Tag Archives: Complete Streets

Congestion and Transit in Toronto

By Dom Nozzi

May 2013

In 2013, a Toronto friend told me that traffic congestion is a problem in that city and its economy.

I told him that I don’t agree that congestion significantly harms the local economy (in most cases). See, for example, this from the economist Todd Litman : http://www.vtpi.org/UMR_critique.pdf Transportation “improvements” to “reduce” congestion suffer today from the law of diminishing returns.

Each transport dollar we now spend results in fewer and fewer benefits than in the past (indeed, in my view, most all dollars WORSEN our communities and their economies).

It is not a coincidence that the most economically healthy cities tend to be severely congested. Because cars consume so much space, only a tiny number of people in cars are needed to create congestion. Given that, there is a problem if a city is NOT congested in certain locations. The problem is not congestion. Congestion is a sign of a healthy, attractive city that people want to be a part of. The problem is when there are no alternatives to avoid the congestion.

Congestion is a powerful motivator. It can be very helpful in generating the political will to create alternatives to avoid the congestion, as Toronto is finding with its interest in more transit. Other ways to avoid the largely inevitable congestion: More housing in town center locations. More street connections (by reducing dead ends and cul-de-sacs). Tolling roads. Putting roads on a diet. Making streets more “complete” so they handle more than just cars. More jobs and shopping in residential areas. Properly priced car parking (nearly all cities provide too much underpriced or free parking). Cash-out parking. Unbundled parking. Paying for car insurance at the gas pump. And so on.

As a Michael Ronkin and I often say these days, creating more walking, bicycling and transit is much more about TAKING AWAY things from motorists (subsidies, road & parking space, etc.) than it is about providing facilities for bicycling, walking and Safeway-July-2015-smtransit. So while sidewalks, bike paths and better transit are usually important, it is typically the case that such things are secondary to doing the things I list above.

Too many cities put the cart before the horse by providing transit with the necessary prerequisites of properly managed parking, proper pricing, and proper land uses, for example. Toronto has done reasonably well on this. But I also suspect there is much more they can do to create better conditions for healthy transit.

Easy and fair way to pay for more and better transit is tolling roads and properly pricing the parking, among other things. I suspect as good as the city is compared to most other cities, Toronto has a long way to go in creating fair user fees for transport. I’m sure that like in most larger cities, transit is well-used because it is costly and inconvenient (as it should be, for fairness and quality of life) to drive a car.

“Agglomeration Economies” are very important for the (economic and social) health of a city, and things that “ease congestion” tend to create urban DISPERSAL, which directly undercuts the agglomeration economies that cities need to be healthy.

Something else to consider: the “travel time budget,” which informs us that humans are apparently hard-wired for a certain amount of time allocated to daily commuting. Cross-culturally and throughout history, that budget tends to be about 1.2 hours per day (some do more, some do less, but the average is about 1.2). Given that, we can know the consequences of certain actions regarding congestion: When faced with the “time tax” of congestion, many will (in the long run) live closer to work or travel at non-rush hour times or take different routes, or travel by bike/bus/walking as a way to stay within their travel time budget.

The conventional (and mostly failed) approach is to “ease congestion” by widening roads and intersections. The triple convergence and travel time budget let us know that by doing so, we will NOT ease congestion for very long (by widening). About all we will achieve is greater geographic dispersal of where jobs, shopping and housing are found in the city (city sprawl accelerates). That, of course, quickly worsens sprawl and increases commute times.



Leave a comment

Filed under Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation

Complete Streets Deliver Complete Communities



By Dom Nozzi


Economists use a term—The Barrier Effect—that has become crucial for smart growth transportation and community planners to understand in the context of community and transportation design.


The Barrier Effect (Litman, 2002), when applied to transportation planning, refers to the “barriers” that over-design for car travel creates for other forms of travel. To put it simply, designing an “incomplete” stripcommercialstreet (a street that is designed exclusively or predominately for cars) makes travel by walking, bicycling and transit more difficult. In effect, an incomplete street creates a self-perpetuating vicious cycle because the travel barriers they create tend to continuously recruit new motorists who were formerly non-motorists—non-motorists who now find that on the incomplete street, travel by walking, bicycling or transit is unacceptably unsafe, inconvenient or otherwise unattractive.


Over time, the incomplete street increases the proportion of community members who are now traveling by car. Tragically, this on-going recruitment of new motorists compels many communities to spend large traffic-congestionsums of public dollars to widen and speed up roads to (unsuccessfully) strive to accommodate the growing number of motorists. And these newly widened, higher speed roads create an even larger barrier effect. Which recruits even more motorists, which then builds pressure for even wider roads.


