Billions Spent on Transit, but Cities Still Build for Cars

Despite widespread calls for transit-oriented development, too often the projects rising near rail and rapid transit continue to prioritize cars, according to Toronto-based architect and urban planner Naama Blonder. She argued that many cities are missing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to design communities where people can realistically choose to live without a car.

“Despite placing density near rail and rapid transit, we continue to default for wide roads and high parking ratio,” Blonder wrote in an Op-Ed in NextCity. “In doing so, we dilute the very purpose of transit-oriented development: to shift travel behavior away from the car and toward transit, walking, and cycling.”

She described the vision of what transit-oriented development, or TOD, should be: station areas that feel like neighborhoods first, not car corridors with a train station dropped in the middle. “Imagine this: Narrower streets scaled to people, not vehicles; station areas where housing, shops and public spaces are all connected; daily life where walking to the corner store or cycling to work is the natural choice,” Blonder wrote. “A transit-oriented community that feels like a neighborhood first and a transit hub second—where the train station is simply the anchor.”

Blonder said that too often municipalities and developers use the language of TOD while still clinging to car-first design. She described the contradiction as a split that undermines the very purpose of public transportation, which requires supportive urban form to thrive. “Public transportation is expensive to build, so when we have it, we are given the rare opportunity to design neighborhoods of charm and unique atmosphere—something that wide roads and car-oriented layouts can never deliver and pull against that opportunity,” she wrote.

She said the way TOD is executed depends heavily on context. In greenfield development, the challenge is to build a community from scratch around new transit, an opportunity that allows planners to design entire networks and block patterns to make walking and transit the default from the start. The risk, however, is slipping back into suburban patterns—wide arterials, large lots, and parking-heavy designs that embed car dependence from the beginning. For residents immediately around the station, the goal is to make opting out of car use feel natural, while for surrounding suburban communities, TOD can model alternatives such as cycling or walking to the station.

Urban infill development presents different challenges, Blonder said. In existing neighborhoods, the goal is to intensify land use and retrofit streets to prioritize people. That can mean reducing car space, re-scaling streets, and managing curb space to shift behavior without displacing the qualities that already make communities livable. Recognizing the difference between greenfield and infill, she argued, is critical because each requires a different approach.

Blonder pointed to international examples as evidence that TOD can be done differently. Copenhagen’s Finger Plan deliberately concentrated growth along rail corridors while limiting car infrastructure, creating a system where transit became the backbone. Singapore turned its MRT stations into mixed-use hubs, clustering housing, retail, and offices so that daily needs are accessible without a car. Vienna’s Seestadt Aspern project, built on a former airfield, flipped the conventional order by extending the metro line before development began, anchoring the new neighborhood around transit rather than cars. The plan includes mid-rise housing, shops, schools, offices, and public spaces while targeting only 20 percent of trips by private car.

These approaches stand in stark contrast to projects in the U.S. and Canada where new rail lines are still surrounded by multi-lane roads. Blonder said these are not mistakes of detail but of intent. In Toronto, where she practices, the conflict is especially visible. Governments have poured billions into subways, light rail, and regional upgrades, but the areas around stations are still framed by wide roads.

She pointed to Vaughan Metropolitan Centre, a suburb north of Toronto designed as a showcase of subway-driven growth. Despite the investment, Blonder said the roads and parking supply continue to privilege driving, undermining the potential of the transit line. She warned that today’s planning choices will lock in patterns for decades, shaping how people move, how businesses operate, and how communities evolve.

“Because once the streets are laid out, the blocks are defined, and the buildings go up, the pattern is locked in for decades—shaping how people move, how businesses thrive and how communities grow,” she wrote.

Blonder said the responsibility is especially urgent now because cities across North America are investing billions in transit expansion. If the land use around those stations continues to be dominated by cars, ridership will fall short and the financial returns on those projects will disappoint. She emphasized that every square foot of asphalt is land that could instead be used for housing, parks, or commerce.

“With billions invested in new subways and LRT, it makes little sense to layer wide roads and oversized parking on top,” she wrote. “Instead, we should be designing narrower, more charming streets where walking, cycling and transit are the natural choice because it’s faster and cheaper.”

She added that in some places, car-light or even car-free streets should be part of the vision, creating safer, more vibrant, and ultimately more valuable neighborhoods. Failing to seize the opportunity, she argued, would mean another generation trapped in car-oriented urban forms right next to the very transit systems designed to reduce reliance on cars.

The core of the problem, Blonder said, is not people’s love for cars but the simplicity of driving compared to other modes. People drive because it often feels like the easiest option, not because they prefer traffic or long commutes. When transit and active transportation are reliable, safe, and predictable, people will choose them instead.

“For me, riding my bike (and living car-free) is one of the most reliable ways to get around: I know exactly how long it will take, with no surprises from congestion or delays,” she wrote. “That kind of certainty is what makes walking, cycling, and transit competitive—not just as alternatives to driving, but as better options.”

Blonder concluded that the definition of TOD itself needs to be sharpened. “For transit-oriented development to succeed, planners, engineers and developers have to move beyond ‘transit plus cars’ models,” she wrote. “The very definition should be sharpened: a transit-oriented community is an environment where daily life without a car is not only possible, but easier.”

She said that in North America, opportunities to build new transit systems are rare, making it all the more important that every design choice reinforces people and transit over cars. Otherwise, cities risk spending billions on rail while keeping communities locked in traffic.

“The vision is straightforward but powerful: neighborhoods where transit stations are true front doors, streets are scaled to people, and walking or cycling to daily needs feels natural,” she wrote.

Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook.  Subscribe the Vanguard News letters.  To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue.  Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.

Categories:

Tags: