Cindy Drover-Davidson & Maria Bremner

Office of Environmental Sustainability

3/27/2013

Camosun College Modal Split

Biannual Count of How the College

Community Gets to Campus

2012

201220

122201

0

2

Executive Summary Camosun’s second bi-annual mode split survey was conducted October 23 and 24, 2012. Both Interurban and

Lansdowne campuses were included and counts occurred between 7:30 – 10:30 am and 2:30 – 5:00 pm on both days.

Between both campuses, a total of 16,113 modes were counted. The numbers break down as follows:

SOV Car 2+ Transit Pedestrians Bike Other*1

6193 1744 4987 2324 591 274

38.4% 38. 10.8% 31% 14.4% 3.7% 1.7%

The peak arrival times corresponded at both campuses (the 8:15-8:30 am period); however, peak departure times

differed, likely due to the Trades programs at Interurban, which start before the modal split count began and end earlier

than classes at Lansdowne.

There are significant differences across the two campuses. Interurban has a higher use of single occupancy vehicles,

slightly higher carpooling and almost no pedestrian traffic. Lansdowne reflect a much more even split across mode share

with a significant volume of pedestrians.

Trends from 2010 to 2012 are encouraging. Most significantly, both Interurban and Lansdowne showed a decrease in

SOV traffic (down 3.8% and 5.4% respectively). Other positive trends point to more transit users and pedestrians.

Statistics from the 2012 survey show some positive movement in desired mode split trends when compared to the 2010

count. In 2012, the largest travel mode was (still) Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOVs) (38.4%), followed by Transit Riders

(31.0%), Pedestrians (14.4%), vehicles with two or more occupants (Car 2+) (10.8%), and finally Cyclists (3.7%). In

comparison with the 2010 survey, some changes in trends may be noted:

Mode Type Trend (between 2012 - 2010 surveys)

Evaluation

SOV 5.9% (from 44.3%)

Car 2+ 0.7 % (from 11.5%) minor change

Pedestrian & Transit 5.3% (from 40.1%)

Cycling 0.2% (from 3.5%) minor change

On another positive front, Camosun mode share splits are comparable with the University of Victoria – a considerable

achievement given that Camosun does not have nearly the same transit service or alternative travel incentives that UVic

does.

1 Other* consists of motorcycles, scooters, drivers and passengers of delivery and construction vehicles, skateboarders,

rollerbladers, and other modes.

3

Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Transportation & Parking Management (TPM) Background .................................................................................................. 5

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Results ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

A. Peak Travel Time Data .................................................................................................................................................... 9

Morning ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Afternoon ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Peak Time: Campus Comparison................................................................................................................................... 13

B. Mode Share Data Camosun College: Lansdowne & Interurban Campuses Combined ................................................ 14

Mode Share: A Campus Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 16

Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................. 17

A. Campus to Campus Differences .................................................................................................................................... 17

B. Trends from 2010 .......................................................................................................................................................... 18

C. Transit During the 2012 Modal Split Survey ................................................................................................................. 19

Important Considerations ............................................................................................................................................. 19

D. Camosun and Capital Regional District Modal Split: A Comparison ............................................................................. 21

Mode Split Differences: A Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 22

E. Robbins Parking Stall Count .......................................................................................................................................... 23

Observations ......................................................................................................................................................................... 24

A. Goals Reached and Targets to Pursue ...................................................................................................................... 24

B. Modal Split Targets – 2014 ....................................................................................................................................... 26

C. Recommendations for the 2014 Mode Split Count .................................................................................................. 27

APPENDIX A – The 2011 “Getting Here” Survey & Mode Split 2012 .................................................................................... 29

APPENDIX B: BC Transit Data ................................................................................................................................................ 31

4

Introduction Camosun College, located in Victoria, British Columbia, is spread over two campuses (see Figure 1). The Interurban

campus is located in the municipality of Saanich at 4461 Interurban Rd, adjacent to the Pacific Institute for Sport

Excellence (PISE) and near the Vancouver Island Technical Park. The Lansdowne campus is approximately 12 kilometres

southeast of the Interurban campus. It is located at the corner of Lansdowne and Foul Bay Roads, within Oak Bay and

Saanich municipalities, near the City of Victoria border and the University of Victoria.

Figure 1: Camosun College Interurban campus (A) and Lansdowne campus (B) in Victoria, BC (source: GoogleEarth).

The college is a significant hub for education and work. During fall 2012, Camosun College had 9720 students, 4990 of

them attending Lansdowne, 3673 attending Interurban, and 1057 attending both campuses2 (source: Institutional

Research, Camosun College). Interurban’s student population is 73.6% that of Lansdowne’s. The college also has more

than 1000 staff members and faculty (source: Human Resources, Camosun College). The parking lots on both campuses

are managed by Robbins Parking and overseen by Ancillary Services at Camosun College.

A modal split looks at the portion of travel made by single occupancy vehicles, walking, cycling, rideshare (carpooling),

public transit, and other modes. In 2008, Camosun College, along with transportation consultant Todd Litman,

developed a Transportation and Parking Management (TPM) Plan aimed at addressing current transportation issues,

including parking congestion. One of the goals of was to create modal split targets that aimed reducing the use of single

occupancy vehicles (SOVs) and increasing the use of alternative modes. Modal split counts provide a good indicator the

College’s parking and transportation situation over time. Camosun’s first mode split count was conducted in 2010. This is

the second.

2 This includes all full- and part-time students but does not include students enrolled in Continuing Education courses.

5

The purpose of this document is to report out on the modal split survey conducted at Camosun College Interurban and

Lansdowne campuses October 23 and 24, 2012. It will quantify the modal split for Camosun College as a whole, for each

campus, and will identify peak intervals for morning and afternoon travel periods. As the second modal split survey, it

will also compare changes between 2010 and 2012 and seek to explain some of those changes where possible. Finally,

this report will make recommendations for future surveys conducted at the College and outline mode share targets for

the future.

Transportation & Parking Management (TPM) Background This report has established the modal split3 for Camosun College during the fourth week of October 2012. Camosun’s

Transportation & Parking Management (TPM) Plan, embarked on in 2009, has two goals: first, to reduce traffic

congestion around the campuses and the total number of motor vehicles driven to the college; second, to accommodate

additional campus development, minimize impervious surface and preserve green space4. In order to manage

expectations, modal split targets must be defined. Approximately 30% of total college parking spaces are dedicated to

staff, notes the TPM Plan5 and it suggests that a 6% reduction in all vehicle trips could be expected following the

elimination of free staff parking.6 A further 6% reduction in vehicle trips could be expected from a 30% increase in

parking rates.7 The TPM Plan prediction was almost exactly reproduced: there were 5.8% less SOVs on Camosun

campuses during the 2012 Mode Split Survey. Additional reductions could be achieved through improvements to transit

service, pedestrian facilities, cycling infrastructure, and alternative transportation education, promotions and incentives.

All of these efforts focus on vehicle trip reduction, with a goal of 20 to 40% reduction in vehicles coming onto campus by

the end of 20208.

Methodology To ensure comparability of results, the 2012 survey occurred during a similar time period as the 2010 survey and

modeled a similar methodology, with minor improvements. The modal split survey took place over two days

(Wednesday, October 23 and Thursday, October 24) at both campuses (Lansdowne and Interurban). The survey took

also place in conjunction with the Camosun College annual Parking Stall Occupancy Survey, conducted by Robbins

Parking, which will also be reported on in this document.

