 g C/person-km, may be an underestimate; other studies suggest that the value should be greater than 200 g C/person-km. The use of automobiles in the GTA is economically balanced. Approximate calculations for 1993 suggest that the costs of automobile use in traded dollars are offset by the value of the automobile parts and assembly industry in the local economy. Furthermore, the use of automobiles is no doubt an important driver of the economy, although it is difficult to quantify. However, as a counter point, there is an opportunity cost associated with private transportation. Automobile use in the GTA costs approximately three to six times more than public transportation in terms of traded dollars. The greater sustainability of public transportation over private transportation in the GTA is clear from an environmental perspective. Private transportation in the GTA produces approximately ten times more greenhouse gases than public transportation, in terms of person-kms. However, there is considerable scope for both to improve; for example, the TTC has a 31% seat occupancy rate, while there is only one automobile passenger for every four drivers in the GTA. Energy consumption per seat-km is approximately three times higher for automobiles than public transit modes. The land-use requirements for private transportation are also relatively larger than those for private transportation, thereby giving rise to greater ecological impacts. Further to these sustainability concerns, air pollution associated with automobile use in the GTA is a serious contemporary health problem. From a social perspective the relative merits of public and private transportation are mixed. Private transportation provides a higher level of service, e.g., in terms of speed and access, in comparison to the current public transportation system in the GTA. Many residents would likely consider the level of service provided by the automobile to contribute significantly towards quality of life. 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 on society. A clear dichotomy is apparent from this study. Public transportation is more environmentally sustainable than automobile use. But the level of service provided by the automobile, rather than the cost of public transportation systems perhaps, gives rise to the proliferation of the more environmentally damaging form of transportation. This problem has to be overcome in order for urban regions to advance in a sustainable fashion. One solution may involve improving the performance level of public transportation. Another approach is to redesign cities to overcome automobile dependence, i.e., to substantially reduce the need for the service level provided by automobiles. Even if the GTA established a more substantial public transportation network, there will always be a role for private vehicles, particularly in low density areas. The provision of public transportation in low density areas is probably not economically feasible. However, defining what level of density is too low for a public transportation service remains a key question that requires further research. Pushkarev and Zupan (1980) provide a guide for a monocentric city, but this is not applicable to multi-centered North American cities (Badoe and Miller, 2000). Significantly different answers might be expected from the macroscopic perspective of this analysis, and the narrower, microeconomic perspective of local 15

16 authorities. The latter may not account for the private expenditures by residents, which, whether by choice or necessity, follow government investment in road infrastructure. In the case of the GTA, for the $1 billion spent on roads in 1998, residents spent $14.8 billion on their automobiles. To solve the conundrum of automobile dependence requires innovation. In fact, building upon Jacob s notions of city economics, innovation is a requirement for a sustainable economy. The GTA has many potential advantages in this respect. Its highly skilled manufacturing workforce is a source of competitive advantage in the North American economy. However, to exploit this potential the GTA s automobile industry might have to undergo a transformation into a general transportation vehicle producing industry, producing both public and private vehicles. Even if such a transformation does not take place, then importing public transportation vehicles into the GTA may be more economically attractive, since much of the costs of public transportation are internal labour costs. Greatest economic benefit to the area would be gained if local and provincial government worked to promote the creation of a sustainable transportation industry in the GTA. The precise form of a more sustainable future transportation mode is difficult to predict, although there are some indicators. First, greater use of bicycles for shorter distances holds great potential (Mohan and Tiwari, 1999). While this might not be viewed as technologically innovative, it does require political innovation, e.g., to encourage the development of fully segregated cycle paths, which separate cyclists from vehicles and traffic emissions. Furthermore, there is a tremendous need to design better mechanisms for integrating bicycles with public transit - greatly enhancing the effectiveness of both modes. Various types of automobile with alternate power systems are being researched or have recently been released; whether or not these are any more sustainable than conventional automobiles remains to be seen. The existence of wide roadways, typically of four to eight lanes in width, provides a further opportunity for innovative design of public transit in the GTA, as it does for many North American cities. Several studies (e.g., Webber, 1976; Allport and Thomson, 1990; Ridley, 1995) have found that efforts to reduce automobile use by constructing public transit systems are often ineffective when the transit systems are built in addition to existing roadways; passengers tend to be captured from buses, with automobile use remaining relatively unchanged. In order to reduce automobile use it may actually be necessary to reduce the amount of available roadway! The large width of the main throughways in the GTA allows for the potential to construct light rail systems through these streets while leaving space for narrower service roadways. An advantage of such a scheme is that it avoids the large expense of underground tunnels or elevated rails. But, improvements to the speed and service level of light rail would also be required to approach the quality of service provided by automobiles. One aspect of transit systems that needs improvement if they are to emerge as a significant alternative to the automobile is flexibility. A fundamental requirement for any sustainable system is adaptability. In this respect road vehicles fare better than fixed rail transit; so low emission buses, e.g., powered by natural gas, might be seen as a more sustainable form of public transportation. Many cities might be attracted to building mass transit systems based on networks of bus lanes following a model such as Curitiba in Brazil (Rabinovitch and Leitman, 1996). Nevertheless, the choice between bus-based and fixed rail systems is not straightforward. One important feature of fixed rail systems is that they have more certain impacts on land-prices (at least in Toronto s experience), encouraging developers to construct more compact urban form, thereby reducing sprawl and travel distances. If there is an ideal model for a more sustainable transportation system, it will likely involve a mixture of fixed rail transit; low emission buses on priority lanes, including mini-buses; a smaller number of cleaner private vehicles; and many more bicycles. 16

