Liveability: Who’s experiencing it and where is it?tram.mcgill.ca/Teaching/srp/documents/MarkO.pdfACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor Professor Ahmed El-Geneidy

1

Liveability:Who’sexperiencingitandwhereisit?DefiningLiveabilityThroughSpatialUrbanMetricsandCitizenInput

MasterofUrbanPlanningSupervisedResearchProject,McGillUniversity

By:[email protected]:[email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSFirstly,IwouldliketothankmysupervisorProfessorAhmedEl-Geneidyforhisguidance,support,and

encouragementthroughoutmyMasterofUrbanPlanningeducation,andespeciallyduringthisfinal

supervisedresearchproject.Additionally,IwouldliketothankseveralmemberstheTransportation

ResearchatMcGill(TRAM)team,includingEmilyGrise,MeadhbhMaguire,GenevieveBoisjoly,Lesley

Fordham,andDeavanLierop,fortheirhelpandinputonsurveydesign,dataanalysis,andvariousother

aspectsofthisproject.

Secondly,IwouldliketothankJonathanChapmanfromtheCityofCalgaryforhisinput,support,and

confidenceinthisproject,whichwasstartedduringmysummerworktermwithhim.Additionalthanks

areowedtoRandySpearing,DebbieMah,RobbWhyte,andDarylVanBoomfromtheCityofCalgaryfor

theirinputandcontributionstowardsthedevelopmentoftheinitialLiveabilityIndex.Ialsowishto

thanktheLiveableStreetsDivisionforfundingthisresearchandfortheteam’sfeedbackandsupport

duringthevariousphasesofthisproject.

Thirdly,IwouldliketothankGregMcCarthyforhisinvaluablehelpinprovidingsuggestionsforkey

socialmediaaccounts,onlineforumpages,andspecificcontactsinCalgaryforpromotingthesurvey.

Additionally,Iwouldliketothankthemanytwitterfollowers,facebookgroups,andforummembersin

Calgarywhosharedandpromotedthissurvey,whoaretoonumeroustolist.Withoutthemomentum

aroundthesurveygeneratedbysocialmedia,thedatausedinthisstudywouldnothavebeennearlyas

representativeormeaningful.Finally,IwouldliketothanktheresidentsofCalgarywhotookthetimeto

completetheCalgaryLiveabilitySurvey.

TABLEOFCONTENTS

ExecutiveSummary 2Introduction 3LiteratureReview 5AccessibilityasanIndicatorforLiveability 5MeasuringAccessibility 7Data 10CityofCalgaryLiveabilityIndex 10LiveabilityIndex:GroceryAccessScores 13LiveabilityIndex:EmploymentAccessScores 14LiveabilityIndex:SchoolAccessScores 14LiveabilityIndex:ParkAccessScores 14LiveabilityIndex:TransitQualityScores 15HomeLocationNetworkDistancetoAmenities 16CalgaryLiveabilitySurvey 18Analysis 19PrincipleComponentFactorAnalysis 19K-MeansClusterAnalysis 21TravelTypologies:CommittedCyclists 24TravelTypologies:Mixed-ModeUrbanites 26TravelTypologies:CarDependentSuburbanites 28TravelTypologies:CarInclinedBabyBoomers 30TravelTypologies:ChoiceTransitRiders 32TravelTypologies:CaptiveTransitRiders 34TravelTypologies:Car-CentricStudents&JobSeekers 36TravelTypologies:FoodUnsupportedDrivers 38Discussion 40TheLiveabilityGap 40ActiveTravelers:CommittedCyclistsandMixed-ModeUrbanites 41TransitTravelers:ChoiceandCaptiveTransitRiders 41CarTravelers:CarDependentSuburbanites,CarInclinedBabyBoomers,andFoodUnsupporteddrivers 42CarandTransitTravelers:Car-CentricStudentsandJobSeekers 43CurrentModeshareinCalgary–ProportionalRepresentation 44Conclusion 46PolicyRecommendations 47WordCited 49AppendixA:CalgaryLiveabilitySurvey 52AppendixB:CalgaryLiveabilityIndexLayers 68

LISTOFFIGURESFigure1:DemonstrationofgrocerystorebufferintersectwiththeCityofCalgaryCommunityboundaries 12Figure2:CalgaryLiveabilityIndexExample:communitygroceryaccessscores 13Figure3:CalgaryLiveabilityIndexExample:communitytransitutilityscores 16Figure4:AverageNetworkDistancestoEssentialAmenitiesfromProvidedHomeLocations 17Figure5:K-meansTravelBehaviourandLiveabilityTypologyClusterCentres 22Figure6:Annotateddatacompositionexample 23Figure7:Committedcyclistdatacompositionexample 24Figure8:Mixed-modeurbanitedatacompositionexample 26Figure9:Cardependentsuburbanitedatacompositionexample 28Figure10:Carinclinedbabyboomerdatacompositionexample 30Figure11:Choicetransitriderdatacompositionexample 32Figure12:Captivetransitriderdatacompositionexample 34Figure13:Car-centricstudents&jobseekerdatacompositionexample 36Figure14:FoodUnsupporteddriverdatacompositionexample 38Figure15:Boxplotofmeasuredvs.perceivedliveability 40

LISTOFTABLESTable1:LiveabilityMetricandStudiesandtheirincludedmeasures/variables 7Table2:PCAFactorLoadings 20Table3:CommutemodesharesofCityCensus,CBDCordoncount,andLiveabilitySurvey 44Table4:Ascendingdifferencesbetweenmeasuredandperceivedliveabilitymeans 47

CommittedCyclists

Mixed-ModeUrbanites

CarDependentSuburbanitesCarInclinedBabyBoomersFoodUnsupportedDriversCar-CentricStudentsandJobSeekersChoiceTransitRiders

CaptiveTransitRiders

0.00 - 0.10

0.11 - 0.20

0.21 - 0.30

0.31 - 0.40

0.41 - 0.50

0.51 - 0.60

0.61 - 0.70

0.71 - 0.80

0.81 - 0.90

0.91 - 1.00

¯0 5 102.5 Km

0 2.5 51.25 M

BRT Routes

LRT Tracks

0.00 - 0.10

0.11 - 0.20

0.21 - 0.30

0.31 - 0.40

0.41 - 0.50

0.51 - 0.60

0.61 - 0.70

0.71 - 0.80

0.81 - 0.90

0.91 - 1.00

¯0 5 102.5 Km

0 2.5 51.25 M

Grocery Store 800m Network Buffer

LIVEABILITY: WHO’S EXPERIENCING IT AND WHERE IS IT?EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It is recommended that:

• the current Liveability Index scores are considered to be a valid indicator for

predicting the availability of sustainable transportation choices and identifying

areas of high need and high demand for improved liveability

• further investment and continued analysis of collected survey data is used to

improve the Liveability Index

The presence of essential amenities, such as grocery stores, schools, and employment,

within attainable walking and cycling distances promotes healthier and more

sustainable lifestyles. Transportation networks with strong connectivity, safe route

options, and proximate amenities are needed to foster local accessibility and liveability.

Liveability is the ability to access opportunities to improve one’s quality of life; it is a

relative term that captures concepts of accessibility, mixed land-use, and equitability.

Context

During a Transportation Demand Management strategy update, The City of Calgary

sought to improve methods to measure the availability of sustainable/active

transportation choices. Using GIS network analyses and location data for employment

zones, grocery stores, parks, schools, and transit service, a Calgary Liveability Index

was created. However, further analysis was needed to determine how the measured

liveability values compared to perceptions of liveability and experiences by Calgary

residents.

Background

Liveability Index Validation

This study uses a geolocated travel behaviour survey to evaluate how liveable

Calgarians find their neighbourhoods, answering questions on trip satisfaction, mode

choice, and their dominant considerations when choosing a home location. When

assessing how well the original Calgary Liveability Index reflects perceptions of

liveability, it is important to consider what makes a liveable built environment based

on varying cultural, lifestyle, sociodemographic, and household structure components.

To accommodate different views of liveability, this research uses population

stratification techniques, finding eight distinct typologies of travel behaviour and

transportation needs. Results suggest travel typologies with car-focused mode-shares

tend to have larger gaps between measured and perceived liveability, while those

who predominantly walk, bicycle, or take public transit tend to be more perceptive

to accessibility and the built environment’s impact on their lifestyle and travel needs.

Recommendations

3

KEYWORDS

Accessibility,Liveability,ActiveTransportation,Factor-ClusterAnalysis,UrbanMetrics,TravelBehaviourSegmentation

INTRODUCTION

Accessibilityisthepotentialofopportunitiesforinteractioninaregionwithacertainmodechoice

(Hansen,1959).Asacounterpartoralternativetomobility,whichfocusesontheeasemovement,

accessibilityhighlightstheeaseofreachableland-useactivityfromalocationusingaspecifictransport

system(Dalvi&Martin,1976).Intheabsenceofmixedland-uses,highmobilityoftenwillnotequateto

highaccessibility(Shen,1998).Increasingly,accessibilityisbecomingaprominentthemein

transportationplanning,withtrendstowardsmorecomplexanddisaggregatedmeasuresofaccessibility

(KGeurs,Kevin,&Reggiani,2012).Inmanycities,wherereducedcar-dependencyisakeyplanning

objective,plannersandpolicymakersareusingaccessibilityconceptsasamorecomprehensive

performancemeasureforequitable,sustainable,andefficienttransportationsystems(Boisjoly&El-

Geneidy,2016).Accessibilitycanbemeasuredatlocalorregionalscales.Inmorelocalcontexts,

accessibilityisoftenlinkedtoliveability.

Liveabilityiscloselyrelatedtoaccessibilityandisanotherconceptgainingtractionincommunityand

transportationplanning(Godschalk,2004).Liveabilityisanindividual’sabilitytoaccessopportunitiesto

improvetheirqualityoflifeatalocalscale(Appleyard,Ferrell,Carroll,&Taecker,2014);itisarelative

termthatcapturesconceptsofaccessibility,mixed-use,equitability,andqualityoflife.Afurther

considerationofworkingtowardstheprovisionhighlyliveableurbanenvironmentsincludesthatan

individual’spursuitofqualityoflifesatisfactionshouldnotundulydetractfromtheliveabilityofothers

(Appleyardetal.,2014).ManaughandEl-Geneidy(2012)mappedconvexhauls,representingthe

smallestpolygoncreatedbyanindividual’soriginsanddestinations;wheresmaller,less-dispersed

convexhauls(travelbehavior)aresuggestedtobepreferable,representingmoreliveableconditions.

However,theauthorshighlightthenecessarydistinctionbetweenthosewhohaveaccesstomore

4

sustainabletransportationchoices,andthosewhotravellocallyduetoalackofchoice(Manaugh&El-

Geneidy,2012).Liveabilityinitiativesshouldincludetheprovisionoflocalessentialamenities,safe

transportationoptionsforallmodes,andequitableaccesstoopportunities.

DuringanupdatetotheTransportationDemandManagement(TDM)strategy,TheCityofCalgary

soughttoimprovemethodstomeasuretheavailabilityofsustainable/activetransportationchoicesto

Calgaryresidents.Amultivariate“LiveabilityIndex”oflocalaccessibilitymeasurementswasdeveloped

andmappedtovisualizeareasofhighandlowaccessibilitytoessentialdestinationsandamenities

(liveability).Usingthesespatiallocalaccessibilitymeasurementsandacity-widesurvey,thisresearch

lookstoimprovetheevaluationcriteriaforidentifyingareasofbothhighneedanddemandfor

improvedliveability.However,perceptionsofliveabilityaredependentonanindividual’scultural,

sociodemographic,andlifestyleaspects(D'Arcy,Tsolacos,Thériault,DesRosiers,&Joerin,2005).To

addressthevaryingideasofliveabilityinthesurveyanalysis,apopulationstratificationwasperformed

throughafactor-clusteranalysistodeveloptypologiesoftravelbehaviour,perceptions,and

experiences.Byidentifyingthemesoftravelbehaviourandtransportationneedsamongsurvey

respondents,thefactor-clustersegmentationresultsshedlightonwhoandwhereperceptionsof

liveabilityaremostinlinewithmeasuredaccessibilitytoessentialdestinationsandamenities.

Perceivedliveabilityisexploredgroupbygroup,comparingsummarydatatotravelbehaviorandspatial

accessibilitymeasurementsaroundclustermemberhomelocations.Thisresearchfindsthattravel

typologieswithcar-focusedmode-sharestendtohavelargergapsbetweenmeasuredandperceived

liveability,whilethosewhopredominantlywalk,bicycle,orusepublictransittendtobemore

perceptivetoaccessibilityandthebuiltenvironment’simpactontheirlifestyleandtravelneeds.

Differencesbetweentheplanner/transportresearcherdefinedliveabilityandperceptionsofliveability

inthegeneralpublicareshowntoexist.However,simplytuningtheCalgaryLiveabilityIndextomatch

theaverageratingsofaccessfromsurveyrespondentsisnotrecommended.Instead,thecurrenturban

metricsofliveability,whicharemostreflectiveoftheneedsandexperiencesoftheCity’smost

5

vulnerable(pedestrians,cyclists,andtransitriders),shouldbeseenasausefulindicatorforhighneed

anddemandofimprovedliveability.Furthermore,thespatialdistributionofclustermemberhome

locationsandeachtypology’spersonalizeddefinitionofliveabilityshouldbeconsideredwhenplanning

foractivetransportationintheCityofCalgary.

LITERATUREREVIEW

AccessibilityasanIndicatorforLiveability

Theeffectofthebuiltenvironmentonqualityoflife&happinessisundoubtedlyculturallyand

contextuallyspecific.Researchonaccessibilityhasshowntherearestatisticallysignificantdifferencesin

perceptionsofaccessibilitystructure,dependingontrippurposesandhouseholdprofiles(D'Arcyetal.,

2005).Largefamiliesforexamplewillhavedifferentaccessibilityintereststhanchildlesshouseholds.

However,lookingattenmajorcities,Leyden,Goldberg,andMichelbach(2011)usedorderedlogit

modelstodeterminethataccesstoemploymentopportunities,publictransit,culturalandleisure

facilities,libraries,andchildhood/childcareamenitiesweresignificantfactorsinpredictingperceptions

ofhappiness.

Researchlookingatliveabilityasasocialdeterminantofhealthfoundthatcrimeandsafety;education;

employmentandincome;healthandsocialservices;housing;leisureandculture;localfoodandother

goods;naturalenvironment;publicopenspace;transport;andsocialcohesionandlocaldemocracy

wererelevantidentifiersforliveableenvironments(Miller,Witlox,&Tribby,2013).Furtherworkfrom

theWorldHealthOrganizationreportedtransportationnoiseandtrafficaccidentdatatobeimportant

indicatorsforhealthandwellbeing(Dora&Phillips,2000).Walkscore,commonlyusedinrealestate

advertisingandbyresearchestomeasurelocalaccessibilityorliveability,attemptstocapturemanyof

theseconsiderationsintheirdata.Accesstogrocerystores,restaurants,shopping,coffeeshops,banks,

parks,schools,books(eitherlibrariesorbookstores),andentertainmentareincludedinWalkscoredata

(WalkScore,2011).Additionally,varyingweightsareappliedtothevariousamenitycategories,

attemptingtoreflecteachamenity’srelativeimportancetowalkingtripgeneration(WalkScore,2011).

6

TheEconomist’s“LiveabiltyIndex,”whichlooksatbothcitizen’sneedsandbusiness/economic

considerations,foundthatcostofliving,publictransportandroads,safetyandsecurity,andcultureand

nightlifewerethemainneighborhoodcomponentstoliveability(Economist,2010).Asimilar,survey

drivenmetricfromGallupInc.focusesonrespondents’generalsatisfactionwiththeircommunity,

feelingsoftheirareagettingbetterasaplacetolive,accesstocleanwater,perceptionsoftheirareaas

asafeplacetoexerciseandwalkaloneatnight,andaccesstoaffordablefruitsandvegetablesastheir

“basicaccess”componentstotheGallupInc.“Well-BeingIndex”(Gallup,2014).Anotherleadingmetric

forqualityoflife/liveabilityistheMercer“QualityofLivingRanking,”whichuses39weightedfactors,

predominatelytodevelopcompensationplansforinternationalemployeesassignedtolocationswith

differinglivingconditions.TheQualityofLivingRankingusesspecificneighborhoodscoringsonhousing,

medicalfacilities,educationalfacilities,infrastructure,crime,culturalandrecreationalattractions,and

availabilityofgoodsandservices(Mercer,2016).Bothsurveysseekingtobetterunderstandresidents’

perceptionsandspatiallymeasuredstudiesonliveabilityhavebeenconducted,andthetwooften

informoneanother.Table1summarizesthecomponentsofseveralliveabilityurbanmetricsand

academicstudies.

