Urban Transportation Research & Advancement Centre University of Toronto Travel Behaviour in the GTA: Trends & Prospects Eric J. Miller, Ph.D. Bahen-Tanenbaum

Urban Transportation Research & Advancement CentreUniversity of Toronto

Travel Behaviour in the GTA:Trends & Prospects

Eric J. Miller, Ph.D.Bahen-Tanenbaum Professor

Interim Chair, Dept. of Civil EngineeringDirector, UTRAC

University of Toronto

Presented to theGreater Toronto Transportation Conference

November 30, 2007


Presentation Outline

This presentation discusses the relationship between urban form, travel demand and urbansustainability.

Focus is on:• current travel trends• policy implications


Survey Area

2001 only

1996 only

1996 and 2001

1986, 1991, 1996 and 2001

Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS)Since 1986 a major survey of travel behaviour in the GTA (and beyond) has been undertaken at the University of Toronto, funded by all planning agencies in the survey area. With a 5% sample (135,000 households in 2001), TTS is the largest travel survey program in the world. TTS provides an unparalleled database for urban transportation research.


In the GTA, as in most cities, all travel trends with respect to auto usage are in the “wrong” direction, moving towards a less sustainable system.


Long-Term GTA Growth Trends

Growth Rates, Persons, Cars & Travel, 1986-2001

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Gro

wth

Rel

ativ

e to

198

6 B

ase

Persons

Cars

Trips

Auto

Transit

% Auto

% Transit

GTA population, cars & daily trips all increased by about 33% from 1986 to 2001.

Daily auto trips increased by 44%, and the share of auto trips increased by 10% from 72.1 to 79.1% of all trips.

Transit ridership only increased by 5% and its market share declined by 28%, from 21.6 to 15.7 of daily trips.


Population by GTA Region, 1986-2001

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

1986 1991 1996 2001

Year

Hamilton

Halton

Peel

York

Durham

Toronto

% Share of GTA Population by Region, 1986-2001

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1986 1991 1996 2001

Year

Hamilton

Halton

Peel

York

Durham

Toronto

GTA population growth has been largely occurring in lower-density suburban regions:• 38-109% in suburban regions• 11% in Toronto• 15% in Hamilton

Suburban regions

GTA Population Growth Rates by Region, 1986-2001

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

1986 1991 1996 2001

Yea

r

Toronto

Durham

York

Peel

Halton

Hamilton

GTA

Suburban regions


-0.08

-0.04

0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

Total HBW HBS HBD NHB

PD1Rest of TorontoRest of GTAHamiltonNiagaraGuelph/WellingtonOrangevilleBarrie/SimcoeKawartha LakesPeterboroughTOTAL

Trip-Maker Residence

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

% O car % 1 car % 2+cars


Household Residence

-0.04

-0.03

-0.02

-0.01

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Adrive Apass Transit Non-M Other


1996-2001 increases in:• daily trips per person• auto ownership• auto-drive mode shares (continuation of long term trends)


Summary:1. More trips/person2. More cars/household3. More auto-driving/trip

Trips growingfaster than pop.

Auto trips growingfaster than totaltravel.

Highest growthrates generally insuburban & fringeareas


AccessibilityTransportation affects land use and location choiceby providing accessibility to land and activities.

Several measures can be used to quantify theconcept of accessibility. These measures all are:

• defined for a specific point in space• a function of the magnitude/attractiveness of alternative locations• a function of the distance/time required to reach these locations


Accessibility MeasuresThe simplest measure is the number (or fraction) of jobs(other activities) with x km (or min.) of a point:

i

x Ai = Ej

jSx|i

Ai = Accessibility of zone i to employmentEj = Employment in zone jSx|i = Set of employment zones within x min of zone i


1996 - Fraction of total GTA Emp within 30 min drive (am)0 - 0.10.1 - 0.20.2 - 0.40.4 - 0.60.6 - 0.8

Employment AccessibilityBy Car, AM Peak Period


1996 - Fraction of total GTA Emp within 30 min transit (am)0 - 0.010.01 - 0.030.03 - 0.070.07 - 0.140.14 - 0.23No Data

Employment AccessibilityBy Transit,AM Peak Period


Accessibility by ModeGiven the way we have built our cities & our transportationsystems, the automobile provides much higher levels ofaccessibility for most people for most activities.

