Post on 19-Jan-2016
AN EXAMINATION OF COMMUTING PATTERNS TO MCGILL UNIVERSITY
Results of the 2011 McGill Transportation Survey
School of Urban Planning
Anais Mathez
SPF Working GroupNovember 2nd,
2011
Acknowledgements
For funding: McGill Sustainability Projects Fund
For feedback and support: Jim Nicell, Lilith Wyatt, Kathleen Ng, Daniel Schwartz,
Jacob Mason, the McGill Office of Sustainability, and the McGill Campus and Space Planning
…and the entire McGill community for participating in the survey
Research team: Cynthia Jacques, Vincent Chakour, Kevin Manaugh,
Guillaume Barreau, Marianne Hatzopoulou, Naveen Eluru, Ahmed El-Geneidy
SURVEY DESCRIPTION
Survey Design & Dissemination
Web-based survey
Conducted during April and May 2011
Collected information on member of the McGill community: Socio-demographic information Travel patterns
Survey Response
19,962 surveys distributed
5,016 responses received Response rate of 25.5%
4,698 suitable responses after data cleaning 2,616 McGill employees (56%) 2,032 McGill students (43%) 50 “Other”, including visiting students and
professors (1%)
Respondents’ Home Location
TRAVEL PATTERNS
Mode Split Comparison
Active 9%
Transit
43%
Car48%
Ac-tive29%
Transit
55%
Car16%
All Commuters to Downtown All Commuters to McGill
Mode Split by Status
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
258 49194 36
488 293
17
33 810
401 78 872 121
640 349
71
379
16
301 43 256 3636 49
16 10 16
Bicycle and walk TransitStatus
Travel Time
0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75-89 90-104 105-119
120+0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Travel Time (minutes)
Fre
qu
en
cy
Mode by Season
Bicycle and walk Transit Motorized vehicle0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1162
2854
771
1774
2320
693
Winter
Fall
Mode
Fre
qu
en
cy
TRIP SATISFACTION
Satisfaction by Mode (Winter)
Bicycle and walk Transit Motorized vehicle0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
425
512192
378
1258284
186
629 169
39 252 53
81 203 73
Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied
Mode
% S
ati
sfi
ed
Resp
on
de
nts
Satisfaction by Mode (Fall)
Bicycle and walk Motorized vehicle Transit0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
497
18 73
220
31 120
31
8 36
7 1042 6 14
Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied
Mode
% S
ati
sfi
ed
Re
sp
on
den
ts
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG Emissions – Downtown Campus
31.1 tons of CO2 equivalent generated by commuters travelling to McGill’s downtown campus on a single winter day
Daily emissions estimated at approximately 62.2 tons of CO2
equivalent
University of Connecticut: ~62.5 tons of CO2 equivalent per day for approximately 40,000 commuters in a college town
COMMENTS & CONCERNS
Cycling
Highlights:• Increase bicycle
parking• Allow cycling on
campus• Improve and
maintain infrastructure
Walking
Highlights:• Improvements to the
walking environment
• Increase of crosswalks
• Decrease crossing times
• Slower vehicle speeds
Public Transit
Highlights:• Cheaper service• Reduced wait times• Increased reliability• Less transit
crowding
McGill Shuttle
Highlights:• Increase shuttle
frequency and capacity
• Add stops and lines• Promote shuttle
service
AN EXAMINATION OF COMMUTING PATTERNS TO MCGILL UNIVERSITY
Results of the 2011 McGill Transportation Survey
School of Urban Planning
Anais Mathez
SPF Working GroupNovember 2nd, 2011
Thank You
Respondents’ Home Location
Active Transport to Downtown Campus
Active Transport to Macdonald Campus
Public Transit to Downtown Campus
Public Transit to Macdonald Campus
Motorized Vehicle to Downtown Campus
Motorized Vehicle to Macdonald Campus
Distance by Mode
McGill Survey Montreal O-D Survey
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%Bicycle and walkExponential (Bicycle and walk)TransitExponential (Transit)Motorized vehicleExponential (Motor-ized vehicle)
Kilometre
Pe
rce
nta
ge
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Bicycle and Walk
Exponential (Bicycle and Walk)
Public Transit
Exponential (Public Transit)
Private Motorized Vehicle
Kilometre
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Telecommuting
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
500
44220 21
313
365
26
38
469
1301121 175
858
332
83
42 Yes
No
Mode Switch by Season
Bicycle and walk Transit Motorized vehicle0
500
1000
1500
2000
184
788
141
925
2066
630
Different trip
Same trip
Mode
Fre
qu
en
cy
Examples of Calculating GHG Develop a methodology for
systematically calculating emissions per individual based on trip characteristics:
The FactorsThe Commuter
Expansion
Factor
Emission Factor
SpeedDistanc
ePark-and-Ride
Public Transit
Motorized
Vehicles
Vehicle Type
Occupancy
Exploring Scenarios
Base Case Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 50
10
20
30
40
50
60
31.13
24.5126.2
21.74
52.41
40.57
Tota
l G
HG
(to
ns)
Switching mode for irregular transit users
Switching modewhere viable
Switching mode whereviable and irregular
Switching mode for irregular drivers
No option to telecommute
Winter trip
Five alternative scenarios are designed to explore ways in reducing total GHG emissions: