background on land use and travel patterns

City of Hamilton

Development of Policy Papers for Phase Two of the Transportation Master Plan for the City of Hamilton BACKGROUND ON LAND USE AND TRAVEL PATTERNS POLICY PAPER

FINAL REPORT

JANUARY 2005

City of Hamilton DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY PAPERS FOR PHASE TWO OF THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF HAMILTON

BACKGROUND ON LAND USE AND TRAVEL PATTERNS POLICY PAPER

January 2005 Page 1.

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Client: City of Hamilton

Project Name: Development of Policy Papers for Phase Two of the Transportation Master Plan for the City Of Hamilton

Report Title: Development of Policy Papers for Phase Two of the Transportation Master Plan for the City of Hamilton BACKGROUND ON LAND USE AND TRAVEL PATTERNS POLICY PAPER

IBI Reference: TO-1173

Version: 2

Originator: Brian Hollingworth/Natasha Gomes

Reviewers: Bill Janssen, Mary Lou Tanner, Al Fletcher, Marty Hazel, Harold Groen, Hélène Ellermeyer, Paul Mason

TABLE OF CONTENTS

January 2005 Page i.

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Study Background and Objectives............................................................................................................1

1.2 Purpose and Outline of Report ..................................................................................................................1

2. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS AND FORECASTS..................................... 2

2.1 Settlement Patterns......................................................................................................................................2

2.2 Historical Growth Trends............................................................................................................................3

2.3 Projected Growth 2001 to 2021 ..................................................................................................................5

3. TRENDS IN TRAVEL PATTERNS ...................................................................................... 9

3.1 Place of Work – Place of Residence Trends ............................................................................................9

3.2 Distribution of Origins and Destinations................................................................................................12

3.3 Primary Travel Flows.................................................................................................................................15

3.4 Modes Share Trends..................................................................................................................................19

4. KEY TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND COMPARISON WITH OTHER CITIES............................................................................... 22

4.1 Auto Ownership..........................................................................................................................................22

4.2 Mode Shares................................................................................................................................................22

4.3 Transit Usage ..............................................................................................................................................23

4.4 Energy Use ..................................................................................................................................................24

4.5 Summary of Key Indicators ......................................................................................................................24

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................... 26

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)

January 2005 Page ii.

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 2.1: Existing Population Distribution (2001)....................................................................... 2 Exhibit 2.2: Existing Employment Distribution (2001).................................................................... 3 Exhibit 2.3: Historical Population Changes (1991–2001)............................................................... 4 Exhibit 2.4: Historical Employment Changes (1991– 2001)........................................................... 4 Exhibit 2.5: Historical and Existing Population and Employment ................................................... 5 Exhibit 2.6: Projected Population Growth (2001–2021)................................................................. 6 Exhibit 2.7: Projected Employment Growth (2001–2021).............................................................. 7 Exhibit 2.8: Projected Population and Employment 2001–2021 (Trends Projection)...................... 8 Exhibit 3.1: Place of Work/Place of Residence Relationships for Hamilton Labour Force and

Employment .............................................................................................................. 9 Exhibit 3.2: 2001 Place of Employment of Hamilton Residents ................................................... 10 Exhibit 3.3: Place of residence of Population employed in Hamilton............................................ 10 Exhibit 3.4: Net Commuting Between Hamilton and Other Areas................................................ 11 Exhibit 3.5: Origins of morning Peak Period Trips to Hamilton, 1986–2001................................. 12 Exhibit 3.6: Destinations of Morning Peak Period Trips from Hamilton, 1986–2001..................... 14 Exhibit 3.7: Major Morning Peak Period Major Flows – Transit Person Trips............................... 16 Exhibit 3.8: Major Morning Peak Period Major Flows – Total Person Trips.................................. 17 Exhibit 3.9: AM Peak Period Total Person Trips ......................................................................... 18 Exhibit 3.10: Mode Splits of 2001 Morning Peak Period Trips to Hamilton, By Origin .................... 20 Exhibit 3.11: Mode shares of 1986 and 2001 Morning Peak Period Trips to Hamilton ................... 20 Exhibit 3.12: Change in Morning Peak Period Trip Origins by Mode, 1986–2001.......................... 21 Exhibit 4.1: Auto Ownership in Metropolitan Areas with Over 250,000 Residents........................ 22 Exhibit 4.2: Transit Mode Share (work trips)............................................................................... 23 Exhibit 4.3: Transit Ridership per Capita – 1991, 1996 and 2001................................................ 23 Exhibit 4.4: Fuel Use per Capita................................................................................................. 24 Exhibit 4.5: Comparison of Transportation Performance Indicators for 10 Canadian Cities.......... 25



January 2005

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Study Background and Objectives