7

Table1:LiveabilityMetricandStudiesandtheirincludedmeasures/variables

MeasuringAccessibility

Geurs&VanWee(2004)describemeasuringaccessibilityfrombothland-useandtransportation

perspectives.Land-useaspectsfocusontheamount,quality,andspatialallocationofopportunities,

whilealsoconsideringthebalancebetweensupplyanddemandforanamenity/opportunity

(competition).Transportationcomponentstoaccessibilitylookatthecost,intime,monetary

requirement,orvalueoftime,totraversethedistancebetweenanoriginanddestinationusingagiven

mode(Geurs&VanWee,2004).Thesimplestaccessibilitymetricisthecumulativeopportunitymeasure

(land-usemeasure).Thismeasurecountsthenumberofreachabledestinationswithinagiventravel

time;thisindicatorhighlightstheamount,ratherthanthedistancetoamenities(Handy&Niemeier,

1997).Gravity-basedindiceshowever,focusontraveltimeandcostasameasureofimpedanceto

opportunities,andthecloseranopportunitytoanindividualoractivityzone,themoreitcontributesto

theaccessibilityvalue(Handy&Niemeier,1997).Iacono,Krizek,andEl-Geneidy(2010)suggestgravity

measuresofaccessibilityarepreferablefornon-motorizedtransportationmodes,especiallyiftravel

Index/Study

IncludedAmenities WalkScore

EconomistLiveabilityIndex

GallupInc.Well-Being

Index

MercerQualityofLivingRanking

Leyden,Goldberg,

andMichelbach

(2011)

Miller,Witlox,&Tribby(2013)

EmploymentOpportunities ¢ ¢ GroceryStore ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Schools ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Parks ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

PublicTransit ¢ ¢ MedicalFacilities ¢

Restaurants ¢ ¢ Shopping ¢ ¢

Cafes ¢ Books(stores/libraries) ¢ ¢

Entertainment/CulturalAttractions ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Banks ¢

TransportationInfrastructureQuality ¢ ¢ ¢ SafetyandSecurity ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

8

impedancevaluesareadaptedtoreflectthedisutilityfeltbycyclists,pedestrians,andpublictransit

passengers.

Studieslookingataccesstoneighborhoodamenitiesusebothgravityandcumulativeaccessibility

indices.Theprevalentmultivariateamenityindex,WalkScore,hasbeenusedinseveralstudies,anduses

acumulativescoringsystematvaryingbufferdistances,withdecayingweightwithdistance(Carr,

Dunsiger,&Marcus,2010;Manaugh&El-Geneidy,2011;Winters,Teschke,Brauer,&Fuller,2016).To

measureneighborhoodaccesstoplaygroundsinEdmonton,AB,Smoyer-Tomic,Hewko,andHodgson

(2004)usedbothgravityandcumulativemethods.Firstly,aminimum-distancecriterionwascalculated

usingpostalcodecentroidstothenearestplayground(gravity-based).Secondly,acumulative

“coverage”metricwascalculated,bysummingthenumberofplaygroundswithinan800metrebuffer

aroundpostalcodecentroids(Smoyer-Tomicetal.,2004).Furthermore,thecoveragemetricconsidered

competitionaspectsbyweightingeachpostalcodecentroidbyitspopulation.

SimilartothemethodsusedbySmoyer-Tomicetal.(2004),afoodaccessibilitystudyinWinnipeg,MB

useddisseminationblockcentroidsandnetworkdistancestosupermarketstovisualizetheregion’sfood

desserts(Wiebe,Distasio,&Shirtliffe,2016).Additionally,Wiebeetal.(2016)developedasocial

deprivationweightingschemetohighlightareasofbothhighneedandlowaccesstoretailfood

opportunities.Lookingatemploymentaccessibilityanduniqueweightingstrategies,Shen(1998)useda

gravity-basedmeasureoftraveltimetolow-wagejobs,butaddedacompetitionweightingbasedonthe

ratiooftheopportunitiestothenumberofopportunityseekers.

Hedonicpricesanalysishasalsobeenusedtoevaluateaccessibilitymeasuresandthevalueofcertain

amenitiestohomebuyers.ChinandFoong(2006)usedhedonicpriceanalysistodeterminethevalueof

accessibilitytoqualityschools.Theirstudycomputedbothprivatecarandpublictransittraveltimes

betweenactivityzonestotheregion’stop60schools,andusedthemeanastheimpedancevaluefor

theirgravity-basedmetric.Othercommonneighborhoodvariablesinhedonicswithpositiveeffectson

9

landvalueareproximitytosubwayandpublictransitstations,freewaysoronramps,proximitytoshops,

andbike-sharestations(Chau&Chin,2002;El-Geneidy,vanLierop,&Wasfi,2016).Inastudyof

pedestrianaccessibilitytotransitstations,ZielstraandHochmair(2011)usedGISnetworkbuffersto

measuretheamountofpedestrianfriendlysegmentsofnetworkdatawithinthegeneratedbuffers,

basedoncategorizedOpenStreetMapdata.Additionally,networkbufferswerecreatedwithfull

networkandpedestrian-onlydatasets,andtheirchangeinsizecompared.Inahedonicstudyof

neighborhoodtransitaccessibility,Lewis-WorkmanandBrod(1997)usedshortestpathnetwork

distancefromhomestonearesttransitstations.Amongstseveralcontrolvariables,theirmodels

indicatethatreducednetworkdistancestotransitstationshasasignificanteffectonresidential

propertyvalues(Lewis-Workman&Brod,1997).

Manystudieshaveaccuratelymeasuredaccessibilityforindividualcomponentsofliveability.However,

fewacademicstudieshavesoughttocombinemultipleaccessibilitymetricsforvariousdestinations

relevanttocomprehensivelymeasuringaliveablebuiltenvironment,suchastheproprietaryWalkScore

indices.Thisstudytakesinspirationfromthemanyaccessibilityanalysesthatpredateitandseeksto

produceamultivariatemetricthatreflectsliveabilityintheCityofCalgary.Theinputvariablesforthe

measureareinformedbyamixofprevioussurveyresearchonqualityoflife/liveabilityand

transportationresearchthatoffersinsightsonspecificamenitiesandtheirinfluenceontravelbehaviour

choicesandtheirvaluetohomebuyers.Amongcurrentresearch,predominantbuiltenvironment

aspectsrelatedtoliveabilityincludefood,parkspace,andeducationaccess,withemploymentand

publictransitaccessbeingkeynecessitiesthatareoftenhardertomeasureorlessoftenincludedin

generalliveabilitydefinitions.Entrainmentandculturalattractionsarealsocommonlyincludedin

liveabilityresearchandurbanmetrics,butisamore‘luxury’componenttoliveability.Thisstudyuses

employment,food,parkspace,school,andtransitaccesstomeasureliveability,withadditional

measurementsusedtoassessentrainment/culturalattractionaccess.Furthermore,throughthe

collectionofthegeolocatedtravelbehavioursurvey,thisstudycombinescitizeninputwiththespatial

liveabilitymeasuresinformedbytransportationresearch.Thetwoversionsofliveabilityshedlighton

10

thespatialdistributionofamenityrichareasandthedifferingexperiencesofliveabilitybyCalgary

residents.

DATA

CityofCalgaryLiveabilityIndex

ThisstudypredominatelyuseddataavailablefromtheCityofCalgarygeospatialdatabasetomeasure

theliveabilityofthebuiltenvironmentthroughoutCalgary,leadingtothegenerationofa“Calgary

LiveabilityIndex.”Thisindexisacumulativeactivetransportationaccessibilityscoreatthecommunity

level.Tomeasureaccessibilityforactivetransportation,twouniqueGIStransportationnetworkswere

generated,representingthemobilityoptionsavailabletopedestriansandcyclists.Forthepedestrian

network,expressways,skeletalroads,andotherroadsknowntobeunusablebypedestrianswere

removedfromthenetworkdata.Toaddpedestrianspecificmobilityoptions,theCity’sdetailed

pathwaydatawasmergedintothenetwork.Similarly,acyclingnetworkwasproducedbyremovingthe

samestreetsasthepedestriannetwork,butwithfurthernetworkdataremovedforstreetsassumedto

betoouncomfortable/unsafefortheaverageurbancyclist.Theprovisionofcyclistspecificmobility

optionsinthedatasetwasmodeledbymergingthepathwayandbikewaynetworkdataintothe

stripped-downnetwork.

Fromthesenetworks,separatelocalwalkingandcyclingaccessiblymeasurementswereconductedfora

varietyofessentialamenitiesincludingfood,employment,parkspace,andeducation.Tomeasureand

visualizeareaswithwalkableandbikeableaccesstotheseessentialdestinations,non-overlapping

networkbufferswerecalculatedusingArcMap’snetworkanalysttools.Varyingbufferradiiwereused

forthedifferentdestinations,basedonprevioustransportationresearchonactivetransportation.These

walkingandcyclingbuffersweregeneratedontheiruniquenetworkdatasets,wherethecustom

networksalteredtheshapeandsizeofthegeneratednetworkbufferstorepresentwalkableand

bikeablecatchmentareastotheselecteddestinations.

11

Theseparatepedestrianandcyclistnetworkbuffersforgrocerystore,employment,park,andfour

categoriesofschoolaccess(ECS,elementary,juniorhigh,andseniorhigh)createdfourteenlayersof

polygondata.Toturntheseintoacommunitylevelscore,eachnon-overlappingnetworkbufferlayer

wasintersectedwiththecommunityboundarypolygonsinArcMap(seeFigure1).Thesurfaceareaof

eachnetworkbufferfragmentfromtheintersectwascalculatedandthesumofthenetworkbuffer

fragmentsurfaceareaswerecalculatedwithineachcommunity.Eachcommunitynetworkbuffer

surfaceareasumwasthendividedbythetotalsurfaceareaofthecommunityboundary;thisgavea

percentageofcoveragebythenetworkbuffersforeachcommunity.Acommunityfullycoveredby

networkbuffersforagivenamenitywouldreceiveavalueof1.00andacommunitywithnonetwork

buffersurfaceareafallingwithinitsboundarieswouldreceiveascoreof0.Themetricproducesa

continuousvariablebetween0and1thatreflectstheamountofbuffercoverageineachcommunity.In

thisway,acommunityboundaryfullycoveredbythewalkbufferstogrocerystoresforexample,would

reflectthat100%ofthecommunityhaswalkableaccesstogrocerystores.Figure1showsexamples

fromcentralCalgaryof800mwalkbufferstogrocerystoresintersectedwithcommunityboundaries

withhighlightedexamplesofcommunitieswithhighandlowfoodaccess.

12

Figure1:DemonstrationofgrocerystorebufferintersectwiththeCityofCalgaryCommunityboundaries,usedtoconvertbuffer

fragmentsurfaceareasandcommunityboundarysurfaceareasintoacommunitylevelaccessibilityscore

Eachcommunityhadeightseparatevaluesfrom0to1representingtheirwalkableandbikeableaccess

toemploymentzones,grocerystores,parks,andschools.Theseeightvariablesandatransitutility

metricwerethenaveragedtogetherforanoverallliveabilityscoreforeachcommunity.Thevarying

buffersizesusedintheaccessibilityscorethatreflecthowfarpeoplegenerallywalkandbiketo

differentdestinationsprovidedanindirect,butbuiltinweightingschemetothepresenceofthe

differentamenitiesmeasuredintheLiveabilityIndex.Additionally,thecombinedwalkandbicycle

accessscoresforeachamenityprovidesasimpletounderstanddistancedecayaspect,where

overlappingportionsofcyclingandwalkingbuffersarebothcombinedintotheurbanmetric.The

specificsofeachcomponentoftheLiveabilityIndexarediscussedinmoredetailbelow.

13

LiveabilityIndex:GroceryAccessScores

Researchonfooddeserts(areasofpooraccesstoretailfoodopportunities)wasusedtoinformthe

bufferdistancestogrocerystorelocations.Thoughseveraldistancesareoftenusedtogeneratea

decayingmeasurewithdistance,800misoftenconsideredawalkabledistancetogrocerystores(Bader,

Purciel,Yousefzadeh,&Neckerman,2010).Assumingawalkingspeedof5km/handanaveragecycling

speedof20km/h,roughlyequivalenttraveltimesbybicyclewerecalculatedtobe3000m.TheCityof

CalgaryGISBusinessLicensefilewasusedtoidentifygrocerystorelocationsandtheircentroidsusedto

runthe800mbuffercalculationonthepedestriannetwork,andthe3200mbuffercalculatedusingthe

cyclistnetworkdataset.Figure2showsthe800mwalkbuffersandassociatedcommunityscores.

Figure2:CalgaryLiveabilityIndexExample:communitygroceryaccessscores

0.00 - 0.10

0.11 - 0.20

0.21 - 0.30

0.31 - 0.40

0.41 - 0.50

0.51 - 0.60

0.61 - 0.70

0.71 - 0.80

0.81 - 0.90

0.91 - 1.00

¯0 5 102.5 Km

0 2.5 51.25 M

Grocery Store 800m Network Buffer

14

LiveabilityIndex:EmploymentAccessScores

Foremployment,previousresearchhasshownthatthatindividualswillwalk993monaveragetowork

locationsand1,789matthe85thpercentile(Larsen,El-Geneidy,&Yasmin,2010).Betweenthemean

and85thpercentiledistances,theLiveabilityIndexusedavalueof1200mforthebufferradiito

employmentlocations,whichisapproximatelya15-minutewalkassuminganaveragewalkingspeedof

5km/h.Anapproximatelyequivalentcyclingtraveltimedistanceof5000mwasusedforthecycling

buffer.ToidentifymajoremploymentareasinCalgary,jobdensitycalculationswereperformedforthe

City’sTAZboundaries.TheTAZswerethenfilteredfortheboundarieswiththetop80%jobdensity

values;theseboundarieswereidentifiedasemploymentzones,andtheircentroidsusedtogeneratethe

1200mand5000mbuffersonthepedestrianandcyclistnetworks.

LiveabilityIndex:SchoolAccessScores

Researchonmodechoiceforchildrentravelingtotheirschoolshasshownthatstudentswill

predominantlyusemoresustainabletransportationoptionswhentheylivelessthan1kmfromtheir

schools(29%drivingasdriverorpassenger)(Wenetal.,2008).However,sincethebuffersizeswere

intendedtorepresentschoolagedindividual’sactivetransportationaccessibilityforavarietyofages,a

slightlyshorterdistanceof800mwasused;anapproximateequivalentbicycletraveltimedistanceof

3500mwasusedforthebicycleschoolaccessscore.SchoollocationswereprovidedtheCity’sGISdata

andschoolswereseparatedintoearlychildhood,elementary,juniorhigh,andhighschools,wherein

somecases,overlappingpointswerecreatedwhereschoolsofferedmultiplecategoriesofgrade

brackets.Networkbuffersweregeneratedseparatelyforeachcategory.Fullscoreswereonlypossibleif

walkable/bikeableaccesswasprovidedforallfourschoolcategories,representingaccessibleeducation

forthecompleteschoolagedlifeofstudents.

LiveabilityIndex:ParkAccessScores

Toassessparkaccessibility,perviousresearchonwalkingtoneighbourhoodparksfoundthatfamilies

wouldpermitchildrentowalktoparkswithin400m(Wolch,Wilson,&Fehrenbach,2005).400mwas

15

usedforthepedestrianbufferradiiaroundparkentrances,usingthepedestriannetwork.An

approximatelyequivalentbicycletraveltimedistanceof1750mwasusedforthebicyclenetwork

bufferscalculatedusingthecyclistnetworkdata.Parkpolygoncentroidsweredeterminedtonot

accuratelyrepresentparkaccesspointsinthenetworkandwereespeciallyproblematicwithlarger

parksservingmultiplecommunities.Toapproximatethelocationofparkentrancelactations,theCity’s

parkpolygonGISdatawasfirstfilteredtoexcludesmallgreenspacesunder2000m2(generally

representinggreenspacesthatwouldnotfunctionastripgenerators).Then,thenetworkjunctions

(intersectionpoints)within15metresofaparkpolygon(surfacearea>2000m2)wereselected.These

selectedjunctionswereusedtorunboththepedestrianandcyclistbuffers,wheremostparkcatchment

areasweremeasured/visualizedwithmultiple,non-overlapping400/1750mbuffers.

