Post on 18-Dec-2015
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Travel Behaviour in the GTA:Trends & Prospects
Eric J. Miller, Ph.D.Bahen-Tanenbaum Professor
Interim Chair, Dept. of Civil EngineeringDirector, UTRAC
University of Toronto
Presented to theGreater Toronto Transportation Conference
November 30, 2007
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Presentation Outline
This presentation discusses the relationship between urban form, travel demand and urbansustainability.
Focus is on:• current travel trends• policy implications
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Survey Area
2001 only
1996 only
1996 and 2001
1986, 1991, 1996 and 2001
Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS)Since 1986 a major survey of travel behaviour in the GTA (and beyond) has been undertaken at the University of Toronto, funded by all planning agencies in the survey area. With a 5% sample (135,000 households in 2001), TTS is the largest travel survey program in the world. TTS provides an unparalleled database for urban transportation research.
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
In the GTA, as in most cities, all travel trends with respect to auto usage are in the “wrong” direction, moving towards a less sustainable system.
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Long-Term GTA Growth Trends
Growth Rates, Persons, Cars & Travel, 1986-2001
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Gro
wth
Rel
ativ
e to
198
6 B
ase
Persons
Cars
Trips
Auto
Transit
% Auto
% Transit
GTA population, cars & daily trips all increased by about 33% from 1986 to 2001.
Daily auto trips increased by 44%, and the share of auto trips increased by 10% from 72.1 to 79.1% of all trips.
Transit ridership only increased by 5% and its market share declined by 28%, from 21.6 to 15.7 of daily trips.
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Population by GTA Region, 1986-2001
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
1986 1991 1996 2001
Year
Hamilton
Halton
Peel
York
Durham
Toronto
% Share of GTA Population by Region, 1986-2001
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1986 1991 1996 2001
Year
Hamilton
Halton
Peel
York
Durham
Toronto
GTA population growth has been largely occurring in lower-density suburban regions:• 38-109% in suburban regions• 11% in Toronto• 15% in Hamilton
Suburban regions
GTA Population Growth Rates by Region, 1986-2001
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
1986 1991 1996 2001
Yea
r
Toronto
Durham
York
Peel
Halton
Hamilton
GTA
Suburban regions
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
-0.08
-0.04
0
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
Total HBW HBS HBD NHB
PD1Rest of TorontoRest of GTAHamiltonNiagaraGuelph/WellingtonOrangevilleBarrie/SimcoeKawartha LakesPeterboroughTOTAL
Trip-Maker Residence
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
% O car % 1 car % 2+cars
PD1Rest of TorontoRest of GTAHamiltonNiagaraGuelph/WellingtonOrangevilleBarrie/SimcoeKawartha LakesPeterboroughTOTAL
Household Residence
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Adrive Apass Transit Non-M Other
PD1Rest of TorontoRest of GTAHamiltonNiagaraGuelph/WellingtonOrangevilleBarrie/SimcoeKawartha LakesPeterboroughTOTAL
1996-2001 increases in:• daily trips per person• auto ownership• auto-drive mode shares (continuation of long term trends)
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Summary:1. More trips/person2. More cars/household3. More auto-driving/trip
Trips growingfaster than pop.
Auto trips growingfaster than totaltravel.
Highest growthrates generally insuburban & fringeareas
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
AccessibilityTransportation affects land use and location choiceby providing accessibility to land and activities.
Several measures can be used to quantify theconcept of accessibility. These measures all are:
• defined for a specific point in space• a function of the magnitude/attractiveness of alternative locations• a function of the distance/time required to reach these locations
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Accessibility MeasuresThe simplest measure is the number (or fraction) of jobs(other activities) with x km (or min.) of a point:
i
x Ai = Ej
jSx|i
Ai = Accessibility of zone i to employmentEj = Employment in zone jSx|i = Set of employment zones within x min of zone i
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
1996 - Fraction of total GTA Emp within 30 min drive (am)0 - 0.10.1 - 0.20.2 - 0.40.4 - 0.60.6 - 0.8
Employment AccessibilityBy Car, AM Peak Period
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
1996 - Fraction of total GTA Emp within 30 min transit (am)0 - 0.010.01 - 0.030.03 - 0.070.07 - 0.140.14 - 0.23No Data
Employment AccessibilityBy Transit,AM Peak Period
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Accessibility by ModeGiven the way we have built our cities & our transportationsystems, the automobile provides much higher levels ofaccessibility for most people for most activities.