The City of Hamilton City-wide Transportation Master Plan will provide inputs to the Growth Related Integrated Development Strategy (GRIDS) and make recommendations to Council on the adoption of a City-wide Transportation Policy that is cognisant of Vision 2020 and other City of Hamilton long-term planning objectives. The project has been divided into three distinct phases. The first phase consisted of the technical calibration of the existing transportation model to reflect current transportation conditions in Hamilton. The second phase, which is the object of this and other policy papers, will focus on the development of 23 policy papers in the following areas: Travel Demand, Urban Development, System Performance, Infrastructure Planning and Infrastructure Financing. Following the completion of the Policy Papers, the City will proceed to develop transportation scenarios (Phase 3 of the project) based upon the results of the policy work performed in Phase 2 and the land use scenarios developed through the broader GRIDS study and will test the efficiency and viability of these scenarios by integrating them into the calibrated model.

1.2 Purpose and Outline of Report

This paper provides a summary of past, present and future land use and transportation trends, focusing on macro-level travel patterns, including place of residence – place of work trends.

The purpose of this paper is to provide background and input into the formulation of policies to direct the Transportation Master Plan. This paper does not provide specific policy recommendations, as these are addressed in each of the respective policy papers including Urban Development and Land Use, Transportation Targets, Transportation Demand Management and Walking and Cycling.

The report is structured into three sections. Section 2 summarizes historical land use trends and future projections. Section 3 provides a summary of the evolution of travel patterns over the last two decades. The final section (Section 4) section briefly summarizes how the City of Hamilton compares to other similar cities in terms of key transportation performance indicators.



January 2005 Page 2

2. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS AND FORECASTS

2.1 Settlement Patterns

The City of Hamilton is the fourth largest city in Ontario in terms of population, preceded only by Toronto, Ottawa and Mississauga. The Census Metropolitan Area, which includes Burlington, was the ninth largest, based on 2001 population.

In 2001 the population for the City of Hamilton was estimated at 498,000 while employment was estimated at 192,400, based on City of Hamilton figures.

Exhibit 2.1 illustrates how residents are distributed throughout the City of Hamilton. Residents within the Urban Area are not evenly distributed. As a percentage of the total land area within the boundaries of Hamilton, the actual amount of land that is heavily urbanized is fairly small. Development in the former municipalities of Flamborough, Ancaster and Glanbrook are limited to historical centres and some new subdivisions with the remainder of land consisting of rural farms or undeveloped land. Exhibit 2.2 illustrates employment patterns, which are most concentrated in the downtown area and along the waterfront.

Exhibit 2.1: Existing Population Distribution (2001)



January 2005 Page 3

Exhibit 2.2: Existing Employment Distribution (2001)

2.2 Historical Growth Trends

Exhibit 2.3 and 2.4 illustrate graphically the past population and employment growth in the City of Hamilton from 1991 to 2001. Exhibit 2.5 provides a numerical overview of the past and existing population and employment by major planning areas in the City of Hamilton.

Between 1991 and 2001 the City of Hamilton saw a modest population growth, increasing 9% from 444,800 to 485,900. However, population growth was not evenly distributed within the City. While some areas gained population, others lost residents, and other areas saw little change. In addition to net in-migration, it is possible that many residents left one part of Hamilton only to resettle in another. Non-central areas such as Dundas, South Mountain, Bayfront and Ancaster saw the largest population increases, growing 30%-38%. South Mountain and Stoney Creek gained the most total population. There was a significant loss (20%-25% decrease) of population in areas such as West Hamilton, Central Mountain and East Mountain.

Despite the total population increase, Hamilton lost 1% of its jobs between 1991 and 2001. Again growth/loss rates for jobs were unevenly distributed within Hamilton. South Mountain, Dundas, Flamborough and Ancaster showed the fastest employment growth. The largest total employment growth was seen in the areas with the largest total population growth, including South Mountain and Stoney Creek. Job loss was most severe in Downtown, Central Hamilton, Bayfront and West Mountain, which lost 17%- 24% of their jobs.

Overall, past trends indicate a growth and migration into the outer areas of Hamilton such as Ancaster, Dundas, Stoney Creek, Flamborough, Glanbrook and South Mountain.



January 2005 Page 4

Exhibit 2.3: Historical Population Changes (1991–2001)

Exhibit 2.4: Historical Employment Changes (1991– 2001)



January 2005 Page 5

Exhibit 2.5: Historical and Existing Population and Employment

City of Hamilton

Population 1991 2001 2001

Flamborough 29,180 35,373 37,005 6,193 21% Dundas 18,335 25,285 23,485 6,950 38%

Ancaster 20,092 26,022 29,582 5,930 30% Glanbrook 11,034 13,904 11,875 2,870 26%

Stoney Creek 48,412 57,335 63,731 8,923 18% East Hamilton 71,365 72,863 73,774 1,498 2%

Central Mountain 46,653 41,912 42,368 -4,741 -10% East Mountain 19,883 19,519 21,134 -364 -2%

