1. National Roadside Survey Bob Leore Transport Canada TBWG Plenary Meeting November 19, 2008 Toronto, ON

2. Background Three previous roadside surveys conducted in the past (1991, 1995, 1999) –Federal/Provincial effort –Limited U.S. involvement began in 1999 Goal was to fill gaps in the data on trucking activity, principally –Origin-Destination –Commodity –Routing –Foreign carriers –Cross-border trucking flows

3. Planning Planning for current survey started in 2004 –TC conducted consultations in early 2004 with the provinces and the U.S. –Found limited interest outside of Ontario and Quebec –U.S. expressed an interest in a border component to the survey and sought input into the planning process (via TBWG) Key focus was attempting to address some of the weaknesses found in the 1999 effort: –Difficulties in traffic counting –Questionnaire too complex –Poor data quality –Timeliness issues –Costly

4. Features of the Survey Extensive discussions took place throughout 2004 and into 2005 Pilot test of the questionnaire was held in Fall 2005 Features of current survey: –Doubling of the sample –Detailed questionnaire (like 1999) –TC covered sites in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor and the Border –Ontario, Quebec, B.C., and Manitoba covered surveying on the rest of their networks (Intra component) –Data entry by tablet computers Routes would be captured with a customised tool using MS MapPoint –Data collection team consisted of temporary staff Five days of training provided

5. Operations TC field work began in August 2006 in Quebec –Surveying ran continually until completion in November MTO encountered delays in the contracting process and started field work only in late October –Could not complete operations in 2006 –Work was carried over into 2007 with surveying running from March through July MTQ intra work was completed in 2006 BC-MOT conducted their own work and completed surveying by Nov. 2006 Limited surveying done in Man. and Nfld. in 2007 Sites selected were normally at truck inspection stations for safety/convenience and access to static scale Several temporary locations were also used –Border crossing plazas –Rest areas –Weights collected via a portable WIM (IRD – DAW300)

6. Data validation TC employed a team of data validators to check/edit the data collected by all teams Particular attention was paid to the routing information (O-D and path taken) –Anomalies identified and corrected –Important for the survey weighting process Other fields that were checked: –Truck configuration and type –Number of shipments –Truck total weights and cargo weights (tonnage estimates) Poor quality (not much coherence between the two numbers) –Commodity classification (SCTG used – 2-3 digit level) –For-hire/Private operators –Facility type at Origin-Destination

7. Survey Weighting (Expansion Factors) Population weights were developed by Statistics Canada under contract Components: Basic weight – use the number of surveys collected by truck class and time period divided by the traffic count of vehicles passing by the site at same time Multiplicity – correction for double counting based on the number of survey locations that a trip could pass

8. Observations/Experience Survey was difficult/costly to conduct –Requires large-scale deployment of teams –Oversight a challenge Problem of geographic/other biases hard to control –Intercept-type surveys hampered by safety considerations –Cannot survey randomly over the network (must use locations where trucks can be pulled in safely) –Difficult to understand what population of vehicles is being targetted –Some types of traffic could not be measured Best example was FAST lanes (could not survey them) Data quality a significant issue –Temp staff received intensive training but many surveyors had a poor grasp of concepts leading to error –Questionnaire long and complex to administer –Difficult to edit/impute once the data came back Traffic counting was hampered by delays in installation –Many sites did not have counts done at the same time as survey

9. The NRS 2006 does not have coverage in all provinces. It has good coverage in Quebec and Ontario and other than that it is mostly surveys taking place at the Canada-US border. There are a few surveys in Manitoba and Newfoundland and some surveying along the AB-BC border. The 1999 edition is more “national” but still has many limitations and fewer surveys collected. NRS coverage gaps

10. NRSCOVERAGENRSCOVERAGE

11. NRS transborder activity (Truck configuration) Tractor-trailer combinations account for over 90% of the transborder activity

12. NRS transborder activity (Body style) Vans carry over 50% of the tonnage and account for over 60% of the transborder trip-making

13. NRS transborder tonnage flows by commodity (Southbound)

14. NRS transborder tonnage flows by commodity (Northbound)

15. NRS transborder tonnage flows (Jurisdiction) About 20% of the transborder tonnage was moved by U.S. registered trucks

16. NRS transborder tonnage flows (For-hire/Private) Transborder activity is dominated by for-hire trucking firms (90% of tonnage)

17. NRS transborder tonnage flows (Facility type at destination)

18. NRS tonnage flows (North America)

19. NRS tonnage flows (Quebec-Windsor Corridor)

20. Southbound Trips (Canada to the USA)

21. Northbound Trips (USA to Canada)

22. Southbound Tonne-km (Canada to the USA)

23. Northbound Tonne-km (USA to Canada)

24. Origin of truck trips at NTAR level

25. Destination of truck trips at NTAR level

26. Tonne-kilometers by NTAR of origin

27. Tonne-kilometers by NTAR of destination

28. NRS assessment Pluses –Collects detailed origin-destination and commodity flows –Tracks the route of the shipment –Detailed description of the type of truck –Classification of type of trucking company (for-hire/private) –Identifies U.S. and Canadian carriers –Provides estimates of tonnage, vehicle-km and tonne-km Minuses –Geographic bias (O-D and many other patterns influenced by where the survey is conducted; less important for transborder) –Data quality –Sample size too small (best for province/state flows; limited sub-regional analysis) –Long lag in production of the estimates