National Roadside Survey

Bob LeoreTransport Canada

TBWG Plenary MeetingNovember 19, 2008

Toronto, ON

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

Province Non-Border Canada-US Border Total Non-Border Canada-US Border TotalYK 0 0 327 327NT 0 0 137 137BC 3,202 6,438 9,640 1,319 1,186 2,505AB 1,783 919 2,702 1,404 562 1,966SK 0 518 518 2,438 122 2,560MB 849 1,263 2,112 1,190 561 1,751ON 67,615 11,033 78,648 26,036 7,961 33,997QC 16,240 2,774 19,014 14,162 2,623 16,785NB 0 1,330 1,330 1,177 784 1,961PE 0 0 1,102 1,102NS 0 0 1,769 1,769NF 355 355 408 408Total 90,044 24,275 114,319 51,469 13,799 65,268

2006 Surveys Collected 1999 Surveys Collected

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

NRS

COVERAGE

Local/Urban(under 80 km)*Differs from TODdefinition of local

NOTES: i) Private Trucking and Straight Trucks have some coverage issues as it is believed to be co-related to distance (morecommon in urban context). Also Private Trucking might have poor coverage of specific industries. ii) Bridged traffic is a smallportion of overall transborder traffic and might need more surveys to have a good idea about what is going on with this type of traffic.

Owner Operatorwith small operations

Privatei

Could include trucks fordifferent industries

(construction, utility, retail,government, .courriers andmail trucks..) where ownersrevenue not from trucking

Coverage of Trucking Operations in Quebec City - WindsorCorridor and Transborder

*Components may overlap but are listed separately to show how well covered**Scope of geographic coverage limited for diagram because Geographical Coverage limitations mean all areas are poor or partial otherwise

For-HireLong Distance/

Inter-urbain

DomesticInter-provincial

Transborder

Canada-wideGeographicCoverage

Bridged (US-USvia Canada)ii

Larger Operators

US DomiciledCarriers

CanadianDomiciledCarriers

N

P

G GoodCoveragePartialCoverage

Poor / NoCoverage

P

G

P

GG

G

G

G

G

G

P

N

DomesticIntra-provincial

(ON/QC Onlyotherwise poor or no

coverage)

G

Straight Truckand other

Combinations

P

Tractor & Trailer

G

NRS transborder activity (Truck configuration)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Tonnage Trips

Tractor and more than 1 trailer

Tractor and 1 trailer

Straight truck

Tractor-trailer combinations account for over 90% of the transborder activity

NRS transborder activity (Body style)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Tonnage Trips

Van - Non refrigerated Flatbed Van - Refrigerated Tanker Dump Hopper Other

Vans carry over 50% of the tonnage and account for over 60% of the transborder trip-making

NRS transborder tonnage flows by commodity (Southbound)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000To

nnag

e ('0

00s)

NRS transborder tonnage flows by commodity (Northbound)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000To

nnag

e ('0

00s)

NRS transborder tonnage flows (Jurisdiction)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NB SB Total

Other

Indiana

Illinois

Washington

New York

New Brunswick

Michigan

Alberta

Manitoba

British Columbia

Quebec

Ontario

About 20% of the transborder tonnage was moved by U.S. registered trucks

NRS transborder tonnage flows (For-hire/Private)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NB SB Total

Both/Unknown

Private

For-Hire

Transborder activity is dominated by for-hire trucking firms (90% of tonnage)

NRS transborder tonnage flows (Facility type at destination)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NB SB Total

Other

Primary Producer

Material Recycling

Retail Outlet

Truck Terminal - Your Carrier

Warehouse/Distribution Centre

Manufacturer

NRS tonnage flows (North America)

NRS tonnage flows (Quebec-Windsor Corridor)

Southbound Trips (Canada to the USA)

Northbound Trips (USA to Canada)

Southbound Tonne-km (Canada to the USA)

Northbound Tonne-km (USA to Canada)

Origin of truck trips at NTAR level

Destination of truck trips at NTAR level

Tonne-kilometers by NTAR of origin

Tonne-kilometers by NTAR of destination

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