LiveabilityIndex:TransitQualityScore

ToevaluatetransitstopsinCalgary,GTFSstoplocationandroutedatawasusedinconjunctionwith

revenueoperating(ROH)datafromtheCity’sannualtransitreportswasusedtodevelopatransitutility

score.Revenueoperatinghoursarethenumberofhoursthatin-servicevehiclesarecirculatingagiven

transitrouteperday.ROHwasusedasaproxyvariablefortransitquality,sensitivetobothservice

frequencyandservicehours;highROHvaluesarefoundalongrouteswithfrequent,24hourservice,

whilelowervaluesarefoundalongrouteswithinfrequent,peak-timeonlyservice.Theweeklysumof

ROHgeneratedateachbusandLRTstopinCalgarywascalculated.Topreventlongerroutesfrom

collectinghigherscoresthanshorterroutes,thevalueswerenormalizedbyroutelengthforthetransit

utilitymetric(creatingROH/Kmvalues).WiththetransitstoplocationsandtheirassociatedROH/Km

valuesplottedinArcMap,thesumofthetransitstopROH/KmvalueswithineachofCalgary’s

communitieswasfound.ThecommunityROH/Kmsumswerenormalizedagainstthetopperforming

community(highestROH/Kmsum)withseveralidentifiedextremeROH/Kmcommunitysumsignoredin

thecalculation.Thetopperformingcommunityandtheoutliersaboveittookavalueofone,with

communityscoresrangingbetween0and1,proportionaltotheirROH/Kmsums.Figure3showsthe

mapoftransitutilityscoresforCalgary’scommunities.

16

Figure3:CalgaryLiveabilityIndexExample:communitytransitutilityscores

HomeLocationNetworkDistancetoAmenities

Usingrespondents’geolocatedhomelocations,thenetworkdistancestoseveralamenitiesand

destinationswerecalculatedforeachsurveyparticipant.Thepurposeofdevelopingthisvariablewasto

helpunderstandhomechoicedecisionsbasedonproximitytopointsofinterestinCalgary.Theshortest

distancewasusedasthecostvariableinthenetworkanalysistoprovideamorerealisticideaof

proximitythanstraightlinedistances.Thisanalysisdidnotattempttomodelroutesbasedonknown

modechoicesfromthesurvey.

0.00 - 0.10

0.11 - 0.20

0.21 - 0.30

0.31 - 0.40

0.41 - 0.50

0.51 - 0.60

0.61 - 0.70

0.71 - 0.80

0.81 - 0.90

0.91 - 1.00

¯0 5 102.5 Km

0 2.5 51.25 M

BRT Routes

LRT Tracks

17

Whenprovided,theshortestnetworkdistancestorespondents’specifiedwork,postsecondaryschool,

preferredgrocerystore,andvisitedparklocationswerecalculated.Additionally,usingbusandLRTstop

locationsinCalgary,thedistancefromeachrespondents’homelocationtotheclosestbusandLRTstops

werecalculatedusingArcMap’sClosestFacilitynetworkanalystfunction.Similarly,thenetwork

distancestothenearestearlychildhood,elementary,juniorhigh,andhighschoollocationswere

calculatedforeachprovidedhomelocation.TheCityofCalgary’sGISBusinessLicensedatawasusedto

separatebusinesslocationsintoEntertainmentandGoods/Servicescategories;thenetworkdistancesto

thenearestfiveentertainmentdestinationandthenearestfivegoods/servicesdestinationswerealso

calculatedforeachsurveyrespondent.Figure4showstheaveragedistancesandthe85thpercentile

distancestotheaforementionedamenitiesforallprovidedhomelocations.

Figure4:AverageNetworkDistancestoEssentialAmenitiesfromProvidedHomeLocations

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

NearestBustStop

PreferredGroceryStore

SumofNearest5Goods/ServicesDestinations

NearestLRTStop

SumofNearest5EntertainmentDestinations

PreferredPark

SumofNearestECS,Elementary,JuniorHigh,andSeniorHighSchools

Work/PostsecondarySchool

ShortestNetworkDistance(metres)

Mean 85thPercentile

18

CalgaryLiveabilitySurvey

Thesurveydatacomponentofthisstudywascollectedviaanonlinesurvey,promotedthroughvarious

onlinevenues,relevanttoresidentsofCalgary.Drawprizeswereofferedasincentivestoparticipate.

Numerouscommunityassociations,recreationalgroups,schools,andothergroupsbasedinCalgary

wereaskedtocirculateadescriptiveandpromotionalemailtotheirmembership.Furthermore,linksto

thesurveywerecirculatedinsocialmediaamongstCalgariansandpostsweremadeononlineforums

forCalgaryinterestgroups.Thedatacollectionperiodranfor28days,fromFebruary2nd,2017toMarch

2nd,2017;1,061fullresponseswerecollected.However,afterfurtheranalysisofthedataandduetothe

requirementsofthestudy,afinalsamplesizeof711wasusedforthepopulationstratificationanalysis.

Calgary’stotalpopulationin2015was1.4million(StatsCan,2016).

Thesurveyaskedrespondentstolocateseveralkeytraveldestinationssuchastheirhome,work,and

preferredgrocerystorelocationsbydragginganddroppingapinonamap.Respondentswerealso

askedtorankseverallistsoffactorsinorderofimportancewhenconsideringtheirhomelocation

choice,suchasproximitytolocalamenities,neighborhoodcharacteristics,andpropertyaspects.

Additionally,thesurveyaskeddetailedmodechoiceandordinalrankedtravelconveniencequestionsfor

avarietyoftriptypes,includingwork,groceries,recreation,needsofchildren,and

cultural/entertainmentdestinations.Themodechoicequestionsinthesurveyoffermuchhigherdetail

dataontravelchoiceswithincommunitiesandtoessentialdestinationsthantypicalworkcommute

modeshareinformation.Furtherdetailwasgainedbyaskingwarm,dryandcold,wetweathercondition

travelquestions.

Previousresearchhasshownthatquestionordercanhaveaneffectontheconsiderationsparticipants

havewhenansweringattitudinalquestions(Gandelman,Piani,&Ferre,2012).TheCalgaryLiveability

surveyquestionorderwasrandomizedforwarm,dryandcold,wetconditionandtripsatisfaction

questions,withoptionsappearingindifferentordersdependingonarespondent’srandomassignment

tooneoftwogroups.Thesurveyalsoincludedmanyoptionalsocioeconomicandhouseholdstructure

19

questions,whichcollectedinformationonaspectssuchaseducationlevel,income,numberofchildren

inthehousehold,numberofcarsownedbythehousehold,andage.

ANALYSIS

PrincipleComponentFactorAnalysis

Thestatisticalsoftware,SPSSwasusedtoconductaprincipalcomponentsanalysis(PCA)ofallquestions

inthesurveyrelevanttotravelbehaviorandperceptions.PCAgroupscorrelatingvariablesintofactors

thatexplainsthevariabilityinthedata.Thecreatedfactorsbecomeanewsetoflinearlyuncorrelated

variables,helpingtoreducethenumberofvariablesintheanalysis(Krizek&El-Geneidy,2007).Varimax

rotation,whichmaximizesthesumofthevariancesofthesquaredloadings,wasusedtoidentifysurvey

questionswithfactorloadingsgreaterthan0.5andlessthan-0.5.Variableswithfactorloadings

above/belowthe0.5/-0.5thresholdwereiterativelyremovedfromthePCAinorderoftheir

insignificance;leadingtoasetoffactorswithallfactorloadingsabove0.5orbelow-0.5.Table2shows

thegroupedsurveyquestionvariables,theirfactorloadings,andassignedgroupingnames.Thefourteen

factorsarethenusedinfollowinganalysistodefinesegmentsofthepopulationbasedontravel

behaviorandperceptions.

20

Table2:PCAFactorLoadings

Question/Variable SubQuestions/Variable

Iamsatisfiedwiththetraveltimeofmytrip (cold,wetconditions) .861Iamsatisfiedwiththetraveltimeofmytrip (warm,dryconditions) .852Overall,Iamsatisfiedwithmytrip (warm,dryconditions) .840Overall,Iamsatisfiedwithmytrip (cold,wetconditions) .839Thecostofmytripisreasonable (cold,wetconditions) .838Thecostofmytripisreasonable (warm,dryconditions) .837Thetraveltimeofmytripisconsistent (warm,dryconditions) .798Thetraveltimeofmytripisconsistent (cold,wetconditions) .775

Retailoptions(clothingstores,bookstores,etc.) (cold,wetconditions) .852Cultural&entertainmentattractions(theatres,restaurants,etc.) (cold,wetconditions) .834Retailoptions(clothingstores,bookstores,etc.) (warm,dryconditions) .824Cultural&entertainmentattractions(theatres,restaurants,etc.) (warm,dryconditions) .815Recreationallocations(gyms,communitycentre,) (cold,wetconditions) .791Recreationallocations(gyms,communitycentre,) (warm,dryconditions) .773

Proportionofalltrips,modechoice:walk (cold,wetconditions) .886Proportionofalltrips,modechoice:walk (warm,dryconditions) .865Proportionofalltrips,modechoice:drive (warm,dryconditions) -.734Proportionofalltrips,modechoice:drive (cold,wetconditions) -.733

Createdvariable NetworkdistancetoCBDfromreportedhomelocation -.565

Busstops (warm,dryconditions) .787Busstops (cold,wetconditions) .781LRTstops (warm,dryconditions) .756LRTstops (cold,wetconditions) .745

Cycling .749Walking .729

(warm,dryconditions) .633(cold,wetconditions) .616

Ihaveadriver’slicense .735Ihaveaccesstoaprivatelyownedcar(notcar-share) .706Proportionofalltrips,modechoice:transit (cold,wetconditions) -.637Proportionofalltrips,modechoice:transit (warm,dryconditions) -.633

Proportionofalltrips,modechoice:bike (cold,wetconditions) .899Proportionofalltrips,modechoice:bike (warm,dryconditions) .893

Student -.907Employed .900

IenjoyridingtheLRT .857Ienjoyridingthebus .849

TopChoice:QualityoftheTransportationNetwork/Systems .881

Whatyearwereyouborn? Recodedvariableforage(years) .848Inwhatyeardidyoustartlivinginyourcurrentresidence? Recodedvariableforyearsspentinhome .833

Theoverallenjoymentofthetrip .725Thelong-termeffectonmyhealth .723

Thepresenceofnearbyamenities -.873Thequalityoftheproperty .744

Thecharacteroftheneighbourhood .946

SatisfactionwithGroceryTrips

FactorLoading

AgeandYearsSpentatCurrentHomeLocation

HomeChoice:QualityofTransportNetwork/Systems

TransitEnjoyment

Occupation:Employed(+),Student(-)

ProportionofTripsTakenbyBicycle

Howmuchdoyouagreewiththefollowingstatements?

Pleaserateyourlevelofagreementwiththefollowingstatementsaboutyourtriptoyourpreferredgrocerystore

Howconvenientisitforyoutoreachthefollowingdestinations

Howimportantarethefollowingstatementswhenplanninganytrip?

Whenchoosingyourcurrenthomelocation,pleaserankatleastthetop3factorsinorderofimportancetoyouandotherslivinginthehome:


HomeChoice:CharacteroftheNeighbourhood

HomeChoice:QualityoftheProperty(+),PresenceofNearbyAmenitiesProperty(-)

ImportanceofHealthandEnjoymentWhenPlanningTrips


CarOwnership(+),TransitRidership(-)

Recodedvariableofmodechoicequestionsforalldestinations

Selectallthefollowingthatapplytoyou


Whatdescribesyoubest?(Pleasechoosetheoptionappliestoyouthemost)?

LiveableNeighbourhood

Howconvenientisitforyoutoreachthefollowingdestinations

Pleaseratehoweasyitisforyoutotravelbythefollowingmodesoftransportationinyourneighbourhood

Howwouldyouratetheoverallliveabilityofyourneighbourhood(abilitytoaccessyouressentialamenities)

ConveniencetoReachTransit

DistancetoCBD(-)andProportionofTripsTakenbyWalking(+)andDriving(-)

ConveniencetoReachEntertainment


21

K-MeansClusterAnalysis

ThefourteenPCAfactorswereusedinaK-MeansclusteranalysisisSPSS.Thistwo-step,factor-cluster

process,hasbeenshowntoeffectivelysegmentsurveyresponsesintothematicgroupings(clusters)of

commontrendswithinthePCAfactors(Damant-Sirois,Grimsrud,&El-Geneidy,2014;Song&Knaap,

2007;vanLierop&El-Geneidy,2015).Inthisstudy,thegeneratedfactorscoresforeachvariableusedin

thePCAfactorswereusedtoidentifygroupsofCalgarianswithsimilartravelbehaviours,experiences,

andperceptions.Byminimizingtheintragroupdifferences,whilemaximizingintergroupdifferences

betweenclusters,theclusteranalysisinSPSShighlightscommonthemesinthesurveyfindings.The

numberofclusterscreatedbytheanalysisispreselectedandtheprocessisaniterative,exploratory

approachtoevaluatingthequalitativegroupings.AssuggestedbyDamant-Siroisetal.(2014),the

analysiswasrunforthreetoeightclusters,wheretheanalysisofferingthebestqualitativedescriptions

ofidentifiedgroupingsisusedforfurtherexamination.Whilemanyotherstudiesonmarket

segmentationaremorefocused,suchascyclistortransitriderspecificstudies,thisstudyattemptedto

categorizeafullrangeofindividualtravelbehaviortypologies.Thisbroaderscopeledtoaneight-cluster

stratificationusedfortheanalysis.

Figure5showstheeightclustersoftravelbehaviour,experiences,andperceptionsinCalgary,withthe

clustertypologynamesdisplayedabove.Additionally,eachcluster’sproportionofrepresentationinthe

sampleislistedbelowthenames.Theplottedclustercentresrepresenttherelativepredominanceof

thefourteenfactorsinsegmentingtheclusters.Positivevaluesindicateapositiveassociationwiththe

clusterandnegativevaluesindicateanegativeassociation.Forexample,inthefirstgroup,thefactor

named“ProportionofTripsTakenbyBicycle”ishighlyassociatedwiththisfirstgroup,inapositive

direction;thissuggeststhegroupispredominantlydefinedbytheiratypicallyhighamountofcycling

trips.Factorswithbothnegativeandpositivefactorloadingsrepresentcaseswhereincludedvariables

arecorrelated,butinoppositedirections.Forexample,whenpositive,thefactornamed“CarOwnership

(+),TransitRidership(-)”indicateshighratesofpossessingadriver’slicenseandhavingaccesstocar,

butalowproportionoftripstakenbytransit.However,negativevaluesinthisfactorindicateahigh

22

proportionoftripstakenbytransit,lowdriver’slicensingrates,andlessaccesstoacar.Ascanbeseen

infigure5,thedarkbluebarrepresenting“CarOwnership(+),TransitRidership(-)”ishighlyassociated

withthetwotransitriderclusters.

Figure5:K-meansTravelBehaviourandLiveabilityTypologyClusterCentres

Theeight-clustermodelandtheidentifiedtraveltypologiescanthenbeusedtoextractsummary

statisticsanddataspecifictoeachgroup.Eight,one-page‘datacompositions’werecreatedforeach

groupwhichsummarizesinformationuniquetoeachgroup.Thedatacompositionshelptofurther

understandthelifestyle,sociodemographic,andspatialdifferencebetweentheeighttraveltypologies.

Thefollowingannotatedexampleexplainstheincludeddataanditslayoutlocationforthedata

compositions(seeFigure6).

