The time it takes to get to work and back

89-622-XWE
Main page
Data tables
Study Methodology and Concepts
More information
PDF version

Factors associated with a longer or shorter commute time

As the table A-1 in the appendix shows, the average duration of workers' round trips varies considerably according to distance from the workplace, transportation mode used, metropolitan area of residence and so forth. For example, in 2005, the average duration of a round trip between home and work for workers residing between 1 and 4 kilometres from their workplace was 33 minutes, compared to 85 minutes for those residing between 30 and 34 kilometres from their workplace.¹

However, all the factors shown in this table interact with each other and, independently of each other, they influence the total duration of workers' round trips. For example, if a worker who lives in a large city such as Toronto is 25 kilometres from his workplace and uses public transit, he will probably not take the same amount of time getting to work that he would if he lived in a rural area where congestion is non-existent and he uses his car. To determine the independent impact of these different factors on travel times, a more elaborate statistical analysis is required to take all these factors into account simultaneously.

This statistical analysis shows that the easiest commute with respect to travel time between home and workplace would be enjoyed by workers who live in an urban area with a population under 50,000, who are less than 5 kilometres from their workplace, who commute by automobile, who have no children to drop off or pick up and who make no stops (Table 3). On average, such workers will spend only 14 minutes each weekday on the round trip between their home and their workplace.²

Not surprisingly, the greater the distance between home and workplace, the greater the average duration of the round trip. For example, compared to workers living less than 5 kilometres from their workplace, the predicted round-trip duration increases by 25 minutes for those living 15 to 19 kilometres from their workplace, by 48 minutes for those living 30 to 34 kilometres away, and so forth. Thus, the predicted duration of the round trip for a worker who has all the characteristics of the reference person but who lives 60 kilometres or more from the workplace will be 112 minutes.³

One of the most influential factors affecting average travel time, apart from the distance between home and workplace, is the mode of transportation used. All things being equal, commuters who use public transit to get to work (without also using an automobile) spend an average of 41 minutes more on their daily commute than those using an automobile. And among those who use both public transit and an automobile, the predicted travel time is also 41 minutes longer than for those travelling by automobile only (assuming the same distance between home and place of work).⁴

This difference in travel time between public transit and private transportation has been shown in several studies focusing on specific cities (e.g. Vandersmissen, Villeneuve and Thériault, 2003). The present study shows that while Canadians who use their cars to get to and from work contribute more than public transit users to the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted by the transportation sector (Kenworthy, 2003), they nevertheless enjoy an advantage with respect to their travel time.

Top of Page

Living in a large city entails longer travel times for workers

The average duration of the round trip for workers living in the largest cities is longer, on average, than for workers living in smaller communities (see Table A-1 for details). For example, the average duration of round trips for workers living in Toronto is 37 minutes longer than for workers living in urban areas with populations under 50,000, at 80 versus 43 minutes.

Even though there are some exceptions-e.g., for Oshawa residents the average commute time is 111 minutes-travel times are generally shorter for residents of smaller urban areas. For example, in urban areas with a population between 100,000 and 150,000, the average round-trip duration was 56 minutes in 2005, compared to an average of 63 minutes for Canada as a whole.

In strong metropolitan influenced zones (MIZs), t the average travel time is similar to that observed in major urban areas (65 minutes). This is hardly surprising, since strong MIZs consist of municipalities which, although not an integral part of census metropolitan areas (CMAs) or census agglomerations (CAs), send a sizable proportion of their resident population of workers (30% to 49%) to workplaces in a CMA or CA. In expanding cities such as Calgary or Edmonton , residents of some municipalities not yet included in the CMA itself may belong in this category.

Do differences in average times travelled between areas of residence persist when the many factors that differentiate residents of large cities from those of rural areas and small towns are held constant? That question arises since workers living in large urban areas must on average commute longer distances and a larger proportion of them use public transit (both factors contribute to longer travel times). For example, according to the 2001 Census, the median distance travelled was higher in the large metropolitan areas: 9.2 km in Toronto , 7.9 km in Montreal and 7.6 km in Vancouver , compared to 7.2 km for Canada as a whole. Also, data from the 2005 time use survey show that the percentage of workers commuting between home and workplace on public transit (in whole or in part) was 21% in the six largest metropolitan areas, compared to only 2% for persons living outside a CMA.

Given the same distance from work, the same mode of transportation and so forth, the mere fact of living in a large city such as Toronto , Montreal or Vancouver significantly increases the predicted travel time, with increases of 20 minutes for Toronto and 17 minutes for Montreal and Vancouver.