Modal Split counters were located at key entrances to each campus to ensure that as many arrivals/departures were

accounted for. See Figure 2 (Interurban) and Figure 3 (Lansdowne) for the exact location of the counters. The counters

noted people arriving at the campus in the morning (7:30 am to 10:30 am) and leaving campus in the afternoon (2:30

pm to 5:00 pm)9. The modes counted were:

Passengers of Vehicles with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 occupants

Transit Riders

3 A modal split looks at the portion of travel made by single occupancy vehicles, walking, cycling, rideshare and public transit

(Litman, Performance Evaluation - Evaluating Progress towards Planning Objectives). 4 Source: TPM Three-Year Plan, 2010-2013, August 9, 2009, p. 2

5 Ibid, p. 61.

6 Camosun has nearly 1000 staff but approximately 10,000 students. The staff-to-student parking ratio differs significantly.

7 Since 2010, day rates for parking have increased by 30% from $4.00 to $6.00. Monthly parking rates have increased by 87.5% from

$64 to $120. 8 TPM Plan, 2009, p 64.

9 In 2010, the time of the mode split count was 7 am to 9 am, and 3 pm to 5 pm. The time of the count was modified this year on

the recommendation of the 2010 survey to better capture the peak travel times.

6

Cyclists

Pedestrians

Riders of Motorcycles and scooters

Drivers and passengers of Large/Delivery Trucks

Construction-related vehicles

“Other” modes (this could include skateboarders, rollerbladers, etc.)

Changes to Methodology from 2010:

1) Whereas the 2010 survey counted pedestrians and Transit riders in the same category, pedestrians were

counted separately from Transit Riders in 2012 to distinguish and account for the different modes.

2) Motorcycles and scooters were counted in their own category, as recommended by the 2010 survey.

3) Counters were located at six distinct areas at the Interurban Campus (one new location was added in 2012) and

in seven locations at the Lansdowne Campus (please see Figures 2 and 3 respectively.)

Reporting Methodology:

a) In most of the statistical charts, motorcycles, scooters, delivery and construction-related trucks,

skateboards, rollerblades, and other modes of travel were combined in the category “Other*” since their

individual numbers – in fact, even their combined numbers – are very small and appear close to the

minimum line on the various charts.

b) Bus counts signify the number of passengers exiting (morning count) or entering (afternoon count) the

buses (not the actual number of buses).

c) “Car 2+” represents vehicles with two or more passengers (in this category, the number of passengers

beyond two people were not reported in the results since the quantities were so small and, therefore, do

not represent significantly on a chart).

d) Data from published and publicly available Transit schedules were used to calculate the number of bus trips

arriving at and departing from each campus.

7

Figure 2. Camosun College Interurban: Modal Split Counter Locations

At Interurban campus, modal split counters were located in six areas which included:

- Off Markham Rd. in P3 (counted were people entering or exiting P3)

- Off Markham Rd. in P2 (counted were people entering or exiting P2)

- Off Interurban Rd. in P7 (counted were people entering or exiting P7 and surrounding paths)

- On the top of the Interurban bus loop (counted were people entering/exiting bus loop)

- Off Interurban Rd. by P5 and P6 (counted were people entering/exiting this roadway)

- On the pedestrian/bike pathway near the Chemical Storage building, near P2 (note: this was a new location

that was not part of the 2010 survey. It was identified to capture cyclist and pedestrian traffic coming from

the Glendale Trail. This location counted very little traffic and is not recommended for future surveys).

Modal split

location

New in

2012

8

Figure 3. Camosun College Lansdowne: Modal Split Counter Locations

At Lansdowne campus, modal split counters were located in seven areas which included: - Off Foul Bay Rd. near P6 and P8 (counted were people entering near P6 and exiting near P8) - Off Foul Bay Rd. near P3 (counted were people entering/exiting P3) - Off Foul Bay Rd. near P2 (counted were people entering/exiting P2 and surrounding paths) - Off Lansdowne Rd. P1 (counted were people entering/exiting P1 and surrounding paths) - Corner of Lansdowne and Richmond (counter were people coming through corner or side pathway) - Off Richmond Rd. near bus stop (counted were people entering/exiting near bus stop and surrounding

pathways) - Corner of Richmond and Argyle (counted were people entering/exiting Argyle Rd., assuming that everyone

who used this very small residential street was going to the college.)

Modal split

location

9

Results

A. Peak Travel Time Data The peak commuter traffic times for morning and afternoon at Camosun College Interurban and Lansdowne were identified using 15-minute intervals of the modal split survey count charts. Two different types of graphs are provided below to illustrate these peak travel times. The bar graphs provide a clear indication of the total travel mode volume, while the line graphs provide a greater understanding of the differences between these mode types. Morning Interurban mode distribution for the morning (7:30 am - 10:30 am) is shown below in Figures 4 and 5.10 The Interurban Campus morning peak commute time was found to be between 8:15 am and 8:30 am (the 8:00 am – 8:15 am time block was a close second). Figure 4. Interurban: Inbound Traffic (AM) by Travel Mode and Time, October 23 & 24, 2012

10 The “Other*” category includes Delivery Trucks, Construction Vehicles, Motorcycles, Scooters, Skateboards, etc.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

7:3

0-7

:45

7:4

5-8

:00

8:0

0-8

:15

8:1

5-8

:30

8:3

0-8

:45

8:4

5-9

:00

9:0

0-9

:15

9:1

5-9

:30

9:3

0-9

:45

9:4

5-1

0:0

0

10

:00

-10

:15

10

:15

-10

:30

Oct 23 & 24, 2012 AM

Other*

Ped

Cycle

Bus

2+

SOV

10

Figure 5. Interurban: Inbound Traffic (AM) by Travel Mode and Time, October 23 & 24, 2012

Lansdowne mode distribution for the morning (7:30 am-10:30am) is shown below in Figures 6 and 7. For the morning count, the Lansdowne campus peak commute time was found to be between 8:15 am and 8:30 am, followed by the 8:00 am to 8:15 am period. During these peak times, the mode split between SOVs and transit riders was much closer than at Interurban for both the number of people and the number of vehicles. Figure 6. Lansdowne: Inbound Traffic (AM) by Travel Mode and Time, Oct 23, 24, 2012

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

7:3

0-7

:45

7:4

5-8

:00

8:0

0-8

:15

8:1

5-8

:30

8:3

0-8

:45

8:4

5-9

:00

9:0

0-9

:15

9:1

5-9

:30

9:3

0-9

:45

9:4

5-1

0:0

0

10

:00

-10

:15

10

:15

-10

:30

Oct 23 & 24, 2012 AM

SOV

2+

Bus

Cycle

Ped

Other*

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

7:3

0-7

:45

7:4

5-8

:00

8:0

0-8

:15

8:1

5-8

:30

8:3

0-8

:45

8:4

5-9

:00

9:0

0-9

:15

9:1

5-9

:30

9:3

0-9

:45

9:4

5-1

0:0

0

10

:00

-10

:15

10

:15

-10

:30

Oct 23 & 24, 2012 AM

Other*

Ped

Cycle

Bus

2+

SOV

11

Figure 7. Lansdowne: Inbound Traffic (AM), by Travel Mode and Time, Oct 23, 24, 2012

Afternoon

While the busy morning travel time peaks are fairly clear, the Interurban mode distribution for the afternoon is more distributed over the 2:30 pm - 5:00 pm time period. Interurban Campus afternoon peak commute time for outbound traffic was between 3:00 pm and 3:15 pm in terms of number of people. The peak for traffic (# of SOVs) is between 4:00 and 4:15pm. Data is shown below in Figures 8 and 9. Figure 8. Interurban: Outbound Traffic (PM) by Travel Mode and Time, October 23 & 24, 2012

