Economic implications of c ar dependence in New Brunswick’s metro areas

1. Economic implications of car dependence in New Brunswick’s metro areas Yves Bourgeois, Ph.D., Director, UNB Urban and community studies institute 4 April 2013

2. Are NBers really more dependent on cars? • NB has 3rdhighest car ownership rate in Canada  1.55 per HH (vs 1.47 Canada) Statistics Canada, General social survey • NBers put 5% more mileage on vehicles than Canadian average Natural Resources Canada, Canadian vehicle survey 2009 • NBers produce 9.4% more CO2 than Canadian average Statistics Canada, Environment Accounts and Statistics Division, 2009

4. The social justice argument • Enhancing shared transportation services is often argued in terms of social justice or broader quality of life • Mode of transportation for low-income residents • Safety through decreased accidents • More leisure time from decreased commuting time • Built environment – urban spaces used for residences, commercial and leisure uses vs parking spaces • Air quality (27% of GHG emissions come from transportation) • Etc • There are indeed significant windfalls and SROI in those areas, but there is also a significant economic case to be made

5. Some economic arguments • Labour market access • Not just AB, but NB biz experience shortages of qualified labour (CFIB 2012), and this with 11% unemployment • We do not know how much this owes to skills-mismatches (differences between skills held and those sought) or spatial mismatches (where people live and where they work) • Arguably the federal gov EI reforms is betting on spatial mismatches • However, in assuming perfect labour mobility, absent from debates are important economic factors such as home ownership  loss of house equity, typically investment #1People can easily travel from home to work, short or longer distances • Statistics Canada estimates the average annual cost to operate a compact vehicle is $9500. NB HH median pre-tax income = 69k, and 31.5k for lone-parent families. • Simply stated, we suspect a significant number of NBers may be unemployed or not in the labour market because of its inaccesibility, and this bears impact on NB’s economy

6. …other economic arguments • Inadequate public transit increases exurban developments, hiking public services costs • A significant portion of the built environment is devoted to parking spaces (Downtown Moncton inc estimated 40%), less conducive to the attraction and growth or creative and tech sectors • Interestingly, urban economists elsewhere do reliably estimate traffic congestion (ex. lost productivity from commuting time) pollution (loss of property value when pollution is localized)…so these broader quality of life factors do impact the economy • Another less explored link between shared transpo and the economy relates to immigrant attraction. Turcotte (2008) found that recent immigrants rely on public transit 15-20% more than those born in Canadians or who immigrated at least 15 yearsSmall cities have attraction strategies, but is is estimated 60-66% relocate and mass transit plays a role in the precarious initial settling stage

7. Social justice and economics serve each other’s ends • In earlier tables, some would argue comparing SJ, Moncton or Fredericton with Montreal is apples and oranges (yet magnet to our youth and immigrants) • Consider that in Montreal,39% of female workers use mass transit • There the argument is not just about social justice, however significant the SROI (health, social, cultural activities is significant), but labour market access, congestion costs, environmental costs, land uses and prices • Imagine Montreal or Toronto without mass transit…every transit system received public funds, but “the business case” transforms the intervention from subsidizing marginalized groups (who benefit disproportionately) to putting markets to external costs

8. Resetting how we study mass transit • Many US cities and counties are using big data to look at transit in new ways • In the past, we relied on rider surveys to help improve services, but this was plagued by self-selection problem (preaching to the choir has little impact). Then StatCan and others surveyed obstacles to adopting public transit by non-users, which draws stated preference unreliability (what people say and what people would do) • We also assumed transit-friendly planning (strong CBD, Transit-oriented development (TODs)), would help, but weak results • In a number of studies, researchers and transit-authorities started using large data sets to look at commuting behaviours and are finding: • CBD, density, pedestrian-friendly had no statistical impact; little impact from transfer time. • Hub-and-spoke transit models of bringing commuters to CBD or hubs and then connecting to other route led to significant drop in ridership. • Above all, what mattered was total commuting time, specifically direct routes from places of residence to places of work, and most often this was in secondary centers and not the CBD. (Thompson et al 2012) • “Few transit riders are destined to jobs in the downtown; they are destined to jobs located in dispersed locations throughout the county, many in low employment density locations. (…) The more direct the routing between origin and destination, and the lower the travel time, the higher the ridership.”

9. Upcoming UCSI related research projects • Where do people commute from and to • How many immigrants stay and where do they resettle …based on 2011 Census data being released in the summer of 2013