Auto-based trips dominate travel, except inspecial circumstances
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1964
1986
1991
1996
1964
1986
1991
1996
1964
1986
1991
1996
1964
1986
1991
1996
auto driver auto pass local transit walk other
Home-Based Work Home-Based School Home-Based Other Non-Home Based
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Transit Usage
• Transit usage depends upon:– Auto ownership levels
– Residential densities
– Employment densities
– Transit service levels
– Socio-economics
– “Walkability” to/from transit
– Local transit coverage & connectivity to/from mainline services
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Auto Ownership
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
Region of Residence
Aver
age
Vehi
cles
per
Hou
seho
ld
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 5000-6000 6000+
Zonal Household Density (households/sq. km.)
Num
ber o
f Veh
icle
s pe
r Hou
seho
ld
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Population Density
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
1996 GTA Employment(Source: Haider, 2003)
1996 Employment Density (Source: Haider, 2003)
While many employment centres existacross the GTA, from a density perspective,the GTA is still very monocentric.
This has strong implications for transitusage.
GTA Employment Distributions
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 5000-6000 6000+
Zonal Household Density (households/sq. km.)
Avera
ge D
aily V
KT pe
r Hou
seho
ld
First Trip to WorkTrip Length
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Toronto Durham York Peel Halton Hamilton
Region of Household
Med
ian
Trip
Len
gth
(km
)
1986199119962001
Trip lengths & total auto usagevary with urban form.
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
1996 Daily CO2 Emissionsper household (kg)
Greater than 2015 to 2010 to 15
5 to 100 to 5
No population
1996 Avg. DailyCO2 EmissionsPer Household
So too doesenvironmental impact.
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
1996 Average Annual Total Travel Costs 0 - 60006000 - 1000010000 - 1400014000 - 2000020000 - 45000No Data
… and average annualtransportation costs perhousehold
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Macro vs. Micro Design
“Urban form” is defined at both a “macro” level (spatialdistribution of people, jobs, activities – “land use”) andthe “micro” level of detailed neighbourhood design(street layouts, density, fine-grain mix of uses, etc.).
Both are important in the determination of travel demandand transportation system sustainability. But, macro locationeffects tend to dominate micro neighbourhood design impacts.
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Macro vs. Micro Design, cont’d
Average Annual GHG Travel Emissions Per Household
7000
8700
11000
4500
6100
9300
3500
5000
8400
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Inner City Inner Suburb Outer Suburb
Neighbourhood Location
An
nu
al G
HG
Em
issi
on
s P
er H
hld
(kg
CO
2 eq
uiv
alen
t)
Nbhd 1
Nbhd 2
Nbhd 3
1. Conventional suburban2. Medium density3. Neo-traditional
Neighbourhood Designs
Source: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Urban Travel: Tool for Evaluating Neighbourhood Sustainability ,Prepared by IBI Group for CMHC and Natural Resources Canada, Feb. 2000
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
GTA Growth & Transportation Impacts
In a “Business as Usual” scenario with respect toGTA growth and transit system investment, autousage is projected to grow faster than population;transit usage will grow at about half the rate ofpopulation.
% Change in Daily Trips, 1996-2031 by Mode
68.8 67.6
34.3
105.7
61.9 66.6
101.2
42.5
64.2
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
1
Drive
Pass
Transit
GO-Rail
Walk
Cycle
Sch-bus
Taxi
Total
% Change in Daily VKT & Emissions, 1996-2031
6875.0 78.3
65.0
95.2
75.1
0102030405060708090
100
1
VKT
CO2
CO
NOx
HC
Fuel
% Change in Population & Employment, 1996-2031
55.8
88.2
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
100.0
1
Population
EmploymentPop. Growth Rate
Pop. Growth Rate
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Summary of Findings• Where we grow is critical to transportation sustainability.