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

7:3

0-7

:45

7:4

5-8

:00

8:0

0-8

:15

8:1

5-8

:30

8:3

0-8

:45

8:4

5-9

:00

9:0

0-9

:15

9:1

5-9

:30

9:3

0-9

:45

9:4

5-1

0:0

0

10

:00

-10

:15

10

:15

-10

:30

Oct 23 & 24, 2012 AM

SOV

2+

Bus

Cycle

Ped

Other*

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2:30-2:45

2:45-3:00

3:00-3:15

3:15-3:30

3:30-3:45

3:45-4:00

4:00-4:15

4:15-4:30

4:30-4:45

4:45-5:00

Oct 23 & 24, 2012 PM

Other*

Ped

Cycle

Bus

2+

SOV

12

Figure 9. Interurban: Outbound Traffic (PM) by Travel Mode and Time, October 23 & 24, 2012

The Lansdowne Campus afternoon (2:30 pm - 5:00 pm) peak commute time for outbound traffic was between 4:15 pm and 4:30 pm. See Figures 10 and 11, below. For vehicle traffic, the peak is between 4:00 and 4:15 pm. Figure 10. Lansdowne Outbound Traffic (PM), by Travel Mode and Time, October 23 & 24, 2012

0

50

100

150

200

250

2:3

0-2

:45

2:4

5-3

:00

3:0

0-3

:15

3:1

5-3

:30

3:3

0-3

:45

3:4

5-4

:00

4:0

0-4

:15

4:1

5-4

:30

4:3

0-4

:45

4:4

5-5

:00

Oct 23 & 24, 2012 PM

SOV

2+

Bus

Cycle

Ped

Other*

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2:30-2:45

2:45-3:00

3:00-3:15

3:15-3:30

3:30-3:45

3:45-4:00

4:00-4:15

4:15-4:30

4:30-4:45

4:45-5:00

Oct 23 & 24, 2012 PM

Other*

Ped

Cycle

Bus

2+

SOV

13

Figure 11. Lansdowne Outbound Traffic (PM), by Travel Mode and Time, October 23 & 24, 2012

Peak Time: Campus Comparison

Morning (7:30 am – 10:30 am)

Peak commuting times for the morning for both Lansdowne and Interurban was 8:15 am – 8:30 am. Lansdowne Campus

had 934 total modes inbound during this 15 minute interval, whereas Interurban Campus had a little less at 765

inbound. At Lansdowne and Interurban Campuses, the highest mode was SOVs (32.3% at Lansdowne and 42.6% at

Interurban), followed by Transit Riders (27.6% at Lansdowne and 33.7% at Interurban). At Lansdowne, the next highest

mode was Pedestrians (28.7%) while at Interurban it was vehicles with 2+ Occupants (9%). See Figure 12 below for a

graphical illustration of these modes.

Figure 12. Interurban and Lansdowne Peak Time AM (8:15 am-8:30 am)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2:3

0-2

:45

2:4

5-3

:00

3:0

0-3

:15

3:1

5-3

:30

3:3

0-3

:45

3:4

5-4

:00

4:0

0-4

:15

4:1

5-4

:30

4:3

0-4

:45

4:4

5-5

:00

Oct 23 & 24, 2012 PM

SOV

2+

Bus

Cycle

Ped

Other*

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

SOV 2+ Bus Cycle Ped Other*

Interurban 8:15-8:30 AM

Lansdowne 8:15-8:30 AM

14

Afternoon (2:30 pm – 5:00 pm)

Afternoon peak time was different between the campuses. Interurban Campus’s afternoon peak commute time for

outbound traffic was between 3:00 pm and 3:15 pm while Lansdowne Campus’s afternoon peak commute time for

outbound traffic was between 4:15pm and 4:30pm.11 Interurban Campus had 387 total modes outbound in their peak

15-minute interval and Lansdowne Campus had 477 outbound. The modal split mirrors the morning modal split. At both

Interurban and Lansdowne, the highest mode was SOVs (38.5% at Interurban; 34.6% at Lansdowne), particularly

between 4:00 – 4:30 pm when traffic volume peaked. The second highest mode split was followed by Transit Riders

(32.2% at Interurban and 30.0% at Lansdowne). At Interurban, the third highest mode was 2+ Occupants in a vehicle; at

Lansdowne, Pedestrians were the third largest group (28.7%). Interurban Cyclists represent 3.1% of modes; at

Lansdowne, Cyclists figured at 4.8%12. See Figure 13 below.

Figure 13. Interurban Peak PM (3:00pm-3:15pm) and Lansdowne Peak PM (4:15-4:30)

B. Mode Share Data Camosun College: Lansdowne & Interurban Campuses Combined

In 2012, the largest travel mode for Lansdowne and Interurban combined was Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOVs) (38.4%),

followed by Transit Riders (31.0%), pedestrians (14.4%), vehicles with two or more occupants (Car 2+) (10.8%), and

finally Cyclists (3.7 %). Figure 14 (next page) shows the total modal split for Camosun College. This includes both

campuses and both the morning and afternoon surveys.

11 The significant difference between the campuses’ departure times may perhaps be explained by the well-attended Trades

programs at Interurban. Trades classes typically begin at 7:00 am, thus an earlier departure may be expected at Interurban. Classes

at Lansdowne usually begin 8:30 or later and end later in the day. Despite this, both Lansdowne and Interurban experience

similar peak times. This is likely due to one major road coming to Interurban campus (Interurban Road) whereas

Lansdowne campus is situated in a more central “hub.” 12

Interurban’s more rural location may account for its low percentage of cyclists.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

SOV 2+ Bus Cycle Ped Other*

Interurban 3:00-3:15 PM

Lansdowne 4:15-4:30 PM

Note: If looking at SOVs

alone, Interurban’s peak

time would be shifted to

4:15 – 4:30pm. More

than 370 SOVs departed

between 4:00 – 4:30pm.

15

Figure 14: Modal Split Camosun College - Lansdowne & Interurban Campuses 2012 (Oct. 23 &24)

Table 2. Summary for Both Campuses, Both Days (noted in descending order)

In comparison, the 2010 mode split count for both campuses resulted in the following (note: Pedestrians and Transit

riders were rolled up into one mode share):

SOV 44.3%

Car 2+ 11.5%

Bicycle 3.5%

Ped/Bus 40.1%

Date SOV Bus Ped Car 2+ Cycle Other* Total

OCT 23 & 24, 2012 6,193 4,987 2,324 1,744 591 274 16,113

Percentage of total: 38.4% 31.0% 14.4% 10.8% 3.7% 1.7% 100%

SOV

2+

Bus

Cycle

Ped

Other*

Cycle

Other* 1.7%

SOV 38.4%

Car 2+ 10.8%

Bus 31%

Ped 14.4%

16

Some promising trends may be noted from 2010 to 201213:

Mode Type Trend (between 2012 - 2010 surveys)

Evaluation

SOV 5.9% (from 44.3%)

Car 2+ 0.7 % (from 11.5%) minor change

Pedestrian & Transit14 5.3% (from 40.1%)

Cycling 0.2% (from 3.5%) minor change

The percentages seem to indicate that more people are “going green” in 2012, either by taking transit or walking versus

driving. Cycling reflects a slight decline from 2010, however, it is too early and the change too small to say whether this

is a trend or a factor of weather conditions (the 2012 survey experienced cold and wet weather). Trends will be

discussed further.