17 Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Eric Miller for providing the EMME 2 model results and for his general encouragement of this work. Thanks also go to Neil Irwin, Richard Gilbert, Dale Wilson, Murtaza Haider and the three anonymous reviewers of the paper. This work was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. References Alberti, M. (1996) Measuring Urban Sustainability, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16, Allport, R.J., and Thomson, J.M. (1990) Study of Mass Rapid Transit in Developing Countries. Report 188. Crowthorne, U.K.: Transport Research Laboratory. Appleyard, D., and Lintell, M. (1972) The Environmental Quality of City Streets: the Residents Viewpoint. J. American Institute of Planners, 38, Badoe, D.A.,and Miller, E.J. (2000) Transportation-land-use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling, Transportation Research Part D, Banister, D., and Berechman, J. (2000) Transport Investment and Economic Development, UCL Press, London, UK. pp.370. Bockstael, N.R., Freeman, A.M., Kopp, R.J., Portney, P.R., and Smith, V.K. (2000) On Measuring Economic Values for Nature, Environmental Science and Technology. Broadbent, D.E. (1979) Human Performance and Noise, in C.M. Harris, ed., Handbook of Noise Control, NY, McGraw Hill. Burnett, R.T., Cakmak, S., and Brooke, J.R. (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). City of Toronto (1991) The changing atmosphere: strategies for reducing CO 2 emissions. Special advisory committee report on the Environment, report number 2. City of Toronto (1998) Toronto s Ecological Footprint, City of Toronto (2000) Clean, Green and Healthy: A Plan for an Environmentally Sustainable Toronto. Costanza, R. et al. (1997) Nature, 387 (May) Douglas, I. (1983) The Urban Environment, London, Edward Holder. Duffy, H. (1995) Competitive Cities, Succeeding in the Global Economy, E & F.N. Spon, London, U.K. pp

18 Employment and Immigration Canada (1988) Canadian Automotive Repair and Service Industry, A Human Resources Study, Ottawa. pp.77. Environment Canada (1998) Canadian Passenger Transportation SOE technical supplement No 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. GTA Task Force (1996) Greater Toronto Report of the GTA Task Force, Publications Ontario. 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. Haughton, G., and Hunter C. (1994) Sustainable Cities, Jessica Kingsley Publishers and Regional Studies Association, London, UK. Jacobs, J. (1985) Cities and the Wealth of Nations: Principles of Economic Life, Vintage Books, New York. Jalowica, K., and Vanderburg, W.H. (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. Joint Program in Transportation (1996) Transportation Tomorrow Survey, University of Toronto. Kenworthy J. (1991) The land use / transit connection in Toronto: Some lessons for Australian cities, Australian Planner, 29 (3), pp Maclaren, V.W. (1996) Developing Indicators of Urban Sustainability: A Focus on the Canadian Experience, Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research. Mohan, D. and G. Tiwari (1999) Sustainable Transport Systems: Linkages between Environmental Issues, Public Transport, Non-motorized Transport and Safety, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XXXIV:25, p Newcomb, K., Kalma, J.D., and Aston, A.R. (1978) The metabolism of a city: the case of Hong Kong, Ambro 7, Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. (1999) Sustainability and Cities, Overcoming Automobile Dependence, Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 442 Oak Ridges National Laboratory (1998) Scenarios of US carbon reduction and potential impacts of energy technologies. Ontario Clean Air Alliance (1998) Electricity Competition and Clean Air. Ontario Hydro (1994) Sustainable Development Environmental Performance Report. 18

19 Ontario Safety Research Office (1994) The Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Ontario, Publications Ontario. Pushkarev, B. and Zupan, J. (1980) Urban Rail in America, Indiana University Press. Rabinovitch, J., and 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. Rai, K. (2000) A Performance Study for Toronto Transit Systems, Bachelors Thesis, University of Toronto, Department of Civil Engineering. 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. Richardson, N.H. (1989) Land Use Planning and Sustainable Development in Canada, Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, Ottawa. Ridley, M.A. (1995) World Bank Experiences with Mass Transit Projects. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Soberman, R. (1997) Rethinking Urban Transportation: Lessons from Toronto. University of Toronto, Department of Civil Engineering. Socolow, R (1997) Fuels decarbonization and carbon sequestering, Princeton University Press. Toronto Public Health Department (2000) Air Pollution Burden of Illness in Toronto Summary Report. Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) (2000) personal communication. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1996) Our Ecological Footprint Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, New Society Publishing, Gabriola Island, B.C. Webber, M.M. (1976) The BART Experience What Have We Learned? In: The Public Interest, Wilbur Smith & Associates (1988) Metropolitan Toronto Area Transportation Energy Study, Summary Report. Wright, R.W. (2000) The Evolving Physical Condition of the Greater Toronto Area: Space, Form and Change, Neptis Foundation, Toronto. 19

20 List of Figures Figure 1. The Greater Toronto Area, located in southern Ontario, Canada. Figure 2 Assessing the role of transportation in urban sustainability from economic, environmental and social perspectives. Figure 3. Total income of residents of the GTA and Toronto CMA (Statistics Canada). Figure 4. Average transportation expenditures and total consumption for all families and unattached individuals in the GTA (Statistics Canada, Market Research Handbook). Figure 5. Estimated expenditures on the GTA s automobile transportation system. Figure 6. Public expenditure on local transportation in the GTA Figure 7. TTC expenditure and passenger trips since Figure 8. GO Train expenditure and passenger trips since Figure 9. Estimated external costs of automobile use in the GTA. Figure 10 (a) Frequency distributions of average door to door trip speeds for peak hour trips during 1996, from an EMME2 simulation model of the GTA. Figure 10 (b) Aggregate accessibility in the GTA using automobiles and transit, from an EMME2 simulation model. Figure 11. Private automobile insurance costs for the GTA 20