For years, the public conversation about transportation challenges in the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area (GTHA) has been stuck in the same loop: congestion is getting worse, and the solution is to help move cars faster. But this framing has led us down a path of building wider roads, expanding highways, and doubling down on sprawling, car-dependent neighbourhood design — all while congestion stubbornly worsens.
The truth is, congestion is the wrong problem to solve, and distracts us from the real opportunities to improve how we get around.
Measuring total vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) accounts for how much people need to drive. When we reduce how far and how often people need to drive, we make travel easier, more affordable, and significantly cleaner. That’s especially important given the current upward trajectory of carbon emissions from transportation in the GTHA.
Why congestion metrics miss the point
Traditional congestion metrics compare travel time at peak periods to “free flow” conditions. This creates two problems:
- It prioritizes moving cars instead of people, ignoring the efficiency and availability of other modes.
- It implies that free flow conditions, rather than reduced car trip length or frequency, are the ideal.
This leads policymakers toward expanding capacity for cars, even though road expansion reliably induces more car travel (while making roads less safe and enjoyable for people walking or cycling). Demand for travel grows naturally along with population (the GTHA is expected to add almost two million more people by 2051), but it also grows with the availability of transportation infrastructure. Expanding car capacity is a self-reinforcing cycle that encourages more people to choose to drive. A landmark 2011 study from the University of Toronto documented this long-observed effect in over 200 metropolitan areas, finding that driving distances increase proportionately to roadway lane kilometres built.
The metric that actually moves us forward
Measuring total distance travelled by car captures a much broader picture of how cities function. When we measure VKT rather than congestion, we start to ask different questions:
- How long are people’s commutes?
- Are daily destinations close to where people live?
- Are there appealing alternatives like transit, walking, or cycling?
The key question should be, how do we make policy and planning choices that reduce car-dependence while advancing the economic and social vibrancy of our communities?
Focusing on car travel reduction naturally leads to more holistic strategies:
- More attractive transit, walking and cycling options.
- Land use planning that brings homes, jobs, and community spaces like schools and parks closer together.
- Equity-informed economic levers like congestion pricing.
These ideas align with global best practices. Many European cities benefit from their pre-car street patterns, providing proximity and walkable, transit-oriented communities (e.g. neighbourhoods around most London Tube stations are surrounded by dense, mixed-use developments). Pricing levers like the new congestion charge in Manhattan are having an immediate positive effect on travel and air quality.
From a long-term policy perspective, more North American jurisdictions are recognizing the benefits of a less congestion-centric transportation planning paradigm. Colorado has adopted a groundbreaking transportation planning rule that prioritizes reducing vehicle travel and shifting investments toward options like transit, biking, and walking. California uses vehicle-miles travelled (VMT) as the required metric in environmental review, replacing congestion-based assessments, and Washington State sets regional VMT reduction targets to guide long-range planning.
Why we’re focusing on holistic strategies now
TAF’s “follow the carbon” approach has focused on electrification of vehicles in recent years because fossil fuel-powered cars and trucks are the highest source of transportation emissions. But while momentum for EVs is encouragingly growing, electrification alone will not solve transportation’s climate, ecological, or quality of life impacts.
Beyond congestion and climate, the benefits of VKT reduction are broad, from improved road safety, to quieter cities, to reduced travel costs for households and businesses.
The age of automated vehicles (AVs) is also approaching quickly — and if deployed without careful policy, they could cause an explosion in kilometres driven by car. Returning to the concept of induced demand, the ease of AV travel could radically increase trip frequency, lengthen travel distances, and worsen congestion if unmanaged (AV congestion in San Francisco and Los Angeles are already harbingers of this future).
By sharpening our focus on VKT now, we’re preparing for the technologies and travel behaviours shaping the next decade.
A better way forward
If the GTHA is to see real progress on congestion, climate goals, and affordability, we need to pivot from “How do we move cars faster?” to “How do we help the region become less dependent on long, slow, frequent car trips?” And here’s the kicker: reducing VKT helps solve congestion too!
TAF is continuing our work to support EV adoption and infrastructure. But in the coming months, TAF will also advance new research, partnerships, and policy recommendations to help governments and institutions meaningfully address the VKT issue, including through better public transit, active transportation, goods movement and supportive land use policies.
We’re open to your insights and ideas! Stay tuned for upcoming initiatives by subscribing to our monthly newsletter, and reach out to transportation@taf.ca if you’re interested in collaborating.
Leave a Reply