Mode Share: A Campus Comparison

There are clear differences in mode share between campuses. At Interurban, the highest proportion of commuters was

Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOVs) (48%). This was then followed by Transit Riders (32%), then vehicles with two or more

occupants (13%), then cyclists (2.5%), and finally Pedestrians (2%). At Lansdowne, the highest proportion of commuters

was also SOVs. However, the proportion was significantly less with (31.4%). Transit Riders were a close second (30.0%),

next Pedestrians (23.4%), followed by vehicles with two or more occupants (9.6%), and finally Cyclists (4.5%).

Tables 3a. and 3b. below outline the Camosun College Modal Split count data totals separated by Campus.

Table 3a. Interurban Mode Split Totals

SOV Car 2 Car 3 Car 4 Car 5 Car 6 Bus Cycle Ped Delivery Constr MC/Scooter Other

3728 813 37 8 5 1 2202 172 148 36 10 85 36

48% 12% 0.5% 0.1% 0.07% .01% 32% 2.5% 2.2% 0.5% 0.15% 1.2% 0.5%

Table 3b. Lansdowne Mode Split Totals

SOV Car 2 Car 3 Car 4 Car 5 Car 6 Bus Cycle Ped Delivery Constr MC/Scooter Other

2915 797 74 9 6 0 2785 419 2176 34 19 47 7

31% 8.6% 0.8% 0.01% 0.06% 0.0% 30% 4.5% 23% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.1%

13

This excludes modes of transportation noted in the Other* category. This category is comprised of Motorcycle and Scooter riders (a total of 132 out of 16,113), Delivery Truck and Construction Vehicle drivers and passengers (99 out of 16,113), and Other travelers (i.e. Skateboarders and Rollerbladers, a total of 43 out of 16,113). These modes were combined in the Other* category due to the small numbers, 1.7% of the total. It is important to note that seasonal increases happen with Motorcycles/Scooters and Skateboarders/Rollerbladers. 14

Note, in 2012, Pedestrians and Transit riders were distinguished. For the purposes of this report, they are rolled up to allow for comparison.

17

SOV 32%

Car 2+ 10% Bus

29%

Cycle 4%

Ped 24%

SOV

Car 2+

Bus

Cycle

Ped

Trucks

MC/Scooter

Other

Figures 15 and 16 below shows the modal split for the Interurban and Lansdowne campuses respectively with both the morning and afternoon surveys included. Figure 15: Interurban Mode Split, 2012 Figure 16: Lansdowne Mode Split, 2012

Analysis

A. Campus to Campus Differences

The 2012 modal split for Camosun College differs greatly depending on the campus. Lansdowne campus is located in a

more urban setting, has higher levels of transit service, and has higher residential and commercial density in the

immediate area (within two to three km). In contrast, Interurban campus is located in a more suburban/rural setting,

has lower levels of transit service, and much lower residential and commercial density within the area (6 - 7 km). As the

results illustrate, the combination of these factors make Lansdowne – overall – a more favourable choice for alternative

commuting modes.

Single Occupancy Vehicles

For both campuses, single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) are the dominant commute choice, particularly at Interurban

campus. Of the individuals coming to the Interurban campus, 48.0% (n=3278) traveled in SOVs, compared with 31.4%

(n=2915) at Lansdowne.

Carpooling15 Perhaps not surprisingly, carpooling is more popular at Interurban. There was a 3.1% difference between campuses with 12.6% (n=864) at Interurban and 9.6% (n=880) at Lansdowne. However, it should be noted that a large number of these vehicles were dropping-off/ picking-up passengers and not staying on campus. Pedestrian

15 Pick-ups and drop-offs were observed to be high at both the Interurban and Lansdowne campuses. Specific counts and perhaps

targeted surveys could be developed to better understand these travel choices to inform TDM (Transportation Demand

Management) programs or strategies. This was particularly observed at the bus loops and small parking lots in front of Campus

Center.

SOV 48%

Car 2+ 13%

Bus 32%

Cycle 2.5%

Ped 2%

18

Pedestrians represent a total of 14.4% of the total overall mode count for 2012 (total n=16113). Of the total pedestrian

count for both campuses (n=2324), Lansdowne campus had a 93.6% pedestrian share (n=2176) while Interurban had

6.4% (n=148). This figure can be explained by the geographic and demographic differences between the two campuses.

Interurban is much more remote and in a less-populated area. In addition, the walking route to Interurban campus lacks

sidewalks any pedestrians willing to walk a longer distance, adding an impediment from a safety perspective.

Transit

Both campuses reflected a high use of transit, although Lansdowne campus reflected significantly more mode split in

this regard. Of the combined total of Transit Riders for both campuses (n=4987), 44.2% (n=2202) were counted at

Interurban and 55.8% (n=2785) at Lansdowne. Of the total mode split count, Transit Riders made up 31% of all

travelers.

Cycling

Cycling was more popular at Lansdowne with 2.6% (n=419) of the combined total compared to Interurban with 1.1%

(n=172).

Other

The following categories did not make up a significant amount of the mode share and were therefore not uniquely

identified in most of this report’s charts and graphs:

Skateboards: At Interurban, this category was comprised of 36 individuals (<0.01% of combined total modes)

and 7 (<0.001%) at Lansdowne.

Construction and Delivery Trucks: At Interurban, the number in this category was 46 (0.3% of the combined total

modes); at Lansdowne, the figure was 54 (0.3%).

Motorcycles and Scooters: At Interurban, 85 were counted (0.5% of the combined total), while at Lansdowne

the total combined count for this category was 47 (0.3 %).

B. Trends from 201016

Table 4. 2010-2012 comparison - Interurban

Mode Type Target (from 2010) Trend (from 2010) Evaluation

SOV None set. 3.8% (from 51.8%)

Car 2+ Increase of 2% (from 12% to 14% of total)

0.3% (from 12.3%) minor change

Pedestrian & Transit None set.17 1.1% (from 33.4%)

Cycling Increase of 2% (from 2% to 4% of total)

0.2% (from 2.3%) minor change

Table 5. 2010-2012 Comparison - Lansdowne

16 Note: The 2010 report acknowledged that “these are modest goals towards the 20 to 40% reduction in parking demand outlined in the TPM. For comparison, UVic took 12 years to reduce the number of SOVs coming to campus by 20%. UBC took 8 years to decrease the number of SOVs coming to campus by 4.8%. Demand for parking should be distinguished as a separate factor from the percentage of SOVs coming to campus.” 17

Excerpt from 2010 report: “Potential for increasing [transit] modal split . . . exists, however; this will require increase in transit service levels to the campus.”

19

Mode Type Target (from 2010) Trend (from 2010) Evaluation

SOV None set. 5.4% (from 36.9%) Car 2+ Increase of 1%, from

11% to 12% of total 1.2% (from 10.8%) target met

Pedestrian & Transit Increase of 2% (from

47% to 49% of total) 6.7% (from 46.8%)

Cycling Increase of 1% (from 5%

to 6% of total) 0.2% (from 4.7%) minor change

C. Transit During the 2012 Modal Split Survey

Transit use is high on routes using Foul Bay Rd at Lansdowne; transit at Interurban likewise serves high volumes of users.

Figure 17 shows the number of buses that arrived and departed from the College in the morning and afternoon during

the modal split survey. As the graph demonstrates, Interurban campus receives significantly less transit service than the

Lansdowne campus. No comparison was made with 2010 figures due to changes to the transit schedule and the analysis

of double-decker buses versus regular buses.