�(��"'$�""��

�" ��"��,��'��&*�"��&�� $"#�$&*�071+� $�%�!��"��$�*�� !�&��%� $"#�$&*�0/1

�" ��"��,��$��&�$�"��&��"'$�""��

��'#�&�"!,�� #�"*��071+��&'��!&�0/1

��'#�&�"!,�� #�"*��071+��&'��!&�0/1

��!��$%��#�!&��&��'$$�!&��" ��"��&�"!�

�"!(�!��!��&"��$�!%�&�

�"!(�!��!��&"��!&�$&��! �!&�

��&�%��&�"!�)�&��$"��$*��$�#%�

�(��"'$�""��

��$��)!�$%��#�071+��$�!%�&��$%��#�0/1

�$�!%�&��!�"* �!&�

�" ��"��,��'��&*�"��$�!%#"$&��&)"$�.�*%&� %

�"!(�!��!��&"��$�!%�&�

��

��

��

��

2-6

3-6

4-6

5-6

Committed Cyclists

(6.3%)

Choice Transit Riders

(5.2%)

Car Dependent Suburbanites

(12.0%)

Car Inclined Baby Boomers

(16.5%)

Car-Centric Students &

Job Seekers

(8.9%)

Food Unsupported

Drivers

(12.8%)

Captive Transit Riders

(4.4%)

Mixed-Mode Urbanites

(34.0%)

��%&�!��&"��0/1��!�� $"#"$&�"!�"��$�#%��!��*��!��071��!��$�(�!��0/1

$"#"$&�"!�"��$�#%��!��*��*��

#"$&�!��"��&��!��!�"* �!&��!� ��!!�!��$�#%

23

Figure6:Annotateddatacompositionexample

Education Profile (%) Income Profile (%)

Most Important Amenities

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Under$20,000

$20,001-$40,000

$40,001-$60,000

$60,001-$80,000

$80,001-$100,000

$100,001-$120,000

$120,001-$140,000

$140,001-$200,000

$200,001-$300,000

Over$300,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NoFormalEducation

HighSchool

Diploma College UnderGraduate

Graduate

Bikers

¯0 5 102.5 Km

0 2.5 51.25 M

Top Consideration

HOME CHOICE CONSIDERATIONS

��

COMMITTED CYCLISTS • Most trips are taken by bicycle

• Predominantly live in central Calgary and amenity rich environments

• Most likely to consider their health and enjoyment when planning a trip

6.3 %

1-Work 2-Cycling Infrastructure 3-Public Transit

Presence of Nearby Amenities

Proportion of Sample

#

#�&

$

$�&

%��

��

��

��

��

��

��!��&�

��"

�� !��&�

��"

Network Distances to Essential Amenities (Normalized)

Mode Share (%)(all purpose)

Bike Walk

Transit Drive

OtherCommitted Cyclist Average Calgary Average

Measured vs. Perceived Liveability (Average)

Committed CyclistSurvey Rating

Committed CyclistLiveabilty Scores

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

� ��

��

Average Age: 36

��

Household Structure (%)

Car Ownership (%) Committed Cyclist Home Locations (Approximate)

BRT Routes

LRT Tracks

Major Cycling Infrastructure

Skeletal Roads

Cluster Analysis Profile

Percent Female: 36.4%

��

��

��

��

0+4

1+4

2+4

3+4

�

�

�

�

��%&�!��&"��0/1��!�� $"#"$&�"!�"��$�#%��!��*��!��071��!��$�(�!��0/1

$"#"$&�"!��$�#%��!��*��*��

#"$&�!��"��&��!��!�"* �!&��!� ��!!�!��$�#%

��$��)!�$%��#�071+��$�!%�&��$%��#�0/1

�$�!%�&��!�"* �!&�

�" ��"��,� #"$&�!��"��$�!%#"$&��&)"$�.�*%&� %

�"!(�!��!��&"��$�!%�&�

�"!(�!��!��&"��!&�$&��! �!&�

��&�%��&�"!�)�&��$"��$*��$�#%�

�(��"'$�""��

�" ��"��,��'��&*�"��&�� $"#�$&*�071+� $�%�!��"��$�*�� !�&��%� $"#�$&*�0/1

�" ��"��,��$��&�$�"��&��"'$�""��

��'#�&�"!,�� #�"*��071+��&'��!&�0/1

��!��$%��#�!&��&��'$$�!&��" ��"��&�"!�

Number of Children Number of People��

Cluster Analysis Profile • K-means cluster centre plot

from the factor-cluster analysis for the travel typology

Home Choice Considerations• Most frequently reported top consideration

when choosing a home location, given the options: presence of nearby amenities, quality of the property, character of the neighbourhood, or quality of the property

• Top three considered amenities when choosing a home location, given the options: proximity to work/school, partner’s or spouse’s work/school, children’s school/preschool, grocery stores, retail, recreation locations, culture/entertainment attractions, parks, public transit stations, cycling infrastructure, and freeways/arterial roads General Notes

• Key qualitative and quantitate observations for the cluster

Mode Share Pie Chart • Transportation mode choice

distribution for all trips reported in the survey including trips in warm, dry and cold, wet conditions to work/postsecondary school, grocery stores, social gatherings, children’s school, retail needs, culture & entertainment attractions, recreational destinations, and parks

Normalized Network Distance to Essential Amenities Radar Chart

• Chart of cluster and full-sample average network distances to eight key destinations, including work/postsecondary school; preferred grocery store; preferred park; sum of ECS, elementary, junior high, and high schools; nearest bust stop; nearest LRT stop; sum of nearest five entertainment destinations; and sum of nearest five goods/services destinations

• Note: Cluster averages are normalized against the Calgary average by dividing the cluster average by the full sample average for each destination, highlighting clusters that travel exceptionally above or below the average distances traveled by Calgarians

Measured vs. Perceived Liveability Radar Chart

• Chart of average Calgary Liveability Index scores spatially joined to the cluster members’ home locations for employment, grocery, school, and park access scores, and transit utility score, combined with respondents’ average rated convenience in warm, dry and cold, wet conditions to work/postsecondary school, preferred grocery store, children’s school, preferred park, and bus/LRT stops

• Note: Average Liveability Scores are normalized to 1-5 scale for comparison to the ordinal survey scale

Sociodemographic Frame • Contains summary

data for the cluster, including income and education distributions, average age, gender split, number of children and people in the household (normalized against the full-sample average), and number of cars owned by the household (normalized against the full-sample average)

Home Location Map• Map of

approximate home locations of survey cluster members



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Under$20,000

$20,001-$40,000

$40,001-$60,000

$60,001-$80,000

$80,001-$100,000

$100,001-$120,000

$120,001-$140,000

$140,001-$200,000

$200,001-$300,000

Over$300,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NoFormalEducation

HighSchool


Graduate

Bikers

¯0 5 102.5 Km

0 2.5 51.25 M

Top Consideration


-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50





TransitEnjoyment










-3.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

COMMITTED CYCLISTS• Most trips are taken by

bicycle • Predominantly live in central

Calgary and amenity rich environments

• Most likely to consider their health and enjoyment when planning a trip

6.3 %

1-Work 2-Cycling Infrastructure 3-Public Transit


Proportion of Sample

0

0.5

1

1.5

2Work/School

Grocery

Park

SumofSchools

NearestBusStop

NearestLRTStop

Entertainment(sumof5

destinations)

Goods/Services(sum5

destinations)



Bike

Walk

Transit Drive

OtherCommitted Cyclist Average Calgary Average


Committed CyclistSurvey Rating

Committed CyclistLiveabilty Scores

0

1

2

3

4

5Employment

Groceries

SchoolsParks

Transit

Average Age: 36

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Household Structure (Percentage Points from Sample Mean)

Car Ownership(Percentage Points from Sample Mean)

Committed Cyclist Home Locations (Approximate)

BRT Routes

LRT Tracks


Skeletal Roads



Number of Children Number of PeopleNumberofChildre

Figure 7: Committed cyclist data composition

25

CommittedCyclists

Committedcyclists(6.3%ofthesample)areprimarilysegmentedfromtheothergroupsbytheiralltrip

purposemodeshare,whichisdominatedbybicycletrips.Thisgroupalsotendstoliveinamenityrich

environments,asseeninthecommittedcyclist’snetworkdistancestoessentialamenities,whichare

generallyfarbelowtheCalgaryaverage.Thecommittedcyclistsseemtobeacutelyawareofliveability

conceptsintheirlifestyle,with“presencesofnearbyamenities”emergingasthegroup’stophome

choicelocationconsideration.Furtherhighlightingtheirstronginterestandrelianceoncycling,the

group’ssecondhighestratedamenityisaccesstocyclinginfrastructure,withwork,andpublictransit

accessrankingastheirhighestandthirdmostimportantdestinations.Inlinewithexpectations,the

committedcyclisthomelocationsaretightlyclusteredaroundcentralCalgaryanddowntown.Boththe

spatiallyjoinedliveabilityscoresforemployment,grocery,school,park,andtransitaccessandtherated

conveniencetothesedestinationsbycommittedcyclistarequitehigh;suggestingthisgroupwould

likelyberesponsiveto,andmindfulofchangesinliveabilityintheircommunitiesandthroughoutthe

CityofCalgary.

Interestingly,thecommittedcyclistsarenotparticularlyyoungonaverage(secondhighestaverage

clusterage).Theyalsohaveaslightlyhigherthanaveragenumberofchildren,butalowernumberof

totalindividualsinthehousehold;suggestingcommittedcyclistsmayoftenbeapartofsmallfamilies.

Theyarealsohighlyeducatedwithamidtohigherincomeprofile.Asexpected,theircarownership

ratesarefarbelowtheCalgaryaverage.

-3.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5



¯0 5 102.5 Km

0 2.5 51.25 M

Top Consideration


-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Under$20,000

$20,001-$40,000

$40,001-$60,000

$60,001-$80,000

$80,001-$100,000

$100,001-$120,000

$120,001-$140,000

$140,001-$200,000

$200,001-$300,000

Over$300,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NoFormalEducation

HighSchool


Graduate

Number of Children Number of People



MIXED-MODE URBANITES • Most trips taken by active transportation (walking, cycling, public transit)

• Predominately live in Central Calgary and more amenity rich areas further from the CBD

• Most likely to consider local amenities over property aspects when choosing a home location

1-Work 2-Grocery Stores3-Public Transit


34.0 %Proportion of Sample



Bike

Walk

Transit Drive

OtherMixed-Mode Urbanite Average Calgary Average


Mixed-Mode UrbaniteSurvey Rating

Mixed-Mode UrbaniteLiveabilty Scores

Average Age: 34

Mixed-Mode UrbaniteHome Locations (Approximate)

BRT Routes

LRT Tracks


Skeletal Roads



0

0.5

1

1.5

2Work/School

Grocery

Park

SumofSchools

NearestBusStop

NearestLRTStop


destinations)

Goods/Services(sum5

destinations)

0

1

2

3

4

5Employment

Groceries

SchoolsParks

Transit

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

NumberofChildre

Figure 8: Mixed-mode urbanite data composition





TransitEnjoyment










27

Mixed-ModeUrbanites

Mixed-modeurbanites(34.0%ofthesample)havethehighestpositiveexpressionofthe“Distanceto

CBD(-)andproportionoftripstakenbywalking(+)andDriving(-)”factor.Theyalsohavehighrated

conveniencetoreachentertainmentdestinationsandaremoreamenityfocusedthanpropertyquality

focusedinchoosinghomelocations.Lookingbeyondtheclustercentreresults,asexpected,mixed-

modeurbanites’topconsiderationwhenchoosingahomelocationisthepresenceofnearbyamenities.

Theirhighestpriorityamenitiestohaveproximatetotheirhomelocationsarework,grocerystores,and

publictransitstations.Thisgroupgenerallylivesinamenityrichenvironments,ascanbeseenintheir

networkdistancestoessentialamenities,whichareallbelowtheCalgaryaverage.Theeasyaccessto

essentialamenitiesthatmixed-modeurbanitesexperiencesupportsamorebalancedmodeshare,with

anexceptionallylargeproportionofwalkingtrips.Thisgroupalsohasrelativelyhightransitandcycling

ridership,aswellasoneofthelargestproportionsof“other”modesoftransport(e.g.skateboards).

Thoughmixed-modeurbanitehomelocationshavefairlywidespreadrepresentationthroughout

Calgary,thegroup’shomesaredenselyclusteredaroundcentralCalgary/downtown.

Mixed-modeurbanitesarealsohighlyeducatedwithamidtohigherincomeprofile.Theircarownership

ratesarebelowtheCalgaryaverage.Theirmixofslightlyhigherthanaveragenumbersofchildreninthe

householdwithlowerthanaveragenumbersoftotalindividualssuggeststhisgroupispredominantly

comprisedofsmallfamilies.

Proportion of Sample 12.0 %



¯0 5 102.5 Km

0 2.5 51.25 M

Top Consideration


-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NoFormalEducation

HighSchool


Graduate

NumberofChildreNumberofChildre NumberofPeople

-3.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5





TransitEnjoyment










CAR DEPENDENT SUBURBANITES• Most trips taken by car • Predominantly live in

Calgary’s peripheral neighbourhoods, in amenity scarce environments

• Least likely to repot high liveability, bikeability, and walkability for their neighbourhood

1-Work 2-Grocery Stores 3-Parks and Greenspace

Quality of the Property



Bike

Walk

Transit Drive

OtherCar Dependent Suburbanite Average

Calgary Average


Car Dependent Suburbanite Survey Rating

Car Dependent Suburbanite Liveabilty Scores

Average Age: 33

Car Dependent Suburbanite Home Locations (Approximate)

BRT Routes

LRT Tracks


Skeletal Roads



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Under$20,000

$20,001-$40,000

$40,001-$60,000

$60,001-$80,000

$80,001-$100,000

$100,001-$120,000

$120,001-$140,000

$140,001-$200,000

$200,001-$300,000

Over$300,000

0

1

2

3

4

5Employment

Groceries

SchoolsParks

Transit

0

0.5

1

1.5

2Work/School

Grocery

Park

SumofSchools

NearestBusStop

NearestLRTStop


destinations)

Goods/Services(sum5

destinations)


Figure 9: Car dependent suburbanite data composition



29

CarDependentSuburbanites

Cardependentsuburbanites(12.0%ofthesample)areprimarilysegmentedfromtherestofthesample

bytheirrelativelylowratingsoftheirneighbourhood’sliveability,walkability,andbikeability.Fromtheir

clusteranalysisprofile,cardependentsuburbanitesalsoreportlowaccesstotransitandaredissatisfied

withtheirtriptothegrocerystore.Inlinewithexpectations,thereportedamenityscarceenvironments

arereflectedinthecardependentsuburbanite’snetworkdistancestoessentialamenities,whichare

often50%to100%aboveoftheCalgaryaverage.Thegroup’sdistantproximitytogoods/services,

entertainmentdestinations,andLRTstopsareparticularlyhigh;suggestingcardependentsuburbanites

donotliveinmixedland-useenvironments.Asseenonthemapofcardependentsuburbanitehome

locations,thereareveryfewlivingnearcentralCalgary/downtown.Thisgrouphasclustermembers

locatedthroughoutCalgary’souterneighbourhoodswithaclusterinthenorthernedgeoftheCityand

manylivingsouthofFishCreekPark.Withthegroup’spooraccesstoessentialamenitiesanddisconnect

fromcentralCalgary,unsurprisingly,thecardependentsuburbanite’sall-purposemodeshareiscar

dominated.

Withthecardependentsuburbanite’stophousingchoiceprioritybeingthequalityoftheproperty,the

group’scardependenceislikelyself-imposed.Despitework,grocerystores,andparksratedastheirtop

rankedproximateamenitieswhenchoosingahomelocation,cardependentsuburbanitesdon’tseemto

locatenearthesedestinations.Thedifferencebetweentheirreportedconveniencetoreachthe

amenitiesmeasuredintheLiveabilityIndexisrelativelylarge,withtheir“perceivedliveability”much

higherthantheir“measuredliveability.”Cardependentsuburbanitesseemtobedisconnectedfrom

conceptsofliveableneighbourhoods.Highlyeducatedandholdingmoderatetohighincomes,car

dependentsuburbanitescouldlikelyaffordtoliveinmoreamenityrichenvironments,butarechoosing

areaswithmoredesirableproperties.Thisgroupalsohashighernumbersofchildrenandindividualsin

thehousehold,suggestingcardependentsuburbanitesareoftenapartoflargerfamilies.