• Employment concentration along corridors and in nodes critical to transit usage.
• Mixed-use, neighbourhood design critical to walkability and local transit use.
• Transit investment critical to transportation sustainability, but it must be:
• combined with land use design (macro & micro)• deal with local distribution as well as long-distance “line haul”
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Policy Implications
Three broad, inter-related “meta-issues” existin urban transportation planning:
1. Sustainability (environmental, economic, social)
2. Efficiency (cost-effectiveness)
3. Equity (distribution of benefits & costs)
Motorization/auto usage lies atthe heart of each of these issues..
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Greenhouse GasEmissions
Air Pollution
Urban Sprawl
Congestion
Accidents
Lack ofExercise
Global ClimateChange
Respiratory &Other Diseases
Loss of Farmland, Natural& Urban Habitat
Loss of Productivity &Leisure Time; Stress
Injuries/DeathsProductivity/Property Loss
Obesity, OtherHealth Problems
Accessibility to Activities / Mobility
Participation in Social, Recreational & Economic ActivitiesEconomic Productivity
QUALITYOF LIFE
+-
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Findings & ImplicationsIn many respects the GTA taken as a whole is representativeof other North American cities:• increasing auto ownership• increasing person trip rates• increasing suburbanization of population and employment• increasingly complex travel patterns:
• more non-work/school trips• more non-home-based trips• more non-peak-period travel
• declining transit mode shares
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%auto driver auto pass local transit walk other
Home-Based Work Home-Based School Home-Based Other Non-Home Based
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Findings & Implications, cont’dAt the same time, the GTA (City of Toronto in particular)deviates from the North American “norm”:• Transit per capita ridership, mode share & cost/revenue ratios still very high by North American standards• GO-Transit (commuter rail) very successful in competing for long-distance commuters• Continuing strength/vitality of the Toronto Central Area• Overall high density & transit orientation within the amalgamated city is highly supportive of transit
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Findings & Implications, cont’d
Important to remember/learn from our own experience:• Coordinated land use - transportation planning designed to emphasize transit does work• It is possible to maintain a strong, livable urban core, which is the economic heart of an extensive urban system
• serviceable by an attractive, cost-effective transit system• supportable without continuously expanding road capacity
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Findings & Implications, cont’d
Lessons from the Toronto experience, cont’d:
• It is possible to build at higher densities without loss of quality of life (indeed, the opposite is true)
• Regional sub-centre concept works• keeps growth within the core within manageable limits• new foci for transit network development
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Findings & Implications, cont’d
At the same time, there is little evidence from anywherethat low density, auto-oriented, suburban sprawlgenerates anything other than the consumption ofmore land, more congestion and the “need” for evenmore roads.
This never-ending, decentralizing spiral ofdevelopment is simply not sustainable inthe long run.
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Findings & Implications, cont’d
Elements of a sustainable transportation policy include:
• transit- (and walk-) supportive urban development• promotion of non-motorized modes of travel• reinvestment in transit infrastructure & services• innovative transit services• road pricing• parking price/supply• tax reform• ….
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
Policies for Sustainability
None of the ideas listed on the previous slide are new.
What is required is:• The political will/leadership to undertake change.• A willingness to invest in our transportation infrastructure• Taking neighbourhood design seriously• Recognizing that change must occur
“Business as usual” simply will not workin the future (it isn’t even working now)
Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto
THANK YOU.
QUESTIONS?
ILUTE Simulation Model
EmploymentDensity
ResidentialDensity
Socio-Economics
AutoOwnership
TransitService
Nbhd.Design
AccessibilityRoad
Network
ACTIVITY/TRAVEL
Demographics