Figure 17. BC Transit Buses Arriving and Departing During Modal Split Survey at Lansdowne and Interurban

Important Considerations

a. Transit Strike

It is important to note that during the 2012 modal split count, rotating disruptions occurred to several routes serving

Camosun campuses. These disruptions were due to job action by BC Transit workers and created daily uncertainty

about bus service (or lack thereof). BC Transit posted information on which routes and times would be cancelled on the

day of. While these disruptions had only minimal effect on Camosun Transit service18 the uncertainty about potential

18

A small number of routes were affected and only about 2% of routes were cancelled (source: J. Wadsworth, BC Transit, email, Feb 18, 2013).

Three routes to Camosun were impacted.

332

238

88 74

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

7:30-10:30 2:30-5:00

Lansdowne

Interurban

20

route cancellations had a greater effect. At Interurban, a morning survey was done of people purchasing tickets from

the parking metres in P8. Of the 100 people surveyed, 10% stated that their decision to drive was affected by transit

disruptions.

b. Bus Type & Service Capacity

The number of buses serving Camosun is not the only consideration. The type of buses also influences how many

passengers each bus can hold (and, subsequently, the likelihood of whether or not bus “pass-ups” occur). Regular buses

are occupied by an average of 43 people per trip (capacity is between 50 and 70 people, with 36 people seated).

Double-decker buses accommodate 76-84 seated, depending on the model of the bus, and 110 riders including those

standing19. Thus, double-decker buses travel with approximately twice the number of passengers as a low-floor bus,

effectively qualifying double-deckers as equivalent to two low-floor buses.

Of the 88 buses that stopped at Interurban during the morning period of both days, six were double-decker buses while

the remainder were regular or “low-floor” buses. Of the 332 buses that stopped at Lansdowne during both mornings, 78

were double-deckers. In the afternoon, while all of the 74 buses that stopped at Interurban campus were regular buses,

62 of 238 buses that visited Lansdowne were double-deckers.20

Considering the above data, it may be said that 94 regular buses visited Interurban campus during the mornings and 74

in the afternoon. At Lansdowne, 410 buses stopped in the mornings and 300 buses in the afternoons. This changes the

charts quite considerably (see Figure 18). Interurban’s student population is 73.6% that of Lansdowne’s21; to meet

demand, it would be helpful if Interurban received that proportion of Lansdowne’s Transit service. In reality, Interurban

only receives 23% of Lansdowne’s morning Transit service and 24.7% in the afternoons. If Transit service to Interurban

were improved, it is not unreasonable to conclude that more students and staff would take transit to the campus. Of

course, this necessitates further discussion with BC Transit to determine a reasonable solution. Budget and competing

demands are major challenges for BC Transit.

c. Safety Considerations and Notes

Both campuses, show lower use at stops where walking connections or convenient access to campus are less well-

developed. Richmond Road and Lansdowne Road bus stops have good numbers of transit users, but are likely less safe

and offer lower levels of comfort for users. Users dodge traffic on Richmond to get to and from a busy west side stop

and sidewalks are very narrow on Lansdowne, though space could be gained at least on the south side where the local

school property has enough underused green space to expand bus stops.

19

Source: J. Wadsworth, BC Transit, TPIP meeting, December 13, 2012; email from J. Wadsworth, January 2, 2013. 20

We have documentation on file from BC Transit listing when regular or double-decker buses are used on routes 4, 14, and 21, but not on routes 7, 8, 15X, 33, 39, or 83. Although it is possible that some of these buses – particularly the 7 and the 15X – could be double-deckers, we will assume, in the absence of corroborating data, that each of these buses was a regular bus. 21

These figures exclude the 1057 individuals who attend both campuses.

21

Figure 18. BC Transit Buses Arriving/Departing During Camosun’s Modal Split Survey at Lansdowne and Interurban

(Double-Decker buses are counted as 2 regular buses)

D. Camosun and Capital Regional District Modal Split: A Comparison Most of the mode split results for Camosun are influenced by factors beyond the campus boundaries. It is helpful to

compare Camosun’s mode split results with that of the Capital Regional District both overall, but also compared to other

post-secondary institutes. The 2011 CRD Origin-Destination Survey Highlights reports overall mode split for the entire

CRD is shown in Table 6, below.

Table 6. CRD Modal Split Overall

Mode Share

SOV 64.0%

Car 2+ 13.1%

Transit 6.3%

Pedestrians 12.6%

Cyclists 2.8%

Other 1.3%

Of the CRD modes, 1.5% of trips (n = 16,098) are made for the purpose of post-secondary education. The make-up of the

modes is shown in Table 7. A comparison between Camosun and the larger region allows us to see significant

differences, similarities, identify trends and opportunities for improvement (see Figure 19, next page).

Table 7: Comparison of CRD 2011 Post-Secondary Mode Split with Camosun ’s 2012 Mode Split

CRD Post-Secondary

Camosun College (Interurban & Lansdowne)

Interurban Campus

Lansdowne Campus

UVic

Mode N= % N= % N= % N= % %

SOV 4816 29.9% 6193 38.4% 3278 48% 2915 31.4% 38.9%

Car 2+ 1318 8.2% 1744 10.8% 864 12.6% 880 9.5% 10.1%

Transit 7895 49.0% 4987 31.0% 2202 32.2% 2785 30% 27.7%

Pedestrians 925 5.7% 2324 14.4% 148 2.2% 2176 23.4% 14.5%

Cyclists 799 5.0% 591 3.7% 172 2.5% 419 4.5% 7.9%

Other 344 2.1% 274 1.7% 167 2.4% 107 1.2% 0.1%

Total 16,098 100% 16,113 100% 6831 100% 9282 100% 100%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

7:30-10:30 2:30-5:00

Lansdowne

Interurban

410

94

300

74

22

Figure 19. Post-Secondary Mode Split Comparison: CRD, Camosun College & University of Victoria

Mode Split Differences: A Discussion

The CRD’s post-secondary survey considered all post-secondary institutions in the CRD area, and the institutions have

considerable differences based on location. University of Victoria and Camosun’s Lansdowne are closer to the city centre

than Camosun’s Interurban campus and the Royal Roads University (RRU) campus. This has an impact on how people get

to school. UVic, for example, has much more frequent transit service with more routes starting or stopping than

Camosun College or RRU. The following is a brief overview of transit service and frequency for the post-secondary

institutes in the CRD:

UVic is visited by 10 or more different bus routes per day which run very frequently (an average of every 15

minutes);

Camosun’s Lansdowne campus is served by three routes which run very frequently (every 15 minutes, on

average) and by one route which stops every 35-40 minutes;

Four routes serve Interurban, but are infrequent – the most-frequent buses (routes 8 and 21) visit campus an

average of once every 36 minutes, while two other routes (39 and 85) stop at the campus approximately every

hour;

RRU sees route 39 stop every 60 to 90 minutes.

More students and employees at UVic and at the Lansdowne campus of Camosun would have better access to transit

and, reasonably, would use it more frequently, while students and employees at more distant campuses, such as

Interurban and RRU, would be more likely to drive alone or in a carpool than use Transit.

Regarding cycling, the same principle applies. UVic and Lansdowne are more centrally located in a very populous, urban

area. An analysis of the quality of bicycle lanes would be needed, but anecdotally, there are more bicycle lanes within

the city centre which make cycling a more attractive option. Interurban is more distant (about 13 km from city centre)

and, while served by good bike lane networks, this physical distance may be a barrier, as it is for RRU. This perhaps

explains the differences in transit, motor vehicle, and bicycle use between the Camosun mode split and the CRD’s.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

SOV Car 2+ Transit Pedestrians Cyclists Other

CRD Post-Secondary Camosun College (Interurban & Lansdowne) UVic

23

It is unclear why there is an 8.7% difference between the numbers of pedestrians at Camosun versus the CRD. Given the

larger range of schools counted in the CRD’s survey, the number of pedestrians should – like the number of cyclists,

vehicle users, and transit users – be higher than the Camosun figures. No obvious explanation is apparent at this time.