South Mountain 41,647 55,667 56,166 14,020 34% West Mountain 22,679 23,910 25,987 1,231 5%

West Hamilton 41,828 33,265 32,007 -8,563 -20% Bayfront 9,809 12,996 12,204 3,187 32%

Central Hamilton 41,978 41,073 42,123 -905 -2% Downtown 21,872 26,832 26,681 4,960 23%

Regional Municipality of Hamilton 444,767 485,956 498,122 41,189 9%

Employment


Ancaster 5,867 8,002 7,761 2,135 36% Glanbrook 2,680 2,903 2,364 223 8%

Stoney Creek 15,093 18,429 19,851 3,336 22% East Hamilton 20,490 21,179 20,787 689 3%

Central Mountain 12,424 12,931 15,031 507 4% East Mountain 2,241 2,343 2,566 102 5%

South Mountain 7,881 12,367 10,582 4,486 57% West Mountain 6,998 5,803 5,105 -1,195 -17%

West Hamilton 17,756 18,316 18,516 560 3% Bayfront 29,464 23,940 26,849 -5,524 -19%

Central Hamilton 20,453 15,563 15,683 -4,890 -24% Downtown 33,719 26,270 30,324 -7,449 -22%

Regional Municipality of Hamilton 185,100 182,597 192,370 -2,503 -1%

TTS Absolute Growth

Percentage Growth

TTS: 2001 Transportation Tomorrow Survey. City of Hamilton figures are for comparison only.

2.3 Projected Growth 2001 to 2021

In 2001, the City of Hamilton estimated its population to be 498,000 and employment as 192,400. It is anticipated that the population will rise 14% to 566,800 and employment will increase 19% to 229,600 by the year 2021. In absolute terms, is it estimated that the City of Hamilton will grow by some 70,000 people and 37,000 jobs by the year 20211.

The distribution of projected residents and jobs between 2001 and 2021 will follow patterns similar to those seen in the historical trends. The majority of the population growth is anticipated to be in the outer areas of the City of Hamilton namely Flamborough, Stoney Creek, Ancaster and South Mountain. Population may continue to decline in some central areas of the city, however, the loss will slow. Exhibit 2.6 and 2.7 graphically illustrate the projected population and employment changes in the next two decades, under a trends scenario. Strong growth can clearly be seen in outer areas. Employment growth is projected in all areas of the city, but the largest increases will

1 The population and employment projections discussed here were provided by the City of Hamilton’s Planning and Development Department. They represent a trends scenario and are subject to change through the Official Plan process.



January 2005 Page 6

be in outlying areas such as Glanbrook, South Mountain, Flamborough, Stoney Creek and Ancaster, where growth of more than 20% is expected. Exhibit 2.8 provides a numerical overview of the projected population and employment by major planning areas within the City of Hamilton.

A particular concern about these future forecasts is that they anticipate high employment growth in the City. In the past, Hamilton has over-estimated employment growth compared to population growth and as a result now has a growing imbalance between residents and jobs available in the City. This has resulted in an increase in “out-commuting” as discussed below. If employment growth targets are not achieved, it can be expected that out-commuting from Hamilton will continue to increase with associated impacts on the transportation system. This includes longer trips and lower transit mode shares.

Exhibit 2.6: Projected Population Growth (2001–2021)



January 2005 Page 7

Exhibit 2.7: Projected Employment Growth (2001–2021)



January 2005 Page 8

Exhibit 2.8: Projected Population and Employment 2001–2021 (Trends Projection)

Absolute Growth

Percentage Growth


Ancaster 29,582 36,751 43,916 14,334 48% Glanbrook 11,875 13,517 17,155 5,280 44%

Stoney Creek 63,731 72,670 81,606 17,875 28%

East Hamilton 73,774 73,548 73,310 -464 -1% Central Mountain 42,368 41,648 41,072 -1,296 -3%

East Mountain 21,134 20,422 19,738 -1,396 -7% South Mountain 56,166 61,439 68,066 11,900 21%

West Mountain 25,987 26,011 28,865 2,878 11% West Hamilton 32,007 31,655 31,300 -707 -2%

Bayfront 12,204 11,899 11,593 -611 -5%

Central Hamilton 42,123 42,398 42,666 543 1% Downtown 26,681 27,253 27,817 1,136 4%


Employment

Flamborough 8,898 11,109 13,320 4,422 50% Dundas 8,053 8,252 8,450 397 5%

Ancaster 7,761 8,914 10,069 2,308 30%

Glanbrook 2,364 3,724 5,084 2,720 115% Stoney Creek 19,851 23,633 27,412 7,561 38%

East Hamilton 20,787 21,536 22,321 1,534 7% Central Mountain 15,031 15,568 16,109 1,078 7%

East Mountain 2,566 2,653 2,741 175 7%

South Mountain 10,582 13,871 17,079 6,497 61% West Mountain 5,105 5,251 5,200 95 2%

West Hamilton 18,516 19,830 20,378 1,862 10% Bayfront 26,849 28,879 30,335 3,486 13%

Central Hamilton 15,683 16,316 16,982 1,299 8% Downtown 30,324 32,175 34,147 3,823 13%


Population

2001-2021

2001 2011 2021



January 2005 Page 9

3. TRENDS IN TRAVEL PATTERNS

3.1 Place of Work – Place of Residence Trends

Where people choose to live and work has a direct impact on transportation demand patterns and associated infrastructure needs.