-3.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5



¯0 5 102.5 Km

0 2.5 51.25 M

Top Consideration


-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Under$20,000

$20,001-$40,000

$40,001-$60,000

$60,001-$80,000

$80,001-$100,000

$100,001-$120,000

$120,001-$140,000

$140,001-$200,000

$200,001-$300,000

Over$300,000

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Number of Children Number of PeopleNumberofChildreNumberofChildre NumberofPeople

CAR INCLINED BABY BOOMERS • Most trips taken by car • Predominantly live in

Calgary’s peripheral neighbourhoods, in areas with moderate access to essential amenities/destinations

• Most likely to be content in neighbourhoods with generally low liveability

1-Parks and Greenspace 2-Work 3-Children’s School

Character of the Neighbourhood



Bike

Walk

Transit Drive

OtherCar Inclined Baby Boomer Average

Calgary Average


Car Inclined Baby Boomer Survey Rating

Car Inclined Baby Boomer Liveabilty Scores

Average Age: 50

Car Inclined Baby Boomer Home Locations (Approximate)

BRT Routes

LRT Tracks


Skeletal Roads



0

0.5

1

1.5

2Work/School

Grocery

Park

SumofSchools

NearestBusStop

NearestLRTStop


destinations)

Goods/Services(sum5

destinations)

0

1

2

3

4

5Employment

Groceries

SchoolsParks

Transit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NoFormalEducation

HighSchool


Graduate

Bikers

Figure 10: Car inclined baby boomer data composition







TransitEnjoyment










31

CarInclinedBabyBoomers

Carinclinedbabyboomers(16.5%)havethehighestpositiveexpressionofthe“AgeandYearsSpentat

CurrentHomeLocation”factor,indicatingtheyareolderandhavenotmovedrecently.Thegroup’s

averageageof50yearsismuchhigherthanothergroups(averageageofothersevenclustersis32

years).Thoughthegroup’scar-focusedmodeshareissimilartothecardependentsuburbanite’smode

share,carinclinedbabyboomersreporthighersatisfactionwiththeirtriptothegrocerystoreandrank

theirneighbourhoodsasmoreliveable,walkable,andbikeable.Comparedtothecardependent

suburbanites,thisgroupseemstobelivinginenvironmentsmorebefittingtotheirneeds,withtheir

networkdistancestoessentialamenitiesmoreinlinewiththeCalgaryaverage.Despitetheirmore

proximateamenities,thisgroupstilldrivesforthemajorityoftheirtrips,leadingtothe“carinclined”

name.Contrarytothegroup’ssmallernetworkdistances,theirLiveabilityIndexscoresarerelatively

low.Thissuggeststhatthatcarinclinedbabyboomersarelivinginareaswerethecommunitylevel

LiveabilityIndexscoresarelower,butarelivinginthemoreamenityrichenvironmentswithinthese

lower,measuredliveabilityareas.Asseeninthemap,carinclinedbabyboomersarerepresented

throughoutCalgarywithlessrepresentationinthenortheast.

Carinclinedbabyboomersgenerallyholdthehighestincomesofalltheclustersandarehighly

educated.Thegrouplivesinsmallhouseholdswithbothnumbersofchildrenandindividualsinthe

householdbelowtheCalgaryaverage.However,theirsecondmostimportantproximateamenitywhen

choosingahomelocationisaccesstotheirchild’sschool;suggestingclustermembersaregenerally

membersoffamilieswhosechildrenhavelefthome.Despitelowernumbersofpeopleinthehome,car

inclinedbabyboomerhouseholdsownmorecarsthantheCalgaryaverage.




¯0 5 102.5 Km

0 2.5 51.25 M

Top Consideration


-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Under$20,000

$20,001-$40,000

$40,001-$60,000

$60,001-$80,000

$80,001-$100,000

$100,001-$120,000

$120,001-$140,000

$140,001-$200,000

$200,001-$300,000

Over$300,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NoFormalEducation

HighSchool


Graduate

0

0.5

1

1.5

2Work/School

Grocery

Park

SumofSchools

NearestBusStop

NearestLRTStop


destinations)

Goods/Services(sum5

destinations)

0

1

2

3

4

5Employment

Groceries

SchoolsParks

Transit

-3.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

NumberofChildre NumberofPeopleNumber of Children Number of People





TransitEnjoyment










CHOICE TRANSIT RIDERS • Most trips taken by public transit

• Predominantly live along major LRT and BRT routes in areas with moderate access to essential amenities/destinations

• Most likely to report higher satisfaction with and enjoyment of transit trips

1-Public Transit2-Work3-Grocery Stores




Bike

Walk

Transit Drive

OtherChoice Transit Rider Average Calgary Average


Choice Transit RiderSurvey Rating

Choice Transit RiderLiveabilty Scores

Average Age: 29

Choice Transit Rider Home Locations (Approximate)

BRT Routes

LRT Tracks


Skeletal Roads



Figure 11: Choice transit rider data composition



33

ChoiceTransitRiders

Choicetransitriders(5.2%ofthesample)areprimarilysegmentedfromtherestofthesamplebytheir

veryhightransitridershiprates.Thegroupalsoreportsmuchhigherlevelsofenjoymentwhenridingthe

busorLRTthanothergroupsandratetheiraccesstopublictransitastheirmostimportantproximate

amenitywhenchoosingahomelocation.Withtheirenjoymentandprioritizationoftransitintheir

lifestyles,theseindividualsseemtobepro-transit,ratherthantransitreliant.Reflectingprevious

researchontransitridermarketsegmentation,thisclusterisnamed“choice”transit,withasecond

transitfocusedcluster(discussedbelow)named“captive”transitriders(Jin,Beimborn,&Greenwald,

2004;vanLierop&El-Geneidy,2015).Choicetransitrider’stopgeneralconsiderationinhomelocation

isthepresenceofnearbyamenitiesandgenerallyreportlivinginmoreliveable,walkable,andbikeable

communities.Despiteprioritizingtransitaccessintheirhomechoicelocations,choicetransitriders

travelfurtherthantheaverageCalgarianstoreachLRTstops,butarecloserthantheaveragenetwork

distancetoreachbusstops.Asexpected,manychoicetransitriderhomelocationsarefoundalongBRT

routes(predominantlythenorth/southrouteconnectingcentralandnorthernCalgary).Thereisalsoa

clusterofhomelocationssouthwestofdowntownandmanymorealongLRTandmajorbusroutes.

Choicetransitridersarerelativelyyoung(averageage=29years)withahigherprevalenceofstudents

inthegroup,andhaveaslightlymoremodestincomeprofilethanothergroups.Theyalsohavemuch

lowercarownershipratesandhavealargeportionofactivetransportationintheirall-purposemode

share(predominatewalking).


-3.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5



¯0 5 102.5 Km

0 2.5 51.25 M

Top Consideration


-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

NumberofChildre NumberofPeopleNumber of Children Number of People

CAPTIVE TRANSIT RIDERS • Most trips taken by public transit

• Predominantly live along major tranist routes in areas with moderate access to essential amenities

• Most likely to consider the quality of transport systems/networks when choosing a home location and to report dissatisfaction with transit

1-Public Transit2-Work 3-Parks and Greenspace

Quality of Transportation Network/Systems



Bike

Walk

Transit Drive

OtherCaptive Transit Rider Average Calgary Average


Captive Transit RiderSurvey Rating

Captive Transit RiderLiveabilty Scores

Average Age: 35

Captive Transit Rider Home Locations (Approximate)

BRT Routes

LRT Tracks


Skeletal Roads



0

0.5

1

1.5

2Work/School

Grocery

Park

SumofSchools

NearestBusStop

NearestLRTStop


destinations)

Goods/Services(sum5

destinations)

0

1

2

3

4

5Employment

Groceries

SchoolsParks

Transit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NoFormalEducation

HighSchool


Graduate

Bikers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Under$20,000

$20,001-$40,000

$40,001-$60,000

$60,001-$80,000

$80,001-$100,000

$100,001-$120,000

$120,001-$140,000

$140,001-$200,000

$200,001-$300,000

Over$300,000

Figure 12: Captive transit rider data composition







TransitEnjoyment










35

CaptiveTransitRiders

Captivetransitriders(4.4%ofthesample),likechoicetransitriders,showhightransitridershipandlow

carownershipintheclusterprofile.However,unlikechoicetransitriders,captivetransitridersreport

verylowenjoymentwhenridingthebusorLRT;infacttheyhavethesecondlowestratingoftransit

enjoymentofalltheclusters,secondonlytocardependentsuburbanites.Withtheirdislikeof,andhigh

relianceontransit,captivetransitridersalsoreportdissatisfactionwiththeirtriptothegrocerystore

andratetheirneighbourhood’sliveabilityandaccesstoavarietyofamenitiesrelativelylowerthan

othergroups.Afurtherfactorleadingtothe‘captive’natureofthistransitridergroupisthecluster’s

highassociationwiththeirtopconsiderationwhenchoosingahomelocationbeingthequalityofthe

transportnetwork/system.Withlowcarownershiprates,thisgroupseemstobemoretransit

dependentthanchoicetransitriders.Furthermore,theiraverageageissixyearshigherthanthechoice

transitgroupandtheirincomesarelower.Theyarealsomoreemployed,whereas,choicetransitriders

aremorelikelytobestudents.Withthesesociodemographicfactorsinmind,captivetransitridersare

morelikelytobe“stuck”inatransitdependentlifestylethanhavingchosenone.

Asexpected,thehomelocationsofcaptivetransitriderstendtobealongtheLRTandBRTroutesin

Calgary,predominantlyinlesscentrallocations.Captivetransitriderstendtohavesimilarnetwork

distancestoessentialamenitiestotheCalgaryaverage,withaboveaveragedistancetotheirpreferred

grocerystoresandparks.However,boththeirmeasuredLiveabilityIndexscoresandreported

conveniencetoreachessentialdestinationsaregenerallylower.




¯0 5 102.5 Km

0 2.5 51.25 M

Top Consideration


-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

0

0.5

1

1.5

2Work/School

Grocery

Park

SumofSchools

NearestBusStop

NearestLRTStop


destinations)

Goods/Services(sum5

destinations)

0

1

2

3

4

5Employment

Groceries

SchoolsParks

Transit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NoFormalEducation

HighSchool


Graduate

Bikers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Under$20,000

$20,001-$40,000

$40,001-$60,000

$60,001-$80,000

$80,001-$100,000

$100,001-$120,000

$120,001-$140,000

$140,001-$200,000

$200,001-$300,000

Over$300,000

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

-3.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Number of Children Number of PeopleNumberofChildreNumberofChildre NumberofPeople





TransitEnjoyment










CAR-CENTRIC STUDENTS & JOB SEEKERS

• Most trips taken by car, walking, and public transit

• Predominantly live near postsecondary school campuses and along major LRT and BRT lines

• Generally report lower liveability and poorer access to amenities and destinations for their neighbourhoods

1-Work 2-Public Transit 3-Grocery Stores

Presence of nearby amenities



Bike

Walk

Transit Drive

OtherCar-Centric Students & Job Seeker Average

Calgary Average


Car-Centric Students & Job SeekerSurvey Rating

Car-Centric Students & Job SeekerLiveabilty Scores

Average Age: 25

Car-Centric Students & Job Seeker Home Locations (Approximate)

BRT Routes

LRT Tracks


Skeletal Roads



Figure 13: Car-centric students & job seeker data composition



37

Car-CentricStudents&JobSeekers

Car-centricstudents&jobseekers(8.9%ofthesample)areprimarilysegmentedfromtherestofthe

samplebytheirverylowproportionofemployedindividualsandhighproportionofstudentsinthe

cluster.Thefactor“AgeandYearsSpentatCurrentHomeLocation”isalsonegativelyassociatedwith

car-centricstudents&jobseekersandthegroup’saverageageof25yearsismuchlowerthanother

groups.Furthersuggestingtheprevalenceofastudentpopulationinthegroup,car-centricstudents&

jobseekerhomelocationshaveahighrepresentationproximatetotheUniversityofCalgary,Alberta

CollegeofArtandDesignandSAITcollegecampusesnorthwestofdowntownCalgary.Thisgroupalso

hasfewerchildren,buthighernumbersofindividualsinthehouseholdthantheCalgaryaverage,

suggestingcar-centricstudents&jobseekerstendtoliveinlargerhouseholdswithroommates.Though

thegroupdoeshavearelativelymodestincomeprofile,therearemanyclustermembersreporting

incomesbetween$60-$100,000peryear.Additionally,atypicalofstudentpopulations,car-centric

students&jobseekercarownershipratesareabovetheCalgaryaverage.Withtheseaspectsinmind,it

seemstherearealsomanyindividualsinthisgroupthatmaybeunemployed/underemployedand

makingtravelchoicessimilartothoseofstudentpopulations.WithCalgary'sunemploymentandoffice

vacancyratesatanall-timehighsincethe2007economiccrash,itisnotunexpectedtohavesome

Calgariansswitchingtoregressivetravelbehaviours(CBC,2016).

Surprisingly,car-centricstudents&jobseekers’dominanttravelmodeisdriving,butalsohavethe

largestproportionoftransittrips,nexttothechoiceandcaptivetransitridergroups.Whenchoosinga

homelocation,car-centricstudents&jobseekers’topconsiderationisthepresenceofnearbyamenities

andratework/school,publictransit,andgrocerystoreaccessastheirmostimportantproximate

amenities.Thegroup’snetworkdistancestoessentialamenitiesaregenerallyinlinewithCalgary

averages,butmoredistantforparksandgood/servicesdestinations.Additionally,withlowermeasured

Liveabilityscores,thisgroupgenerallydoesnotliveinstronglyamenityrichenvironments.




¯0 5 102.5 Km

0 2.5 51.25 M

Top Consideration


-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50


FOOD UNSUPPORTED DRIVERS

• Most trips taken by car• Generally live closer to

Calgary’s core than in peripheral areas, but distantly from their preferred grocery store

• Less likely to live in larger households of families or roommates and generally report dissatisfaction with their grocery trip

1-Work 2-Partner’s Work 3-Public Transit

Quality of the Property

0

1

2

3

4

5Employment

Groceries

SchoolsParks

Transit

0

0.5

1

1.5

2Work/School

Grocery

Park

SumofSchools

NearestBusStop

NearestLRTStop


destinations)

Goods/Services(sum5

destinations)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NoFormalEducation

HighSchool


Graduate

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Under$20,000

$20,001-$40,000

$40,001-$60,000

$60,001-$80,000

$80,001-$100,000

$100,001-$120,000

$120,001-$140,000

$140,001-$200,000

$200,001-$300,000

Over$300,000

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

NumberofChildreNumberofChildre NumberofPeople



Bike

Walk

Transit Drive

OtherFood Unsupported Drivers Average

Calgary Average


Food Unsupported Drivers Survey Rating

Food Unsupported Drivers Liveabilty Scores

Average Age: 34

Food Unsupported Drivers Home Locations (Approximate)

BRT Routes

LRT Tracks


Skeletal Roads



Figure 14: Food unsupported driver data composition



-3.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5





TransitEnjoyment










39

FoodUnsupportedDrivers

Foodunsupporteddrivers(12.8%ofthesample)arepredominantlycharacterizedbytheirstrong

dissatisfactionwiththeirgrocerystoretrip.Conversely,thisgroupgenerallyratestheiraccesstotransit

andtheliveability,bikeability,andwalkabilityoftheirneighbourhoodsmorehighly.Foodunsupported

driverstendtoliveinmoreamenityrichenvironmentswiththeirnetworkdistancestoessential

amenitiesallbelowtheCalgaryaverage,exceptforthenetworkdistancetotheirpreferredgrocery

store.Foodunsupporteddrivers,onaverage,travelalmosttwicetheCalgaryaveragedistancetoreach

theirgrocerystore(8,215.6m).However,foodunsupporteddriverhomelocationsarenotnecessarilyin

areaswithpooraccesstoretailfoodoptions,suggestingtheirlesslocaltravelbehaviourisnot

necessarilyduetoalackofchoice.Despitehavingmanyamenitiesclosertofoodunsupporteddrivers’

homelocations,thisgroupislargelycardominantintheirall-purposemodeshare.Comparedtocar

dependentsuburbanites,carunsupporteddriversaremuchdifferentinfamilystructure,yetsimilarin

mostothersociodemographicaspects.Foodunsupporteddrivershavefewerchildrenandtotal

individualsinthehomeonaverage,suggestingclustermembersaremorelikelytolivealoneorwitha

partner.Additionally,theyaretheonlygrouptoreporttheirpartner’sworkasanimportantproximate

amenitywhenchoosingahomelocation.

Foodunsupporteddrivershaveamoderatetohighincomeprofileandaregenerallyhighlyeducated.

Clustermembersofthisgroupdonotseemtofitthedefinitionsofpeoplelivinginfooddeserts(areas

withoutaccesstoretailfoodopportunities),orfoodmirages(lower-incomeareas,servedby

unaffordable,luxurygrocers)(Wiebeetal.,2016).Foodunsupporteddrivers’topconsiderationwhen

choosingahomelocationisthequalityoftheproperty.Grocerystoreaccessisnothighlyprioritizedby

thisgroup.Itisprobablethatfoodunsupporteddrivershavespecificdietarypreferences(healthfood

stores,ethnicsspecialtyshops,etc.)orareloyaltospecificstores(e.g.Costco).Suchculturalpreferences

orbrandloyaltycouldexplainwhyfoodunsupporteddriversarenotutilizingmorelocallyprovidedretail

foodopportunities.

40

DISCUSSION

TheLiveabilityGap

Asseenineachtraveltypology’sradarchartsofmeasuredvs.perceivedliveability,theliveabilityindex

andsurveyresponsescanprovidevaryingdescriptionsofthebuiltenvironmentaroundrespondents’

homelocations.Wheresomegroup’ssurveyresponsesdisplayaverageanswersthatmirrorthe

LiveabilityIndexscoresspatiallyjoinedtotheirhomelocations,othersseeminglydisagreeorareless

awareofconceptsofliveabilityandaccessibility.Tosummarizeandvisualizetheeightliveabilityradar

charts,Figure15showsaboxplotofeachgroup’ssurveyresponsesandLiveabilityIndexscoreaverages.

TheboxplotsshowtheinterquartilerangeorIQR(valuesboundingtherangeofthe25thand75th

percentile,representingthemiddle50%ofthedata)andthesamplemeans(seeFigure15).Tofurther

discussthemesofliveabilityamongsimilartraveltypologies,theeightgroupshavebeencategorized

intoactive,transit,car,andcar/transittravelers.

Figure15:Boxplotofmeasuredvs.perceivedliveability

41

ActiveTravelers:CommittedCyclistsandMixed-ModeUrbanites

Bothcommittedcyclistsandmixed-modeurbanitestendtoliveincentralCalgary,inamenityrich

environments.AsseenbythehollowboxesinFigure15,thesetwogroupsliveinareaswiththeCity’s

highestmeasuredLiveabilityIndexscores.Additionally,theirreportedconveniencetoreachthesame

amenitiesintheLiveabilityindexarerelativelyhigh,withbothgroup’sratingtheirneighbourhood’s

liveabilityinthetopthreeamongtheeighttraveltypologies(CarInclinedBabyBoomersreportthe

highestratedneighbourhoodliveability).WhiletheIQRofmeasuredandperceivedliveabilitymetrics

overlapforcommittedcyclists,thereisasmallgapintheIQRsforthemixed-modeurbanites.Compared

tothecommittedcyclist’snetworkdistancestoamenities,whicharegenerallyfarbelowtheCalgary

average,mixed-modeurbanitestendtotravelfurther,closertothefull-sampleaveragedistances.

Additionally,whilecommittedcyclistsaretightlyclusteredaroundcentralCalgary/downtown,mixed-

modeurbanitehomelocationsarepredominantlyincentralCalgary,buthavemanyclustermembers

livinginareasmoredistantfromdowntown.Thesemixed-modeurbanitehomelocationsfurtherfrom

centralCalgarywillbepullingdowntheirmeasuredliveabilityscorescomparedtocommittedcyclist

homelocations.However,withthelargergapinperceivedliveabilityabovethemeasured,itisexpected

thatwhenmixed-modeurbanitehomelocationsareinmoreperipheralareas,theyaregenerally

locatinginrelativelyamenityrichenvironmentswithinthelowerLiveabilityIndexscoringcommunities.

Withbothhighmeasuredandperceivedliveability,committedcyclistsandmixed-modeurbanitesseem

tobeawareofconceptsofliveabilityandaccessibility.Thoughthiscouldbeatamoresubconscious

level,bothgroupsreportthepresenceofnearbyamenitiesastheirtopconsiderationwhenchoosinga

homelocation,suggestingtheyareactivelyconsideringtheimplicationsofhomelocationandthebuilt

environmentontheirtransportationneeds,lifestyle,andqualityoflife.

TransitTravelers:ChoiceandCaptiveTransitRiders

BothchoiceandcaptivetransitriderstendtolivealongLRTandBRTroutesandarenotclusteredin

centralCalgary’shighestmeasuredliveabilityneighbourhoods.Choiceandcaptivetransitridershave

42

verysimilarIQRsandmeanLiveabilityScores(hollowboxes)fortheirhomelocations(seeFigure14).

However,theirperceivedliveability(filledboxes)differgreatly.Captivetransitriders,despitelivingin

similarareasofCalgary,ratetheiraccesstoessentialamenitiesmuchlowerthanchoicetransitriders.

Fromthetwogroups’networkdistancetoessentialamenitiesradarcharts,itcanbeseenthatcaptive

transitridersdotravelfurtherfortheirpreferredgroceriesandpreferredpark.Thissuggeststhatwithin

similarlyscoringcommunitiesintheLiveabilityIndexalongmajortransitcorridors,thatcaptiveriders

arelivinginslightlymoreamenityscarceareaswithinthesecommunities.Captivetransitriders

however,arethegroupwhoseperceivedandmeasuredliveabilityaremostharmonized.Withless

affluenceandtransitdependentlifestyles,captivetransitridersaremorelikelytobesensitivetothe

effectsofthebuiltenvironmentontheirtransportationneeds,lifestyle,andqualityoflife.Interestingly,

thechoicetransitridergroupispartiallydefinedbytheirenjoymentoftransit,whilecaptiveriders

reportdisenchantmentwiththeirdominantmodechoice.Thisdislikeoftransitinthecaptivetransit

groupislikelycontributingtotheirreducedperceivedliveability.

Choicetransitridersareyoungerthanthecaptivetransitridergroup,andmaybemorecontentwith

theirlesscarfocusedmobility.Choicetransitridersseemsatisfiedwiththeirrelativelylow

accessibility/liveabilityaroundtheirhomelocationslocatedaroundtransithubs.Thegroup’satypical

enjoymentoftransitandtransitfocusedlifestylesseemtobepositivelyskewingtheirperceptionsof

liveabilityawayfromthemeasured.

CarTravelers:CarDependentSuburbanites,CarInclinedBabyBoomers,andFoodUnsupported

drivers

Cardependentsuburbanites,carinclinedbabyboomers,andfoodunsupporteddriversall

predominantlyrelyoncarsastheirmainmobilityoption.Cardependentsuburbanitesandcarinclined

babyboomershavethelargestgapsbetweentheirmeasuredandperceivedliveability.Withcarsoften

providingthefastestaccesstomoredistantdestinations,itisexpectedthattheircarfocusedtravel

behaviourmakesthesetwogroupslesssensitivetoloweraccessibilityandliveability.Furthermore,car

43

dependentsuburbanites,carinclinedbabyboomers,andfoodunsupporteddriversallratethequalityof

thepropertyastheirtopconsiderationwhenchoosingahomelocation.Additionally,thesegroups

generallyhavehigherincomesandpreviousresearchhasshownthathigherincomehouseholdswith

moreeducationprefertoliveinrelativelyhighqualitydwellingunitslocatedfurtherawayfromtheCBD

(Chau&Chin,2002).Thelessamenityfocusedtendenciesofthesegroupsfurtherhelpexplainthegap

betweenmeasuredandperceivedliveability.

Thegroupwithbyfarthelargestdifferencebetweentheirmeasuredandperceivedliveabilityisthecar-

inclinedbabyboomers.Withtheiraverageageat50years,thisgroupmoststronglyrepresentsretired

travelers.Retirees,whohavefewertravelneedsandmostlytravelbycar,arelikelytobethegroup

mostdisconnectedfromthebuiltenvironment’simpactontheirtransportationneeds,lifestyle,and

qualityoflife.Itisnotsurprisingthatfoodunsupporteddrivershavethemostoverlapbetweentheir

measuredandperceivedliveabilityofthecarfocusedgroups,astheytendtoliveinmorecentral,

amenityrichenvironments.Foodunsupporteddriversarealsomorelikelytonothavechildrenandwill

havefewertravelneedsassociatedwithchildcare.Withfewertravelneedsandmorecentrallocations

promotinghigherliveabilityscoresthanothergroups,foodunsupporteddrivers’strongeroverlapin

perceivedliveabilityamongthecar-focusedtravelersissomewhatexpected.

CarandTransitTravelers:Car-CentricStudentsandJobSeekers

Nexttocaptivetransitriders,car-centricstudentsandjobseekershavethemostoverlapbetweenthe

IQRsofmeasuredandperceivedliveability.Thoughthisgrouppredominantlytravelsbycar,theyhave

thesecondhighesttransitridershipratesnexttothechoiceandcaptivetransitridergroups.Car-centric

studentsandjobseekerhomelocationsarepredominantlyfoundsomewhatcentrally,northwestof

centralCalgary,nearmanymajorschools.TheseareasofCalgaryholdveryhighscoresfortransitand

employmentaccessfromtheLiveabilityIndex.Thepresenceofamenitiesrelevanttothissegmentofthe

populationmayhelpexplaintherelativelystrongcorrelationbetweenmeasuredandperceived

liveabilityinthisgroup.Thisgroup’syoungerage,likelybestrepresentingCalgary’smillennial

44

populations,alsosuggeststhatCalgary’syouthmaybemoreperceptivetodifferencesinaccessibility

andliveabilitythanoldergenerations.

CurrentModeshareinCalgary–ProportionalRepresentation

TogaininsightsintohowrepresentativetheLiveabilitysurveyrespondentsareofthegeneralCityof

Calgarypopulation,work/postsecondarycommutemodechoiceofsurveyrespondentswascompared

tothe2016CityCensusandCentralBusinessDistrictCordonCountdata(seeTable3).TheCityCensus

datarepresentsamorecomprehensiveviewofmodechoiceinCalgary,whiletheCBDcordoncountis

anannualtrafficcountcollectedatmajorentrypointsintotheCBD.

CalgaryCBDCordonCount16Hour

InboundandOutbound(2016)

CalgaryCityCensusCommute

ModeShare(2016)

Survey:Work/Postsecondary

CommuteModeChoice

Car 54.5 73.8 43.5Transit 32.9 16.4 31.4Walk 10.3 4.9 11.8

Bicycle 2.4 1.8 13.2

Table3:CommutemodesharesofCityCensus,CBDCordoncount,andLiveabilitySurvey

ComparedtotheCityCensusdata,thecommutemodechoicesfromsurveyrespondentsseemto

underrepresentdrivers(44%comparedto74%),whileoverrepresentingcyclist,pedestrians,andtransit

riders.InthedowntownCBDcordoncounts,theproportionofcartripsis54%,withtransittripsseeing

thelargestgrowthfromthecensusmodeshareat33%.Transittripsreportedintheliveabilitysurvey

areverysimilartothecordoncounttransitridershipat31%.Cyclingisoverrepresentedinthesurvey

resultscomparedtoboththecensusandcordoncountdata,whilewalkingcommutesareover

representedcomparedtothecensus,butarecomparabletothecordoncount.Withthesurveymode

sharedatashowingacloserresemblancetotheCDBCordonCount,itispossibletheliveabilitysurvey

receivedresponsesfromadisproportionatenumberofpeopleemployedintheCBD.Alternately,certain

populationsmaybemoreeagertofilloutonlinesurveysabouttravelresearch,whichcouldexplainthe

45

overrepresentationofmoreurban-mindedgroupssuchasthecommittedcyclistsandmixed-mode

urbanites.

ForthecitywideLiveabilitysurvey,thecar-focusedgroups(cardependentsuburbanites,carinclined

babyboomers,foodunsupporteddrivers,andcar-centricstudentandjobseekers)are

underrepresented.Themixed-modeurbanitesandtheirwalkingdominatedmodeshareislikelythe

mostoverrepresentedgroup.Thecommittedcyclistsarealsoexpectedtobeoverrepresented,

representing6%ofthesurveysample,whileboththeCBDandcordoncountdatareporta2%mode

shareofcyclists.Thecombinedrepresentationoftransitridersfromthechoiceandcaptivetransitrider

groupsseemstobeslightlyunderrepresentedatacombinedsampleproportionof9.6%.

46

CONCLUSIONS

Perceptionsofliveabilitydifferfromthisstudy’sversionofmeasuredliveabilitymostdrasticallyin

individualswhopredominantlydrivefortheircommutesandtoreachessentialamenities.Ofthecar

dominanttraveltypologies,oldercar-focusedtravelersaretheleastsensitivetotheirlowerliveability.

Theidentifiedcar-focusedgroupshavelessfinancialstrainontheirlifestylesandarefreertorelyon

auto-mobilitytoincreasetheiraccessibility.Commonlylivinginareasofpoorland-usemix,these

individualsarelessperceptivetolongerdistancestoreachessentialdestinations,thesacristyof

amenities,andthebuiltenvironment’seffectontheirtravelneedsandlifestyle.Conversely,individuals

facingthegreateststrainontheirtransportationneedsaremostacutelyawareoftheiraccessibility

whentheyliveinareaswithlowliveability.Thetraveltypologyfoundtohavethemostoverlapbetween

perceivedandmeasuredliveabilitywerethecaptivetransitriders,whoarehighlytransitdependent,

havelowerincomes,andexpressthegreatestfrustrationwiththeirtravelexperiences.Active

transportationusers(pedestriansandcyclists)alsoreportlevelsofaccesstoessentialamenitiesmorein

linewithmeasuredexpectations.Theirclearpreferenceforlivinginmoreurbanandamenityrich

environmentshighlightsthesegroupsasrepresentingindividualswhoaremostconsciouslypursuing

moresustainableandactivelifestyles,fosteredbymoreliveableenvironments.

TheCalgaryLiveabilityIndexcouldeasilybe“tuned”tomatchthepopulation’sreportedconvenienceto

essentialamenities/destinationswithweightingcoefficientsforeachofthenineinputvariables.

However,thisrequiresaskingthequestion:whoshouldtheLiveabilityIndexbetunedto?Withsome

groupsshowingmoreoverlapbetweentheIQRsofmeasuredandperceivedliveability,careful

considerationisneededwhendecidinghowaspectsoftheindexshouldbechangedtoreflectvarying

transportationneedsinCalgary.Lookingatthegroupswithsmallestdifferencesbetweenmean

measuredandmeanperceivedliveability,captivetransitriders,committedcyclists,car-centricstudents

&jobseekers,andmixed-modeurbanitestakethetopfourranksofmostharmonizedmeasuredand

perceivedliveability(seeTable4).Thesegroupsstronglyrepresentthemostvulnerablesegmentsofthe

populations,includingthosewhodependonpublictransitandthosewhochoosetowalkandbicycle.

47

Conversely,thetraveltypologieswiththefourleastharmonizeddifferencesbetweenmeasuredand

perceivedliveabilityarethecardependentsuburbanites,foodunsupporteddrivers,choicetransit

riders,andcarinclinedbabyboomers(allcar-focusedtravelers,exceptforchoicetransitriders).Table4

showsthedifferenceofmeansforeachgroup,arrangedinascendingorder.

MeanPerceived

Liveability

MeanMeasured

LiveabilityDifference

CaptiveTransitRiders 2.97 2.93 0.04CommittedCyclists 4.25 3.68 0.57

Car-CentricStudents&JobSeekers 3.71 2.84 0.87Mixed-ModeUrbanites 4.28 3.26 1.02

FoodUnsupportedDrivers 4.09 3.05 1.04CarDependentSuburbanites 3.32 2.25 1.08

ChoiceTransitRiders 4.09 2.84 1.25CarInclinedBabyBoomers 4.34 2.69 1.65

Table4:Ascendingdifferencesbetweenmeasuredandperceivedliveabilitymeansbytravelbehaviourtypology

TheCalgaryLiveabilityIndex,initscurrentform,isastrongindicatorforspatiallypredictingthe

availabilityofsustainabletransportationchoicesandidentifyingareasofhighneedandhighdemandfor

improvedliveability.Thoughtheurbanmetricnicelyalignswithtravelbehaviourtypologieswhoare

mostsensitivetochangestolocalaccessibility,furtherrefinementispossiblethroughadditionalanalysis

oftheCalgaryLiveabilitySurveydataset.Byexaminingtherelationshipbetweendistancestospecific

essentialamenitiesbymodechoicesinthesurvey,theindex’spedestrianandcyclingbufferradiibased

onpreviousresearchcanbereplacedbycatchmentareasdefinedbyresidentsofCalgary.Thisanalysis

willbecoveredinafollowingreport.