Similarly, it is also surprising how comparable overall that Camosun is with UVic figures, especially given the longer-term

TDM efforts of UVic. In addition, UVic has more expensive parking, charges employees for parking, and provides a

subsidized bus program for staff. Combined with greater transit service, it is surprising that UVic does not outperform

Camosun in all alternative transportation counts.

E. Robbins Parking Stall Count The annual stall count provides an indication of Camosun’s overall stall availability and congestion. Mode split

percentages for the Interurban campus seem to indicate that more people are “going green” in 2012, and, mirroring the

statistics of the mode split surveys, Robbins’s fall 2012 Stall Count shows a higher average vacancy rate compared to

previous years. While minor, this trend is promising. One of the targets of the TPM Plan was to improve the vacancy rate

at the Interurban campus; since 2010, the vacancy rate has improved by 37% (from 49.5 to 78.5 available stalls at the

lowest vacancy point).

The 2012 average vacancy rate at Lansdowne is the same as 2011. However, at the lowest point of availability, 2012 stall

count also revealed the lowest vacancy rate recorded at Lansdowne (19% more spaces were in use compared to the

2011 count). Even with that, Interurban still has 5.5 times less vacancy than Lansdowne. The reasons for this are unclear

since the number of students has decreased slightly rather than increased over the past two years. It is too early to say

whether this reflects a trend.

As the table below illustrates, the average vacancy rate has improved substantially over the last four years.

Camosun Average Vacancy Rate:

Lansdowne (available/total stalls)

Interurban (available/total stalls)

2012 381/1087 = 35% 254/1209 = 21%

2011 382.5/1087 = 35% 219.5/1209 = 18%

2010 330/1087 = 30% 209/1209 = 17%

2009 304/1087 = 28% 154/1209 = 13%

Figure 20 presents a visual of the absolute lowest vacancy rates over the 2010 to 2012 period. The number of available

stalls is indicated. The highest parking demand occurs mid-week at about 11am.

24

Figure 20. Vacancy Rate at the lowest availability of parking stalls, 2010-2012, Both Campuses22

Observations

A. Goals Reached and Targets to Pursue One of the two goals of Camosun’s TPM plan was to reduce traffic congestion around the campuses and the total

number of motor vehicles driven to the college, particularly single-occupancy vehicles. Specifically, the goal was a

reduction of 20% of SOVs by 202023. At Interurban Campus, mode split results point to a positive trend towards reaching

the goals of the TPM Plan. The declining trend of SOVs use from 2010 to 2012 must continue (and at about the same

rate or higher) if this target is to be met. There is a continued need for reduction in vehicle trips to campus.

Given the more rural location of the Interurban and less frequent transit service, higher vehicle use can be explained.

Carpooling could be one good solution to reduce the number of cars coming onto campus. To achieve a higher number

of carpoolers, the carpool program must be promoted to a further degree than it has been to this point. In September

2012, a Carpool Incentive Program was begun as a pilot project to test incentive programs. The incentive program

offered up to three weeks of free parking to carpoolers who registered before September 30. The number of free weeks

of parking depended on the quantity of passengers in the vehicle24. This incentive program resulted in 20 groups (53

individuals) registering as Carpool groups before September 30.25 This is more than double the number of September

22

Robbins Parking performs a stall count at Camosun College consecutively over a two-week period. The figures shown in the chart are an average of those numbers. 23

Littman, Tod. TPM Plan, August 9, 2009, p. 60 24

Two travelers (a driver plus one passenger) earned 2 weeks of free parking; a driver plus two passengers were awarded three weeks; four persons traveling in one vehicle received four weeks of free parking. 25 Of the 20, four groups (three groups of two and one group of three) did not pick up their free November parking permits, despite

attempts to contact them by email and telephone.

2010 2011 2012

35 (2.9%) 48 (4.0%)

40 (3.3%)

205 (18.8%)

269 (24.7%)

243 (23.2%)

Lowest Daily Average Stall Availability

Interurban Lansdowne

25

registrants for any of the previous 3 years. Despite the incentive program, however, carpool registrations were down

overall in 2012 pointing to a need to sustain the program somehow. There were 20 registered groups of carpoolers in

the January to December 2012 period compared with 29 groups in 2011 and 27 in 2010. The reasons for this are unclear.

Another solution to car reduction is cycling. Camosun provides secure bike parking, free hot showers and pay-for-use

lockers and towel services. In addition to the Alternative Transportation Campaign, special events, such as Bike to Work

Week, the Nasty November Challenge, Camosun Community Bike Rides, campus-to-campus maps and orientation rides,

and the Bike to Camosun Network are currently in place to promote cycling to – and between – the campuses.

However, most of these events are targeted at employees, not students. More promotion could be done to attract

cyclists, particularly students. Ideas include cycling clinics or bike repair clinics and greater incentives to encourage

cycling.

A further solution to reducing the number of vehicles on campus is promoting transit ridership through two tactics. The

first is financial incentives (and disincentives). As part of their student society fees, students receive a semester-long

permit (the U-Pass) for every semester they register for classes. The cost-effectiveness of this program for students is

staggering: for about $20 per month, approximately one-quarter of the cost of a regular bus pass, students have

unlimited access to all bus routes, several of which come directly to Camosun College campuses. Because of this cost-

effective U-Pass program, as well as the paid parking for private vehicles, there is a very high uptake amongst students in

using BC Transit. For Camosun staff, a similar program (called “ProPass”) also provides subsidies to taking transit;

however, the subsidized rate is dramatically less than the regular cost of a monthly bus pass ($72.96 versus $85.00). This

rate is significantly more than the amount that students pay for bus passes, and significantly more than what employees

pay for parking in terms of taxable benefit requirements. Currently, free parking is a Camosun employee privilege,

achieved through collective agreements with the staff and faculty unions. In contrast, at the University of Victoria,

employees pay for parking fees. These parking fees are then used to match the subsidies offered by BC Transit for the

ProPass, making the use of Transit more appealing.26 As a consequence, UVic has a much higher uptake in staff transit

usage. More cost-effective transit options, paired with paid parking, would likely increase Camosun employee transit

use (as identified in the TPM Plan). Efforts to address this have been underway with the Faculty Association though

bargaining.

A second and critical tactic to promoting Transit involves more buses and/or more frequent service to Camosun College.

Transit is the most viable and appealing alternative travel option that people are willing to choose.27 With a population

of just under 11,000 people, including faculty, staff, and students, Camosun College presents a large market for Transit

service. As of October 2012, nearly 2,500 people at Camosun used transit every day, 23% of the College’s population.

Could these figures be expanded with changes in Transit service to Camosun? The results of the 2011 Getting Here

Survey indicate that the answer to that is a firm “yes.”28 Increasing transit ridership will result from increased – and

26

UVic funds staff ProPass subsidies through revenue generated from staff parking revenues. 27

Please see pages 19 and 20 and Appendix C for more detail on Transit service to both Camosun College Campuses. 28

As recorded in the 2011 Getting Here Survey, while 46% of those at Lansdowne rate bus service to that campus as either Excellent

or Good, only 28% rate Interurban’s bus service so highly. At Interurban, 41% of those rate bus service to that campus as Poor or

Very poor compared to 19% at Lansdowne. Nineteen percent of those who rely on buses to attend or work at Camosun report that

inadequate bus service prevents them from attending classes, work or other activities on campus, or makes them significantly late

“Frequently (once a week or more).” A further 33% indicate such issues occur “Occasionally (at least once a month),” while about

half report such problems occur Seldom or Never. There were no statistically significant differences between the two campuses on

this measure.