Auto-based trips dominate travel, except inspecial circumstances

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1964

1986

1991

1996

1964

1986

1991

1996

1964

1986

1991

1996

1964

1986

1991

1996

auto driver auto pass local transit walk other

Home-Based Work Home-Based School Home-Based Other Non-Home Based



Transit Usage

• Transit usage depends upon:– Auto ownership levels

– Residential densities

– Employment densities

– Transit service levels

– Socio-economics

– “Walkability” to/from transit

– Local transit coverage & connectivity to/from mainline services


Auto Ownership

0.00

0.40

0.80

1.20

1.60

2.00

Region of Residence

Aver

age

Vehi

cles

per

Hou

seho

ld

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 5000-6000 6000+

Zonal Household Density (households/sq. km.)

Num

ber o

f Veh

icle

s pe

r Hou

seho

ld


Population Density


1996 GTA Employment(Source: Haider, 2003)

1996 Employment Density (Source: Haider, 2003)

While many employment centres existacross the GTA, from a density perspective,the GTA is still very monocentric.

This has strong implications for transitusage.

GTA Employment Distributions



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 5000-6000 6000+

Zonal Household Density (households/sq. km.)

Avera

ge D

aily V

KT pe

r Hou

seho

ld

First Trip to WorkTrip Length

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Toronto Durham York Peel Halton Hamilton

Region of Household

Med

ian

Trip

Len

gth

(km

)

1986199119962001

Trip lengths & total auto usagevary with urban form.


1996 Daily CO2 Emissionsper household (kg)

Greater than 2015 to 2010 to 15

5 to 100 to 5

No population

1996 Avg. DailyCO2 EmissionsPer Household

So too doesenvironmental impact.


1996 Average Annual Total Travel Costs 0 - 60006000 - 1000010000 - 1400014000 - 2000020000 - 45000No Data

… and average annualtransportation costs perhousehold


Macro vs. Micro Design

“Urban form” is defined at both a “macro” level (spatialdistribution of people, jobs, activities – “land use”) andthe “micro” level of detailed neighbourhood design(street layouts, density, fine-grain mix of uses, etc.).

Both are important in the determination of travel demandand transportation system sustainability. But, macro locationeffects tend to dominate micro neighbourhood design impacts.


Macro vs. Micro Design, cont’d

Average Annual GHG Travel Emissions Per Household

7000

8700

11000

4500

6100

9300

3500

5000

8400

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Inner City Inner Suburb Outer Suburb

Neighbourhood Location

An

nu

al G

HG

Em

issi

on

s P

er H

hld

(kg

CO

2 eq

uiv

alen

t)

Nbhd 1

Nbhd 2

Nbhd 3

1. Conventional suburban2. Medium density3. Neo-traditional

Neighbourhood Designs

Source: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Urban Travel: Tool for Evaluating Neighbourhood Sustainability ,Prepared by IBI Group for CMHC and Natural Resources Canada, Feb. 2000


GTA Growth & Transportation Impacts

In a “Business as Usual” scenario with respect toGTA growth and transit system investment, autousage is projected to grow faster than population;transit usage will grow at about half the rate ofpopulation.

% Change in Daily Trips, 1996-2031 by Mode

68.8 67.6

34.3

105.7

61.9 66.6

101.2

42.5

64.2

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

1

Drive

Pass

Transit

GO-Rail

Walk

Cycle

Sch-bus

Taxi

Total

% Change in Daily VKT & Emissions, 1996-2031

6875.0 78.3

65.0

95.2

75.1

0102030405060708090

100

1

VKT

CO2

CO

NOx

HC

Fuel

% Change in Population & Employment, 1996-2031

55.8

88.2

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

100.0

1

Population

EmploymentPop. Growth Rate

Pop. Growth Rate


Summary of Findings• Where we grow is critical to transportation sustainability.