Exhibits 3.1 compares the relationship between the place of work and place of residence in Hamilton between 1986 and 2001. The size of the employed Hamilton labour force remained relatively constant between 1986 and 2001, at just under 200,000 workers. However, as shown in the left graph below, the proportion of the labour force employed outside Hamilton increased from approximately 17% in 1986 to 28% in 2001. Part of the explanation lies with the decline in the total number of jobs in Hamilton, as show in right graph. However, it is also a confirmation of the realization that Hamilton is becoming more attractive as a place to live than a place to work. Specifically, low housing prices in Hamilton compared to many areas of the GTA, combined with the relatively close proximity of Hamilton to major employment markets in the western parts of the GTA (Burlington, Oakville and Mississauga) make it fairly cost effective as a place to live. Many people also tend to place a higher emphasis on housing prices rather than transportation costs, thereby amplifying the effect.

Another trend that has occurred is that the proportion of Hamilton employment taken by non-Hamilton residents has increased slightly, from 16% to 19% (showing a trend towards longer commutes), further reducing the employment available for local residents.

Exhibit 3.1: Place of Work/Place of Residence Relationships for Hamilton Labour Force and Employment

A: Place of Employment for Hamilton Labour force B: Place of Residence of those employed in Hamilton

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1986 1996 2001

Hamilton External Total

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1986 1996 2001

Hamilton External Total

Exhibit 3.2 shows the place of work of Hamilton residents while Exhibit 3.3 shows the place of residence of those working in Hamilton. There is a clear imbalance with the rest of the Greater Toronto Area, which provides employment for 23% of Hamilton residents, but whose residents take only 7% of the jobs in Hamilton. This suggests many Hamilton residents commute to the remainder of the GTA. A similar, more local pattern is seen in the more rural areas that surround Hamilton, such as Niagara and Haldimand-Norfolk. The two regions provide less than 2% of Hamilton residents with employment while approximately 9% of those employed in Hamilton are residents of the two regions.



January 2005 Page 10

Exhibit 3.2: 2001 Place of Employment of Hamilton Residents

Hamilton71.6%

Peel3.8%

Toronto3.5%

Other0.9%

Brant1.2%

H-N0.5%

GTA23.3%

Niagara1.3%

Waterloo1.2%

Halton15.7%

Durham & York0.3%

Source: Statistics Canada

Exhibit 3.3: Place of residence of Persons employed in Hamilton

Hamilton81.1%

Peel0.8%

Toronto0.5%

Durham & York0.3%

Halton5.3%

Waterloo0.6%

Niagara5.5%

GTA6.9%

H-N3.5%

Brant1.9% Other

0.6%

Source: Statistics Canada




Longer term commuting trends can be seen in Exhibit 3.4, which shows the job/worker balance between Hamilton, the GTA and other non-GTA areas between 1971 and 2001. Over this time, there has been a dramatic change in the net commuting balance between Hamilton and the GTA. During the 1970s Hamilton imported more workers from the GTA than it exported back and net in-commuting occurred resulting in a positive job/worker balance. However, in 1981 the loss of jobs in Hamilton led to decline of in-commuting and an increase in out-commuting. The job/worker relationship between Hamilton and the GTA reversed in the late 1980s resulting in a negative job/worker balance as Hamilton became a net exporter of jobs to the GTA. From an employment perspective, Hamilton residents became more reliant on the GTA for jobs while the GTA became less reliant on Hamilton.

For trips between Hamilton and the GTA the largest change occurred for trips between Hamilton and Halton. In 1971, there were over 4,600 net in-commuting trips to Hamilton from Halton. But by 1986 the relationship had reversed and approximately 6,000 trips were moving in the in the opposite direction, from Hamilton to Halton. By 2001 the net out-commuting from Hamilton to Halton had reached almost 22,000. This may be partially a due to the fact that people chose to live in Hamilton where housing prices are slightly cheaper and commute to destinations such as Burlington or Oakville but it is also a result of the strong growth in employment in Halton. Between 1996 and 2001, employment in Halton grew by 14%, compared to a decrease of 1% in Hamilton. Halton’s employment growth is partially fuelled by the development of employment lands along the QEW (Burlington and Oakville) and Highway 401 (Milton).