Calgary workers, who must allocate 15 minutes more than those living in urban areas with a population under 50,000 for the round trip between home and work, are especially penalized considering the size of the city. This may possibly be explained by the fact that this city has two of the most important characteristics associated with increased congestion in an urban area: strong population growth and vigorous economic growth (Downs 2005).

In short, residents of large cities must, for a given distance between home and work, devote more time to commuting. This extra time may be considered an approximation of the cost (in minutes) resulting from congestion and/or the reduced accessibility of places where employment is concentrated.

Driving one's children and doing errands on the way to/from work

Some studies show that having young children is associated with a longer commuting time (e.g., Vandermissen, Villeneuve and Thériault, 2003). This might be assumed to be true, but only if the children accompany the worker during his/her commute between home and work (rather than remaining at home with the other parent, in which case travel times would not be affected). Our analysis does indeed show that having to drop off and pick up children during the commute between home and work is associated with an increase in the travel time. When the effect of all other factors is held constant, having to drop off and pick up children at daycare or elsewhere when commuting to and from work increases the predicted duration of the round trip by 21 minutes (excluding the time stopped).⁵

Lastly, the predicted commuting time for those who make stops for errands of all types is 18 minutes longer than for those who go directly to and from work (excluding the time stopped).

The introduction to this section identified the most favourable situation that a worker might expect with respect to travel times. What is the least favourable situation? That of a worker in a major metropolitan area such as Toronto or Calgary who lives a sizable distance from his/her workplace, uses public transit in both directions (wholly or partly), has to run errands along the way and drops off his/her children on the way to work. According to the statistical model, a person exhibiting all these characteristics could count on spending approximately three hours per day (or more) getting between home and work. Thankfully, very few Canadians fit such a profile.

Top of Page

Automobile users and car pooling

It is possible that the duration of the commute between home and work would be shorter for automobile users who engage in car pooling. Objectively, however, this is not the case. A supplementary statistical analysis, conducted only with the group of workers making the round trip between home and work by automobile, shows that the duration of the predicted round trip is 12 minutes longer for those engaging in car pooling compared to those who commute alone (where the effect of distance, area of residence and other factors included in the analysis is held constant). It is possible that these workers have to take a less direct route to work and this explains the i ncrease in the duration of the commute.

Conclusion

Many Canadians feel that the time that they take in getting to and from work is continually increasing. The results of this study show that, in many cases, this subjective impression has a basis in fact. On average, the duration of the round trip between home and workplace was 9 minutes longer in 2005 than in 1992. The increase is observable both for workers travelling on public transit and for those using a private vehicle. Travel times are also on average longer for those living in large cities as well as for those living in smaller communities.

The study also highlights an important fact which is probably already believed by many workers: despite traffic congestion, it is in most cases faster to use a car or other private vehicle to get to work than to use public transit. This finding is important for a number of reasons.

For some years, efforts have been made to determine which factors would be conducive to increased use of public transit and decreased dependency on the automobile. Some researchers maintain that when public transit is not very advantageous from the standpoint of travel times and comfort level, its popularity seems unlikely to increase (Kenworthy, 2003). On the contrary, some public transit users would instead be inclined to change their transportation mode to the automobile when the opportunity arises, in light of the car's advantages from the standpoint of flexibility and speed.

The results of this study do not shed light on the relative comfort level of the automobile compared to public transit. However, they show that average travel times are increasing both for automobile users and public transit users. Above all, the study shows that a sizable gap remains between the two modes from the standpoint of travel times. It is therefore not surprising that despite higher fuel costs and increased environmental concerns, most workers continue to use mainly their automobile to get to work.

Notes:

1. Only persons living 1 kilometre or more from their workplace are included in this analysis. It is difficult to speak of a commute between home and workplace when the two places are the same (or are very close together). In the previous sections, workers living less than 1 kilometre from work are included in all estimates because the information on distance from the workplace was not collected in 1992 and 1998. This explains the slight differences between some figures shown in the appended table and those appearing in the first section of the article.
   
2. This describes the reference person for all factors included in the statistical analysis.
   
3. This result is obtained by adding the reference person's time (14 minutes) to the time associated with the characteristic of interest, which in this case is living 60 kilometres or more from one's workplace (+98 minutes). The same procedure can be followed to interpret all the other characteristics of interest in this table.
   
4. Of course, these results are based on averages. Some users who live closer to their workplace and who commute by subway or bus will spend the same amount of time or less getting to and from work as automobile users. However, the analysis clearly shows that when the main factors associated with travel time are held constant, the mere fact of using public transit results in a significant increase in travel time.


5. The mere fact of having children is poorly correlated with travel time. An additional multivariate statistical analysis, which included only the presence/absence of children, did not bring out a significant relationship with travel time (results not shown).