• Employment concentration along corridors and in nodes critical to transit usage.

• Mixed-use, neighbourhood design critical to walkability and local transit use.

• Transit investment critical to transportation sustainability, but it must be:

• combined with land use design (macro & micro)• deal with local distribution as well as long-distance “line haul”


Policy Implications

Three broad, inter-related “meta-issues” existin urban transportation planning:

1. Sustainability (environmental, economic, social)

2. Efficiency (cost-effectiveness)

3. Equity (distribution of benefits & costs)

Motorization/auto usage lies atthe heart of each of these issues..


Greenhouse GasEmissions

Air Pollution

Urban Sprawl

Congestion

Accidents

Lack ofExercise

Global ClimateChange

Respiratory &Other Diseases

Loss of Farmland, Natural& Urban Habitat

Loss of Productivity &Leisure Time; Stress

Injuries/DeathsProductivity/Property Loss

Obesity, OtherHealth Problems

Accessibility to Activities / Mobility

Participation in Social, Recreational & Economic ActivitiesEconomic Productivity

QUALITYOF LIFE

+-


Findings & ImplicationsIn many respects the GTA taken as a whole is representativeof other North American cities:• increasing auto ownership• increasing person trip rates• increasing suburbanization of population and employment• increasingly complex travel patterns:

• more non-work/school trips• more non-home-based trips• more non-peak-period travel

• declining transit mode shares

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%auto driver auto pass local transit walk other

Home-Based Work Home-Based School Home-Based Other Non-Home Based


Findings & Implications, cont’dAt the same time, the GTA (City of Toronto in particular)deviates from the North American “norm”:• Transit per capita ridership, mode share & cost/revenue ratios still very high by North American standards• GO-Transit (commuter rail) very successful in competing for long-distance commuters• Continuing strength/vitality of the Toronto Central Area• Overall high density & transit orientation within the amalgamated city is highly supportive of transit


Findings & Implications, cont’d

Important to remember/learn from our own experience:• Coordinated land use - transportation planning designed to emphasize transit does work• It is possible to maintain a strong, livable urban core, which is the economic heart of an extensive urban system

• serviceable by an attractive, cost-effective transit system• supportable without continuously expanding road capacity



Lessons from the Toronto experience, cont’d:

• It is possible to build at higher densities without loss of quality of life (indeed, the opposite is true)

• Regional sub-centre concept works• keeps growth within the core within manageable limits• new foci for transit network development



At the same time, there is little evidence from anywherethat low density, auto-oriented, suburban sprawlgenerates anything other than the consumption ofmore land, more congestion and the “need” for evenmore roads.

This never-ending, decentralizing spiral ofdevelopment is simply not sustainable inthe long run.



Elements of a sustainable transportation policy include:

• transit- (and walk-) supportive urban development• promotion of non-motorized modes of travel• reinvestment in transit infrastructure & services• innovative transit services• road pricing• parking price/supply• tax reform• ….


Policies for Sustainability

None of the ideas listed on the previous slide are new.

What is required is:• The political will/leadership to undertake change.• A willingness to invest in our transportation infrastructure• Taking neighbourhood design seriously• Recognizing that change must occur

“Business as usual” simply will not workin the future (it isn’t even working now)


THANK YOU.

QUESTIONS?

ILUTE Simulation Model

EmploymentDensity

ResidentialDensity

Socio-Economics

AutoOwnership

TransitService

Nbhd.Design

AccessibilityRoad

Network

ACTIVITY/TRAVEL

Demographics

Documents

Urban Transportation Research & Advancement Centre University of Toronto Travel Behaviour in the GTA: Trends & Prospects Eric J. Miller, Ph.D. Bahen-Tanenbaum