Disastrously, conditions that create a high quality of life for people are strongly at odds with the conditions needed to enable convenient, high-speed, free-flowing car travel. Most of us enjoy compact, walkable, lower-speed, human-scaled neighborhood design. Cars, by stark contrast, are happiest with gargantuan, high-speed roads and parking lots, bright lights, and unwalkable dispersion of land uses. Because of the barrier effect found on incomplete streets, citizens are compelled to urge that conditions be improved for car travel. The unintended consequence is a citizenry that presses for conditions that actually reduce their quality of life. On incomplete streets, then, citizens become their own worst enemy.


The barrier effect therefore becomes an endless, ruinous, bankrupting process.


Fortunately, a growing number of communities throughout the nation have recognized the toxicity of incomplete streets, and are smartly starting to reverse this downwardly spiraling process by calling for complete streets (Wikipedia, 2007). Streets that are designed, to the extent possible and appropriate, to accommodate all forms of travel. A street that is rich in transportation choice.


Complete streets have a number of beneficial influences over how a community develops over time.


Formerly incomplete streets that have been transformed into complete streets can expect to see adjacent land uses evolve into more complete communities. Car-only incomplete streets tend to result in the replacement of residences and locally-owned shops with strip commercial development and national Big Box chain stores. When converted to complete streets, adjacent land uses also become more “complete.” Instead of “Anywhere USA” franchise architecture that nearly inevitably feeds on car-only regional traffic volumes, complete streets are comparatively more livable—and lovable. By being more hospitable, complete streets induce the return of residential land uses. Instead of a monolith of commercial, warehouse and industrial uses (the only uses that can tolerate inhospitably incomplete streets), complete streets tend to attract a complete set of community types: shops, offices, civic, and residential.


With a more diverse, complete land use pattern, trip distances become kids-on-walkable-stshorter, which creates a self-perpetuating virtuous cycle, because shorter trip distances make walking, bicycling and transit use more practical, safe and pleasant.


Not only does the complete street create more complete land uses, but it also draws and retains a more diverse population. This is due to the fact that by creating more transportation choices, the complete street makes the adjacent residential housing more affordable. More affordable because households are able to own fewer household cars, which is a dramatic, effective way of creating affordability (because significantly less household dollars are thereby devoted to car ownership).


Complete streets tend to support adjacent populations that are also more diverse and equitable. A large number of citizens do not drive, such as children, a portion of the disabled population, and seniors. (About a third of the national population does not drive a car. See Wikipedia, 2007). In America, losing the ability to drive a car typically means facing the inconvenient indignity of losing travel independence. Loss of travel independence is particularly acute with incomplete streets. When the street is complete, those citizens who do not drive a pedstcar are now more able to live near the street, because the complete street better supports pedestrians, bicyclists, the disabled, and transit users.


The higher quality of life provided to adjacent land uses by the complete street increases property values and draws a broader mix of income groups.


Investment in property adjacent to a complete street becomes more likely because development near a complete street tends to be more stable, predictable and context-sensitive. The unpredictable nature of development along incomplete streets makes investment more risky and therefore less likely.


urban-bikingIn sum, the complete street results in an adjacent land use pattern that is more diverse, sustainable, equitable, higher value for residential, safer and more local.


The higher quality of life and place-making delivered by complete streets and complete communities induces higher levels of civic pride, and provide a powerful, sustainable economic engine for the community.romanian-ped-st






Litman, Todd. (2002). “Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport.” TDM Encyclopedia. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.



Wikipedia. (2007). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_streets



Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.

Visit: www.walkablestreets.wordpress.com

Or email me at: dom[AT]walkablestreets.com

50 Years Memoir CoverMy memoir can be purchased here: Paperback = http://goo.gl/9S2Uab Hardcover =  http://goo.gl/S5ldyF

My book, The Car is the Enemy of the City (WalkableStreets, 2010), can be purchased here: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-car-is-the-enemy-of-the-city/10905607Car is the Enemy book cover

My book, Road to Ruin, can be purchased here:


My Adventures blog


Run for Your Life! Dom’s Dangerous Opinions blog


My Town & Transportation Planning website


My Plan B blog


My Facebook profile


My YouTube video library


My Picasa Photo library


My Author spotlight




Leave a comment

Filed under Bicycling, Sprawl, Suburbia, Urban Design, Walking