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: