The report says vehicle volume in downtown Toronto ran 2.6% below normal on matchdays.
There was also a sharper drop on the Gardiner Expressway, where traffic reportedly fell between 10% and 30%. That is meaningful. It shows demand-management can move behaviour when the message is clear and the alternatives are visible.
But the same update says citywide conditions stayed broadly close to pre-tournament levels. In other words, the pressure eased in selected corridors, not across the whole network.
The strongest movement came in active travel.
That matters because it changes the way host cities should measure success. If roads around the stadium still slowed before and after games, but more people arrived by bike, on foot or by transit, the transport plan was not necessarily failing. It was redistributing demand.
The report links Toronto and Vancouver to heavier congestion partly because their venues sit closer to the urban core, while better-ranked cities such as Houston, Arlington and Kansas City use stadiums farther from downtown.
Yet lower congestion does not automatically mean a cleaner event. The same analysis says longer drives to suburban stadiums can generate more emissions, including one comparison where a car trip to Gillette Stadium produced 33% more CO2 than a journey to Lumen Field.
That is the debate to watch next. As future host cities refine World Cup transport plans, the target will not just be moving cars faster. It will be moving more people with fewer cars at all.