26

better – transit services. To this end, Camosun has been engaged in discussion with BC Transit to inform them of

Camosun’s needs and to influence budget decision-making so that Camosun is identified as a needy recipient.

B. Modal Split Targets – 2014 Camosun’s Transportation & Parking Management Plan is nearing the end of its first three years. Looking into the future,

Camosun will continue to focus on increasing the use of alternative modes of transportation and reductions in the

quantity of vehicles coming onto the College’s campuses.

The two-year modal split targets for Camosun campuses, based on Litman’s 2009 TPM Plan, are shown in Table 8,

below. However, it is critical to note that targets will only be met with changes to Camosun’s collective agreements to

provide choice of transportation benefits beyond SOVs.

Table 8. Two-Year Modal Split Targets for 2014

Mode 2014 Targets - Interurban 2014 Targets - Lansdowne

Carpooling Up by 6% (from 13 to 19%) Up by 6% (from 10 to 16%)

Transit29 Up by 10% (from 32 to 42%) Up by 10% (from 30 to 40%)

Pedestrian Up by 6% (from 2 to 8%) Up by 6% (from 23 to 29%)

Cycling Up by 5% (from 2.5 to 7.5%) Up by 5% (from 4.5% to 9.5%)

SOV Down by 10% (from 48 to 38%) Down by 10% (from 31 to 21%)

Potential for increasing the modal split for transit at Interurban campus exists; however, this cannot be achieved by

Camosun efforts alone. Increases in Transit service levels to the campus are needed.

Are these goals realistic?

To achieve the goal of a 20 - 40% reduction in vehicles on campus by 2020, an overall annual reduction of 5 to 10% in

SOVs is required. In the two-year period between the 2010 and 2012 modal surveys, a 5.9% reduction in SOVs was

recorded. While very positive, this falls short of the goal of 10 to 20% over 2 years. Perhaps the goals, while necessary,

are unrealistic. Table 8 (above) reflects modest goals towards the 20 to 40% reduction in parking demand outlined in the

TPM Plan but, at that rate, will not achieve the reductions required by 2020, just seven years from now. For comparison,

UVic took 12 years (1996 - 2008) to reduce the number of SOVs coming to campus by 20%.30 UBC took 14 years (1997-

2011) to decrease the number of SOVs coming to campus by 14%.31

A significant factor to shifting the mode split away from SOVs and towards alternatives will be a solution to free staff

parking. Many other institutions have shifted to pay parking for everyone and this has had direct results in encouraging

employees to also choose alternative options. Currently, Camosun employees have little incentive to choose

alternatives; parking is free for staff; priority parking spaces are provided; and campus-to-campus travel is often

necessary throughout the week32. Beyond encouragement and promotions, changes to the collective agreements to

ensure the shift in employee mode choice.

Bicycle travel along Lansdowne Road is challenging and informal trail use by many cyclists was observed coming from the corner of Foul Bay and also using a narrow pathway on college property between the old entrance at the top of

29

Only with improvements to Transit service to Interurban would facilitate this degree of statistical change. Without increased Transit levels, perhaps more realistic goals call for 4 - 6% targets instead of 10%. 30

Source: UVic Progress Report on the Sustainability Action Plan, 2009-2014. 31

Source: UBC Transportation Status Reports 1997-2011. 32

The TPM Plan (2009) notes that approximately 30% of total college parking spaces are dedicated to staff. It suggests that a 6% reduction in all vehicle trips could be expected following the elimination of free staff parking. A further 6% reduction in vehicle trips could be expected from a 30% increase in parking rates.

27

Dean Ave, where a crosswalk is provided, and the intersection at Lansdowne/Richmond. Some college property space could be redesigned to offer a more comfortable path for cyclists, as well as more room and better visibility for pedestrians and transit passengers connecting to stops on Lansdowne west of the campus.

C. Recommendations for the 2014 Mode Split Count Incorporate mode targets into the next three year TPM Plan

o Dovetail these targets with larger regional/organizational planning such as: BC Transit, CRD, Saanich, etc.

o Incorporate these targets into Camosun bargaining requirements/union negotiations.

Target TPM efforts to campus-specific challenges and opportunities. For example, Lansdowne indicates a very

pedestrian friendly campus, whereas Interurban campus is more suited to transit, carpooling and cycling. Build

on this and ensure adequate promotions.

28

Works Cited and Consulted

Camosun. About Camosun. 22 Oct 2010. 18 Nov, 2010. <http://camosun.ca/about/>.

Camosun College (Julie Higginson and Shannon Craig).TPM Three-Year Workplan, 2010-2013, p. 2. Victoria: Camosun

College, August 9, 2009.

Google Earth. 5 Jan, 2013. <http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&tab=wl>.

Litman, Todd. Camosun College Transportation and Parking Management Plan. Victoria BC: Camosun College, 2009.

http://camosun.ca/documents/about/transportation/plan-final-draft-june-2009.pdf

---. Camosun College Transportation and Parking Management Plan. Executive Summary. Victoria B.C.: Camosun College,

2009. 18 Dec , 2012. <http://camosun.ca/documents/about/transportation/transport-parking-ex-sum.pdf.>

—. Performance Evaluation - Evaluating Progress towards Planning Objectives. 12 November 2010. Victoria Transport

Policy Institute. 18 Dec, 2012. <http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm131.htm>.

Lomas, Bob. Educational Research and Development Consultant. Email, 5 Dec, 2012.

Malatest, RA. 2011 CRD Origin-Destination Survey Highlights. Sep 2012. 23 Feb, 2013.

<http://www.crd.bc.ca/transportation/analysis/documents/CRD-OD-SurveyDailyTravelCharacteristicsReport. pdf>.

Moore, Laura. Camosun College Human Resources Consultant. Telephone conversation, 5 Dec, 2012.

Shaefer, Anny. Getting Here: Results of the 2011 Transportation and Parking Survey. Survey Analysis. Victoria: Camosun

College, 2011.

University of British Columbia. Fall 2011 Transportation Status Report. 13 Apr, 2012. 13 Mar, 2013.

<http://transportation.ubc.ca/files/2012/04/Fall-2011-Transportation-Status-Report-13-Apr-12.pdf>.

University of Victoria. Progress Report on the Sustainability Action Plan, 2009-2014. 2011. 13 Mar, 2013.

<http://www.uvic.ca/sustainability/assets/docs/progressreporthighlights.pdf>.

---. 2012 Campus Traffic Survey, University of Victoria. Bunt & Associates. 25 Jan, 2013. 13 Mar, 2013.

<http://www.uvic.ca/sustainability/assets/docs/Traffic%20study%202012%20ES.pdf>.

Wadsworth, J. BC Transit. TPIP meeting, 13 Dec, 2012.

---. Email, 18 Feb, 2013.

Wadsworth, J, Jolie, G. BC Transit. Email, Jan 2, 2013.

29

APPENDIX A – The 2011 “Getting Here” Survey & Mode

Split 2012 The “Getting Here” 2011 Bi-annual survey invited students and employees to answer questions via a voluntary online

platform and looked at broad transportation issues, including primary mode of transport to the college. Table 9 below

shows Camosun Modal Split data and the “Getting Here” 2011 Bi-annual survey results for the question: “What is your

usual mode of transportation to campus?” The results for the “Getting Here” survey modes were separated into 5

categories: Car, Bus, Walk, Bike, and other. The modal split survey modes were separated into six categories: Car, Car

with two or more passengers, Bike, Walk, Bus, and Other. In order to compare these two surveys, the categories have

been adjusted. The time period for both the Getting Here survey and the mode split count were roughly the same

(October).