In terms of interaction with areas outside of the GTA, Hamilton’s positive job/worker balance with non-GTA areas continued increasing during the same period resulting in increased net in-commuting. Taken in combination with the net-out-commuting to the GTA, this suggests that fewer and fewer of Hamilton’s residents are being employed locally.

If these trends continue, the impact on Hamilton’s transportation system, and ability to achieve sustainable transportation targets, will be significant.

Exhibit 3.4: Net Commuting Between Hamilton and Other Areas

-40000

-30000

-20000

-10000

0

10000

20000

1971

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

Ham

ilto

n J

ob

s-W

ork

er B

alan

ce

From Areas Outside the GTA

To the GTA

To All areas




Note: A negative number means that more people are commuting out of Hamilton

3.2 Distribution of Origins and Destinations

This section explores patterns in morning peak period trips, including all trip purposes; whereas the previous discussion focused on broader commuting trip trends.

As population and jobs spread to the outlying areas, travel patterns change as well. The originating point of morning trips shifts with residences and the destinations of travel often follow job locations.

Trips originating in the morning peak period are usually linked to residential location. Population growth usually results in a corresponding increase in the number of trips originating in the area. Exhibit 3.5 illustrates the number of morning peak period trips destined for Hamilton that originate both from within Hamilton and from the rest of the GTA. Not surprisingly it shows that many trips originating in Hamilton are traveling to a destination within Hamilton.

Exhibit 3.5: Origins of morning Peak Period Trips to Hamilton, 1986–2001

The key observations of the changes in trip origins include:




• Strong growth in the number of trips originating from the outlying areas of Hamilton, such as South Mountain, Stoney Creek and Ancaster as well as areas further away like Flamborough and Glanbrook.

• Little change in the number of actual trips originating within central Hamilton, for example East Hamilton, but a decline of the relative importance of such trips due to growth in trips originating in the outlying areas.

• Marginal decline in trips from the rest of the GTA, particularly Burlington.

Trips starting in the outer areas increased rapidly due to the development of new suburbs. The largest growth has occurred in the South Mountain area where the number of morning peak period trips more than doubled between 1986 and 2001, increasing by more than 13,500 trips. While other outer areas have experienced similar heavy growth, (e.g. Glanbrook up 52%, Ancaster up 70%, Flamborough up 41%), the absolute growth in total number of trips is small. In contrast to the growth in trips originating in the outer areas, the number of morning peak period trips originating in the central areas of Hamilton remained fairly stable between 1986 and 2001. The number of trips originating in downtown, for instance, was only 1% higher in 2001 than in 1986. During the same period trips from areas of the GTA to Hamilton during the morning peak period remained relatively stable, despite large increases in population in those areas. Trips from Burlington actually dropped by 14% while those from the remainder of the GTA grew by 17%, but this small increase represents only about 800 morning peak period trips.

The destinations of trips originating in the morning peak period usually correspond to employment locations. Hamilton residents work in jobs throughout the region. Not surprisingly the destinations of trips originating in Hamilton have a distribution strongly linked to areas where job are plentiful and growth is occurring. Exhibit 3.6 below shows the changes in the number of morning peak period trips destinations for trips from Hamilton.




Exhibit 3.6: Destinations of Morning Peak Period Trips from Hamilton, 1986–2001

Four major changes between 1986 and 2001in the destinations of trips are apparent:

• Growth in the number of trips destined to the outer areas.

• Growth in the number of trips from Hamilton to the GTA.

• Substantial reduction in the number of trips destined to the Bayfront Industrial Area

• Little change in the number of trips destined to the central area of Hamilton, but a relative decline of the importance of such trips due to growth in the outer areas.

Trips to the outer areas have grown substantially as new development occurs. The largest change has occurred in the South Mountain, where there are were more than four times as many morning peak period trip destinations in 2001 than in 1986, representing an increase of almost 12,000 trips. Destinations in other outer areas also grew, in particular between 3,000 and 5,000 additional trips to each of Stoney Creek, Ancaster and Flamborough. The Greater Toronto Area also increased in importance as a destination for trips from Hamilton. Morning peak period trips to Burlington increased by 50% or over 5,000 trips while trips to other areas of the GTA increased by 90%, or over 8,000 trips. There was a major decline in the number of trips destined to the Bayfront area of Hamilton between 1986 and 2001, morning peak period trips fell by 44%, or over 9,000 trips. This




decline in local work trips was due to the loss of jobs that resulted from the closure of large tracts of heavy industry located in this area. Trips to the other central areas of Hamilton have remained more stable, with about 5% fewer trips made to the downtown in 2001 than in 1986.

3.3 Primary Travel Flows

Linking origins to destinations produces trip flows that can be seen in traffic and transit patterns. Exhibits 3.7 and 3.8 show the major trip flows occurring in the morning peak period for transit and total trips respectively.