POLICYRECOMMENDATIONS

ItisrecommendedthattheCityofCalgaryLiveableStreetsDivisionfocusitsTransportationDemand

Managementeffortswheretheyaremostneededspatially,andmostlikelytopromoteshiftstowards

moresustainabletransportationchoicesculturally.Forcartravelers,itisrecommendedthattransit

48

shouldbeincentivizedordrivingshouldbedisincentivized.Thisgroup,whichlikelyrepresentalarge

portionofthecartrafficenteringtheCBDatpeaktimescouldbeexcellentcandidatesforBRTandLRT

alternativestotheircartrips.However,withtheirgenerallyhigherincomes,farereductionsareunlikely

toattracttransitcustomersfromcar-focusedtraveltypologies.CBDparkingreductionsforexample,

couldbemoreeffectiveatgarneringshiftstowardstransit.Forthecurrenttransittravelers,itis

recommendedthateffortsaremadetoimproveandpromotethemixedmodeexperienceoftransit

users.Thecaptivetransitgroup,whichdisliketheirdependenceontransit,couldbecandidatesfor

improvedaccessibility/liveabilityhavingthegreatestpositiveimpactontheirqualityoflife.Improved

cyclinginfrastructureandpedestrian/cyclistspecificlinkstoshortentripdistancestokeydestinationsby

activetransportationcouldhelptheseindividualsfeellessreliantontheCity’stransitnetworkandfreer

tomakemoretripsontheirownschedule.Foractivetravelers,furthercyclinginfrastructureand

pedestrianorientedurbandesignshouldbeprioritizedtomaintainindividualsinthesetraveltypologies

andpromoteshiftstowardsgreaterclustermembershipinmoresustainabletransportorientedgroups.

Finally,car/transittravelingstudentsandyouthshouldbesupportedwithadequatetransitservicefor

currentandfutureneeds,tohelpmaintaintheirhightransitusage,whilepreventingthiscohortfrom

agingintofurthercarreliance.

49

WorksCitied

Appleyard,B.,Ferrell,C.,Carroll,M.,&Taecker,M.(2014).TowardLivabilityEthics:AFrameworktoGuidePlanning,Design,andEngineeringDecisions.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard(2403),62-71.

Bader,M.D.,Purciel,M.,Yousefzadeh,P.,&Neckerman,K.M.(2010).Disparitiesinneighborhoodfoodenvironments:Implicationsofmeasurementstrategies.EconomicGeography,86(4),409-430.

Boisjoly,G.,&El-Geneidy,A.M.(2016).Howtogetthere?Acriticalassessmentofaccessibilityobjectivesandindicatorsinmetropolitantransportationplans.

Carr,L.J.,Dunsiger,S.I.,&Marcus,B.H.(2010).ValidationofWalkScoreforestimatingaccesstowalkableamenities.BritishJournalofSportsMedicine,bjsports69609.

CBC.(2016).Calgary'sEconomyhasShiftedfrom'Recession'toSlow'Recovery,'EconomistsPredict.CBCNews.

Chau,K.,&Chin,T.(2002).Acriticalreviewofliteratureonthehedonicpricemodel.Chin,H.C.,&Foong,K.W.(2006).Influenceofschoolaccessibilityonhousingvalues.Journalof

urbanplanninganddevelopment,132(3),120-129.D'Arcy,E.,Tsolacos,S.,Thériault,M.,DesRosiers,F.,&Joerin,F.(2005).Modellingaccessibility

tourbanservicesusingfuzzylogic:Acomparativeanalysisoftwomethods.JournalofPropertyInvestment&Finance,23(1),22-54.

Dalvi,M.Q.,&Martin,K.(1976).Themeasurementofaccessibility:somepreliminaryresults.Transportation,5(1),17-42.

Damant-Sirois,G.,Grimsrud,M.,&El-Geneidy,A.M.(2014).What’syourtype:Amultidimensionalcyclisttypology.Transportation,41(6),1153-1169.

Dora,C.,&Phillips,M.(2000).Transport,environmentandhealth:WHORegionalOfficeEurope.

Economist,T.(2010).LiveableCities:Challengesandopportunitiesforpolicymakers.TheEconomist,IntelligenceUnit,22.

El-Geneidy,A.,vanLierop,D.,&Wasfi,R.(2016).Dopeoplevaluebicyclesharing?AmultilevellongitudinalanalysiscapturingtheimpactofbicyclesharingonresidentialsalesinMontreal,Canada.TransportPolicy,51,174-181.

Gallup,H.(2014).Gallup-HealthwaysWell-BeingIndex:methodologyreportforindexes.Gandelman,N.,Piani,G.,&Ferre,Z.(2012).Neighborhooddeterminantsofqualityoflife.

JournalofHappinessStudies,13(3),547-563.Geurs,K.,Kevin,J.,&Reggiani,A.(2012).Accessibilityanalysisandtransportplanning:an

introduction.AccessibilityAnalysisandTransportPlanning.ChallengesforEuropeandNorthAmerica.Cheltenham,UKyNorthampton,USA:Nectar,1-14.

Geurs,K.,&VanWee,B.(2004).Accessibilityevaluationofland-useandtransportstrategies:reviewandresearchdirections.JournalofTransportGeography,12(2),127-140.

Godschalk,D.R.(2004).Landuseplanningchallenges:Copingwithconflictsinvisionsofsustainabledevelopmentandlivablecommunities.JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation,70(1),5-13.

Handy,S.L.,&Niemeier,D.A.(1997).Measuringaccessibility:anexplorationofissuesandalternatives.EnvironmentandplanningA,29(7),1175-1194.

50

Hansen,W.G.(1959).Howaccessibilityshapeslanduse.JournaloftheAmericanInstituteofplanners,25(2),73-76.

Iacono,M.,Krizek,K.J.,&El-Geneidy,A.(2010).Measuringnon-motorizedaccessibility:issues,alternatives,andexecution.JournalofTransportGeography,18(1),133-140.

Jin,X.,Beimborn,E.,&Greenwald,M.(2004).Impactsofaccessibility,connectivityandmodecaptivityontransitchoice.Retrievedfrom

Krizek,K.J.,&El-Geneidy,A.(2007).Segmentingpreferencesandhabitsoftransitusersandnon-users.JournalofPublicTransportation,10(3),5.

Larsen,J.,El-Geneidy,A.,&Yasmin,F.(2010).Beyondthequartermile:examiningtraveldistancesbywalkingandcycling,Montréal,Canada.CanJUrbanRes,19,70-88.

Lewis-Workman,S.,&Brod,D.(1997).Measuringtheneighborhoodbenefitsofrailtransitaccessibility.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard(1576),147-153.

Leyden,K.M.,Goldberg,A.,&Michelbach,P.(2011).Understandingthepursuitofhappinessintenmajorcities.UrbanAffairsReview,47(6),861-888.

Manaugh,K.,&El-Geneidy,A.(2011).Validatingwalkabilityindices:Howdodifferenthouseholdsrespondtothewalkabilityoftheirneighborhood?TransportationResearchPartD:TransportandEnvironment,16(4),309-315.

Manaugh,K.,&El-Geneidy,A.(2012).Whatmakestravel'local':Definingandunderstandinglocaltravelbehaviour.JournalofTransportandLandUse,5(3).

Mercer.(2016).LocationEvaluationandQualityofLivingReports.RetrievedfromMiller,H.J.,Witlox,F.,&Tribby,C.P.(2013).Developingcontext-sensitivelivabilityindicators

fortransportationplanning:ameasurementframework.JournalofTransportGeography,26,51-64.

Shen,Q.(1998).Locationcharacteristicsofinner-cityneighborhoodsandemploymentaccessibilityoflow-wageworkers.EnvironmentandplanningB:PlanningandDesign,25(3),345-365.

Smoyer�Tomic,K.E.,Hewko,J.N.,&Hodgson,M.J.(2004).SpatialaccessibilityandequityofplaygroundsinEdmonton,Canada.TheCanadianGeographer/LeGéographeCanadien,48(3),287-302.

Song,Y.,&Knaap,G.-J.(2007).Quantitativeclassificationofneighbourhoods:Theneighbourhoodsofnewsingle-familyhomesinthePortlandMetropolitanArea.JournalofUrbandesign,12(1),1-24.

StatsCan.(2016).Populationofcensusmetropolitanareas.Canada.vanLierop,D.,&El-Geneidy,A.(2015).Gettingcommitted:Anewperspectiveonpublictransit

marketsegmentationfromtwoCanadiancities.PaperpresentedattheTransportationResearchBoard94thAnnualMeeting.

WalkScore.(2011).Walkscoremethodology.RetrievedfromWen,L.M.,Fry,D.,Rissel,C.,Dirkis,H.,Balafas,A.,&Merom,D.(2008).Factorsassociatedwith

childrenbeingdriventoschool:implicationsforwalktoschoolprograms.Healtheducationresearch,23(2),325-334.

Wiebe,K.,Distasio,J.,&Shirtliffe,R.(2016).ConfrontingtheIllusion:DevelopingaMethodtoIdentifyFoodMiragesandFoodDesertsinWinnipeg.

51

Winters,M.,Teschke,K.,Brauer,M.,&Fuller,D.(2016).BikeScore®:Associationsbetweenurbanbikeabilityandcyclingbehaviorin24cities.InternationalJournalofBehavioralNutritionandPhysicalActivity,13(1),18.

Wolch,J.,Wilson,J.P.,&Fehrenbach,J.(2005).ParksandparkfundinginLosAngeles:Anequity-mappinganalysis.Urbangeography,26(1),4-35.

Zielstra,D.,&Hochmair,H.(2011).Comparativestudyofpedestrianaccessibilitytotransitstationsusingfreeandproprietarynetworkdata.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard(2217),145-152.

APPENDIXA:CalgaryLiveabilitySurvey

CalgaryLiveability&TravelSurvey

CalgaryLiveabilityStudy

Theinterdisciplinaryresearchgroup,TransportationResearchatMcGill(TRAM),inMontreal,Canada,incollaborationwiththeCityofCalgary,iscurrentlyundertakingresearchaimingtoupdateandenrichinformationfroma2016projectlookingattheliveabilityofcommunitiesinCalgaryAB.Additionally,thissurveyalsoaimstoevaluatethetravelhabitsofCalgarians,helpingtoinformfuturetransportationplanninginCalgaryandproduceacademic,transportationresearch.Yourparticipationisgreatlyappreciatedandgivesyouthechancetowingreatprizes(approximately1/500odds),including:•iPad(2prizes,valuedat$329each)•Calgarytransitpasses(2prizes,valuedat$101each)Withabitofyourtime,youcanhelpguidefurtherimprovementstowalkability,cyclinginfrastructure,andtransitaccessincommunitiesinCalgaryAB.TheprojectwillbeconductedbyMarkOnderwater,asecondyeargraduatestudentfromtheMcGillSchoolofUrbanPlanningandpreviousemployeeoftheCityofCalgary.TheresearchissupervisedbyAhmedEl-Geneidy,AssociateProfessorwiththeSchoolofUrbanPlanning,andtheCityofCalgaryLiveableStreetsDivision.FundingisprovidedbytheCityofCalgary,LiveableStreetsDivision.Thissurveywilltakeapproximately10-15minutestocomplete.Participationisvoluntary,andyoumayexitthesurveyatanytime.Attheendofthesurvey,youmayoptionallyprovideyouremailaddresstobeincludedintheprizedraw.Thedatawillbeanonymized;emailaddresseswillonlybeusedfortheprizedrawandwillneverbedownloadedwiththesurveydata.Completingthesurveyindicatesconsenttoparticipateinthisstudy.Whilethesurveydoesnotaskforyourname,wedoaskforapproximatehomeandworklocationsthatmightmakeitpossibleforsomeonetoidentifyyou.However,allsurveyresponseswillremainconfidential,storedonpasswordprotectedcomputers,andparticipantswillnotbeidentifiedinanypublicationsorreports.Thedatamaybekeptforfuturerelatedresearchpurposes.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorconcernsregardingthisresearchproject,pleasesendanemailtomark.onderwater@mail.mcgill.caorahmed.elgeneidy@mcgill.ca.Ifyouneedurgentassistance,youmaycallTRAMat514-398-4058.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorconcernsregardingyourrightsorwelfareasaparticipantinthisresearchstudy,pleasecontacttheMcGillResearchEthicsOfficer,DeannaCollin([email protected]).Thankyouforyourparticipation!Thereare88questionsinthissurvey(Ifdesired,pleaseprintacopyofthispageforyourrecords)

GeneralHappinessandCommuteSatisfaction

1.Takingallthingsintoaccount,pleaseratehowsatisfiedyouarewithyourlifethesedaysonascalefrom0to10,where0meansleastsatisfiedand10meansmostsatisfied. (clickableradiobuttonsfrom0to10)2.Onascalefrom0to10,pleaseratetowhatextentyourcommuteimpactsyourqualityoflife,where0meansyourcommutehasnoimpactonyourqualityoflife,and10meansyourcommutehighlyimpactsyourqualityoflife. (clickableradiobuttonsfrom0to10)

OccupationsStatusandHome/Work/SchoolMapLocations

3.Whatdescribesyoubest?(Pleasechoosetheoptionappliestoyouthemost)?

• Employed• Unemployed• Student• Retired

4.Onthefollowingmap,pleaseadjustthezoomanddragthepintothenearestintersectiontoyourcurrenthomelocation: (Interactivemap,pre-zoomedtoCalgary)*IfQ4=Employed5.1.Onthefollowingmap,pleaseadjustthezoomanddragthepintoyourworklocation:

(Interactivemap,pre-zoomedtoCalgary)*IfQ4=Student5.2.Onthefollowingmap,pleaseadjustthezoomanddragthepintoyourschoollocation:

(Interactivemap,pre-zoomedtoCalgary)

HomeChoiceConsiderations

6.Whenchoosingyourcurrenthomelocation,pleaserankatleastthetop3factorsinorderofimportancetoyouandotherslivinginthehome:

• Thepresenceofnearbyamenities• Thecharacteroftheneighbourhood• Thequalityoftheproperty• Thequalityofthearea'stransportationnetwork/systems

7.Whenchoosingyourcurrenthomelocation,pleaserankatleastthetop3considerationsrelatedtonearbyamenitiesinorderofimportancetoyouandotherslivinginthehome:

• Proximitytomywork/school• Proximitytomypartner’sorspouse'swork/schoolProximitytochildren’sschool/preschool• Proximitytogrocerystores

Proximitytopublictransit(bus,CTrainstations,etc.)• Proximitytoretail(clothingstores,bookstores,etc.)• Proximitytorecreationallocations(gyms,communitycentre,trailcentre)• Proximitytoparksandgreenspaces• Proximitytocyclinglanesandoff-streetpathways• Proximitytofreewaysorarterialroads• Proximitytocultural&entertainmentattractions(theatres,restaurants,etc.)

8.Whenchoosingyourcurrenthomelocation,pleaserankthetop3considerationsrelatedtoneighbourhoodcharacteristicsinorderofimportancetoyouandotherslivinginthehome:

• Thewalkabilityoftheneighbourhood• Thebikeabilityoftheneighbourhood• Thesenseofcommunityintheneighbourhood• Quietnessoftheneighbourhood• Thelivelinessofthesurroundingarea• Thequalityofthepublictransitsystemsinthearea• Uncongestedtrafficconditions• Theattractivenessofthehousingintheneighbourhood

9.Whenchoosingyourcurrenthomelocation,pleaserankatleastthetop3considerationsrelatedtothequalityofthepropertyinorderofimportancetoyouandotherslivinginthehome:

• Theaffordabilityoftheproperty• ThecostoftransportationrelatedtothehomelocationSpaciouslot,withagarageandyard• Sizeofthehouse(livingspace)• Theageofthehouse

ModeChoiceandTravelPerceptions

10.Pleaseratehoweasyitisforyoutotravelbythefollowingmodesoftransportationinyourneighbourhood. Very

Difficult

Somewhat

Difficult

Neutral Somewhat

Easy

VeryEasy Not

Applicable

• Walk O O O O O O• Cycling O O O O O O• PublicTransit O O O O O O• Drivingasadriveror

passengerO O O O O O

11.Whichmodeoftransportationdoyouusuallyusetoreachthefollowingfacilitiesinyourneighbourhoodinwarm,dryweather? Drive Bus CTrain Bicycle Walk Other Not

Applicable

• YourWork O O O O O O O • YourSchool O O O O O O O • Grocerystores O O O O O O O • Yourchildren'sschool

orpreschoolO O O O O O O

• Retailoptions(clothingstores,bookstores,etc.)

O O O O O O O

• Cultural&entertainmentattractions(theatres,restaurants,etc.)

O O O O O O O

• Recreationallocations(gyms,communitycentre,trailcentre)

O O O O O O O

• Parksandgreenspaces

O O O O O O O

12.Howconvenientisitforyoutoreachthefollowingdestinationsinwarm,dryweather? Extremely

Inconvenient

Somewhat

Inconvenient

Neutral Somewhat

Convenient

Extremely

Convenient

Not

Applicable

• YourWork O O O O O O• YourSchool O O O O O O• Grocerystores O O O O O O• Yourchildren's

schoolorpreschool

O O O O O O

• Busstops O O O O O O • CTrainstops O O O O O O • Retailoptions

(clothingstores,bookstores,etc.)

O O O O O O


O O O O O O


O O O O O O


O O O O O O

13.Doyouusethesamemodeoftransportationincold,wetweathertogettoallofyourdestinations? (yes/no)*IfQ13=no,cold,wetconditionsquestionsasked

14.Whichmodeoftransportationdoyouusuallyusetoreachthefollowingfacilitiesinyourneighbourhoodincold,wetweather? Drive Bus CTrain Bicycle Walk Other Not

Applicable

• YourWork O O O O O O O • YourSchool O O O O O O O • Grocerystores O O O O O O O • Yourchildren'sschool

orpreschoolO O O O O O O

• Retailoptions(clothingstores,bookstores,etc.)

O O O O O O O


O O O O O O O


O O O O O O O


O O O O O O O

15.Howconvenientisitforyoutoreachthefollowingdestinationsincold,wetweather? Extremely

Inconvenient

Somewhat

Inconvenient

Neutral Somewhat

Convenient

Extremely

Convenient

Not

Applicable

• YourWork O O O O O O• YourSchool O O O O O O• Grocerystores O O O O O O• Yourchildren's

schoolorpreschool

O O O O O O

• Busstops O O O O O O • CTrainstops O O O O O O • Retailoptions

(clothingstores,bookstores,etc.)

O O O O O O


O O O O O O


O O O O O O


O O O O O O

16.Whydoyouchangeyourmodeoftransportationbetweenwarm,dryconditionsandcold,wetconditions?Checkallthatapply

• Warm,drymodechoicenotsafeincold,wetconditions• Warm,drymodechoicetakestoolongincold,wetconditionsWarm,drymodechoicenot

comfortableincold,wetconditions• Other:(opentextanswer)

Work/SchoolTripSatisfaction

*IfQ4=Employed17.1.Pleaserateyourlevelofagreementwiththefollowingstatementsaboutyourtriptoworkonatypicaldaywithwarm,dryweatherconditionsusingtheprimarymodeyouselectedearlier Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Neutral Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Not

Applicable

• Iamsatisfiedwiththetraveltimeofmytrip

O O O O O O

• Thetraveltimeofmytripisconsistent

O O O O O O

• Thecostofmytripisreasonable

O O O O O O

• Overall,Iamsatisfiedwithmytrip

O O O O O O

18.1.Pleaserateyourlevelofagreementwiththefollowingstatementsaboutyourtriptoworkonatypicaldaywithcold,wetweatherconditionsusingtheprimarymodeyouselectedearlier Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Neutral Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Not

Applicable


O O O O O O


O O O O O O


O O O O O O


O O O O O O

*IfQ4=Student17.2.Pleaserateyourlevelofagreementwiththefollowingstatementsaboutyourtriptoschoolonatypicaldaywithwarm,dryweatherconditionsusingtheprimarymodeyouselectedearlier Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Neutral Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Not

Applicable


O O O O O O


O O O O O O


O O O O O O


O O O O O O

18.2.Pleaserateyourlevelofagreementwiththefollowingstatementsaboutyourtriptoschoolonatypicaldaywithcold,wetweatherconditionsusingtheprimarymodeyouselectedearlier Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Neutral Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Not

Applicable


O O O O O O


O O O O O O


O O O O O O


O O O O O O

GroceryStoreMapLocationandTripSatisfaction

19.Onthefollowingmap,pleaseadjustthezoomanddragthepintothelocationofthegrocerystoreyoushopatmostoften:


20.Pleaserateyourlevelofagreementwiththefollowingstatementsaboutyourtriptoyourpreferredgrocerystoreonatypicaldaywithwarm,dryweatherconditionsusingtheprimarymodeyouselectedearlier Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Neutral Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Not

Applicable


O O O O O O


O O O O O O


O O O O O O


O O O O O O

21.Pleaserateyourlevelofagreementwiththefollowingstatementsaboutyourtriptoyourpreferredgrocerystoreonatypicaldaywithcold,wetweatherconditionsusingtheprimarymodeyouselectedearlier Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Neutral Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Not

Applicable


O O O O O O


O O O O O O


O O O O O O


O O O O O O

TripChaining

*IfQ4=Employed22.1Onatypicaldaywithwarm,dryweatherconditions,doyouregularlystoponyourwaytoorfromworkforanyofthefollowingpurposes?Checkallthatapply

• Dropoffchildrenatschool/daycare/etc.Groceryshopping• Buycoffee/meal• Stopatthegym• Stopatthebank/postoffice/etc.• Stopforsocialgatherings• Idon’tstoponmywaytoworkforanypurpose• Other:(opentextanswer)

23.1Onatypicaldaywithcold,wetweatherconditions,doyouregularlystoponyourwaytoorfromworkforanyofthefollowingpurposes?Checkallthatapply


*IfQ4=Student22.2Onatypicaldaywithwarm,dryweatherconditions,doyouregularlystoponyourwaytoorfromworkforanyofthefollowingpurposes?Checkallthatapply


23.2Onatypicaldaywithcold,wetweatherconditions,doyouregularlystoponyourwaytoorfromworkforanyofthefollowingpurposes?Checkallthatapply


TravelConsiderations

24.Howimportantarethefollowingstatementswhenplanninganytrip? Extremely

Unimportant

Somewhat

Unimportant

Neutral Somewhat

Important

Extremely

Important

Not

Applicable

• Thetravelhabitsofmyfriendsandfamily

O O O O O O

• Thetravelhabitsofmycolleaguesconsistent

O O O O O O

• Theopportunitytomulti-task(eg.reading,email,etc.)

O O O O O O

• Thepriceoffuel O O O O O O

• Theenvironmentalimpactofmychosenmode

O O O O O O

• Theoverallenjoymentofthetrip

O O O O O O

• Thelong-termeffectonmyhealth

O O O O O O

• Thecostofthetrip

O O O O O O

• Thelengthoftimeofthetrip

O O O O O O

25.Howmuchdoyouagreewiththefollowingstatements? Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Neutral Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Not

Applicable

• Ienjoydriving O O O O O O• Ienjoywalking O O O O O O• Ienjoycycling O O O O O O• Ienjoyridingthe

busO O O O O O

• IenjoyridingtheCTrain

O O O O O O

26.Howdoyoufeelyouare(orwouldbe)viewedbyyourpeersasa: Very

Negatively

Somewhat

Negatively

Neutrally Somewhat

Positively

Very

Positively

• Pedestrian? O O O O O• Cyclist? O O O O O• BusPassenger? O O O O O• CTrain

Passenger?O O O O O

• Driver? O O O O O NumberofChildrenandActiveTransportationEncouragementintheHousehold

27.Howmanychildrenundertheageof15areinyourhousehold? (dropdownmenu,withnumericoptionsfrom0to“20ormore”)*IfQ27>=to1,thenchildtravelquestionsasked28.Whatmode(s)oftransportationdotheschoolagedchildreninyourhouseholdusetogettotheirschoolinwarm,dryweather?Checkallthatapply

• SchoolBus• Walk• Bicycle• PublicTransit• Drive(eitheraspassengerordriver)

29.Whatmode(s)oftransportationdotheschoolagedchildreninyourhouseholdusetogettotheirschoolincold,wetweather?Checkallthatapply

• SchoolBus• Walk• Bicycle• PublicTransit• Drive(eitheraspassengerordriver)

30.Towhatextentareyouactivelyencouragingordiscouragingtheschoolagedchildreninyourhouseholdtouseactivemodesoftransportation(walking,cycling,takingpublictransit)togettotheir: Actively

Discourage

Somewhat

Discourage

Neither

Encourage

or

Discourage

Somewhat

Encourage

Actively

Encourage

• School O O O O O• Friends'houses O O O O O

PreferredParkMapLocation

31.Inwarmerseasons,doyougotoparksatleastonceeverymonth?

(yes/no)*IfQ31=yes,askparklocationmapquestion32.Onthefollowingmap,pleaseadjustthezoomanddragthepintothelocationoftheparkyouvisitmostoften:

(Interactivemap,pre-zoomedtoCalgary)DesireforChangeandNeighbourhoodLiveability

33.Howmuchdoyouagreewiththefollowingstatements? Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Neutral Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Not

Applicable

• IwouldliketowalkmorethanIcurrentlydo

O O O O O O

• IwouldliketocyclemorethanIcurrentlydo

O O O O O O

• IwouldliketotaketransitmorethanIcurrentlydo

O O O O O O

• IwouldliketodrivemorethanIcurrentlydo

O O O O O O

• Iwouldliketousesharedvehiclesmore(eg.Uber)

O O O O O O

34.Howwouldyouratetheoverallliveabilityofyourneighbourhood(abilitytoaccessyouressentialamenities)duringwarmeranddryerseasons?

• Veryhighliveability• Somewhathighliveability• Neutral• Somewhatlowliveability• Verylowliveability

35.Howwouldyouratetheoverallliveabilityofyourneighbourhood(abilitytoaccessyouressentialamenities)duringcolderandwetterseasons?

• Veryhighliveability• Somewhathighliveability• Neutral• Somewhatlowliveability• Verylowliveability

HouseholdStructure,Sociodemographic,andGeneralQuestions

36.Selectallthefollowingthatapplytoyou:Checkallthatapply

• Ihaveadriver’slicense• Ihaveamonthly/seasonal/annualtransitpass• Ihaveacarsharemembership(eg.Car2Go)• Ihaveabicycle• Ihaveaccesstoaprivatelyownedcar(notcar-share)

37.Howmanydaysaweekdoyouonaveragedoyoutraveltoworkoryourschool? (dropdownmenu,from1to7)38.Whatbestdescribesyourprimaryhomethatyouarecurrentlylivingin?Chooseoneofthefollowinganswers

• Apartmentorcondo• Row-houseortown-house• Semi-detachedhouse• Detached,self-standinghouse• Other

39.Inwhatyeardidyoustartlivinginyourcurrentresidence? (dropdownmenu,from1925to2017)40.Howmanypeopleareinyourhousehold,includingyourself? (dropdownmenu,from0to“morethan20”)41.Howmanycarsareownedbythemembersofyourhousehold?

(dropdownmenu,from0to“10ormore”)

42.Whatisthehighestlevelofeducationthatyouhavecompleted?Chooseoneofthefollowinganswers

• Noformaleducation• Highschool• College• Diploma(technical)• Undergraduatedegree• Graduatedegreeorhigher• Other

43.Whatisyourannualgrosshouseholdincome(beforetaxes)?Chooseoneofthefollowinganswers

• Lessthan$20,000• Between$20,001-$40,000• Between$40,001-$60,000• Between$60,001-$80,000• Between$80,001-$100,000• Between$100,001-$120,000• Between$120,000-$140,000• Between$140,001-$200,000• Between$200,001-$300,000• Over$300,000• Prefernottosay

44.Youare:

• Female• Male• Prefernottosay• Other

45.Whatyearwereyouborn? (dropdownmenu,from1920to2002)FinalCommentsandMapLocationsofAreasofConcern

46.Doyouhaveanyfurthercommentsonthequalityoflifeinyourneighbourhoodorfeelthereisanythingmissingfromyourcommunity? (opentextanswer)47.Wouldyouliketoplaceapinonamaptospecifyalocationrelatedtoyourabovecommentsaboutyourneighbourhood(e.g.aproblemintersectionoraspecificstreet)? (yes/no)

*IfQ47=yes,askmapquestion48.Onthefollowingmap,pleaseadjustthezoomanddragthepintothelocationrelatedtoyourcommentsaboutneighbourhood/communityimprovements:


DrawPrizeParticipation

48.Wouldyouliketoprovideyouremailaddresstobeincludedintherandomdrawprizeforthissurvey?(youremailaddresswillbeanonymizedandneverconnectedtoyourresponsestothissurvey) (yes/no)*IfQ48=yes,provideemailtextboxPleasetypeyourpreferredemailaddressbelow.WinnerswillbecontactedinApril2017.APPENDIXB:CalgaryLiveabilityIndexLayers

i) CommunityRetailFoodAccess(Walk)ii) CommunityRetailFoodAccess(Bicycle)iii) CommunitySchoolAccess(Walk)iv) CommunitySchoolAccess(Bicycle)v) CommunityEmploymentAccess(Walk)vi) CommunityEmploymentAccess(Bicycle)vii) CommunityParkAccess(Walk)viii) CommunityParkAccess(Bicycle)ix) CommunityTransitUtilityScorex) Cumulative,CommunityLiveabilityScore

0.00 - 0.10

0.11 - 0.20

0.21 - 0.30

0.31 - 0.40

0.41 - 0.50

0.51 - 0.60

0.61 - 0.70

0.71 - 0.80

0.81 - 0.90

0.91 - 1.000 5 102.5 Km ¯

Retail Food Scores Retail Food Network Buffers

800 meters

0.00 - 0.10

0.11 - 0.20

0.21 - 0.30

0.31 - 0.40

0.41 - 0.50

0.51 - 0.60

0.61 - 0.70

0.71 - 0.80

0.81 - 0.90

0.91 - 1.000 5 102.5 Km ¯

Retail Food Scores Cycling Accessibility

Retail Food Network Buffers3500 meters

0.00 - 0.10

0.11 - 0.20

0.21 - 0.30

0.31 - 0.40

0.41 - 0.50

0.51 - 0.60

0.61 - 0.70

0.71 - 0.80

0.81 - 0.90

0.91 - 1.000 5 102.5 Km ¯

School Scores School Network Buffers

800 meters

Senior_H_Buffers

Junior_H_Buffers

ECS_Buffers

Elem_Buffers

0.00 - 0.10

0.11 - 0.20

0.21 - 0.30

0.31 - 0.40

0.41 - 0.50

0.51 - 0.60

0.61 - 0.70

0.71 - 0.80

0.81 - 0.90

0.91 - 1.000 5 102.5 Km ¯

Schools Cycling Accessibility

School Buffers3500 meters

Senior High

Junior High

Elementary

ECS

0.00 - 0.10

0.11 - 0.20

0.21 - 0.30

0.31 - 0.40

0.41 - 0.50

0.51 - 0.60

0.61 - 0.70

0.71 - 0.80

0.81 - 0.90

0.91 - 1.000 5 102.5 Km ¯

Employment Scores Employment Network Buffers

1200 meters

0.00 - 0.10

0.11 - 0.20

0.21 - 0.30

0.31 - 0.40

0.41 - 0.50

0.51 - 0.60

0.61 - 0.70

0.71 - 0.80

0.81 - 0.90

0.91 - 1.000 5 102.5 Km ¯

Major Employment Centres Cycling Accessibility

Major Employment Centre Buffers5000 meters

0.00 - 0.10

0.11 - 0.20

0.21 - 0.30

0.31 - 0.40

0.41 - 0.50

0.51 - 0.60

0.61 - 0.70

0.71 - 0.80

0.81 - 0.90

0.91 - 1.000 5 102.5 Km ¯

Park Scores Park Network Buffers

400 meters

0.00 - 0.10

0.11 - 0.20

0.21 - 0.30

0.31 - 0.40

0.41 - 0.50

0.51 - 0.60

0.61 - 0.70

0.71 - 0.80

0.81 - 0.90

0.91 - 1.000 5 102.5 Km ¯

Park Entrances Cycling Accessibility

Park Entrance Buffers1750 meters

0.00 - 0.10

0.11 - 0.20

0.21 - 0.30

0.31 - 0.40

0.41 - 0.50

0.51 - 0.60

0.61 - 0.70

0.71 - 0.80

0.81 - 0.90

0.91 - 1.000 5 102.5 Km ¯

Community Transit Utility Index Bus and LRT Stop Locations with Visualized ROH Values

0.00 - 12.63

12.64 - 18.71

18.72 - 26.71

26.72 - 82.28

82.29 - 169.00

Liveability Score

Liveability Index Calgary AB

0.00 - 0.10

0.11 - 0.20

0.21 - 0.30

0.31 - 0.40

0.41 - 0.50

0.51 - 0.60

0.61 - 0.70

0.71 - 0.80

0.81 - 0.90

0.91 - 1.000 5 102.5 Km ¯

Documents

Liveability: Who’s experiencing it and where is it?tram.mcgill.ca/Teaching/srp/documents/MarkO.pdfACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor Professor Ahmed El-Geneidy