Table 9: Comparison of Getting Here Survey Results with Actual Modal Split Count

Mode Survey 2011 Modal Split 2012

Number % Number %

Car 1277 63% 7937 49%

Bus 717 32% 4987 31%

Walk 67 3% 2324 14%

Bike 112 5% 591 4%

Other 22 1% 274 1%

Total 2241 100 16113 100

The differences, particularly for car and walking mode share, are fairly significant. The reasons for this are unclear.

Please see Figures 21 and 22 (next page) compares the two surveys from the data in table 9.

30

Figure 21. Modes as indicated by the 2011 “Getting Here” Survey

Figure 22. 2012 Mode Share count

Car

Bus

Bike

Walk

Motorcycle/Scooter

Car 57% Bus 32%

Bike 5%

Walk 3% Motorcycle/Scooter 1%

Car

Bus

Walk

Bike

Other

Car 49% Bus 31%

Walk 14%

Bike 4% Other 1%

31

APPENDIX B: BC Transit Data

The table of buses listed below stopped at Camosun each day of the Modal Split Count. The asterisk (*) denotes a

double-decker bus; the others are “low floor” or regular buses. Cancelled routes are indicated.

Table 10. Buses Arriving and Leaving Lansdowne Campus During Mode Survey (Morning) Lansdowne Buses Arriving and Leaving Campus During Modal Split Survey Morning (7:30am-10:30am) Route 4 N

Route 4 S Route 7 N Route 7 S Route 8 NW

Route 8 SE

Route 14 W (& S)

Route 14 E (& N)

Route 15X N

Route 15X S

Route 33 N

7:30 7:33 7:33 7:29 8:05 8:02 *7:32 7:28 7:26 7:26 7:56

7:45 7:47 7:47 7:49 8:41 8:33 7:42 7:40 7:33 7:31 8:08

7:59 8:00 8:04 8:02 9:17 9:09 7:52 7:51 7:43 7:36 8:31

8:09 8:08 8:09 8:22 9:53 9:40 *8:02 7:56 7:53 7:41

8:34 NB:

Cancelled

8:15 *8:29 8:21 8:35 10:27 10:19 *8:10 *8:01 7:58 7:51 8:49

8:19 8:36 8:35 8:48

*8:17 *8:12 8:03 8:01

8:25 8:45 9:00 9:04

8*:24 *8:15 8:08 8:11

*8:31 8:56 9:01 9:18

*8:32 *8:22 8:13 8:21

8:36 *9:07 9:12 9:33

*8:42 8:26 8:23 8:31

8:41 9:21 9:30 9:48

*8:52 8:32 8:33 8:41

8:46 *9:35 9:47 10:04

*9:02 8:35 8:43 9:01

8:51 *9:47 10:03 10:21

9:12 8:38 8:53 9:31

8:56 9:59 10:17

9:22 *8:42 8:58 10:00

9:01 10:11

*9:32 *8:46 9:03

9:06 *10:23

9:35 *8:52 9:08

*9:13

9:42 *8:56 9:13

*9:19

9:52 9:01 9:23

9:24

*10:02 *9:09 9:33

9:29

10:12 9:19 9:43

*9:34

10:22 9:23 9:53

*9:39

9:29 10:03

9:44

*9:33

9:49

9:39

9:54

9:49

9:59

9:53

10:04

9:59

10:11

*10:03

*10:22

10:09

*10:19

32

Table 11. Buses Arriving and Leaving Lansdowne Campus During Mode Survey (Afternoon)

Lansdowne Buses Arriving and Leaving Campus During Modal Split Survey

Afternoon (2:30pm-5:00pm)

Route 4 N

Route 4 S Route 7 N Route 7 S Route 8 NW

Route 8 SE

Route 14 W (& S)

Route 14 E (& N)

Route 15X N

Route 15X S

Route 33 N

2:41 2:38 2:30 2:36 2:35 2:30 2:32 NB:

Cancelled *2:29 2:36 2:30

2:49 2:48 2:47 2:49 3:10 3:05 2:42 *2:39 2:40 2:35

2:59 2:56 2:59 3:05 3:51 3:45 *2:52 2:49 3:03 2:45

3:09 *3:03 3:17 3:16 4:25 3:57 3:00 2:53 3:08 2:54

*3:19 3:12 3:29 3:35 5:02 4:20 *3:10 *2:59 3:13 2:58

3:29 3:22 3:50 3:46

5:00 *3:20 *3:09 3:18 3:04

3:39 3:32 4:01 4:07

3:30 *3:19 3:21 3:14

*3:49 3:42 4:18 4:18

*3:40 *3:29 3:28 3:23

3:59 *3:48 4:32 4:36

*3:50 *3:39 3:32 3:34

4:09 3:54 4:52 4:50

*4:00 3:49 3:38 3:44

*4:19 4:01

*4:10 3:59 3:48 3:54

4:09

4:20 *4:09 3:57 4:04

*4:23

4:40 4:19 4:08 4:14

4:28

*4:50 4:30 4:18 4:24

4:43

4:40

4:34

4:52

*4:50

4:44

4:54

Table 12. Buses Arriving and Leaving Interurban Campus During Mode Survey (Morning)

Interurban Buses Arriving and Leaving Campus During Modal Split Survey

Morning (7:30am-10:30am)

Route 8 On Campus

Route 21 On Campus N

Route 21 Interurban Road @ Campus N

Route 21 Interurban Road @ Campus S

Route 39 W Stops in Bus Loop

Route 39 E Stops on Interurban Road @ Campus

Route 83 N

Route 83 S

8:02 - 7:45 7:37 7:33 7:39 7:55 7:53

8:32 - 8:07 7:55 7:51 - 8:17 8:22

9:08 - *8:27 8:15 8:12 - 10:18 8:50

9:44 8:54 - 8:35 8:21 8:00

9:59

10:20 - *8:55 8:55 - 8:20

9:22 - 9:06 8:55 8:21

9:42 - 9:26 9:21 -

- 10:03 9:42 9:57 -

33

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

7:30-10:30 2:30-5:00

Lansdowne

Interurban

410

94

300

74

*10:22

10:11

9:24

10:22

9:57

10:24

Table 13. Buses Arriving and Leaving Interurban Campus During Mode Survey (Afternoon)

Interurban Buses Arriving and Leaving Campus During Modal Split Survey

Afternoon (2:30pm-5:00pm)

Route 8 On Campus

Route 21 On Campus N

Route 21 Interurban Road @ Campus N

Route 21 Interurban Road @ Campus S

Route 39 W Stops in Bus Loop NB: Cancelled

Route 39 E Stops on Interurban Road @ Campus NB: Cancelled

Route 83 N

Route 83 S

3:06 2:46 - 2:07 2:44 2:44 3:22 2:55

3:45 - - 2:26 3:05 2:57 4:30 4:08

4:26 3:28 3:00 2:36 - 3:27 5:29

5:00 - - 2:46 3:36 4:11

- 3:45 3:05 4:06 4:41

- 4:02 3:09

- 4:24 3:30

5:00 4:40 3:53

- 4:11

4:32

4:48

Figure 23. Transit Arriving and Departing during Modal Survey AM and PM at Lansdowne and Interurban, double-

decker buses counted as 2 buses

These statistics are combined for

the 2 days of the survey, and

represent an average of 205 and

150 buses each am and pm,

respectively, at Lansdowne, and 47

and 37 buses each am and pm,

respectively, at Interurban.