As shown in Exhibit 3.7, the downtown core of Hamilton and the downtown of Toronto dominate transit trips as the major destination points. Most transit trips are made from the suburbs to the central area of Hamilton, with a large number continuing to the downtown of the City of Toronto. This leads to a strong east to west peak period flow formed by Hamilton transit services, which continues around Hamilton Harbour to Toronto as the GO service.

Total person trips (Exhibit 3.8), largely made up of auto trips, are also focused on the central Hamilton area and downtown Toronto. However, total person flows differ from transit flows and show a more dispersed pattern originating in areas more distant from downtown Hamilton. There is a familiar east to west flow through Hamilton, which continues around the Harbour, but the proportion of trips to Burlington is greater than for transit-only flows. The flow map the peak movements, but it should be noted that total person trips are less peak directional than transit trips. In particular, there are significant person trip flows towards the Mountain from Central Hamilton.




Exhibit 3.7: Major Morning Peak Period Major Flows – Transit Person Trips




Exhibit 3.8: Major Morning Peak Period Major Flows – Total Person Trips




Exhibit 3.9 compares 1986 and 2001 morning peak period person trips. The tables show only modest growth for trips within the former municipality of Hamilton, while there has been more growth in trips from the outer suburbs such as Flamborough and Ancaster.

Trips to the City of Hamilton from other GTA areas have declined, particularly from Burlington (down from approximately 9,000 to 8,000), confirming place of work trends discussed previously. Trips in the opposite direction, from the City of Hamilton to Burlington, have increased substantially from 10,500 to almost 16,000 morning peak period person trips.

Exhibit 3.9: AM Peak Period Total Person Trips

A - 1986

Flamborough Dundas Ancaster Glanbrook Stoney Creek Hamilton Burlington

Rest of GTA TOTAL

Flamborough 2660 1118 234 0 228 2536 1648 1339 9763

Dundas 248 3240 199 20 120 4119 437 338 8721

Ancaster 84 126 2454 42 147 3483 670 315 7321

Glanbrook 25 50 327 254 478 1825 176 150 3285

Stoney Creek 104 83 67 129 5888 10166 694 663 17794

Hamilton 947 1228 1163 576 5166 102742 6853 6341 125016

Burlington 579 113 110 0 399 8125 29517 15179 54022

Rest of GTA 87 44 78 44 257 4266 4227 1739634 1748637

TOTAL 4734 6002 4632 1065 12683 137262 44222 1763959 1974559 B- 2001

2001 Flamborough Dundas Ancaster Glanbrook Stoney Creek Hamilton Burlington

Rest of GTA TOTAL

Flamborough 4927 1081 391 36 56 3034 2509 3514 15548

Dundas 743 4350 302 33 207 4028 931 935 11529

Ancaster 307 263 4676 114 101 5285 970 1230 12946

Glanbrook 60 75 260 640 732 2730 180 284 4961 Stoney Creek 197 121 176 173 9193 12089 2041 1870 25860

Hamilton 1230 1222 2524 879 6422 108820 9124 9555 139776

Burlington 724 136 255 99 524 6264 42057 23552 73611 Rest of GTA 377 99 174 75 479 4385 7898 2355937 2369424

TOTAL 8565 7347 8758 2049 17714 146635 65710 2396877 2653655 NB Hamilton refers to the former municipality of Hamilton




3.4 Modes Share Trends

The patterns of trips made to/from and within Hamilton has a significant impact on the relative shares of trips carried by each mode (i.e. mode shares).

2001 AM peak period mode shares for trips originating in each superzone are shown in Exhibit 3.10. The width of the pie graph represents the total number of trips being sent to Hamilton via all modes. An examination of trends in mode shares reveals several important findings.

• Trips made by car dominate the mode share from most areas.

• Transit is only significant for trips originating in the former City of Hamilton. Indeed, for trips from the outer areas such as Flamborough, Dundas, Ancaster and Glanbrook, and from areas outside Hamilton such as Burlington, transit is often not an option and mode share for transit is correspondingly low.

• Non-motorized modes (walking and cycling) are typically only used for short trips, and so the highest mode shares are achieved in the urban area of Hamilton where higher development densities make shorter trips easy. Other trips, mostly comprised of school and taxi trips have the second highest mode shares for trips from the outer areas, where they provide transport for those without car in the absence of transit.

• Few transit trips in the morning rush originate in the GTA. This is due to the net out-commuting discussed above and the lack of demand for reverse-commute transit service in the morning.

Exhibit 3.10 compares the overall mode shares of trips to Hamilton for 1986 and 2001. The increase in trips made by car, which rose from 72% in 1986 to 76% in 2001, is mostly due to a transfer from the transit share, which fell from 12% of the morning peak period market in 1986 to only 7% in 2001. There is also some transfer from walking and cycling, which fell from 12% to 11%.




Exhibit 3.10: Mode Splits of 2001 Morning Peak Period Trips to Hamilton, By Origin

Exhibit 3.11: Mode shares of 1986 and 2001 Morning Peak Period Trips to Hamilton

1986 Morning Peak Period 2001 Morning Peak Period

Auto Driver61%

Walk & Cycle12%

Other4%

Auto Pass11%

Transit (incl. GO)12%

Auto Driver64%

Other6%

Walk & Cycle11%

Auto Pass12%

Transit (incl. GO)7%




While the increase in car mode share is partly due to increased auto ownership, which leads to mode shifting from transit and walking/cycling to car, it is also due to the shifting of population towards outer areas where transit service is less attractive and effective, and where the longer distances preclude walking and cycling. This also explains the increase in “other” trips such as taxis. Exhibit 3.12 illustrates these impacts, displaying the change in trips origins to Hamilton by mode between 1986 and 2001.

Transit and non-motorized trips saw little growth in the central areas of Hamilton and a decline in transit and non-motorized trips with the exception of trips from the downtown. Development occurring in the outer areas has lead to some slight absolute increases in the number of transit, cycling and walking trips, but the increase in car trips is far greater.

Exhibit 3.12: Change in Morning Peak Period Trip Origins by Mode, 1986–2001




4. KEY TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND COMPARISON WITH OTHER CITIES

It is useful to compare transportation performance in Hamilton with performance indicators in other cities. Such a comparison shows how Hamilton ranks alongside its peers, helps to identify strengths and deficiencies, and illustrates the range of realistic levels of performance.

4.1 Auto Ownership

As illustrated in Exhibit 4.1, Hamilton’s auto ownership rate, at 0.62 light-duty vehicles per capita in the urban area, is above the national average of 0.54 and generally higher than most cities of its size including Kitchener-Waterloo and London (0.61 and 0.59). Ottawa and Toronto’s rates are significantly lower (0.48 and 0.5 respectively).

Unfortunately, historic data on vehicle availability is not available for several cities including Hamilton and trends cannot be compared to other Canadian regions.

Exhibit 4.1: Auto Ownership in Metropolitan Areas with Over 250,000 Residents

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Tor

onto

Mon

treal

Van

couv

er

Otta

wa-

Gat

inea

u

Cal

gary

Edm

onto

n

Que

bec

Win

nipe

g

HA

MIL

TO

N

Lond

on

Kitc

hene

r-W

ater

loo

St.

Cat

harin

es-

Nia

gara

Hal

ifax

Vic

toria

Win

dsor

Osh

awa

Ligh

t Dut

y V

ehic

les

per C

apita

1996 2001

4.2 Mode Shares

Approximately 8% of all trips to work made by Hamilton residents are made using transit (as reported in the Statistics Canada Journey to Work Survey, 1996 and 2001). Although higher than the transit share for Kitchener-Waterloo and London, Hamilton's transit share is lower than all larger metropolitan areas in Canada. Over the past 5 years, this share has remained constant in Hamilton, while it has increased in many other metropolitan areas including Ottawa and Calgary, both of which have made substantial investments in their transit systems.




Exhibit 4.2: Transit Mode Share (work trips)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Tor

onto

Mon

treal

Van

couv

er

Otta

wa-

Gat

inea

u

Cal

gary

Edm

onto

n

Que

bec

Win

nipe

g

HA

MIL

TO

N

Lond

on

Kitc

hene

r-W

ater

loo

St.

Cat

harin

es-N

iaga

ra

Hal

ifax

Vic

toria

Win

dsor

Osh

awa

Tra

nsit

Sha

re (

%)

1996 2001

4.3 Transit Usage

Hamilton’s annual transit ridership is generally in keeping with its neighbours of similar size. While the Hamilton Street Railway captured 41 transit rides per capita per year in 2001, London captured 47 and Kitchener-Waterloo’s transit system reported only 26 transit rides per capita. Hamilton shows room for improvement, however, when compared to Toronto (116 rides per capita per annum), Ottawa (107), and even Quebec City and Winnipeg (59 and 62 respectively).

Exhibit 4.3: Transit Ridership per Capita – 1991, 1996 and 2001

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Tor

onto

Mon

trea

l

Van

couv

er

Otta

wa-

Gat

inea

u

Cal

gary

Edm

onto

n

Que

bec

Win

nipe

g

Ham

ilton

Lond

on

Kitc

hene

r-W

ater

loo

St.

Cat

harin

es-

Nia

gara

Hal

ifax

Vic

toria

Win

dsor

Osh

awa

Rid

es p

er C

apita

per

Ann

um

1991 1996 2001




Following a pattern similar to many other Canadian cities as illustrated in Exhibit 4.3, Hamilton’s increase in ridership per capita between 1996 and 2001 has not made up for losses between 1991 and 1996. Ridership levels are 19% below those of 1991, placing these losses in the highest quartile for CMAs with populations of over 300,000.

4.4 Energy Use

Hamilton’s annual fuel use per capita as determined by gasoline sales is second only to Oshawa for Canadian cities with over 250,000 residents, at 1,240 litres per capita per annum, as illustrated in Exhibit 4.4. This consumption rate is also significantly higher than the national average of 1,041, and has been accelerating over the past decade, increasing by 5% between 1991 and 1996 and 9% between 1996 and 2001. Over the same time period, most other Canadian cities have registered lower increases and even declines in their consumption rates.

Exhibit 4.4: Fuel Use per Capita

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

Tor

onto

Mon

treal

Van

couv

er

Otta

wa-

Gat

inea

u

Cal

gary

Edm

onto

n

Que

bec

Win

nipe

g

HA

MIL

TON

Lond

on

Kitc

hene

r-W

ater

loo

St.

Cat

harin

es-

Nia

gara Hal

ifax

Vic

toria

Win

dsor

Osh

awa

Litre

s pe

r C

apita

per

Ann

um

1991 1996 2001

Not only is fuel use an issue because it relies upon resources which may become more difficult and expensive to acquire but also because of its contribution to global and local environmental degradation. Fuel consumption rates can be directly translated into greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution. Increasing fuel consumption therefore carries additional unmeasured costs because of the environmental and health impacts of emissions created by their utilization.

4.5 Summary of Key Indicators

The following exhibit shows Hamilton’s performance indicator rankings versus rankings for other cities. Relative to its stature as the 5th largest city, Hamilton scored lower than most on transit mode share and transit ridership, and higher than most for auto ownership, road miles per capita, fuel use, length of commute and daily vehicle kilometre per capita.




Exhibit 4.5: Comparison of Transportation Performance Indicators for 10 Canadian Cities

Urban Area

Pop

ulat

ion

Aut

omob

ile

Ow

ners

hip

(veh

/per

s)

Ann

ual T

rans

it R

ider

ship

p

er c

apita

Sha

re o

f E

mpl

oyee

s w

ho

Wal

k, C

ycle

or

Tran

sit t

o W

ork

Ann

ual F

uel U

se

(L/

cap)

Art

eria

l Roa

ds /

Exp

ress

way

s pe

r ca

pit

a (la

ne m

/cap

)

Leng

th o

f A

vera

ge

Com

mut

e (k

m)

Dai

ly V

ehic

le-k

m

per

cap

ita

Toronto 4,683,000 0.50 117 28% 1116.70 2.99 11.96 116.7

Ottawa-Gatineau 1,064,000 0.48 110 27% 1087.64 7.38 10.14 109.9

Calgary 951,000 0.74 87 21% 1167.24 5.00 10.01 86.6

Winnipeg 671,000 0.55 63 21% 1025.37 2.79 7.8 62.7

Hamilton 498,000 0.62 41 14% 1242.16 7.08 10.66 40.7

London 432,000 0.59 49 13% 1151.74 n/a 7.02 48.7

Kitchener-Waterloo 414,000 0.61 27 10% 1052.52 3.66 7.02 27.5

Niagara 377,000 0.64 16 8% 1113.31 n/a 7.15 16.5

Halifax 359,000 0.58 52 21% 1007.60 3.16 8.19 52.0

Oshawa 296,000 0.59 45 11% 1248.29 5.55 13.91 45.4

Hamilton Rank of 10 6th lowest 3rd highest 3rd lowest 5th lowest 2nd highest 2nd highest 3rd highest 2nd highest

Source: Transportation Association of Canada, Urban Transportation Indicators – Third Survey.




5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper provides a high level summary of the general land use and transportation trends that have occurred and are projected to occur in Hamilton. It highlights an important trend of a reduced focus of trips on the Central Area of Hamilton and the inner built-up areas, which has a direct impact on transit viability since these trips are most efficiently served by transit. Travel patterns are becoming more dispersed, which is partially a result of the increased proportion of jobs and residents that are in the outer areas of the city, but also due to an increasing propensity for residents of Hamilton to travel outside of the area for work.

Through the Transportation Master Plan and the Official Plan, there are opportunities to change travel patterns. Efforts to increase employment within the City of Hamilton will reduce the need for residents to commute to other areas such as the GTA. Focusing a large portion of new growth on existing urbanized areas and areas that are easily served by transit will also help off-set the effect of dispersed growth on overall transit mode shares. Finally, ensuring that the Transportation Master Plan provides a balanced approach to transportation infrastructure in major existing and future travel demand corridors will help promote modal choice and reduce automobile dependence.

J:\1173\10.0 Reports\Background\TTRtransportation trends2004-08-04.doc\2005-01-11\CL

background on land use and travel patterns

Documents